Active Topics
-
HDMI with Leste (1)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 2 days, 16 hrs ago -
Firefox with Leste (9)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 4 days, 17 hrs ago - more...
|
2009-03-10
, 19:57
|
|
Posts: 99 |
Thanked: 17 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
|
#42
|
 |
|
2009-03-10
, 19:57
|
|
Posts: 1,076 |
Thanked: 176 times |
Joined on Mar 2007
|
#43
|
Originally Posted by dick-richardson
I merely admitted to my behavior. Doesn't change what that behavior is.
It was really tough to tell if you were serious after admitting you use open access points and then saying it's stealing. So you're contention is that someone who hops on to my open network is stealing because I haven't changed the SSID?
Originally Posted by dick-richardson
You use my router therefore you have:
And absolutely ridiculous. Stealing prevents someone else from using it and only makes sense when dealing with physical objects (ie your car example).
Used my electricity.
Used my bandwidth that I cannot get back or could have used at the time that you were using it.
Therefore I have been deprived of my property. Next.
Originally Posted by dick-richardson
It's still a physical object, and your driving it prevents someone else (presumably the owner) from doing so as well.
Originally Posted by dick-richardson
Tell you what then. Sit outside someone's house and use their open access point so they can see you and when they call the police see if they ask them if they told you not to do so before they ask you to move along then refuse to move along citing the argument you just made.
No it isn't and no it doesn't. The only time someone has been prosecuted in the States for using open wifi is AFTER that person has been informed that they are not welcome to do so (for refusing to patronize the store who's hosting the wifi, for example). We have this nice concept here where someone is innocent until proven guilty. By virtue of the fact that I have an open wifi access point for anyone and everyone to use as they wish without fear of repercussion, any argument that someone doing so is somehow a criminal is completely false.
Anyway the presumption of innocence pertains to the fact that one is considered to have not committed the alleged crime until it is shown via evidence that one has , beyond reasonable doubt, committed said act. Once the logs are had you will have been shown to have committed unauthorized access to a computer, trespass and theft of service. Now just because municipalities don't waste time on such things doesn't mean you are in the clear.
|
|
2009-03-10
, 21:22
|
|
Posts: 174 |
Thanked: 71 times |
Joined on Aug 2007
|
#44
|
Originally Posted by sondjata
Neither electricity nor bandwidth is property. They're services.
I merely admitted to my behavior. You use my router therefore you have:
Used my electricity.
Used my bandwidth that I cannot get back or could have used at the time that you were using it.
Therefore I have been deprived of my property. Next.
Next.
Tell you what then. Sit outside someone's house and use their open access point so they can see you and when they call the police see if they ask them if they told you not to do so before they ask you to move along then refuse to move along citing the argument you just made.
Anyway the presumption of innocence pertains to the fact that one is considered to have not committed the alleged crime until it is shown via evidence that one has , beyond reasonable doubt, committed said act.
Once the logs are had you will have been shown to have committed unauthorized access to a computer, trespass and theft of service. Now just because municipalities don't waste time on such things doesn't mean you are in the clear.
|
|
2009-03-10
, 21:35
|
|
Posts: 1,076 |
Thanked: 176 times |
Joined on Mar 2007
|
#45
|
Originally Posted by dick-richardson
Say I'm a psychiatrist. You come to me for a session. You fail to pay for the session. You have stolen my services. I pay for bandwidth and electricity. You do not. Therefore your unauthorized use of my "services" constitutes theft. Ask your local Electric/Gas/Cable provider.
Neither electricity nor bandwidth is property. They're services.
Next.
Originally Posted by dick-richardson
Still confused between what you CAN do and what is legal. you CAN do a lot of things that are illegal. Theft is one of those things.
Someone can do so at my house, therefore I don't need to do so at someone else's to know that behavior, unless otherwise specified, may be permitted.
Originally Posted by dick-richardson
Reasonable people do not use or take things that do not belong to them. Because reasonable people know that is the definition of theft. Unreasonable people try to explain away their theft by arguing availabilty. I'm not one of those people. The second part of your question is answered by Fon. Or places where there are signs explicitly allowing public access to wifi. You apparently assume the opposite.
Exactly. And you'd agree that the only way to know beyond reasonable doubt that one shouldn't use an access point is if that point is made clear? Do you know of any open wifi access points that you are tacitly permitted to attach to?
Originally Posted by dick-richardson
Again you clearly have a problem with the concept that it isn't YOUR wifi point and it is not YOUR router and therefore you have no "rights" to use it without the permission of the owner.
How is it unauthorized? Explain how you make a network unauthorized by running an open wifi access point (esp. one handing out dhcp addresses freely).
|
|
2009-03-10
, 22:11
|
|
Posts: 174 |
Thanked: 71 times |
Joined on Aug 2007
|
#46
|
Originally Posted by sondjata
And yet you're free to redistribute those services, either for a charge, for goodwill, etc. Or are you arguing that I cannot legally have an open wifi access point?
Say I'm a psychiatrist. You come to me for a session. You fail to pay for the session. You have stolen my services. I pay for bandwidth and electricity. You do not. Therefore your unauthorized use of my "services" constitutes theft. Ask your local Electric/Gas/Cable provider.
Still confused between what you CAN do and what is legal. you CAN do a lot of things that are illegal. Theft is one of those things.
Reasonable people do not use or take things that do not belong to them. Because reasonable people know that is the definition of theft. Unreasonable people try to explain away their theft by arguing availabilty. I'm not one of those people. The second part of your question is answered by Fon. Or places where there are signs explicitly allowing public access to wifi. You apparently assume the opposite.
But you're absolutely correct. If someone has taken absolutely NO precaution to notify me that an access point is private, there is absolutely no way to tell if access is prohibited.
Again you clearly have a problem with the concept that it isn't YOUR wifi point and it is not YOUR router and therefore you have no "rights" to use it without the permission of the owner.
This is really easy. There are open wifi access points that people are freely allowed to join. There are open wifi access points that are only open due to ignorance. There are closed, hidden, and otherwise specified networks that only those specifically authorized are allowed to access. There is no way to tell the difference between #1 and #2, therefore it isn't criminal to attach to one. It is criminal to attach (or attempt to attach) to #3.
Please, before crossing the ad hominem line you're flirting with, answer my question regarding open wifi access points you're tacitly allowed to join.
|
|
2009-03-11
, 00:30
|
|
Posts: 22 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Mar 2009
|
#47
|
The real problem, folks -- the thing that makes the whole idea of trying to hold *users* responsible for *network operators* not securing non-public access points -- is this:
Windows XP will automatically lock onto anything it finds.
Crimes require scienter -- the knowledge that you're committing an act, and that it's bad.
If I go to Circuit City, and buy one of their 30% off laptops that's missing most of its keytops, and I take it home and plop it down on my desk and turn it on... it's going to hook up to my neighbor's AP, unless he secured it.
If I'm non-savvy, I may not have the first clue that that is why I can get to the internet.
But even if I do, there's no reason at all that I should believe that this is improper -- if I know AP's can be secured, and there's no Keep Out sign on this one, why shouldn't I use it?
Ever notice these are almost *always* "extra" charges on the kiddie porn or music swapping charges -- or physical tresspass charges -- for which the perp is *actually* being busted?
It wouldn't stand on it's own; you couldn't *prove* scienter.
Windows XP will automatically lock onto anything it finds.
Crimes require scienter -- the knowledge that you're committing an act, and that it's bad.
If I go to Circuit City, and buy one of their 30% off laptops that's missing most of its keytops, and I take it home and plop it down on my desk and turn it on... it's going to hook up to my neighbor's AP, unless he secured it.
If I'm non-savvy, I may not have the first clue that that is why I can get to the internet.
But even if I do, there's no reason at all that I should believe that this is improper -- if I know AP's can be secured, and there's no Keep Out sign on this one, why shouldn't I use it?
Ever notice these are almost *always* "extra" charges on the kiddie porn or music swapping charges -- or physical tresspass charges -- for which the perp is *actually* being busted?
It wouldn't stand on it's own; you couldn't *prove* scienter.
|
|
2009-03-11
, 00:39
|
|
Posts: 4,556 |
Thanked: 1,624 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#48
|
As I pointed out earlier, this issue has been discussed over and over (even on here). There really isn't an easy solution to it. It all depends on which analogy you use (tackling an argument from reason or a moral standpoint is also futile since it assumes they share similar values or thoughts as you).
__________________
Originally Posted by ysss
They're maemo and MeeGo...
"Meamo!" sounds like what Zorro would say to catherine zeta jones... after she slaps him for looking at her dirtily...
|
|
2009-03-11
, 01:12
|
|
Posts: 473 |
Thanked: 141 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Virginia, USA
|
#49
|
Originally Posted by sunnydips
It is in some jurisdictions. The government seems to be quite schitzophrenic on the subject. There seem to be three major mindsets:
is connecting to open wifi illegal? if it is then my whole phone idea is toast...
1. Connecting to an open wifi is illegal (cases in Florida and iirc Chicago)
2. Leaving a wifi open is illegal (I believe New York?)
3. Ignoring the entire discussion
It seems rather arbitrary. Instead of going after peiple breaking the law, they are taking a zero-tolerance-we-don't-want-to-think-in-our-high-paid-job mindset...
--vr
|
|
2009-03-11
, 01:47
|
|
Posts: 22 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Mar 2009
|
#50
|
I predict that within the year, Democrats' fondness for civil rights being what it is, we will see the FCC exercise jurisdiction over this issue.
Since the radios are required to be federally type accepted, they've arguably got nexus.
Since the radios are required to be federally type accepted, they've arguably got nexus.
While a civil suit may require that one show actual damages from an event, criminal law has no such requirement. The simple fact that you have accessed someone
s property (the router) without there permission and then used said router to get access to the internet is theft. That the theft goes unnoticed doesn't matter. That many people could care less doesn't matter.