The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Networking and privacy query
LewieP
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
A friend of mine believes he may have had some sort of invasion of privacy, but is not certain. I'm not sure if what he is suggesting might have happened is technically possible, but I bet the hivemind of H/A knows.
Lets say Person A is visiting Person B's house. Person A has brought their own laptop with them, which Person B does not have any access too.
Is it at all possible for Person B, who runs the wireless network, to keep a record of Person A's browsing history without even having access to the laptop, just using the router and their own computer?
Lets say Person A is visiting Person B's house. Person A has brought their own laptop with them, which Person B does not have any access too.
Is it at all possible for Person B, who runs the wireless network, to keep a record of Person A's browsing history without even having access to the laptop, just using the router and their own computer?
LewieP on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
as long as they can connect to the same wireless network.
Well, I am guessing that is what has happened then. Given the circumstances that is the most likely explanation.
Bloody hell, that's bad (it is somewhere that he certainly should have expected to have some privacy).
Cheers guys.
Edit: One more thing, is this the type of thing that could be bypassed by a chrome incognito window?
No.
Cheers anyway.
For future reference, Hotspot Shield or similar can defend against surveillance by whoever controls the access point.
I'd just like to add that if you're using someone else's wireless network, you should never have an expectation of privacy.
I'm not really sure of the nature of the situation, but this. They shouldn't be able to grab passwords and the like, but if you're on someone's network, you shouldn't be going to websites you wouldn't want them knowing about.
If person A and person B were friends, this would still be kind of a dick move on B's part to be so snoopy. I mean, it's not like all that logging and data gathering happens automatically, you usually need to spend some time and effort to set up things like that, especially on consumer grade hardware.
UDP packets with plain text contents, so no.
It's the least safe shit ever.
I host a podcast about movies.
You see EVERYTHING. Try it at a Starbucks and read everyone's IMs...
And commit a felony. There are exceptions in the law that allow for network admins to run packet sniffers on their own network to monitor their services. Wandering into a Starbucks and reading people's IM's doesn't count under that exception. If you want to set up a network and test it, do it at home on a network you maintain. That's legal and will accomplish the same thing.
By itself it's not safe, but luckily there are some IM encrypting programs.
Simp Lite from Secway is a neat free program, but it only works if you and your contact both use it.
What country are you from? Can you please cite a specific law? In the US, it's legal (and unpreventable) to receive any signal broadcast over the air. What you do with the data you've received once you have it is another matter entirely. So if you're really worried about your privacy in a situation such as this it's simply a matter of using something like an onion routing system. I would mention names, but it's againsT the rules of the fOrum to discuss those types of seRvices.
That's exactly what I said.
So here's the conundrum. How do you know whether or not you can look at the packet unless you look at the packet to see who it is destined for?
Because the header of the packet states who it's addressed to. It's the same logic that looking at the address of an envelop doesn't make you guilty of tampering with someone's mail. You noticed I didn't say anything in my original post about receiving packets. If you go read my post, you'll note I was very clear to use an example of reading content. Or was your original post attempting to make some sort of argument that receiving the packet means you have a legal right to it?
The Wiretap Act nor the ECPA make any differentiation between "headers" and "data". To date, there's not enough case law to provide any real guidance.
No.
Actually, that was me as a moderator telling you to knock it off with the Prime Minister bullshit.
Also, while possibly a legal grey area, telling people how to intercept data other people believe to be private is skeevy, and also going to get you infracted.
I'm pretty sure we are done here, thanks guys. Feel free to lock.