Obtain internet connection

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Hi all! I wonder how can I get the internet connection for free, if I
have the SSID, Channel and 128 bit WEP key of an AP. I have LinSys
bridge, but I don't have wireless card. I'm able to use my bridge to
scan ssid and mac address, but not ip. How can I obtain the an ip and
internet connection? Thanks in advance!
28 answers Last reply
More about obtain internet connection
  1. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Thanks so much for your reply. There's no such law in country, and you
    can do what ever you want as there's no cyber law. If something went
    wrong, there's nothing involved with you. I really need your answer!
    Please help me!
  2. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <1106979978.510379.14330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    <xstanley007@yahoo.com> wrote:
    :Hi all! I wonder how can I get the internet connection for free, if I
    :have the SSID, Channel and 128 bit WEP key of an AP. I have LinSys
    :bridge, but I don't have wireless card. I'm able to use my bridge to
    :scan ssid and mac address, but not ip. How can I obtain the an ip and
    :internet connection? Thanks in advance!

    If you had authorization from the AP owner then you would have
    been given an IP to use.

    If you don't have authorization from the AP owner, then is what
    you propose to do legal in your jurisdiction (South Korea?)
    It would certainly not be legal in my jurisdiction (Canada).
    It -probably- isn't legal in the USA (someone would have to
    appeal a court case up fairly high to be find out whether it
    would be illegal wiretapping, violation of the computer abuse
    statutes, "theft by conversion", or illegal transmissions
    under FCC regulations.)

    You'll have to excuse me not telling you... I don't want to risk
    an "aiding and abetting" or "conspiracy to commit" a crime charge
    by the local authorities.
    --
    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
    -- not Twain, perhaps Disraeli, first quoted by Leonard Courtney
  3. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    xstanley007@yahoo.com wrote:

    > Hi all! I wonder how can I get the internet connection for free, if I
    > have the SSID, Channel and 128 bit WEP key of an AP. I have LinSys
    > bridge, but I don't have wireless card. I'm able to use my bridge to
    > scan ssid and mac address, but not ip. How can I obtain the an ip and
    > internet connection? Thanks in advance!

    If you don't have permission to use that AP, it's called "theft of
    services". If you have permission, the owner will be able to help you.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <1106983647.871535.161400@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    Stanley <xstanley007@yahoo.com> wrote:
    :Thanks so much for your reply. There's no such law in country, and you
    :can do what ever you want as there's no cyber law.

    What is the "The Protection of Communications Secrets Act" then,
    if not cyber law? As is a WEP key not a "private key" under
    the Digital Signatures Act? Is using someone else's IP to access
    any commercial site not a violation of the owner's right to
    "control the commercial use of his or her identity", such as
    been upheld in court cases?


    :If something went
    :wrong, there's nothing involved with you. I really need your answer!
    :Please help me!

    If you really need an IP, then I suggestion you go and talk to the
    system owner and politely ask for one.

    --
    This is not the same .sig the second time you read it.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <1106979978.510379.14330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    xstanley007@yahoo.com says...

    > Hi all! I wonder how can I get the internet connection for free, if I
    > have the SSID, Channel and 128 bit WEP key of an AP. I have LinSys
    > bridge, but I don't have wireless card. I'm able to use my bridge to
    > scan ssid and mac address, but not ip. How can I obtain the an ip and
    > internet connection? Thanks in advance!

    Many public libraries have free Internet access via wireless node.
    Googling for "Free Wireless Access" gains hundreds of hits.

    As for the rest: Since there are so many open access points Out
    There, why are you even bothering to try and crack what is clearly a
    secured site? Do you have any idea of the trouble that can get you into?

    Try being nice and asking the site's owner if you can have access.


    --
    Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
    (Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
    kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
    "If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
    with surreal ports?"
  6. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:

    >> Hi all! I wonder how can I get the internet connection for free, if I
    >> have the SSID, Channel and 128 bit WEP key of an AP. I have LinSys
    >> bridge, but I don't have wireless card. I'm able to use my bridge to
    >> scan ssid and mac address, but not ip. How can I obtain the an ip and
    >> internet connection? Thanks in advance!
    >
    > Many public libraries have free Internet access via wireless node.
    > Googling for "Free Wireless Access" gains hundreds of hits.
    >

    There's nothing wrong with using an AP, that the owner has provided for
    public use. However, if they're using WEP, that usually means restricted
    access.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Begin <ctfdfo$9hd$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
    On 2005-01-29, Walter Roberson <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
    > In article <1106979978.510379.14330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    > <xstanley007@yahoo.com> wrote:
    [spoon-feed me how to steal someone elses bandwidth]
    >
    > If you had authorization from the AP owner then you would have
    > been given an IP to use.

    Which is the important point, of course. If it really is that important,
    OP should talk to the owner of the AP and see if a deal can be made.


    > If you don't have authorization from the AP owner, then is what
    > you propose to do legal in your jurisdiction (South Korea?)
    > It would certainly not be legal in my jurisdiction (Canada).
    > It -probably- isn't legal in the USA (someone would have to
    > appeal a court case up fairly high to be find out whether it
    > would be illegal wiretapping, violation of the computer abuse
    > statutes, "theft by conversion", or illegal transmissions
    > under FCC regulations.)

    An interesting question, if a bit off-topic-ish for this froup, but
    anyway. Wiretapping, as in the recording of legally protected signals,
    or illegal transmissions, I'd not buy, since the frequencies 802.11 uses
    are free to use without licence. This in .eu and .us and .ca and a host
    of other countries, possibly .kr too. By the same token, I don't think
    associating with an AP, while playing by the rules of 802.11[3], should
    count as interference, or anything else illegal, regardless of ownership
    of the AP.

    I know it isn't followed completely, everywhere, but I like the
    convention of Rome on this topic a lot, which AIUI basically says that
    you can try and receive anything you want. This I see as sensible,
    because, while sending equipment is relatively easy to locate by its
    transmissions, this doesn't follow for receiving equipment as easily.
    But, and here's the catch, what you do with the information obtained is
    another matter entirely. Then again, we don't know _how_ the OP obtained
    the key.

    Which leaves "theft by conversion" (I don't know what that is) or
    computer abuse, which OP indicates isn't regulated in his country. I'd
    add "theft of service", since ``the wireless'' isn't a goal but a means
    to an end. I'd take the service being encrypted as a big hint that the
    owner or payer-of-the-internet-service-bills hasn't given permission, so
    even without ``digital regulations'', it is a kind of theft or abuse[2],
    this way or another.


    > You'll have to excuse me not telling you... I don't want to risk
    > an "aiding and abetting" or "conspiracy to commit" a crime charge
    > by the local authorities.

    Especially not when supposedly the manual of the device the OP wants
    to use will explain a) if the device supports the intended mode of
    operation, and if so, b) in detail how to configure it to that end.
    (Oooh, look! criminal manuals![1])


    [1] I'm thinking ``betamax'' here. This doesn't mean such will apply
    for jurisdictions elsewhere.
    [2] The gravity of the offense I'll not measure here.
    [3] As accepted by local rules, etc.

    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  8. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <Ht6dnV08fdeYRmbcRVn-qw@rogers.com>, james.knott@rogers.com
    says...
    > Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
    >
    > >> Hi all! I wonder how can I get the internet connection for free, if I
    > >> have the SSID, Channel and 128 bit WEP key of an AP. I have LinSys
    > >> bridge, but I don't have wireless card. I'm able to use my bridge to
    > >> scan ssid and mac address, but not ip. How can I obtain the an ip and
    > >> internet connection? Thanks in advance!
    > >
    > > Many public libraries have free Internet access via wireless node.
    > > Googling for "Free Wireless Access" gains hundreds of hits.
    > >
    >
    > There's nothing wrong with using an AP, that the owner has provided for
    > public use. However, if they're using WEP, that usually means restricted
    > access.

    My point exactly. I've come across (and used) plenty of free/open
    access nodes. The one the original poster was referring to, though, is
    apparently using WEP.

    While WEP is not exactly secure (crackable in a matter of hours),
    it is still the electronic equivalent of a "No Trespassing" sign. I tend
    to take such things seriously.

    Keep the peace(es).

    --
    Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
    (Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
    kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
    "If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
    with surreal ports?"
  9. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    jpd <read_the_sig@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
    > I know it isn't followed completely, everywhere, but I like the
    > convention of Rome on this topic a lot, which AIUI basically says
    > that you can try and receive anything you want.

    I'd like a reference please. AFAIK, the UK and many EU
    countries licence and tax TV (&radio) receivers. Is this
    "freedom to receive"?

