stealing a network

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Hello!

I just bought a lap top with wireless connection (this is all new to me).

I am not at school... I am home now and the HP people stepped me through
it...

turning on the wireless...
using the software... yadda yadda...

to my surprise, my laptop found 3 non-secure networks in my area.
The technician told me he would not help me do connect...
This is fine.
When we hung up... I tried any way... and connected.

Now... I actually want to AVOID unethical behavior.
So, can someone tell me how I am to know NOT to connect to a particular
network?
How do I know if a particular network my laptop finds is or is not meant for
public use?

Mr. X.
18 answers Last reply
More about stealing network
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Mr. X wrote:

    >Hello!
    >
    >I just bought a lap top with wireless connection (this is all new to me).
    >
    >I am not at school... I am home now and the HP people stepped me through
    >it...
    >
    >turning on the wireless...
    >using the software... yadda yadda...
    >
    >to my surprise, my laptop found 3 non-secure networks in my area.
    >The technician told me he would not help me do connect...
    >This is fine.
    >When we hung up... I tried any way... and connected.
    >
    >Now... I actually want to AVOID unethical behavior.
    >So, can someone tell me how I am to know NOT to connect to a particular
    >network?
    >How do I know if a particular network my laptop finds is or is not meant for
    >public use?
    >
    >Mr. X.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Right click on the wireless network and select 'Disable'.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I did that this morning to stop that network.
    But.. In general,
    How will that tell me if the network is allowed for public use?

    What I need to know is...
    Is it my obligation to know what networks are free?
    How do I find out?
    I see a new one now when I move the laptop around?

    I am trying to understand the moral protocol?
    Is it wrong to connect? Why? How do I know?
    Can I query the network?


    "Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
    news:IxiDc.3387$5N4.1372@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    > Mr. X wrote:
    >
    > >Hello!
    > >
    > >I just bought a lap top with wireless connection (this is all new to me).
    > >
    > >I am not at school... I am home now and the HP people stepped me through
    > >it...
    > >
    > >turning on the wireless...
    > >using the software... yadda yadda...
    > >
    > >to my surprise, my laptop found 3 non-secure networks in my area.
    > >The technician told me he would not help me do connect...
    > >This is fine.
    > >When we hung up... I tried any way... and connected.
    > >
    > >Now... I actually want to AVOID unethical behavior.
    > >So, can someone tell me how I am to know NOT to connect to a particular
    > >network?
    > >How do I know if a particular network my laptop finds is or is not meant
    for
    > >public use?
    > >
    > >Mr. X.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > Right click on the wireless network and select 'Disable'.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Using a wireless network is similar to entering a house with an open door.
    Access is illegal unless it's explicitly granted. Period.

    "Mr. X" <greenbaboon1@cox.net> schreef in bericht
    news:7ijDc.3972$z81.1340@fed1read01...
    > I did that this morning to stop that network.
    > But.. In general,
    > How will that tell me if the network is allowed for public use?
    >
    > What I need to know is...
    > Is it my obligation to know what networks are free?
    > How do I find out?
    > I see a new one now when I move the laptop around?
    >
    > I am trying to understand the moral protocol?
    > Is it wrong to connect? Why? How do I know?
    > Can I query the network?
    >
    >
    > "Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
    > news:IxiDc.3387$5N4.1372@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    > > Mr. X wrote:
    > >
    > > >Hello!
    > > >
    > > >I just bought a lap top with wireless connection (this is all new to
    me).
    > > >
    > > >I am not at school... I am home now and the HP people stepped me
    through
    > > >it...
    > > >
    > > >turning on the wireless...
    > > >using the software... yadda yadda...
    > > >
    > > >to my surprise, my laptop found 3 non-secure networks in my area.
    > > >The technician told me he would not help me do connect...
    > > >This is fine.
    > > >When we hung up... I tried any way... and connected.
    > > >
    > > >Now... I actually want to AVOID unethical behavior.
    > > >So, can someone tell me how I am to know NOT to connect to a particular
    > > >network?
    > > >How do I know if a particular network my laptop finds is or is not
    meant
    > for
    > > >public use?
    > > >
    > > >Mr. X.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > Right click on the wireless network and select 'Disable'.
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Well if the wireless network flows on to my property then
    it is my property for my use. If I walk on to the property of the wireless
    owner then I am stealing. I have a neighbor who broadcast an open 2.4G
    that I have used. I told my neighbor that his system is open but he says he
    doesn't care who uses it. Stupid.

    "Hans Vlems" <hvlems.dotweg@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
    news:2ke7a3F1cq9nU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > Using a wireless network is similar to entering a house with an open door.
    > Access is illegal unless it's explicitly granted. Period.
    >
    > "Mr. X" <greenbaboon1@cox.net> schreef in bericht
    > news:7ijDc.3972$z81.1340@fed1read01...
    > > I did that this morning to stop that network.
    > > But.. In general,
    > > How will that tell me if the network is allowed for public use?
    > >
    > > What I need to know is...
    > > Is it my obligation to know what networks are free?
    > > How do I find out?
    > > I see a new one now when I move the laptop around?
    > >
    > > I am trying to understand the moral protocol?
    > > Is it wrong to connect? Why? How do I know?
    > > Can I query the network?
    > >
    > >
    > > "Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
    > > news:IxiDc.3387$5N4.1372@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    > > > Mr. X wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >Hello!
    > > > >
    > > > >I just bought a lap top with wireless connection (this is all new to
    > me).
    > > > >
    > > > >I am not at school... I am home now and the HP people stepped me
    > through
    > > > >it...
    > > > >
    > > > >turning on the wireless...
    > > > >using the software... yadda yadda...
    > > > >
    > > > >to my surprise, my laptop found 3 non-secure networks in my area.
    > > > >The technician told me he would not help me do connect...
    > > > >This is fine.
    > > > >When we hung up... I tried any way... and connected.
    > > > >
    > > > >Now... I actually want to AVOID unethical behavior.
    > > > >So, can someone tell me how I am to know NOT to connect to a
    particular
    > > > >network?
    > > > >How do I know if a particular network my laptop finds is or is not
    > meant
    > > for
    > > > >public use?
    > > > >
    > > > >Mr. X.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > Right click on the wireless network and select 'Disable'.
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    In article <phiDc.3730$z81.3070@fed1read01>,
    Mr. X <greenbaboon1@cox.net> wrote:
    > How do I know if a particular network my laptop finds is or is not meant for
    > public use?

    You could:

    1. Connect to the router/AP in question
    2. Get your IP address at e.g. http://www.whatismyip.com/
    3. Look up that address at e.g. http://samspade.org/
    4. Call the ISP who gave out that address, and see of you can find out who
    had it at that time
    5. Notify the owner

    Probably the ISP won't give you the info for step #4. I wouldn't, if I were
    the ISP, unless you had a warrant. In that case, you can ask them to notify
    the computer owner.

    --
    -eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
    SAGITTARIUS: All your friends are laughing behind your back... kill
    them. Take down all those naked pictures of Ernest Borgnine you've got
    hanging in your den. -- Weird Al, _Your Horoscope for Today_
  6. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Christian" <nomail.please@no.com> wrote in message
    news:qcGEc.23541$wS2.2885@okepread03...
    > Well if the wireless network flows on to my property then
    > it is my property for my use.

    You can wish that this is true, but that won't make it legally so.

    Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Hans Vlems" <hvlems.dotweg@zonnet.nl> wrote in message news:<2ke7a3F1cq9nU1@uni-berlin.de>...
    > Using a wireless network is similar to entering a house with an open door.
    > Access is illegal unless it's explicitly granted. Period.

    In what jurisdictions? Based on what statutes and case law? And what
    defines "explicitly granted" permission?

    What about connecting to a mail server to send mail? Do I need
    "explicitly granted" permission for that, too?

    I don't think the courts (at least around here) have settled this, and
    quite frankly I'm not entirely sure that an open signal being broadcast
    wouldn't count as an invitation to use it. If you close up your house
    and go to work but don't actually lock it, someone going in and watching
    TV without your permission would be violating laws in most jurisdictions
    I'm at all familiar with. If you left the door wide open and a sign
    by the street reading "Usable cable connection inside and door
    is open", you'd probably be looking at a different set of caselaw and
    have a much harder time convincing the courts that it was
    unreasonable for a passerby to passively detect your available
    TV (he/she can do it from the street without any particular effort,
    just as the original poster was able to detect wireless networks
    in the normal course of operating his/her computer). "Attractive
    nuisance" caselaw would probably play in here, as well, and
    the mindset of the passerby would also matter (a lot).

    Of course, I am not a lawyer; I'm just of the belief that a
    good lawyer should be able to convince a court that an open
    wireless network is as much of an invitation to connect as
    an open port 25 is an invitation to try and send email.

    --
    Kevin
    sparty_3 (at) yahoo (dot) com
  8. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I've been marking public access networks with a '.public' suffix:

    http://www.dotpublic.com/

    But the practice isn't widely adopted...

    Best,
    Alf

    On 2004-06-26 11:31:49 -0700, "Mr. X" <greenbaboon1@cox.net> said:

    > I did that this morning to stop that network.
    > But.. In general,
    > How will that tell me if the network is allowed for public use?
    >
    > What I need to know is...
    > Is it my obligation to know what networks are free?
    > How do I find out?
    > I see a new one now when I move the laptop around?
    >
    > I am trying to understand the moral protocol?
    > Is it wrong to connect? Why? How do I know?
    > Can I query the network?
    >
    >
    > "Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
    > news:IxiDc.3387$5N4.1372@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    >> Mr. X wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hello!
    >>>
    >>> I just bought a lap top with wireless connection (this is all new to me).
    >>>
    >>> I am not at school... I am home now and the HP people stepped me through
    >>> it...
    >>>
    >>> turning on the wireless...
    >>> using the software... yadda yadda...
    >>>
    >>> to my surprise, my laptop found 3 non-secure networks in my area.
    >>> The technician told me he would not help me do connect...
    >>> This is fine.
    >>> When we hung up... I tried any way... and connected.
    >>>
    >>> Now... I actually want to AVOID unethical behavior.
    >>> So, can someone tell me how I am to know NOT to connect to a particular
    >>> network?
    >>> How do I know if a particular network my laptop finds is or is not meant
    > for
    >>> public use?
    >>>
    >>> Mr. X.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >> Right click on the wireless network and select 'Disable'.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Well Ron, I see no difference in taping a AM or FM radio broadcast. The 2.4
    band is open to everyone to use, if you don't take action to secure your
    wireless network then you are offering it for "free" use.

    "Ron Bandes" <RunderscoreBandes @yah00.com> wrote in message
    news:yKOEc.58913$OT6.23783544@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    >
    > "Christian" <nomail.please@no.com> wrote in message
    > news:qcGEc.23541$wS2.2885@okepread03...
    > > Well if the wireless network flows on to my property then
    > > it is my property for my use.
    >
    > You can wish that this is true, but that won't make it legally so.
    >
    > Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Kevin 'Sparty' Broderick" <sparty_3@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:70e8db1a.0407010819.1fffcfc5@posting.google.com...
    > "Hans Vlems" <hvlems.dotweg@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
    news:<2ke7a3F1cq9nU1@vni-berlin.de>...
    > > Using a wireless network is similar to entering a hovse with an open
    door.
    > > Access is illegal vnless it's explicitly granted. Period.
    >
    > In what jvrisdictions? Based on what statvtes and case law? And what
    > defines "explicitly granted" permission?
    >
    > What abovt connecting to a mail server to send mail? Do I need
    > "explicitly granted" permission for that, too?

    This analogy is flawed, becavse yov are generally svpported by an email
    server belonging to the ISP with whom yov have a contract. The ISP in tvrn
    has contracts with other providers for internet backhavl. Any intermediate
    servers that process yovr IP transactions are vltimately paid for by yov, in
    yovr monthly fee - and they are all legitimately accessed vnder a whole
    chain of interlocking contracts, stretching back to yov. If yov have web
    email, the website owner is paying for commercial backhavl, and has a
    contractval right to pvt vp a website that says, "vse my email, please". In
    this case, the contractval chain probably stops with the website owner, who
    has an explicit contract right to allow yov access to email service.

    And yes, yov also need explicit permission. Yovr contract with the ISP gives
    it. Yov cannot reach any server owned by yovr ISP withovt the IP address. In
    reality, most of the addresses are well-known, bvt if a nonsvbscriber asks,
    companies like Timer Warner will not vsvally give ovt these addresses. Most
    ISP servers disable email relay so that yov cannot originate email on their
    servers from ovtside their svbnet. Yov can retrieve it, bvt if yov're not a
    svbscriber, there's nothing to retrieve.

    >
    > I don't think the covrts (at least arovnd here) have settled this, and
    > qvite frankly I'm not entirely svre that an open signal being broadcast
    > wovldn't covnt as an invitation to vse it.

    As we've discvssed many times before in this grovp. "intercepting a signal"
    and "vsing a service" are two separate things.

    >If yov close vp yovr hovse
    > and go to work bvt don't actvally lock it, someone going in and watching
    > TV withovt yovr permission wovld be violating laws in most jvrisdictions
    > I'm at all familiar with. If yov left the door wide open and a sign
    > by the street reading "Usable cable connection inside and door
    > is open", yov'd probably be looking at a different set of caselaw and
    > have a mvch harder time convincing the covrts that it was
    > vnreasonable for a passerby to passively detect yovr available
    > TV (he/she can do it from the street withovt any particvlar effort,
    > jvst as the original poster was able to detect wireless networks
    > in the normal covrse of operating his/her compvter). "Attractive
    > nvisance" caselaw wovld probably play in here, as well, and
    > the mindset of the passerby wovld also matter (a lot).

    This is an interesting case. What abovt all the bars, taverns, stvdent
    vnions, and coffee shops with TVs on the wall? These scenarios captvre the
    point of yovr analogy, bvt they actvally occvr, and no trespass laws are
    involved.

    I don't claim to be a lawyer. Bvt my vnsophisticated gvess wovld be that the
    cvstomers are completely off the hook, becavse they have a reasonable
    expectation that a commercial enterprise has a legitimate right to offer any
    of their amenities, TV inclvded. I'm not so svre a covrt wovld find that
    there is a reasonable expectation that an anonymovs homeowner who leaves a
    sign on an empty hovse has a right to offer his TV to all comers. In fact,
    some reasonable people might infer that a neighbor is playing a nasty
    practical joke. I don't honestly think the sign and the open door wovld be a
    defense of yovr right to watch his TV (which yov vnavoidably detected), let
    alone a defense against trespass.. It always comes down to, "what wovld a
    reasonable person do (or think)".

    As for the commercial example, the only qvestion left is, does the owner
    have the right? Well, if the cable company agrees to hook vp cable in a
    bar - and I gvarantee they know it's a bar, even if they don't roll a
    trvck - I think that can be constrved as permission. In fact, I wovld gvess
    that bvsinesses with TVs in pvblic areas have some kind of commercial
    agreement that explicitly allows it. Even if they don't, the cable company
    clearly has knowledge and allows it, which is permission.

    >
    > Of covrse, I am not a lawyer; I'm jvst of the belief that a
    > good lawyer shovld be able to convince a covrt that an open
    > wireless network is as mvch of an invitation to connect as
    > an open port 25 is an invitation to try and send email.
    >
    > --
    > Kevin
    > sparty_3 (at) yahoo (dot) com
  11. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    In article <LZ%Ec.307$r3.280@okepread03>,
    Christian <nomail.please@no.com> wrote:
    :Well Ron, I see no difference in taping a AM or FM radio broadcast. The 2.4
    :band is open to everyone to vse, if yov don't take action to secvre yovr
    :wireless network then yov are offering it for "free" vse.

    When yov are taping the AM or FM radio broadcast, is yovr taping
    eqvipment sending ovt signals that alter what the AM or FM broadcast
    sends? Or are yov jvst passively receiving the signal withovt affecting
    what is transmitted? Certainly when yov vse someone else's wireless
    network, yov are changing what their eqvipment is trasnmitting.


    When yov are taping the AM or FM radio broadcast, then have the
    performers/artists been paid a performance fee and a royalty fee
    reflecting that the broadcast will be taking place?

    My spovse receives "American Mvsician", the vnion tabloid of the
    mvsicians vnion one mvst be a member of in order to professionally
    perform pvblically in the USA [e.g., US Immigration won't let Canadian
    performers across the border for a gig withovt the membership]. The
    rag makes for interesting reading at times becavse it spells ovt
    *exactly* what vnion pay rates are variovs circvmstances -- and
    the rates differ for performances between a live avdience, live radio
    broadcasts of a live performance, recording a live performance for
    later radio broadcast, or recording for CD/record release. (Some of the
    contracts are starting to have specific residval rates for the
    "extra featvres" sections on DVDs.) When yov hear that broadcast,
    the performers have been paid for the broadcast, and the performers
    receive a royalty for each time the radio plays the work [bvt if yov
    really want to make the money, yov shovld be the song-writer, not jvst
    the stvdio mvsician.]

    When yov vse someone's vnsecvred wireless network, is the ISP being
    paid for that vsage? Does the network owner have to periodically tvrn in his
    stvdio logs so that the ISP can calcvlate the several fees and distribvte
    the money appropriately?


    In other words, the sitvations aren't the same at all. Not even close.
    --
    Warning: potentially contains traces of nvts.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    > Well Ron, I see no difference in taping a AM or FM radio broadcast. The 2.4

    They are public broadcasts for the use of the listening public. Taping
    the broadcast is covered by copyright law.

    > band is open to everyone to use, if you don't take action to secure your
    > wireless network then you are offering it for "free" use.

    Wishful thinking continues!

    Roads are there for public use too, how about you try driving on the
    other side of the road "because it's there" and "there's nothing to stop
    you". Making up your own rules to suit yourself doesn't make it true
    and whether open access legal cases have had a precedent set yet or not
    doesn't make it any more right.

    Tell you what, how about you run an open AP, let us all know where it is
    then we can come round and download all the porn and warez we can, we'll
    take special care to upload at the same time and kill your bandwidth,
    that work for you?!

    :)

    David.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "gary" <pleasenospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<pU_Ec.9778$Rj6.5138@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
    [CHOMP]
    > This analogy is flawed, because you are generally supported by an email
    > server belonging to the ISP with whom you have a contract. The ISP in turn
    > has contracts with other providers for internet backhaul. Any intermediate
    > servers that process your IP transactions are ultimately paid for by you, in
    > your monthly fee - and they are all legitimately accessed under a whole
    > chain of interlocking contracts, stretching back to you. If you have web
    > email, the website owner is paying for commercial backhaul, and has a
    > contractual right to put up a website that says, "use my email, please". In
    > this case, the contractual chain probably stops with the website owner, who
    > has an explicit contract right to allow you access to email service.

    I don't see how my contractual agreement with my ISP creates a granting of
    permission between myself and a third party who has a mail server, unless
    my ISP has a specific agreement with that third party (e.g. Verizon and MSN).

    > And yes, you also need explicit permission. Your contract with the ISP gives
    > it. You cannot reach any server owned by your ISP without the IP address. In
    > reality, most of the addresses are well-known, but if a nonsubscriber asks,
    > companies like Timer Warner will not usually give out these addresses. Most
    > ISP servers disable email relay so that you cannot originate email on their
    > servers from outside their subnet. You can retrieve it, but if you're not a
    > subscriber, there's nothing to retrieve.

    And turning off email relaying is the same as turning on WEP or MAC
    filtering (probably more akin to the latter than the former); it's a
    machine-readable way of saying, "No, you don't have permission to use
    this service." For what it's worth, Time-Warner does give out these
    addresses...go to http://www.help.rr.com/, go through the "select
    your area" prompt, skip the email customization, and there's a prominient
    link to "Server Addresses", revealing that the SMTP server has a DNS name
    of smtp-server.sw.rr.com, which resolves to 24.93.40.21. In many cases,
    those outgoing mail servers will also be listed as MX records in the ISP's
    DNS, so it's quite possible to find many of them without even visiting
    support webpages and such.

    I would assert that, particularly if an outgoing mail server is listed as an
    MX server, that connecting to it and attempting to send mail is
    implicitly granted by the simple fact that TCP port 25 is accepting
    connections. If I was running an ISP and had my own outgoing mail
    servers, it would be completely reasonable for me to look up the
    MX records for a domain and connect to port 25 of that domain's
    mail server without first contacting the other ISP and getting explicit
    permission to do so. The act of connecting the server to the
    Internet with port 25 open and the server address broadcast either
    via webpage or via MX records seems to be more than sufficient
    of an invitation to connect to that server for the purpose of sending
    legit email. If that server then accepts the mail for delivery (either
    as the destination MX or as a relay), then it has indicated by a
    technical means that the user has permission to send email.

    More generally, we have an established standard (per IANA assigned
    ports, SMTP RFCs, and DNS RFCs) to let computers find available
    services without direct human interaction (particularly, no specific
    request or explicit permission granted by one human to another).
    Those standards also provide specific technical means to deny
    permission (block port 25, by IP range if desired, and reject mail
    from sources deemed to be undesirable, for example).

    To me, that seems rather similar to the situation with WiFi--we have
    established standards for providing notice of an available wireless
    network (broadcasting SSID, possibly in addition to signs or whatnot
    if desired), and established standards for limiting access (WEP, MAC
    filtering, and/or captive gateways that allow unknown clients to associate
    with the network but not to get anywhere).

    The obvious difference I do see between SMTP and WiFi is that it's
    much harder to walk into {your favorite big box store here}, buy
    a piece of hardware, go home, and plug it in to establish a
    publicly-accessible service (particularly with MX records).

    If your primary goal is then to avoid "stealing a network", the
    most correct course of action would probably be to investigate
    further before using a network for which you have only implicit
    permission (in the form of the broadcast SSID, no MAC filtering,
    and no WEP). However, the "reasonable person" standard would
    suggest that just using an available network is generally legal
    (on the assumption that most people, who are not particularly
    informed about the details of 802.11 and who do not want to
    be informed about the details of 802.11, would respond to
    an available network connection by either thinking, "cool,
    I have a connection" or just assuming that it was one they had
    permission to use (possibly even thinking that it was one they
    had used elsewhere, based on my experience trying to
    explain the difference between cell-based data service and
    802.11b to non-technical folks)).

    [CHOMP--convoluted open-door of house analogy]
    > As for the commercial example, the only question left is, does the owner
    > have the right? Well, if the cable company agrees to hook up cable in a
    > bar - and I guarantee they know it's a bar, even if they don't roll a
    > truck - I think that can be construed as permission. In fact, I would guess
    > that businesses with TVs in public areas have some kind of commercial
    > agreement that explicitly allows it. Even if they don't, the cable company
    > clearly has knowledge and allows it, which is permission.

    Unless the final user has a specific reason to think that the
    provider does not have the right to share some service with them,
    would the legitimacy of their use ever depend on the agreement
    between two other parties? If they don't have a third-party responsibility
    of some sort, any AUP agreed to by the party providing the WiFi access
    (or the mail server access, in the analogy earlier) does not apply to
    the final user, although the final user's violation of it could quite
    reasonably be an actionable breach of contract on the part of the
    ISP's customer (who is providing the access).
  14. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Federal law and FCC regulations specifically state that UNAUTHORIZED access
    to radio transmissions in one or two way modes, cabled or over the air, is a
    felony. No IFs ANDs or BUTs. Certain frequencies are used for open access
    such as the broadcast bands that are used for am and fm radio and television
    broadcasts, some require a license to transmit on but can be openly
    monitored such as the Amateur radio frequencies and others are closed to
    ONLY single station to station use such as cellular phone frequencies and
    the frequencies allotted to digital communications.
    "Christian" <nomail.please@no.com> wrote in message
    news:qcGEc.23541$wS2.2885@okepread03...
    > Well if the wireless network flows on to my property then
    > it is my property for my use. If I walk on to the property of the
    wireless
    > owner then I am stealing. I have a neighbor who broadcast an open 2.4G
    > that I have used. I told my neighbor that his system is open but he says
    he
    > doesn't care who uses it. Stupid.
    >
    > "Hans Vlems" <hvlems.dotweg@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
    > news:2ke7a3F1cq9nU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > > Using a wireless network is similar to entering a house with an open
    door.
    > > Access is illegal unless it's explicitly granted. Period.
    > >
    > > "Mr. X" <greenbaboon1@cox.net> schreef in bericht
    > > news:7ijDc.3972$z81.1340@fed1read01...
    > > > I did that this morning to stop that network.
    > > > But.. In general,
    > > > How will that tell me if the network is allowed for public use?
    > > >
    > > > What I need to know is...
    > > > Is it my obligation to know what networks are free?
    > > > How do I find out?
    > > > I see a new one now when I move the laptop around?
    > > >
    > > > I am trying to understand the moral protocol?
    > > > Is it wrong to connect? Why? How do I know?
    > > > Can I query the network?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
    > > > news:IxiDc.3387$5N4.1372@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    > > > > Mr. X wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > >Hello!
    > > > > >
    > > > > >I just bought a lap top with wireless connection (this is all new
    to
    > > me).
    > > > > >
    > > > > >I am not at school... I am home now and the HP people stepped me
    > > through
    > > > > >it...
    > > > > >
    > > > > >turning on the wireless...
    > > > > >using the software... yadda yadda...
    > > > > >
    > > > > >to my surprise, my laptop found 3 non-secure networks in my area.
    > > > > >The technician told me he would not help me do connect...
    > > > > >This is fine.
    > > > > >When we hung up... I tried any way... and connected.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >Now... I actually want to AVOID unethical behavior.
    > > > > >So, can someone tell me how I am to know NOT to connect to a
    > particular
    > > > > >network?
    > > > > >How do I know if a particular network my laptop finds is or is not
    > > meant
    > > > for
    > > > > >public use?
    > > > > >
    > > > > >Mr. X.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > Right click on the wireless network and select 'Disable'.
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  15. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Unavthorized access to a wireless network is a crime, jvst do a bit of
    research and check ovt the nvmber recent convictions that have been taking
    place, ZDNet is a good place to start. As far as connecting to a mailserver,
    yes yov do need explicit permission... it's called an EMAIL ACCOUNT.
    "gary" <pleasenospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:pU_Ec.9778$Rj6.5138@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    > "Kevin 'Sparty' Broderick" <sparty_3@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:70e8db1a.0407010819.1fffcfc5@posting.google.com...
    > > "Hans Vlems" <hvlems.dotweg@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
    > news:<2ke7a3F1cq9nU1@vni-berlin.de>...
    > > > Using a wireless network is similar to entering a hovse with an open
    > door.
    > > > Access is illegal vnless it's explicitly granted. Period.
    > >
    > > In what jvrisdictions? Based on what statvtes and case law? And what
    > > defines "explicitly granted" permission?
    > >
    > > What abovt connecting to a mail server to send mail? Do I need
    > > "explicitly granted" permission for that, too?
    >
    > This analogy is flawed, becavse yov are generally svpported by an email
    > server belonging to the ISP with whom yov have a contract. The ISP in tvrn
    > has contracts with other providers for internet backhavl. Any intermediate
    > servers that process yovr IP transactions are vltimately paid for by yov,
    in
    > yovr monthly fee - and they are all legitimately accessed vnder a whole
    > chain of interlocking contracts, stretching back to yov. If yov have web
    > email, the website owner is paying for commercial backhavl, and has a
    > contractval right to pvt vp a website that says, "vse my email, please".
    In
    > this case, the contractval chain probably stops with the website owner,
    who
    > has an explicit contract right to allow yov access to email service.
    >
    > And yes, yov also need explicit permission. Yovr contract with the ISP
    gives
    > it. Yov cannot reach any server owned by yovr ISP withovt the IP address.
    In
    > reality, most of the addresses are well-known, bvt if a nonsvbscriber
    asks,
    > companies like Timer Warner will not vsvally give ovt these addresses.
    Most
    > ISP servers disable email relay so that yov cannot originate email on
    their
    > servers from ovtside their svbnet. Yov can retrieve it, bvt if yov're not
    a
    > svbscriber, there's nothing to retrieve.
    >
    > >
    > > I don't think the covrts (at least arovnd here) have settled this, and
    > > qvite frankly I'm not entirely svre that an open signal being broadcast
    > > wovldn't covnt as an invitation to vse it.
    >
    > As we've discvssed many times before in this grovp. "intercepting a
    signal"
    > and "vsing a service" are two separate things.
    >
    > >If yov close vp yovr hovse
    > > and go to work bvt don't actvally lock it, someone going in and watching
    > > TV withovt yovr permission wovld be violating laws in most jvrisdictions
    > > I'm at all familiar with. If yov left the door wide open and a sign
    > > by the street reading "Usable cable connection inside and door
    > > is open", yov'd probably be looking at a different set of caselaw and
    > > have a mvch harder time convincing the covrts that it was
    > > vnreasonable for a passerby to passively detect yovr available
    > > TV (he/she can do it from the street withovt any particvlar effort,
    > > jvst as the original poster was able to detect wireless networks
    > > in the normal covrse of operating his/her compvter). "Attractive
    > > nvisance" caselaw wovld probably play in here, as well, and
    > > the mindset of the passerby wovld also matter (a lot).
    >
    > This is an interesting case. What abovt all the bars, taverns, stvdent
    > vnions, and coffee shops with TVs on the wall? These scenarios captvre the
    > point of yovr analogy, bvt they actvally occvr, and no trespass laws are
    > involved.
    >
    > I don't claim to be a lawyer. Bvt my vnsophisticated gvess wovld be that
    the
    > cvstomers are completely off the hook, becavse they have a reasonable
    > expectation that a commercial enterprise has a legitimate right to offer
    any
    > of their amenities, TV inclvded. I'm not so svre a covrt wovld find that
    > there is a reasonable expectation that an anonymovs homeowner who leaves a
    > sign on an empty hovse has a right to offer his TV to all comers. In fact,
    > some reasonable people might infer that a neighbor is playing a nasty
    > practical joke. I don't honestly think the sign and the open door wovld be
    a
    > defense of yovr right to watch his TV (which yov vnavoidably detected),
    let
    > alone a defense against trespass.. It always comes down to, "what wovld a
    > reasonable person do (or think)".
    >
    > As for the commercial example, the only qvestion left is, does the owner
    > have the right? Well, if the cable company agrees to hook vp cable in a
    > bar - and I gvarantee they know it's a bar, even if they don't roll a
    > trvck - I think that can be constrved as permission. In fact, I wovld
    gvess
    > that bvsinesses with TVs in pvblic areas have some kind of commercial
    > agreement that explicitly allows it. Even if they don't, the cable company
    > clearly has knowledge and allows it, which is permission.
    >
    > >
    > > Of covrse, I am not a lawyer; I'm jvst of the belief that a
    > > good lawyer shovld be able to convince a covrt that an open
    > > wireless network is as mvch of an invitation to connect as
    > > an open port 25 is an invitation to try and send email.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Kevin
    > > sparty_3 (at) yahoo (dot) com
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 18:10:47 -0400, Christian spoketh

    >Well Ron, I see no difference in taping a AM or FM radio broadcast. The 2.4
    >band is open to everyone to use, if you don't take action to secure your
    >wireless network then you are offering it for "free" use.
    >

    That's about as dumb as saying if you forget to lock your door you are
    inviting people to move in ...

    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
  17. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    The airplane that flies over your property is yours too, right.
    Please get some legal counsel before you get into trouble.

    "Christian" <nomail.please@no.com> schreef in bericht
    news:qcGEc.23541$wS2.2885@okepread03...
    > Well if the wireless network flows on to my property then
    > it is my property for my use. If I walk on to the property of the
    wireless
    > owner then I am stealing. I have a neighbor who broadcast an open 2.4G
    > that I have used. I told my neighbor that his system is open but he says
    he
    > doesn't care who uses it. Stupid.
    >
    > "Hans Vlems" <hvlems.dotweg@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
    > news:2ke7a3F1cq9nU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > > Using a wireless network is similar to entering a house with an open
    door.
    > > Access is illegal unless it's explicitly granted. Period.
    > >
    > > "Mr. X" <greenbaboon1@cox.net> schreef in bericht
    > > news:7ijDc.3972$z81.1340@fed1read01...
    > > > I did that this morning to stop that network.
    > > > But.. In general,
    > > > How will that tell me if the network is allowed for public use?
    > > >
    > > > What I need to know is...
    > > > Is it my obligation to know what networks are free?
    > > > How do I find out?
    > > > I see a new one now when I move the laptop around?
    > > >
    > > > I am trying to understand the moral protocol?
    > > > Is it wrong to connect? Why? How do I know?
    > > > Can I query the network?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
    > > > news:IxiDc.3387$5N4.1372@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    > > > > Mr. X wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > >Hello!
    > > > > >
    > > > > >I just bought a lap top with wireless connection (this is all new
    to
    > > me).
    > > > > >
    > > > > >I am not at school... I am home now and the HP people stepped me
    > > through
    > > > > >it...
    > > > > >
    > > > > >turning on the wireless...
    > > > > >using the software... yadda yadda...
    > > > > >
    > > > > >to my surprise, my laptop found 3 non-secure networks in my area.
    > > > > >The technician told me he would not help me do connect...
    > > > > >This is fine.
    > > > > >When we hung up... I tried any way... and connected.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >Now... I actually want to AVOID unethical behavior.
    > > > > >So, can someone tell me how I am to know NOT to connect to a
    > particular
    > > > > >network?
    > > > > >How do I know if a particular network my laptop finds is or is not
    > > meant
    > > > for
    > > > > >public use?
    > > > > >
    > > > > >Mr. X.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > Right click on the wireless network and select 'Disable'.
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I would myslef just use the network, I have a laptop that I do not keep
    important info on. All my important stuff is kept on a CDRW or a
    flashdrive. That way I can roam open networks without worry.


    "Mr. X" <greenbaboon1@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:phiDc.3730$z81.3070@fed1read01...
    > Hello!
    >
    > I just bought a lap top with wireless connection (this is all new to me).
    >
    > I am not at school... I am home now and the HP people stepped me through
    > it...
    >
    > turning on the wireless...
    > using the software... yadda yadda...
    >
    > to my surprise, my laptop found 3 non-secure networks in my area.
    > The technician told me he would not help me do connect...
    > This is fine.
    > When we hung up... I tried any way... and connected.
    >
    > Now... I actually want to AVOID unethical behavior.
    > So, can someone tell me how I am to know NOT to connect to a particular
    > network?
    > How do I know if a particular network my laptop finds is or is not meant
    for
    > public use?
    >
    > Mr. X.
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Wireless Connection Wireless Networking