free internet (kinda)
 

http://www.i-hacked.com/index.php?op...=261&Itemid=42

today I'm waiting for fedex to deliver my antenna, I have everything else.

-ioan

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

amongst the everything else, I would recommend you stock up at least one of:

a) a friend with enough money to bail you out
b) a lawyer [could be the same person as (a), above]

folks are becoming increasingly more aggressive about prosecuting computer crimes, including Unauthorized use of computer networks. It would be far easier, and cheaper (in both the long- and short-term) to simply walk across the street to that Starbucks, order a cup of coffee, and sit there and use the "free wifi" internet access.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

was far as I know if its a Free wifi spot they can't make you order something there. Since they are sending it out through open air.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

and lands into my back yard, is that still illegal to use? :-)

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

It SHOULD be free if you ask me. For example, I should be allowed to unprotect my router and let any of my neighbors use it without having to personally go out and let each one know it is ok. But the law has regarded anyone using an unprotected wireless router as stealing bandwidth.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

You could set your SSID to "Freewifigoaheadandtakeit".

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

what if my neighbor waters his lawn and the water goes over the fence and waters mine too, can he sue me for that? I'm using his water on my property without asking him first... what about if I collect the water and I wash my clothes with it? :-)

I know that using someone's else wifi is illegal... I just don't think is fair if is on MY property and I'm not doing anything to break in.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

I think that neither you nor I understand legal reasoning that well. I think the key, however, is that "common-sense" reasoning doesn't apply to media that were unimagined when common sense evolved. Wireless is not like sheep jumping over the fence into your yard.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

Ridiculous and irrelevant argument.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

I think the problem here is a general lack of public awareness over wi-fi and wi-fi security. It isn't helped by most router manuals (and gadgets like the Nintendo DS) apparently recommending the insecure WEP standard over the much better WPA standard, and there are also some idiots who still think that Wi-Fi means magical free internet access for everyone with no one paying the bill.

It might help if governments and/or ISP groups included a standard leaflet with every router saying in plain english why wi-fi security is a good idea and how best to secure your connection. It could also explain the legal position in that country on using other people's connections.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

The law? Which law?

Not to be any more of a jerk than necessary, but such statements really ought to be accompanied by at least a mention of what nation, preferably of what court (or whatever) has regarded it so, and ideally a citation of the precedent/decision under discussion.

In the US, I'm not aware of any cases involving a home network deliberately left open. The most likely issue would be a DCMA case against the network owner. ;)

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

it depends on the state. The vast majority of states require explicit authorization to use "free" wifi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Piggybacking

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

Actually, it is like that; if your neighbor's sheep jumps into your yard, and you butcher it, you'll be in trouble. Try it sometime.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

when you connect to an open wifi, your laptop (or whatever) ask for permission, the router will give the permission and hands you a name tag, the ip (no trickery or hacking involved). It is not a passive process, like, say, entering an unlocked home, in which the house is passively exploited.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

umm... yes it is. The act of you entering an unlocked home and treating it as your own is construed (by the law) exactly the same is you using your laptop to enter their unlocked wifi internet access and treating it as your own.

...and, it doesn't matter if they're "beaming it into your back yard" or not. ...and, if they were "beaming it into your back yard", you wouldn't need to spend money on a high-gain directional wifi antenna so that you could snipe their wifi access from afar, either.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

It's actually not ridiculous nor irrelevant. Especially as it is so relatively easy for his neighbour to keep his "digital water" on his side of the fence.

Meaning: It's rather easy to restrict access to a WiFi cloud, as simple as setting MAC addresses. I'm not arguing that those measures are secure (they're far from it), but at least implementing one or more would show intent to protect one's own WiFi cloud.

The legislation that now applies is effectively one to protect the terminally stupid and/or unwilling to learn. This is not a good thing, if only because it will have a negative effect on the average intelligence of our species.

A far better policy would be to severely punish those that infringe upon secured wireless networks -- however flawed that security might be -- and consider all unsecured networks open for public access.

But noooo! that would mean people would have to start using their brains. Can't have that, can we? Next thing we know, they start voting for Ron Paul...

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

Indeed .

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

Have fun explaining that to the judge if your state has not already adopted liberal laws on the subject.

