Active Topics
-
How many of you still use N900 as main phone? (595)
to Community by deutch1976 - 1 day, 11 hrs ago -
Big news (7)
to OS2008 / Maemo 4 / Chinook - Diablo by endsormeans - 2 days, 20 hrs ago -
Firefox with Leste (8)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by endsormeans - 2 days, 21 hrs ago -
Which is the best N95? What software modifications could be made to it? (3)
to General by Kalatti - 5 days, 21 hrs ago -
Installing CSSU Stable in year 2024 (2)
to Maemo 5 / Fremantle by teroyk - 6 days, 4 hrs ago -
Porting apps to Leste (34)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Arno_11 - 6 days, 14 hrs ago - more...
|
2007-08-24
, 22:45
|
|
Posts: 10 |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Canada
|
#62
|
A couple of points are sticking out in my mind and I don't think they've been addressed by others, yet:
The FCC and accepting interference: if I could demonstrate that my neighbour's WiFi spoiled my soufflé, I'd still have grounds under the common law to seek damages. The FCC may be a regulator, but they aren't the only authority. If they were, after all, we could just call unauthorized use of an open access point "interference" and say that you have to live with it.
Permission: Do I have permission to view this Web site? I've cavalierly assumed that an open port is an invitation to send requests for pages. Since the intent of the law is not to criminalize Web browsing, it must be the case that sending a request for a connection on port 80 constitutes a request for permission, and an accepted connection implies that permission has been granted. You can argue that accepting the TCP/IP connection is merely an invitation to make a further request at the HTTP level, but it boils down to the same thing. Similarly, then, I think that it's reasonable to suppose that a WiFi access point is fair game if it is accessible by customary means as set out within the standard that defines the protocol, and if no other illegal, immoral, or fattening behaviour is necessary to effect the connection. If the connection is secured, even laughably poorly, the presumption has to be that you're not welcome.
The FCC and accepting interference: if I could demonstrate that my neighbour's WiFi spoiled my soufflé, I'd still have grounds under the common law to seek damages. The FCC may be a regulator, but they aren't the only authority. If they were, after all, we could just call unauthorized use of an open access point "interference" and say that you have to live with it.
Permission: Do I have permission to view this Web site? I've cavalierly assumed that an open port is an invitation to send requests for pages. Since the intent of the law is not to criminalize Web browsing, it must be the case that sending a request for a connection on port 80 constitutes a request for permission, and an accepted connection implies that permission has been granted. You can argue that accepting the TCP/IP connection is merely an invitation to make a further request at the HTTP level, but it boils down to the same thing. Similarly, then, I think that it's reasonable to suppose that a WiFi access point is fair game if it is accessible by customary means as set out within the standard that defines the protocol, and if no other illegal, immoral, or fattening behaviour is necessary to effect the connection. If the connection is secured, even laughably poorly, the presumption has to be that you're not welcome.
 |
|
2007-08-24
, 23:42
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#63
|
Yeah, the points have been addressed. One applauded, one soundly debunked. Your mission, should you decide to accept it: figure out which is which!
This thread should self-destruct in 5 seconds. It really should. Hell, 3 even.
This thread should self-destruct in 5 seconds. It really should. Hell, 3 even.
 |
|
2007-08-25
, 02:14
|
|
Posts: 641 |
Thanked: 27 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#64
|
Originally Posted by Eric S. Smith
Everybody is missing the point, you aren't just connecting to "the internet"! You're connecting to someone's private home network. Unless you go up and knock on the door, assuming you even know where the wireless is even coming from, and ask them if it's okay to use, or it's named "free open wifi" you're breaking the law. Just because it's open doesn't mean you can just hop on. They might not know any better, most don't.
A couple of points are sticking out in my mind and I don't think they've been addressed by others, yet:
The FCC and accepting interference: if I could demonstrate that my neighbour's WiFi spoiled my soufflé, I'd still have grounds under the common law to seek damages. The FCC may be a regulator, but they aren't the only authority. If they were, after all, we could just call unauthorized use of an open access point "interference" and say that you have to live with it.
Permission: Do I have permission to view this Web site? I've cavalierly assumed that an open port is an invitation to send requests for pages. Since the intent of the law is not to criminalize Web browsing, it must be the case that sending a request for a connection on port 80 constitutes a request for permission, and an accepted connection implies that permission has been granted. You can argue that accepting the TCP/IP connection is merely an invitation to make a further request at the HTTP level, but it boils down to the same thing. Similarly, then, I think that it's reasonable to suppose that a WiFi access point is fair game if it is accessible by customary means as set out within the standard that defines the protocol, and if no other illegal, immoral, or fattening behaviour is necessary to effect the connection. If the connection is secured, even laughably poorly, the presumption has to be that you're not welcome.
__________________
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.
SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.
SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
|
|
2007-08-25
, 03:29
|
|
Posts: 10 |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Canada
|
#65
|
Originally Posted by barry99705
That's always the case, though. There is no "the Internet" -- it's a bunch of networks, and they all belong to somebody, and they're interconnected under various terms, some commercial, some co-operative. We don't really notice this because, guess what, we just fling packets without phoning each other up first to ask for permission. Either we're all breaking various laws, or permission is given automatically.
Everybody is missing the point, you aren't just connecting to "the internet"! You're connecting to someone's private home network.
Originally Posted by barry99705
Well, hang on, if I go up to their door, I'm on their property, am I not? How is knocking on the door better than remotely requesting a WiFi connection and DHCP from an automated system that advertises its availability?
Unless you go up and knock on the door,
Originally Posted by barry99705
Are you sure? Maybe it got that name by accident. And who gave you permission to intercept transmissions containing the SSID in the first place?
or it's named "free open wifi"
Originally Posted by barry99705
Ignorance is now an excuse? Excellent. I didn't know about the law, then.
They might not know any better, most don't.
|
|
2007-08-25
, 03:30
|
|
Banned |
Posts: 138 |
Thanked: 1 time |
Joined on Jun 2007
|
#66
|
Originally Posted by barry99705
Boo-hoo-hoo.... ;( cry about it. we're not missing any point - no one cares. Knock on the door - funny. Lock your network or stop complaining - read the manual and if you can't read maybe you shouldn't have the internet or a wireless router in the first place.
Everybody is missing the point, you aren't just connecting to "the internet"! You're connecting to someone's private home network. Unless you go up and knock on the door, assuming you even know where the wireless is even coming from, and ask them if it's okay to use, or it's named "free open wifi" you're breaking the law. Just because it's open doesn't mean you can just hop on. They might not know any better, most don't.
internet should just die anyway, everyone is getting to lazy. when last have you been to the library instead of sitting on your fat as* on wikipedia - more to life than internet convenience. read a book instead of an e-book on your $400 IT. HAHA! Losers.
Last edited by earl00; 2007-08-25 at 03:37.
|
|
2007-08-25
, 03:31
|
|
Posts: 333 |
Thanked: 7 times |
Joined on Dec 2005
|
#67
|
If you don't f*ing secure your wireless access points then it's assume you want it open to the public...why else would you do that. So there's no breaking the law here. Just friendly people who wants to share their internet connections.
__________________
_________________________________
Nokia 770/1gig sandisk
Nokia N800 2gig Kingston/1gig sandisk
"less is like more but better"
_________________________________
Nokia 770/1gig sandisk
Nokia N800 2gig Kingston/1gig sandisk
"less is like more but better"
|
|
2007-08-25
, 21:20
|
|
Posts: 641 |
Thanked: 27 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#68
|
Originally Posted by earl00
Boo-hoo-hoo.... ;( cry about it. we're not missing any point - no one cares. Knock on the door - funny. Lock your network or stop complaining - read the manual and if you can't read maybe you shouldn't have the internet or a wireless router in the first place.
Where did you ever see that my network is open? Wikipeda is a joke. So are e-books. This thread, just like many others I've seen just puts it back into perspective. The world is full of a bunch of freeloading scum sucking thieves. Maybe if you looked at my profile, you'd see that I probably know more about networking and wireless networking than you do. ****ing *****. Some one close this thread, it's bringing down the IQ of the forum.
__________________
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.
SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.
SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
|
|
2007-08-25
, 21:57
|
|
Banned |
Posts: 138 |
Thanked: 1 time |
Joined on Jun 2007
|
#69
|
Originally Posted by barry99705
yes all mighty one, king of all networks and wireless routers. we do as you say and bow down. haha - loser (barry99705 - more like barrycock99705) let me guess, you've never downloaded anything in your life that was copyright protected. haha - i bet you are a fat black hat that eats potato chips while watching downloaded episodes of 24 from torrentleech or piratebay.
Where did you ever see that my network is open? Wikipeda is a joke. So are e-books. This thread, just like many others I've seen just puts it back into perspective. The world is full of a bunch of freeloading scum sucking thieves. Maybe if you looked at my profile, you'd see that I probably know more about networking and wireless networking than you do. ****ing *****. Some one close this thread, it's bringing down the IQ of the forum.
Last edited by earl00; 2007-08-25 at 22:08.
|
|
2007-08-26
, 02:57
|
|
Posts: 641 |
Thanked: 27 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#70
|
Originally Posted by earl00
yes all mighty one, king of all networks and wireless routers. we do as you say and bow down. haha - loser (barry99705 - more like barrycock99705) let me guess, you've never downloaded anything in your life that was copyright protected. haha - i bet you are a fat black hat that eats potato chips while watching downloaded episodes of 24 from torrentleech or piratebay.
Whatever. No, I don't steal music/movies. 24 is probably one of the lamest shows on tv now. Not that it matters. I don't watch tv.
__________________
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.
SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.
SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
Penguinbait, who's pot? Be careful with your spelling, a senior member might read "your right" not as "you're right", but infer that you are talking about your right hand...
I will also rest my case, as you can never win these discussions..