Yes using their connection without their permission is illegal no questions asked. Now since you just turned on your laptop, you probably wouldn't worry much from a jury because your intent was clearly not to use it. On the other hand we have your continued use of it..... 
Kinda' sorta'. Its never been tested in court (yet) to see where using wireless actually beomes illegal. I would actually say its actually illegal when you transmit your dhcp request, not after you've already gotten an address.
Originally posted by: Soybomb
Yes using their connection without their permission is illegal no questions asked. Now since you just turned on your laptop, you probably wouldn't worry much from a jury because your intent was clearly not to use it. On the other hand we have your continued use of it.....
Kinda' sorta'. Its never been tested in court (yet) to see where using wireless actually beomes illegal. I would actually say its actually illegal when you transmit your dhcp request, not after you've already gotten an address.
does anyone actually believe i'm still in my car in front of my sons piano teachers house?
not likely. i used it only long enough to start this thread.
i'm still interested as to just exactly how it is illegal. just what exactly are they losing because i served using their access? if anything their provider might have a better claim against me than they do.
I was under the impression that by leaving ones connection on and available to the public, you are granting permission for anyone to use it.
It's not like sharing can't be turned off.
It's not like sharing can't be turned off.
I don't have to lock my front door, or even shut it, but that doesn't mean its an invitation for you to come on on. I'm not saying I think thats right for wireless networks, but the law is not on your side with using someones wireless connection.
If you access computer sysems/networks withour prior authorizations its illegal.
Luckily there is one state that is acting rationally http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,58651,00.html
you have to know that's a bad analogy.
a better analogy would be if you had 2 picture windows on opposite sides of the house that when the blinds were left open allowed someone to look completely thru your house to the view on the other side.
it would not be my intention to look at anything IN your house but at the view on the other side of the house. i'm not using ANY of your resources, i'm not causing you any additional financial burden.
not a perfect analogy but a better one than saying you left your doors opened and i walked in.
I disagree man, mine may not be great but yours is worse. If I'm sniffing your lan, without logging on to it, then your looking in the windows of my house. If you've logged onto my network you've intruded on my property.
but i haven't logged on to your lan. i'm only using your Internet access.
there is a significant difference here. logging on to your lan would imply that i have attempted to breach security on lan resources, (shared files, folders, printers). i haven't all i've done is gone thru, not looked at anything on your lan and only used the WAP for internet access.
I don't know about illegal. I just said you sucked
I don't care if you turned on your laptop and found access to 1000 different WAP's. The point is, you should have disconnected the minute you found out. I don't buy the crap about it being the other person's fault for leaving their connection unprotected. That does not release you from your trespass. I don't believe in degrees of wrong. If you are wrong, then you simply are. And Soybomb's analogy was a good one. Because you are using something that is clearly not yours. Did you buy the router and pay for the monthly Internet access? Nope!Originally posted by: wyvrn
I don't know about illegal. I just said you sucked
it's interesting that you are so clear on what is wrong and what isn't when the law isn't yet.
again, don't tell me what he pays to maintain it, tell me what it costs him because i surfed using his WAP for 10 minutes.
it's hard to define a victim that hasn't been victimized.
Thats quite contradictory. If you're using my internet connection, you're using the resources of my lan, which currently isn't a safe place to position yourself in the law's eyes. One of the members here had some serious legal problems from installing distrubted computing clients. Did it really cost the plantiff anything for the cpu time? Nope. If you are interacting with my lan without my authorization, it doesn't matter if you're just sitting there with an IP address and not doing anything at all, you still better have a really great lawyer if someone sues you.
I'm not saying its right, I'm not saying I agree with it, and it probably won't ever bring you any problems, but its also not really legal at the moment.
You're saying its fine because you didn't directly cause me monetary loss. By the same token I should be free to hack into any system and just poke around as long as I don't cause damage? If I'm not authorized to use that system, I've committed a crime.
i'm familiar with the story about the DC Clients. i'm not sure that analogy holds here also.
the link that you provided regarding the state of NH shows that even the law isn't clear on this issue.
No it isn't clear. We know its not legal to use networks/computers that you're not authorized to. Is an open access point and open invitation to use it? Since there is no legislation showing it is many people would just call it tresspassing, that would be up to a jury to decide. Do you trust your peers to make wise decisions on such matters? Its simply not a safe position to put yourself in, unless you like being a guinea pig for the issue.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Leaching bandwidth over wireless is pretty much an unenforcable law, since cops don't drive around packet sniffing, and they would have to break the law to catch you.
What makes you say that?
Anyhow, I think a better analogy than the picture windows or open front door is this. You're going for a jog, and its hot out, and you're sweating like a pig and you run by a house with it's hose running. The hose is running through the lawn and out to the sidewalk. You stop and take a drink, then continue on with your jog.
It was not your hose. You did not pay for the water, nor ask permission, but you did not do anything inherently wrong or anything that should be illegal. Tons of houses have hoses, (just like internet), but not all of them leave access to them on the street, and leave them running when they aren't using them. All it would take would be moving of the hose or a turn of the spickot (however u spell it). If someone came into your back yard for a drink that'd be crossing the line, just like if someone wanted a stronger signal on your wireless internet so they went onto your front porch or something.
Anyways, i gotta get to bed
Question - would using MAC filtering do just as good a job at keeping out unwanted leeches? I tend to use that instead of WEP.
Use them both. A packet can be sniffed and then clone the MAC address. Also, limit the WLAN to however many PC's you have. Don't let it give out 50 IPs. I only let it give out one for mine, WEP is on, and I filter my MAC addresses.
OH NOES, YOU TOOK THE BANDWIDTH. Get real people, he didn't do anything destructive.
-- mrcodedude
-- mrcodedude
So in other words, if it isn't unlawful (yet), then it is ok with you. What about morality? I still think you are wrong by stealing. The bandwidth had to be paid for, and you did not pay for it. This is *not* a public good, but a private one. Even a basic understanding of economics should make this clear.
This is rationalizing. It does not change the wrong. Some of us live by principals, and you are obviously not one of them.
Originally posted by: LeeTJ
Originally posted by: wyvrn
I don't know about illegal. I just said you sucked
it's interesting that you are so clear on what is wrong and what isn't when the law isn't yet.
again, don't tell me what he pays to maintain it, tell me what it costs him because i surfed using his WAP for 10 minutes.
it's hard to define a victim that hasn't been victimized.
This is rationalizing. It does not change the wrong. Some of us live by principals, and you are obviously not one of them.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter