Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57

Thread: Using other's unsecured wireless

  1. #31
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,189
    HMMM!

    antion9876, whilst I do not agree with your attitude, I must confess to sharing some of your sentiments.

    I have taken the liberty of editing your post to correct typos and add some punctuation, so that it reads correctly.

    I hope that you do not mind

  2. #32
    Some Assembly Required ShagDevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    718
    antion9876,
    That's a good theory. So, hopefully someday you leave your credit card somewhere and whoever finds it can use it because if you really didn't wan't people to use it, you would have kept it safe. Same with your car? If you leave it open, I should use it because, well, it's not locked. How about your house? Can I just come in when I feel like it, if the front door isn't locked?

    Just because something isn't protected or locked doesn't give you the inherent right to use it. These people pay for their cable services with hard earned money and I'm guessing, most don't want a retarded schlep like yourself to leech off of it. The simple fact of the matter is this. Your actions aren't regulated (because they don't even know you're using their network) so you can leech off someone's wifi, perform some criminal act and guess who gets in trouble? they do. Because it all gets traced back to their provider who in turn will trace it back to their IP.

    You're the reason people need to secure wifi. And why is that? Because you're a scumbag. End of Story.
    The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his - George Patton

  3. #33
    Agony Aunty-Online Moira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,063
    Very well said ShagDevil ... have some feedback It's sad when knowing the difference between right and wrong earns you the label of "righteous nun" or "do-gooder". Just what sort of outward attitude do people expect a responsible security forum to take?

    antion9876I think you're a low life for having the morals that whatever you can grab, you take, and I think you're a moron for boasting about it.
    77 111 105 114 97

    My PGP signature

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Moira
    Very well said ShagDevil ... have some feedback It's sad when knowing the difference between right and wrong earns you the label of "righteous nun" or "do-gooder". Just what sort of outward attitude do people expect a responsible security forum to take?

    antion9876I think you're a low life for having the morals that whatever you can grab, you take, and I think you're a moron for boasting about it.
    Well said.

    However there is something far worse than the thread starter’s posts and intent. That is, approving of deviant behavior. The AO Community spoke and awarded him 3 reds. That represented our disapproval and non-alignment with those kinds of activities. Now look, he’s as green as a Christmas Tree. Why not post a banner saying, “Hey AO approves of deviant behavior, go forth and steal!”?

    cheers
    Connection refused, try again later.

  5. #35
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4
    Now I see the light. Thank you for setting me on the level mate.
    Got to go now,,, I'm working on breaking this wep code so I can take over
    my neighbors wireless connection.Thank you and Merry xmas.!!!

  6. #36
    AO übergeek phishphreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,325
    Of course it's illegal to use someone else's wireless connection! Nobody's computer "automatically connects", you would at the very least need to press "connect" when nearby networks came into view. (Unless you'd set your PC to auto connect to a particular network, which isn't automatic, is it?)
    That is untrue. My pocket pc is setup with a default wifi profile which makes it connect to "any" access point that has "open" access. It will typically take the strongest signal.

    I somewhat agree with antion9876 that if someone didn't want you to use their connection, they would *attempt* to secure it. Wireless isn't brand new and there has been much publicity about the importance of securing your access point. I probably would have stated it in a way that didn't make me sound like an a$$hat, but as stated above in a previous post, I do use unsecured access points.

    I have no sympthony for those that don't secure them and they get used or abused.

    Will I use an unsecured wireless access? Yes. I was in CompUSA today and I forgot the name of a game I wanted to buy. I turned on my pocket PC's wifi card and it automatically connected me to an open access point. I didn't search for it. It just happens to fall under the *default* profile setup by HP of "any" access point that is open.

    Ocassionally I'll forget to change profiles and instead of connecting to my own access point, it'll connect to one of the DOZENS of open access points available right from my lazyboy in my living room.

    I was away a couple of weekends ago visiting family who had no internet access or even a computer. However, when I turned on my pocket PC, there were 6 unsecured access points. I used one of them and then VPN'd into my own home connection.

    Do I now have less morals because I connected to those access points without signing a AUP? I don't think so. How do I know that the owners didn't set up the access point with the intent to allow others to connect? If they setup some sort of security, I would then know, without a doubt, that my usage in unwelcome.

    It is not necessarily "illegal" to use those. It could be the one who didn't protect the access point that is commiting the crime.