    > This I see as sensible, because, while sending equipment
    > is relatively easy to locate by its transmissions, this
    > doesn't follow for receiving equipment as easily.

    Maybe not, but the British drive "TV Dectector" vans around.
    I believe most of these are bogus, but I believe TVs do have
    a circuit that can be detected at least when powered on.

    > Which leaves "theft by conversion" (I don't know what that
    > is) or computer abuse, which OP indicates isn't regulated
    > in his country.

    Cracking into computers is legal in .kr??? I'd be very surprised
    if the chaebol would tolerate this. A WAP is a small computer
    (usually with a MIPS CPU) and a nice web interface. Most keep
    access logs, and I check mine regularly for interlopers.

    -- Robert
  10. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <361rgoF4r8nqtU1@individual.net>, jpd says...

    > Which leaves "theft by conversion" (I don't know what that is)...

    I am not actually qualified to explain this, but I think it has something to
    do with obtaining value by using objects which you don't own. Something like
    selling Internet access through your residential ISP account. You don't own
    the ISP network, or the connection. Most ISPs prohibit such sharing; using
    the boundaries of the premises as the demarcation in order to allow
    households to have multiple computers sharing the connection, while still
    prohibiting sharing the connection with the neighbors.

    --
    Norman
    ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
    ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
    ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
  11. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <361rgoF4r8nqtU1@individual.net>,
    jpd <read_the_sig@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
    :An interesting question, if a bit off-topic-ish for this froup, but
    :anyway. Wiretapping, as in the recording of legally protected signals,
    :or illegal transmissions, I'd not buy, since the frequencies 802.11 uses
    :are free to use without licence.

    It's more complicated than that, at least in the US. The
    frequencies are only free to use without a license for certain -kinds-
    of transmissions -- certain data formats, certain power levels.
    It isn't a free-for-all band -- and the fact that one does not
    require a license within those allowed uses doesn't mean that it
    is legal to intercept and decode encrypted transmissions within
    those bands. It's been a few months since I looked at the material,
    but if I recall correctly, the applicable FCC regulations specifically
    disallow interception in the case of encrypted transmissions in
    that frequency range.

    :This in .eu and .us and .ca and a host
    :of other countries, possibly .kr too. By the same token, I don't think
    :associating with an AP, while playing by the rules of 802.11[3], should
    :count as interference, or anything else illegal, regardless of ownership
    :of the AP.

    An AP is a "computer" within the meaning of US and Canadian law.
    Both countries prohibit accessing computers without the owner's
    permission. [The only exception in US law is that it isn't illegal
    to hack on an information kiosk computer: US law presumes that if
    you are able to convince the kiosk computer to do something then
    you were authorized to do that by the people who provided the
    computer. I'm not sure why they singled out such systems as being
    exempt.]


    :Which leaves "theft by conversion" (I don't know what that is) or

    I do not think I can write a precise definition, so I will give some
    examples. Theft by conversion includes:

    - tapping into someone's phone line in order to place toll calls without
    paying for them
    - hooking up to a neighbour's cable TV in order to not have to pay
    the cable company yourself
    - relaying email (e.g., spam) through a computer system so that
    the resources of that computer system go into delivering the messages
    instead of having your own computer tied up [recall here that
    one relayed email message can have *many* recipients listed... thousands.]
    - using someone else's internet connection without authorization so
    as to not have to pay for a connection yourself

    As a rough approximation, "theft by conversion" deals with the
    obtaining of a thing of value by misuse of an intengible, such
    as a service [including the labour sense of 'service' as well as
    the electronic sense.] Possibly it has some other meanings as well,
    such as if one were to secretly break windows in order to gain
    business in your window repair or replacement shop. You don't
    literally take away a tangible object, but you illicitly gain value.

    "Theft of service" could be one kind of "Theft by conversion".
    Both are, I believe, lay terms for matters spelt out in more detail
    in law... no-one wants to have to quote a 25 subparagraph law
    in order to give the general sense of what is being talked about.

    :computer abuse, which OP indicates isn't regulated in his country.

    If his country is South Korea, as the posting IP would seem to
    indicate, I'm not convinced that it is not regulated: I found
    references to specific initiatives and crime units and court cases
    involving computer abuse in South Korea.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
    -- Rich Kulawiec
  12. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <Ht6dnV08fdeYRmbcRVn-qw@rogers.com>, James Knott says...

    > Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:

    > >> Hi all! I wonder how can I get the internet connection for free, if I
    > >> have the SSID, Channel and 128 bit WEP key of an AP. I have LinSys
    > >> bridge, but I don't have wireless card. I'm able to use my bridge to
    > >> scan ssid and mac address, but not ip. How can I obtain the an ip and
    > >> internet connection? Thanks in advance!

    > > Many public libraries have free Internet access via wireless node.
    > > Googling for "Free Wireless Access" gains hundreds of hits.

    > There's nothing wrong with using an AP, that the owner has provided for
    > public use. However, if they're using WEP, that usually means restricted
    > access.

    The catch with that statement is that there are many APs which can be
    accessed because the owner is too lazy to secure the AP, yet which should
    not be accessed because the owner of the AP is not the owner of the network
    the AP accesses. In the U.S., at least, most residential ISP accounts
    prohibit sharing the ISP connection with non-members of the household. The
    account holder could lose his account, and the person accessing the AP could
    still be charged with theft of service from the ISP, as well.

    --
    Norman
    ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
    ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
    ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
  13. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    NormanM wrote:

    > The catch with that statement is that there are many APs which can be
    > accessed because the owner is too lazy to secure the AP, yet which should
    > not be accessed because the owner of the AP is not the owner of the
    > network the AP accesses. In the U.S., at least, most residential ISP
    > accounts prohibit sharing the ISP connection with non-members of the
    > household. The account holder could lose his account, and the person
    > accessing the AP could still be charged with theft of service from the
    > ISP, as well.

    Unlocked APs are similar to unlocked doors. You can't walk into someone's
    home, unless you're invited in. As for account sharing, that's another
    issue and many businesses do share, according to the terms of their
    contract with the ISP. Home accounts are generally restricted from such
    sharing.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    NormanM <spammail@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
    > The catch with that statement is that there are many APs which
    > can be accessed because the owner is too lazy to secure the AP,
    > yet which should not be accessed because the owner of the AP
    > is not the owner of the network the AP accesses.

    Not quite. Every AP is it's own small network that usually
    has routing to an ISP. But is a separate network, usually
    with private IP addresses and the router does NAT.

    > In the U.S., at least, most residential ISP accounts prohibit
    > sharing the ISP connection with non-members of the household.

    They may even prohibit sharing within the household.
    This is a contractual matter.

    > The account holder could lose his account, and the person
    > accessing the AP could still be charged with theft of
    > service from the ISP, as well.

    Perhaps, it will depend very much on state law. I doubt the ISP
    will be able to press charges (the tap is not on their equipment),
    although the account holder might (in exchange for restitution
    by the ISP). OTOH, an open WAP might be viewed as an invitation
    to access, and not an unlocked closed door. A user might not
    be aware of where they're accessing, or indeed that they're not
    accessing their own WAP.

    -- Robert
  15. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Walter Roberson <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
    > but if I recall correctly, the applicable FCC regulations
    > specifically disallow interception in the case of encrypted
    > transmissions in that frequency range.

    I wasn't aware that the FCC regs or enabling law prohibited
    any _reception_ in any frequency band. Transmissions are
    always regulated.

    > I do not think I can write a precise definition, so I will
    > give some examples. Theft by conversion includes:

    This varies enormously state-by-state.

    -- Robert
  16. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <ctgukp$9vp$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
    Walter Roberson <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
    :It's more complicated than that, at least in the US. The
    :frequencies are only free to use without a license for certain -kinds-
    :of transmissions -- certain data formats, certain power levels.
    :It isn't a free-for-all band

    Following up myself on that point: the frequency band assigned
    to Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) equipment does NOT
    allow for unrestricted use for telecommunications, in the USA.
    --
    If a troll and a half can hook a reader and a half in a posting and a half,
    how many readers can six trolls hook in six postings?
  17. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <K7aLd.25574$iC4.962@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
    Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
    :I wasn't aware that the FCC regs or enabling law prohibited
    :any _reception_ in any frequency band. Transmissions are
    :always regulated.

    Sec. 15.9 Prohibition against eavesdropping.

    Except for the operations of law enforcement officers conducted
    under lawful authority, no person shall use, either directly or
    indirectly, a device operated pursuant to the provisions of this
    part for the purpose of overhearing or recording the private
    conversations of others unless such use is authorized by all of the
    parties engaging in the conversation.


    Recall that in the US, interception of cell phone calls is
    generally illegal, with it being illegal to sell consumer devices
    able to pick up those frequencies. I seem to recall hearing of
    restrictions on the sale of consumer devices that can pick up
    emergency or police frequencies. I say "consumer devices" here
    my recollection is that it is possible to be licensed for this kind of
    equipment (at least for the police frequencies.)

    Recall too that in the USA, decryption of satellite TV signals
    is considered illegal. The FCC regulations are long; I'm not
    sure I could find a precise reference. In Canada, it is not
    sufficient that one has paid the broadcaster for reception rights:
    one has to restrict oneself to domestic broadcasters
    (ExpressVu or StarChoice) for such signals [but unencrypted
    FTA is legal.]
    --
    The image data is transmitted back to Earth at the speed of light
    and usually at 12 bits per pixel.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Walter Roberson <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
    > Recall that in the US, interception of cell phone calls is
    > generally illegal, with it being illegal to sell consumer
    > devices able to pick up those frequencies.

    Yes, there are rules under the ECPA (1986).

    > I seem to recall hearing of restrictions on the sale of consumer
    > devices that can pick up emergency or police frequencies.

    No, police scanners are generally legal but there are
    some restrictions and illegal uses.

    > Recall too that in the USA, decryption of satellite TV
    > signals is considered illegal.

    It might be under the DMCA.

    > In Canada, it is not sufficient that one has paid the
    > broadcaster for reception rights: one has to restrict
    > oneself to domestic broadcasters (ExpressVu or StarChoice)
    > for such signals [but unencrypted FTA is legal.]

    I'm surprised. Why should the US laws and FCC regs have
    any effect in Canada (beyond broadcast treaties)? Does
    Canadian law have a provision incorporating US law?

    -- Robert
  19. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <w7dLd.21217$wi2.13472@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
    Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
    :Walter Roberson <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:

    :> In Canada, it is not sufficient that one has paid the
    :> broadcaster for reception rights: one has to restrict
    :> oneself to domestic broadcasters (ExpressVu or StarChoice)
    :> for such signals [but unencrypted FTA is legal.]

    :I'm surprised. Why should the US laws and FCC regs have
    :any effect in Canada (beyond broadcast treaties)? Does
    :Canadian law have a provision incorporating US law?

    The situation in Canada is independant of US law, except perhaps
    in the indirect sense of copyright and contract law.

    It was pretty clear under Canadian law that unauthorized reception/
    decoding of satellite TV signals was illegal: we implimented
    the Berne Convention on Copyrights years before the US did, we didn't
    have anything resembling the First Amendment until relatively recently
    (1982), and we have no legal history that '"freedom of speech" includes
    "freedom to listen" to that which to "speaker" does not want heard'.

    We also had CRTC regulations governing domestic licensing of TV, cable,
    satellite, and other like forms of transmissions [but no-one has
    advanced a serious argument that the CRTC governs Internet
    *content*... though it does have some control over the provision of
    data circuits.] The CRTC is, amongst other things, a instrument for
    bilingualism and retention of national culture [e.g., Canadian Content
    rules.] But more-so, the CRTC is an instrument for enforcing exclusive
    Canadian distribution rights (including, and this turns out to be a big
    contention, the right to substitute Canadian commercials for the US
    commercials.) The overall effect is that to deliver content to Canadian
    markets, you need a permit, and you aren't likely to get a permit
    unless you can convince the CRTC that the major media companies have no
    interest at all in going after that market any time in the next 20
    years or so. Thus, it's best to be applying with respect to content
    that the existing major companies don't believe they could make a
    profit in serving.


    Now, what was -not- completely clear under Canadian law was the situation
    in which a customer was willing to pay a US satellite company
    [e.g., Dish Networks] full retail value for the equipment and
    channels used. This situation did not fall under the "theft of service"
    arguments because the customers were paying and the US providers
    were willing to serve those customers. [I heard a figure at one point
    that up to 20% of Dish's customers were in Canada -- an amazing number
    when you consider the 10:1 population ratio.] The RCMP used to
    "turn a blind eye" on the situation, especially in rural areas where
    cable TV didn't reach: what harm, after all, is being done by a
    customer willingly paying the asking price for a service that was
    perfectly legal at it's point of origin. They'd go after the
    illict decoders, but ignore the people with paid equipment.
    The government and RCMP were, though, heavily pressured by StarChoice
    and ExpressVu to respect the exclusive distribution agreements that
    those companies had, so they set up a couple of high profile raids
    of stores, grabbed customer lists, and charged the store owners.

    The main case went right up to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled
    that Yes, the law -did- give the CRTC jurisdiction to decide which
    signals to allow or not, and thus that it was indeed the CRTC's
    perogative to ban the importation of foreign satellite signals even
    when "grey market" [paid for] decoders were being used. judgement did
    take note that there was a Charter of Rights argument that could be
    made about free speech, but that that was not what the case they had in
    front of them was about: the case had come up through the path of
    whether the CRTC had jurisdiction in such cases, so in deciding that
    the CRTC did have that jurisdiction, the CRTC-claimed ban on
    importation of signals was upheld. The Supreme Court judgement
    practically invited people to start a new case upon the issue of
    whether the CRTC regulatory procedures were "justifiable" limitations
    upon free speech "in a just and democratic Western society".


    From a US perspective, the issue was whether or not Canada would
    uphold copyright law and "exclusive distribution" contracts...
    from that perspective, Canada didn't really have any choice in the matter,
    not without serious kerfuffle that would spill over into all manner
    of contracts. Too high a stakes to not recognize the validity of
    the contracts.


    If there is to be a successful challenge to the law, then it will come
    from an ethnic community which is unable to gain access to programming
    related to its own language, culture, and religion, and the argument
    will be that since StarChoice and ExpressVu have expressed complete
    disinterest in serving those markets, that it is an unreasonable
    imposition upon the members of the community to be denied access
    to stations that are already there in the aether and for which they
    are willing to pay reasonable access fees. Community members would
    have to present copies of letters requesting access from those
    companies, and copies of the companies' replies that they weren't
    interested in providing that service. I have reason to believe that
    that sort of evidence is available.
    --
    Strange but true: there are entire WWW pages devoted to listing
    programs designed to obfuscate HTML.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier wrote:

    >> In Canada, it is not sufficient that one has paid the
    >> broadcaster for reception rights: one has to restrict
    >> oneself to domestic broadcasters (ExpressVu or StarChoice)
    >> for such signals [but unencrypted FTA is legal.]
    >
    > I'm surprised.  Why should the US laws and FCC regs have
    > any effect in Canada (beyond broadcast treaties)?  Does
    > Canadian law have a provision incorporating US law?
    >

    Canadians are not allowed to receive U.S. services, because those companies
    don't have the "rights" to sell in the Canadian market.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Begin <6bQKd.20930$wi2.16903@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
    On 2005-01-29, Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
    > jpd <read_the_sig@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
    >> I know it isn't followed completely, everywhere, but I like the
    >> convention of Rome on this topic a lot, which AIUI basically says
    >> that you can try and receive anything you want.
    >
    > I'd like a reference please. AFAIK, the UK and many EU
    > countries licence and tax TV (&radio) receivers. Is this
    > "freedom to receive"?

    Good point. I know at least .nl had such a provision for the longest
    time, even while there were taxes on having television and radio
    receivers. Now that tax is merged with some other tax (forget which),
    since having a seperate collection body was deemed too expensive.

    Somehow my memory told me it was a convention of this or that, but I
    can't for the life of me find it; it may just be a dutch provision.
    I still like the principle, though. The flipside is that if some
    scanner-user finds out about criminal activity he is bound to let
    the authorities know.


    >> This I see as sensible, because, while sending equipment
    >> is relatively easy to locate by its transmissions, this
    >> doesn't follow for receiving equipment as easily.
    >
    > Maybe not, but the British drive "TV Dectector" vans around.
    > I believe most of these are bogus, but I believe TVs do have
    > a circuit that can be detected at least when powered on.

    Yes. You'll have to ask someone with radio receiver knowledge for
    the details (is there a radio amateur in the cha^Wgroup?), but it
    is possible at least with certain amplified receiver setups. For
    a short distance, anyway.


    >> Which leaves "theft by conversion" (I don't know what that
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    IANAL, but now that you've got me googling anyway, I'd found a definition
    of this at [gacd]. Being awfully pedant, I don't think this is applicable
    since there's no agreement to violate.

    Then again, I don't think .kr has quite the same wording of applicable
    laws (being in the korean language and all) so whether there are similar
    suitable rules I don't know. Looks like an excercise for the OP. :-)


    >> is) or computer abuse, which OP indicates isn't regulated
    >> in his country.
    >
    > Cracking into computers is legal in .kr??? I'd be very surprised
    > if the chaebol would tolerate this.

    I don't know. The OP claimed it wasn't regulated. My point following
    the above (which got snipped) was that I believe parts of the action he
    stated on intending to execute would be an offense on (non-specifically
    computer technical) grounds anyway. There don't happen to be .kr lawyers
    around in this froup, do there?


    > A WAP is a small computer
    > (usually with a MIPS CPU) and a nice web interface. Most keep
    > access logs, and I check mine regularly for interlopers.

    Some people actively don't care: I know of at least one case where
    someone has _two_ access points; one with wep encryption enabled,
    and one wide open with a SSID of "TAKEME"[0] and still a working
    'net connection behind it. This is not to imply you should do any
    different from what you do, of course.


    [0] Or similar wording.
    [gacd] http://www.georgiacriminaldefense.com/crimes/theft.htm

    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  22. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Why should we tell you how to sponge off someone elses internet?

    <xstanley007@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1106979978.510379.14330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi all! I wonder how can I get the internet connection for free, if I
    > have the SSID, Channel and 128 bit WEP key of an AP. I have LinSys
    > bridge, but I don't have wireless card. I'm able to use my bridge to
    > scan ssid and mac address, but not ip. How can I obtain the an ip and
    > internet connection? Thanks in advance!
    >
  23. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    The nerve of some people. Stanley, I suggest you get a job and pay for your
    own services.

    <xstanley007@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1106979978.510379.14330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi all! I wonder how can I get the internet connection for free, if I
    > have the SSID, Channel and 128 bit WEP key of an AP. I have LinSys
    > bridge, but I don't have wireless card. I'm able to use my bridge to
    > scan ssid and mac address, but not ip. How can I obtain the an ip and
    > internet connection? Thanks in advance!
    >
  24. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    jpd wrote:

    (snip)

    >>>This I see as sensible, because, while sending equipment
    >>>is relatively easy to locate by its transmissions, this
    >>>doesn't follow for receiving equipment as easily.

    >>Maybe not, but the British drive "TV Dectector" vans around.
    >>I believe most of these are bogus, but I believe TVs do have
    >>a circuit that can be detected at least when powered on.

    > Yes. You'll have to ask someone with radio receiver knowledge for
    > the details (is there a radio amateur in the cha^Wgroup?), but it
    > is possible at least with certain amplified receiver setups. For
    > a short distance, anyway.

    Do you mean to detect which frequency is being received?

    The resonant circuit in the first stage of the tuner means it
    absorbs slightly more at that frequency than others, but that
    would be pretty hard to detect.

    For many receivers, though, there is enough leakage from the local
    oscillator that one might detect it. This leakage is why radios
    and televisions receivers are not allowed on airplanes in flight,
    and also because the frequencies used for air traffic control aren't
    far from FM radio and TV frequencies.

    The same would probably work for detecting receivers without
    detecting the frequency, though looking for roof antennae would
    be another way.

    There are stories about US government being able to detect
    the RF emission from computer monitors and reconstruct the image
    on the screen. That is, for security reasons.

    -- glen
  25. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Walter Roberson wrote:
    > In article <K7aLd.25574$iC4.962@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
    > Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
    > :I wasn't aware that the FCC regs or enabling law prohibited
    > :any _reception_ in any frequency band. Transmissions are
    > :always regulated.

    > Sec. 15.9 Prohibition against eavesdropping.

    > Except for the operations of law enforcement officers conducted
    > under lawful authority, no person shall use, either directly or
    > indirectly, a device operated pursuant to the provisions of this
    > part for the purpose of overhearing or recording the private
    > conversations of others unless such use is authorized by all of the
    > parties engaging in the conversation.

    This sounds more like wiretapping. There was a story once of
    someone who overheard her neighbor's drug deals through a cordless (not
    cellular) phone on her AM radio. The police came and recorded the
    conversation off the AM radio, and it held up in court.

    It may or may not have if one used a scanner instead, but pretty
    much the law is that one should not expect privacy from a cordless
    phone.

    > Recall that in the US, interception of cell phone calls is
    > generally illegal, with it being illegal to sell consumer devices
    > able to pick up those frequencies. I seem to recall hearing of
    > restrictions on the sale of consumer devices that can pick up
    > emergency or police frequencies. I say "consumer devices" here
    > my recollection is that it is possible to be licensed for this kind of
    > equipment (at least for the police frequencies.)

    There is a special US law regarding cell phones and their frequencies.
    The favorite example being the recording of Newt Gingrich on his
    cell phone.

    > Recall too that in the USA, decryption of satellite TV signals
    > is considered illegal. The FCC regulations are long; I'm not
    > sure I could find a precise reference.

    (snip)

    Well, encryption is different. Also, I am unsure about the ability
    to sell commercially equipment to receive signals that would otherwise
    require a license, and there is also the DMCA to worry about.

    In general though, with specific exceptions, you are allowed to
    receive but not redistribute the information, especially if it
    could be considered unintentional. (Such as the AM radio case above.)
    That is, for personal use only. Of course if you don't tell anyone
    you are much less likely to get caught.

    -- glen
  26. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> writes:

    > Maybe not, but the British drive "TV Dectector" vans around.
    > I believe most of these are bogus, but I believe TVs do have
    > a circuit that can be detected at least when powered on.

    AFAIK, they are detecting noise in the UHF-band from the antenna cable.

    -Øystein
  27. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Begin <1OmdnbbW2ff6yGLcRVn-oQ@comcast.com>
    On 2005-02-01, glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
    > jpd wrote:
    >>>Maybe not, but the British drive "TV Dectector" vans around.
    >>>I believe most of these are bogus, but I believe TVs do have
    >>>a circuit that can be detected at least when powered on.
    >
    >> Yes. You'll have to ask someone with radio receiver knowledge for
    >> the details (is there a radio amateur in the cha^Wgroup?), but it
    >> is possible at least with certain amplified receiver setups. For
    >> a short distance, anyway.
    >
    > Do you mean to detect which frequency is being received?

    Yes. Or at least (for this purpose) to detect reception in a certain
    set of bands. Then you walk up and verify the presence of an apparatus
    capable of doing the stuff you're collecting the taxes for.


    > The resonant circuit in the first stage of the tuner means it
    > absorbs slightly more at that frequency than others, but that
    > would be pretty hard to detect.
    >
    > For many receivers, though, there is enough leakage from the local
    > oscillator that one might detect it. This leakage is why radios
    > and televisions receivers are not allowed on airplanes in flight,
    > and also because the frequencies used for air traffic control aren't
    > far from FM radio and TV frequencies.

    Something I found in a book full of anecdotes and stories, describes a
    slightly different way: one sends out so much that some (part of the)
    amplified reception circuit has to do something with the excess energy,
    and sends it out again. Like prodding in the dark until something goes
    ``eep''. NB, I'm not an EE, the details are hazy as I read that book ten
    years ago, and this all might be a quirk only found in equipment long
    gone, the stories were at least 20 years old back then. Hence the note
    that one'd want to ask someone knowledgeable, say a radio amateur. I
    just remember someone relating an instance where this trick did work.


    > The same would probably work for detecting receivers without
    > detecting the frequency, though looking for roof antennae would
    > be another way.

    For the purpose of weeding out where to look and where to skip, that'd
    be enough already. The point of the electronics is merely to make the
    check more efficient, not to make the checkers obsolete.


    > There are stories about US government being able to detect
    > the RF emission from computer monitors and reconstruct the image
    > on the screen. That is, for security reasons.

    I've seen it demonstrated a couple of years ago, and it does work. But
    that demonstration also showed that the picture contains lots of noise.
    Then again, I've heard it was possible to reconstruct an image from
    the rather scattered image on the wall behind (well, in front of) the
    monitor, so the electromagnetic version of the reconstruction may have
    improved substantially too.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  28. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message news:<24aLd.25572$iC4.24398@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>...

    > Not quite. Every AP is it's own small network that usually
    > has routing to an ISP. But is a separate network, usually
    > with private IP addresses and the router does NAT.

    A simple access point does not do routing or NAT, it's closer in
    function to a switch or bridge.

    Leaving an access point open would be pretty much the same as
    installing an Ethernet port on the outside wall of your building, and
    using an open access point without permission would be the same as
    plugging in to such a port, and using whatever you found you were able
    to connect to.
Ask a new question

Read More

Ethernet Card SSID Internet Connection Networking Product