Are there any good documents on the net that answer this question? Why
should I pay for my own internet access if there are access points available
for the taking?

I'd appreciate your comments.

Thanks.

Gary

Is it legal to turn on your FM radio? Of course it is. If they don't want
you there you will be blocked.

Show quoteHide quote

if your nieghbor's wan is transmiting in to your house he is trespassing
so it should be ethical to use what he is putting in your house

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 07:16:51 GMT, hell hound
<hell.hound.1k2nuz@WiFi-Forum_dot_com> wrote:

If your neighbor COULD stop the transmission he probably should BUT it
is a radio type signal! It goes wherever it can, it is non-directional
without an antenna!
If your neighbors wifi can be seen and received at your home it is NOT
legal to then use it!!!! Without his permission, that is!!!!
It would also be neighborly to tell him that it can be seen and that
it is open to the public and he needs to encrypt it at the very least!

"hell hound"wrote in message
To use "what he is putting in your house", you are "putting your signal back
into his house".

I can't see accessing an un-encrypted and open SSID being "illegal", but I
do question the ethics of doing such.

I put much of the blame of un-intended wireless use to the wifi
manufacturers though.  By default, most manufacturers hardware is setup to
use generic SSIDs ("linksys", "default", "mshome", "webstar") and be
un-encrypted.  I think the initial configuration scripts for wifi hardware
should require using a unique SSID and also encryption.  Afterwards, the
user can change the SSID name and go un-encrypted under "Advanced Settings".
Unfortunetly, the opposite is true now -- and face it, a large number of
wireless users don't even bother going into the so-called "Advanced
Settings".

My WLAN (802.11a, 802.11g) wireless is WPA/Radius'd, MAC filtered, etc, but
I do keep 802.11b completetly open strickly for internet access.  (Can't get
to my WLAN from 802.11b, can only get out on internet.)  My intention for
the open 802.11b is for anyone to use the internet.  I told my neighbors to
feel free to use it, which they have from their back porch.  My philosophy
about giving some open access is that perhaps I may want to use someone
else's open internet access.  However, I wouldn't do so unless it was
clearly evident that such access was intended to be open.  I'm showing my
open intention by including the text "_OPEN" as part of the 802.11b SSID
name.  I'd like to see this type of convention implimented by everyone that
is intentionally giving any open internet access.  If I come across an open
"linksys", "default", etc SSID  equate it to someone who didn't lock their
front door.  Just because the door is unlocked, I wouldn't enter their
home -- so why should I use their wireless?

Show quote Hide quote First time a kiddie-porn person uses your "open" net and the cops come
and take YOUR system away, and then don't give it back for a few days,
you DO have licenses for EVERYTHING right, then you will close that
door too. The easiest thing is to close the door but give the key to
the neighbors, prevents random drive by access.
If ANYONE can use your net connection then I or anyone else, with a
little knowledge, can use it and be untracebale. How can you trace
someone if they are only using your connection this week and are gone
who knows where next week?

True -- downloading child pornography and spamming from my open access top
the list of my "nightmare scenerios".

I'm not going to sit in my house, hands fisted around a shotgun, though.
Yes, it is a risk, but I'm confident that in my location either activity is
probably not very likely.  Of course, if I found someone sitting in my
driveway and doing either activity, I wouldn't hesitate to press charges.
Not for using my access, but for downloading child pornography or spamming.

Whenever I leave for an extended period (i.e., more than three days), I
bring everything down anyway.

The reason you make the DEFAULTS the most simplistic and least controlled is
for those who have no clue that want to use the technology. Plaming the
manufacturer is the second most stupid thing I have heard this year. Thats
like blaming a Gun Manufacturer because the owner of the gun has no idea
what a safety is.


Show quoteHide quote

"Robert Jacobs" wrote in message

Requiring a unique SSID and entering at least a WEP key during initial
configuration doesn't add much complexity.   I'm not putting "blame" on the
manufacturers as in they should be held accountable and liable, but rather
perhaps they should account for the least common denominator.

As for the weapon analogy, I've never purchased a weapon that was locked and
loaded with a round in the chamber.  Almost always, the bolt is forward,
selector is on fire, and the trigger has been squeezed to keep tension off
the springs.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:11:14 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , "Robert
Jacobs" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote:

But the manufacturer could have a "config" utility or procedure that
required the owner to enter a new subnet, SSID and WEP key, instead of
simply leaving it at the defaults.

Mark McIntyre wrote:
Gads, don't be silly... That would be LOGICAL, make too much SENSE, and cut
down on sales of things you just plug in and it works, to the dumb
consumer's with money in their wallets. It would be too complicated.... :)

Some manufacturers used to default to security enabled, and sales sucked..
They made it open by default, and sales went up something like 80%

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:22:50 -0800, "Peter Pan"
<Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:

Show quoteHide quoteOkay, I will accept that..but times are changing. I think that if
manufacturers put a small flyer in each router sold then people would
start to get the idea. The flyer could talk about getting on-line and
some of the dangers in leaving the defaults set as they come from the
factory AND how to change them. I think that alot of people would
prefer to have defaults so that they have a working starting point if
they have to contact tech support or a friend or whatever. Sometimes a
little education can go a long way.
They could even put it in a pdf file that comes up after the
installation has completed.

f/fgeorge wrote:
Ummm... when was you ever saw someone actually read the instructions, unless
they try and install it and it doesn't work? Sides, people are of the
mentality nowadays that if it doesn't work out of the box, take it back for
a refund.... :(

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:22:50 -0800, in alt.internet.wireless , "Peter Pan"
<Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:

Granted, but if the firmware had a "factory default" mode that made it run
a small config utility which generated a random character SSID and WEP key,
this would cost the mfr very little, and look good on the marketing blurb
"now with added automatic security - power it on, and get instant 128-bit
secured web access and your very own private network ID!! ". Both SSID and
key would have to be displayed in the admin gui but many APs do this
already.

Mark McIntyre wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteDon't get me wrong.. As a computer person, I think it would be fine, but as
a part owner of a sales place, it would absolutely KILL retail sales to
dummies with cash in their wallet, and again as a sales/profit oriented
person, I wouldn't order or stock anything that won't make me money...And if
anything is done to make something not work out of the box, I and many other
places, wouldn't sell it.....
Stupid? yes.. but Reality? Yes.....

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:35:47 -0800, in alt.internet.wireless , "Peter Pan"
<Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:

You're dead wrong.  If you've ever bought a preinstalled WinXP Home, you'll
be aware that it does PRECISELY what I suggest when you boot up the first
time - you can't use it till you enter some basic config info. Doesn't seem
to have harmed MS that much.

I disagree strongly that its not working out of the box. Heck, even a new
TV doesn't work without some small config first, even if its just pressing
"autotune" on the remote. Rememer, I'm not talking about expecting users to
enter netmasks, or remember MACs,. I'm talking about automatically
generating a random SSID, enabling DHCP and autogenerating a WEP key.

Not IMHO, YMMV, maybe you live amongst stupider people, or maybe you're
mistaken about the impact it would have. My own opinion is that anyone
buying a wireless router or AP these days knows they ought to worry about
security, why else would all the vendors be putting WPA in place if it
wasn't a selling point?

Eras wrote:
Show quoteHide quote(Can't get
Show quoteHide quoteExcellent points. I was about to make a post after reading all these
threads that basically said the same thing.

As far as someone using the "Captain Midnight" fiasco with HBO as an
example, that's completely different. I know all those farmers in the
mid-west years ago tried to use that argument about "radio waves
invading my privacy so if I build a descrambler I ain't breakin' no
laws..." was shot down many times in courts.

With a satellite signal, in some respects I can *almost* see *some*
validity in the argument - note I said *almost* see *some*, I didn't say
it was right or wrong, just that I myself find some parts of the concept
interesting. Whether DirecTV/Dish Network has 1 customer or 100 million,
it's still costing them the same amount of money to bounce signals.

It's a one-way argument, literally.

As for WiFi and open APs, that's an entirely different situation all
together. If you're just sitting in your house, with a desktop or laptop
equipped with WiFi equipment, or even out wardriving in a car with a
WiFi-equipped laptop, and you decide to sniff packets out of the ether,
I have no issues with that whatsoever, none.

It's similar in principle to listening to FM radio, in my view. The
packets are floating around, so snag 'em if you want 'em. If people are
too careless and ignorant to read the instructions and learn how to
secure their networks, so be it.

The problem comes in when you go from just listening to actively
broadcasting and accessing *someone else's* network and resources.
That's where it crosses the line from "fun/no harm done" to
"theft/intrusion."

There have been a lot of good examples of pros and cons in this thread
so far, and I hope the debate continues.