    Although it is a couple of years old, here is an interesting read on this:

    http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/237

    However there is something far worse than the thread starter’s posts and intent. That is, approving of deviant behavior. The AO Community spoke and awarded him 3 reds. That represented our disapproval and non-alignment with those kinds of activities. Now look, he’s as green as a Christmas Tree. Why not post a banner saying, “Hey AO approves of deviant behavior, go forth and steal!”?
    I certainly wouldn't call that "deviant" behaviour. You can't rely on "red dots". Someone like me can turn 3 reds into a green with just one assignment. We've observed and agreed/disagreed with your posts. Just because someone might have sided with his opinion doesn't mean anything. Except maybe that we still have a right to think for ourselves and make our own opinions and judgements.

    I may not like what someone thinks or says, but I'll defend their right to do so. This reminds me of Bush's thinking "You're either with us or with the terrorists." Or, "He's a witch, burn him!"
    Last edited by phishphreek; December 7th, 2006 at 12:12 PM.
    Quitmzilla is a firefox extension that gives you stats on how long you have quit smoking, how much money you\'ve saved, how much you haven\'t smoked and recent milestones. Very helpful for people who quit smoking and used to smoke at their computers... Helps out with the urges.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,675
    Here’s another quote to add - by Jennifer Granick (director of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society):

    "Using an open wireless access point isn't the same thing as using a computer illegally," says Granick. "Convictions for this type of thing are possible where it's part of a larger criminal case, but it shouldn't happen in the absence of some other criminal purpose, like stealing credit cards, or knowledge that the network is closed. Wardriving isn't criminal."

    It may not be “Criminal Behavior” however it is most assuredly “Deviant Behavior”. Scarfing access, that you would normally have to pay for is unethical. A deviant strays from a principal or standard.
    Connection refused, try again later.

  8. #38
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,189
    Setting aside morals, ethics and possible local legislation I can see a clear case of criminality here.

    I think that it is pretty much Worldwide that a material loss would have to be demonstrated for any case to be made. So in the case of an unlimited account, that would probably be impossible.

    However, in the UK at least, there are numerous accounts that are limited or capped. You would really have no way of knowing what sort of account it was and if you start using limited resources that belong to someone else then that is a material and quantifyable loss and is plain theft, which is a criminal offence.


  9. #39
    AO übergeek phishphreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Relyt
    Here’s another quote to add - by Jennifer Granick (director of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society):

    It may not be “Criminal Behavior” however it is most assuredly “Deviant Behavior”. Scarfing access, that you would normally have to pay for is unethical. A deviant strays from a principal or standard.
    Who is setting the standard? If I go by what my family and friends would do, using the free/open access point, your behaviour would be "deviant".

    From google "define:deviant"
    Deviant behavior is behavior that is a recognized violation of cultural norms.


    Using open access points is the norm for most people I know. I don't know anyone who needed access who would say "There is an access point here but I'll feel bad if I use it. Lets drive around town for hours looking for an internet cafe or pay for a wireless data card just so I can use it in the "what if" situations."
    Last edited by phishphreek; December 7th, 2006 at 02:06 PM.
    Quitmzilla is a firefox extension that gives you stats on how long you have quit smoking, how much money you\'ve saved, how much you haven\'t smoked and recent milestones. Very helpful for people who quit smoking and used to smoke at their computers... Helps out with the urges.

  10. #40
    AO übergeek phishphreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,325
    Quote Originally Posted by nihil
    Setting aside morals, ethics and possible local legislation I can see a clear case of criminality here.

    I think that it is pretty much Worldwide that a material loss would have to be demonstrated for any case to be made. So in the case of an unlimited account, that would probably be impossible.

    However, in the UK at least, there are numerous accounts that are limited or capped. You would really have no way of knowing what sort of account it was and if you start using limited resources that belong to someone else then that is a material and quantifyable loss and is plain theft, which is a criminal offence.

    I'll agree with that. If you knowingly use up a large portion of someones limited bandwith resources. Then I would start to feel bad.

    I'd imagine *most* mobile users don't sit in the park for hours using bittorrent. However, just surfing the web or using it to get to your home/work networks over a VPN... not much bandwith being used here.

    I don't know of a single ISP here in the states that limit ones bandwith other then the up/down rates. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm sure they do. I do know that all ISPs in my area (major DSL and Cable) have no limits.
    Quitmzilla is a firefox extension that gives you stats on how long you have quit smoking, how much money you\'ve saved, how much you haven\'t smoked and recent milestones. Very helpful for people who quit smoking and used to smoke at their computers... Helps out with the urges.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •