Man in Florida arrested who was using unauthorized Wi-Fi - Page 6

I will admit, Dozzet, you do make some very convincing arguments (be careful, all those posts-in-a-row can get you a NOTW nomination ).

OK, putting myself in either of their shoes...

As the owner, I think I would be more ticked off at myself than I would be at someone who used it because of own ignorance. And then I would secure my network then and there.

As the user, I would probably almost be saying, "OK, OK, already! I'll pay him the $3 of bandwidth I used!"

But think about this: how many computers come out of the box from BestBuy/Futureshop/Office Depot/Staples/etc., etc., etc., bundled with AOL and other ISP junk? How many notebooks now come with built-in wifi? How many saleman drones tell customers that they can just power it up and go online? How many of these customers know so little about computers that they may happen to think a neighbor's insecure wireless connection is actually their connection because that's what they understood from the salesman? Who do we blame then?

tsukihime,

Myself, I dont understand if i should be guilty or not!
it is what I said in my previous post, if I knew all these complications will arise , certainly I would not have connected my laptop on this line.

I lost already 8$ of stamps, and 4-5 hours of my "precious time" to write letters about this case.

with the millions of laptops sold worldwide and with the "SUPER wifi (wimax)"coming out soon , we will have surely some good laughs to share in the futur....

epp b:

right, the brodcaster has changed his line, wep key and no name indicated this time(I came back to the "crime scene").
i think he felt very stupid when they cops told him to install a key or guys like me will come to use the WIFI.
then he tried to make me paid 500$ to cover his stupidity and blame me in same time.I didnt give him this pleasure...

Like i said in an earlier post , thats one big problem , the fact is that , wireless is just getting bigger and bigger , and we are just at the beginning ...

This problem is not just related to wireless , it is affecting the computer world right now ,

you guys know that computer technology , is going at insane speed and improving every single day , the "average user" is in no way informed about all the new things coming out , how many people do you know who are asking you , what is a processor ? alot ... alot of people dont know anything about computer hardwares , they know how to start it up , write a letter on word , go on google , then send an email , but ask them what kind of memory the got in the computer and .. no idea

Now like i said earlier , everyone is excited , that they can be navigate internet while sitting on the toilet with their laptop , how cool is that , well pretty great if you ask me , but do you think they know what a wep key is ... do you think they know how to disable the SSID , and what the hell is SSID ... do they know how to filter MAC adress , off course not ....

And if you dont tell the customer , what are the cons and pros about wireless internet , well they probably wont sit in front of their new Wirelsss router and wonder , is that thing secure .... not really ....

If we dont tell them that wireless is a great thing , as long as you protect it , but if youre just gonna say , well you have to protect it , they wont , if you tell them that someone could park in front of their house use their internet to hack the CIA , and that when they come home , the FBI is waiting for them , well they might take it a little bit more seriously ... the problem is the few of them who knows that they have to secure their router , they dont know the consequences of not doing so ...

So off course im with you here , its hard to blame a customer if he is not informed about anything , but the problem itself mostly come from customer since they dont know the consequences of not being protected , my CIA scenario was abit extreme , but if you tell this do a customer , im pretty sure is gonna sit in front of his computer , and will probably read the manual , or call the manufacturer like , Lynksys , Netgear and get some infos on how to protect your router to obtain maximum security

again, we make the default for all wireless hardware set to encrypted from the factory... that puts the onus on the user to make it public/non-encrypted...

then if there's a problem, the user carries some responsiblity...

if someone complains about stolen signals (not hacked), they would be asked "why did you choose to make it public?"

actually i think that if everything came encrypted and with proper warnings/explanations, there wouldn't really be much of a problem... most of these people use it as it comes and most people would not remove the protection unless they wanted it to be public...

my personal solution: i use A band... i assume that the vast majority of wardrivers, etc. are scanning for G band... plus i don't transmit my SSID, i use WPA-PSK, MAC filtering, everything i can think of...

bottom line: this is similar to any type of security - it doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough to make the thieves move to an easier target... hehe

what is A band? what is PSK?

"why did you chose to make it public???"
the broadcaster:" what do you mean? public? it is not public, what do you mean by public?".

" the accusee had no problem to intercept your signal, how do you explain that?"

the broadcaster:"huh? I dont understand the question, it is my line, so he doesnt have to go on my line....what do you mean by intercept, and how can a guy can get access of the internet which is in MY shop"

the judge:"whatever"....

See i totally get your point , but there is a little something in there that i dont like , i mean lets put it this way .

You build yourself a new house , everything is done , you move in , and you decide not to put a lock on your door , then at night someone comes in and just walk around inside of your house , he isnt doing anything wrong , hes just walking around the house , looking at how well your house is decorated

you wake up and by suprise one night you catch him , youll call the police and he is automaticly presumed as a thief...

Why?? he didint do nothing wrong , and i mean you decided not to put locks on your door , the police are gonna tell you to put locks on your door to be sure that things like that wont happen again ... but why is he seen as a criminal even if he did not do anything ... and still in this situation even without lock it doesnt mean it was open to public ....

So we cant say that if there is no lock it automaticly becomes "public" we have to draw a line somewhere , and that "somewhere" to me should be , that you should not use any signals for which you didint receive permission .. else youll have too much , "guy walking around in your house doing nothing" and its gonna be hell of a ride to decide say whos guilty and whos not ...

first, he IS doing something wrong, he's trespassing, he's breaking the law so your whole premise fails since that's the foundation you built it on, sorry but nice shot...

please refer to my post about breaking OR entering...

legally there are three classes of people who are on your property:
1) trespasser - someone who is on your property without your permission
2) licensee - this is someone you invite on your property
3) invitee - this only applies to retail stores and the like... by there very nature they are inviting you onto their property...

Ok then a guy walking around in my house doing nothing , will be judge just like someone who is standing by on my driveway ???

Sorry but that wouldnt make sense...

i understand that English is not your first language (but i'm certain that you know it much better than most of us know our second language, that is IF we even know one lol)... so i'm assumin' that the above are serious questions...

almost everyone who uses wireless uses G band... it's an unrestricted band by the FCC and is used for tons of stuff such as wireless phones, baby monitors, etc... therefore there are a lot of signals on that band and it's the one that almost all thieves are likely to search for a connection...

A band is an FCC restricted band and only certain users are allowed to access it... one of these is EMS (emergency services) so the FCC keeps a close eye on it and WILL come after you if you misuse it so it's much less congested than G...

WPA is a big upgrade in security over plain WEP... WPA is based on WEP but is much more secure...

here is a very good explanation...

hope that helped

not really enough facts, but in essence yes, they are both trespassers...

obviously the guy in your driveway is far less of a threat than the guy IN your house, but both are on your property WITHOUT your (property owner's) permission (you didn't write that but i'm assumin' that's what you meant) therefore the law classifies them LEGALLY as trespassers...

again, please see above for the LEGAL classifications of people who are on your property...

btw, i'm not sayin' these are MY opinions at all, just that this is the law in the US... any L1 (first year law student) should know these so just ask a lawyer or law student...

EDIT TO THE ABOVE: just saw where you said JUDGED, have no idea what that means in your context, it's not a legal term as you used it...

i'm just sayin' that the law/court/judge would classify them as trespassers...

legal answers are not usually simple because every fact pattern (case) is different... i'm just tryin' to give some basic legal definitions to clarify how the LAW views these things and how it defines things...

i.e. is the guy in your driveway your neighbor? is it during daylight? is he looking at his car, yard, house, etc.? see what i mean...

for the guy inside... do you have a "for sale" sign in your yard? is he a friend? is he a law enforcement officer?

on and on it goes...

Actually im not from the United States , i live in Canada , Quebec , and laws might be different here ,

Yes i would understand that the laws says , when you are on someone property without their permission , you become a trespasser , but like you said the guy in your driveway is far less of a threat , i mean if you call the police and you tell them a guy has walked over my driveway , well they are propabaly gonna say , take your little pill and go back to bed , if you call them asnd say someone was in my house , its a different situation ....


And when you are saying that : "he's breaking the law so your whole premise fails since that's the foundation you built it on, sorry but nice shot"

Well when someone is using your wireless internet , well isnt he trespassing?

So like i said

"We have to draw a line somewhere , and that "somewhere" to me should be , that you should not use any signals for which you didint receive permission .. else youll have too much , "guy walking around in your house doing nothing" and its gonna be hell of a ride to decide whos guilty and whos not ..."

What i mean is that , Even if this sounds stupid , you should not walk on your neighboor's driveway at all , even if you are no imminent threat , you should just not walk over it at all ....

Nah by the way im having conversation here , im not saying that you are right or wrong , im pretty interested in this case and trying to figure out Why.. i know laws arent simple and especially since im not from the United States , i have really basic knowledge in your laws and etc...

$500??! That's insane. Surely you didn't use that much bandwidth! So, exactly how is he justifying $500? Emotional distress due to his own incompetence? What a joke.

As for the securing routers by default, I think they should either do that, or have an automated process (wizard) run when they first login to the router's interface via the web browser. BUT, they need to do it in such a way that us "geeks" and technically inclined people can run or skip the process to more quickly make our own settings. I absolutely LOATH it when software is designed in a one-fits-all method geared towards noobs. The only thing it sucessfully accomplishes is substituting for human stupidity and slowing things down in the process.

i totally agree... ms office is this way, they have wizards for the non-geeks but you and i can click a "skip this setup" button and do everything manually... most apss i own are this way now so it's not at all hard to do...

yep the responsibility shouldn't be on the owner of the wireless net but this is a case where it would be soooo much easier to just make secure the default and those 95%+ non-geeks would be covered cause they wouldn't chg anything...

just like we shouldnt' have to have locks on everything to keep others out of OUR property BUT WE DO... it's just simpler that way...

let's make life easier for the non-technical people and help 'em out and in turn, help all of us out by gettin' out in front of this problem and stoppin' it at the point of manufacture... well, at least mostly stop it lol :wink:

That I disagree with. The owner has to accept some responsibility. You can't park your car in the middle of a parking lot running with the doors open for an hour and not accept any responsibility when it gets stolen. Do you think your insurance broker is going to do anything for you?

well my point was that if he's your neighbor, it's obvious he's checking something on his car, you don't care if he's on your property... hell, you might have to walk on his property to have a good view of something on your house, etc.

exactly... but i'm just sayin' to take the burden off the non-tech savy people and have security setup for them... as someone said earlier "protect the idiots from themselves"... that's a little indelicate, but it's a good idea...

just like we have special seals on poisonious items we buy, things are "child proof" now... assume the consumer doesn't have a clue about security so we have eveything set for a secure network for them...

btw, i'm like you, i'm just enjoying discussin' this subject and, hopefully, bring some light on where the law stands on things that are somewhat similiar... hope you get your hockey back this season my Canadian friend

oops, hope that wasn't offensive... assumin' that cause you're in Canada you're a hockey fan... i'm just a dumb ole Southern boy so please excuse me for anything that might seem offensive... this is fun for me and i hope for everybody else as well...

lol already told you where the law stands on this... AGAIN, NOT MY OPINION, BUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS...

since you've used this example again, i'll answer it the same as before....

so YOU believe that if someone is dumb enough to leave the keys in his car and the door open then anyone has the right to steal it? you might think the person stupid (i would) but NOBODY has the right to steal the property of another...

so YOU also believe that if a woman is stupid enough to walk down a street at 4am nude then any man has the right to rape her? as the law has stated many times "even a whore has the right to say no"... and no man EVER has the right to rape a woman...

Hehe nah i didnt think you were offensive in any way it's all good , and pretty nice to compare opinions ,

And YES !!!! hockey is back and i just cant wait , First game on October 5th Weeee

Hmmm, I think that you shouldn't go to court for using illigal WiFi access UNLESS you confronted him and gave him a warning of some sort. Then once that warning is issued and the person using the WiFi decides to keep using it, then it should be a case for the cout of law.

Well what epp_b is saying .... If you leave your car downtown Los Angeles with all the doors open and the keys in the car , you are just plain stupid

The fact is that you should have locked your door , and it was also your responsability to do so , (ie - here in Canada , an officer can give you a ticket if your door on your car isnt locked) if you leave your car unlocked with the keys inside , when it'll be time to go a see your insurance , there's a pretty good probability that they wont do anything for you if you left your car all open ....

Although i do understand your point "Dozzit" like i said in an earlier post , because a door is unlocked , doesnt give you the right to enter (if you dont have permission)