As for my answer to the question that started this thread, "Is it legal
to access an open wi-fi access point?," I would ask the thread starter
to clarify what he defines as "open" and then we can take it from there.

"Open" to me means one that I know for certain is available for anyone's
use, a totally free and publicly known AP that is advertised, either by
public notice or the SSID stating such information.

Appending "_OPEN" to your SSID on a truly open AP as someone suggested
earlier is a VERY GOOD IDEA that I intend to implement myself. I have a
few neighbors that aren't as serious about PCs as I am and I've told
them they're welcome to hit my 11g AP if they go buy the wireless PCI
cards for their desktops.

Sooner or later it will be a matter of law, but what does that really
mean anyway. It's certainly not a deterrent just having a law about
something. If that were true, drunks wouldn't drive, assassins wouldn't
kill, etc etc.

For those questioning the matter-of-fact legality of accessing ANY AP
ANYWHERE in the US WITHOUT the explicit authorization of the service
provider owning the AP, read this:

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030_new.html

Once you get past the legalese, it basically states in no uncertain
terms that it is illegal to access network resources without explicit
authorization. Period.

Just my two cents.

Paul

hell hound <hell.hound.1k2nuz@WiFi-Forum_dot_com> wrote in
news:hell.hound.1k2nuz@WiFi-Forum_dot_com:

DAMN RIGHT

i dont want those damn cancer causing waves going through my head

ALL DAY...EVERY DAY!!!

FUK DAT

smowk

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:07:05 GMT, f/fgeorge <ffgeo***@yourplace.com> wrote:
<snip>

So? Use a directional antenna, or reflectors for devices without external
antennas.  The tech is decades old, and works extremely well.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 07:16:51 GMT, hell hound spoketh

That is about the dumbest thing I have heard all year.

Lars M. Hansen
http://www.hansenonline.net
(replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)

Legality of access to radiated signals was legislated years ago when
people started using radio scanners to listen in on analog cell phone
conversations.  Basically, federal law states that you have to stop
listening in on a conversation as soon as you realize it's not meant
for you.  Encryption is *not* required to make a case against an
eavesdropper.  Unlike radio and TV signals that are broadcast with the
express intent to be received, signals from private emitters are not
(other than those on "public" requencies, such as CB, family radio, ham
radio, etc.).

I am not familiar if/how the courts have ruled regarding interception
of digital signals on WANs, but I would bet that they'd view
intentional usage of someone else's private wireless network to be
illegal (imagine if you made phone calls using equipment that cloned
someone else's cell phone, but only did it during "anytime" minutes so
they didn't end up paying anything for the time you used.  The service
provider could almost certainly prevail in a civil suit, and quite
possibly a criminal one as well.

Be patient. The year is young. :-))

It is not legal to listen to cordless and mobile phones.

Show quoteHide quoteBarry

Barry OGrady wrote:
Is that why they have banned their use in my railway carriage - so that
I can't hear the conversations of the person sitting next to me on
his/her cellphone?

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:07:28 +0000, Wireless Reader
<openzone.supp***@bt.com> wrote:

Barry OGrady is referring to listening on a radio receiver to the
phone calls.  As I understand the law (at least in the USA), while it
is not illegal to listen to the calls, it is illegal to disclose what
you have heard to any other person.

Having said that, it is best not to disclose any sensitive
information, such as credit card numbers or trade secrets, on a
cellular or cordless phone (the latter phones use a short-range
transmitter to a base unit plugged into a landline).

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:26:50 -0600, in alt.internet.wireless , John F.
Eldredge <j***@jfeldredge.com> wrote:

I believe you're slightly incorrect. The wiretap laws make it illegal
to even listen in electronically.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:54:02 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:

That is EXACTLY why the new scanners do not even have the phone
channels in them. The old scanners do.

No it is not! Their stupidity is not your gain!!! If someone loses
$20.00 on the road, are you free to keep it? How about if an armored
car wrecks and its money comes out all over the road, is it legal to
keep the money? NO IT IS NOT! Their stupidity is NOT your gain!!!

Basic megabit/megabyte question
Linksys or Netgear?
D-Link Blues: USB adapter connects to router, no internet access
Wfi over water
Hi.. setting up wireless ISP
Cisco 1231G WPA2 (AES)
wireless lan
recommeded PCMCIA wireless card for rfmon
Boost WiFi Signal?
Constantly Having to Repair Connection