EDIT: I agree with your point, but to believe that your opinion holds weight with a court in a state where they have not decriminalized this kind of access then you are delusional.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

In my statement, I was referring to US law as interpreted by courts. As I already said in this thread, Benson, I don't understand the legal principles very well. Since you do, how about you explain what the laws are and in which states they apply?

Oh, and on the other subject, the "similarity" of wireless and sheep jumping over a wall into your yard. They are NOT similar. You can forbid your neighbor from letting sheep trespass on your yard, but try forbidding wireless communications to cross your property.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

ioan, what you purchased is fine for your home computer. But, don't forget, your Nokia Internet Tablet is mobile, and for that, here's what you really need!



http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/g...et_head600.jpg

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

I don't, in fact.

• I didn't make any assertions about them. A simple assertion that "the law has regarded" anything, without any reference to what law, is at least useless, and arguably worse. That was my principal point in that post.
• I also claimed not to know of any cases directly applicable to your example. (I know of no such cases; I am somewhat cognizant of a variety of cases that have gotten some publicity, but the ones I have heard of typically involved an AP operated by a commercial or government entity.)
• Oh, and I threw in a humorous jab at the DMCA, which seems to make more or less any activity involving a computer possibly illegal, at the relevant court's discretion, but is not directly related.

So what gave you the idea that I "understand the legal principles very well"?
I was just (snarkily) pointing out that your analogy, which you correctly said was legally different, was weaker than the sprinkler-water analogy initially proposed.

FWIW, you seem to be confusing things a little; either forbid the sheep, or forbid the neighbor from letting wireless communications onto your property; the latter may actually be within your rights, if his communications are causing interference.

Really though, I suspect* the difference has less to do with radio waves vs. sheep or forbiddability than with the two-way nature of the communication; you interrogate the neighbors router, eliciting responses it would not otherwise have produced. I expect** simply packet sniffing traffic without any transmission is not considered illegal in as many jurisdictions as actively connecting to an AP and downloading your own data.
*Disclaimer: suspect in this context is used merely to introduce a supposition which seems likely, and is not intended as and should not be interpreted or construed as a suggestion of competency, legal-principle-understanding, paralegal status, or bar licensure in any state, province, nation, region or planet.
**Disclaimer: expect in this context is used merely to introduce an inference, and is not intended as and should not be interpreted or construed as a suggestion of competency, legal-principle-understanding, paralegal status, or bar licensure in any state, province, nation, region or planet.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

Since this is a technical and not a legal forum, I will only post technical comments. Please note that I do not leave in the US, and that using your neighbour's open wifi has not (yet?) been prosecuted to my knowledge.


This device is way overkill. You don't need a full router at all for the tablets, and USB wifi stick with an antenna connection is a far better choice. The choice of antenna is also particularly stupid. Not only does it make very difficult to find networks (high gain antennas get their high gain because they receive from a smaller angle, so that this antenna will be difficult to point at an unknown signal), but there are antennas designs with similar gain which are far less conspicuous. A simple waveguide or microstrip sector antenna would be a much, much better choice, for example.

The statements above should neither be constructed to imply that I suggest doing something illegal nor that I practice something illegal myself. I am not practicing network hacking myself, I found out about it while searching for a way to extend the range of my home network. I have a very big garden around my house.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

Last night I was playing with my new setup, and it connected to 3 open wifi. All 3 routers I connected to have the default admin and no password. One of them is a D-Link, one is some kind of DSL thing (Actiontek) and the 3rd one I don't remember what kind it was. Looks like some people just buy the thing, plug the power and the internet in and use it without doing any kind of configuration. I believe the manufacturer should set the security on by default and write on the manual a unique password (like the serial number for windows).


I want to use this to connect to the city's free wifi, which is too far away from me, and if everything works, I want to run my internet and Vonage phone service on it.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

But it's beneficial because you're not leashed with a USB cable.But it's gonna be conspicuous anyway, with a tripod for stable, flexible positioning; still, I think the point of the Yagi-Uda antenna was chiefly cool cannon-lookiness. High gain isn't bad, if you can detune it for a wider field; yep, a "zoom antenna". Unfortunately, I don't know of any such of the shelf, but it should be fairly easy with a Yagi-Uda design.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

Here in my neck of the woods, that's basically what's happening by default.

A year ago, most of the neighborhood's WiFi networks were open and unprotected and, mostly, broadcasting their out-of-the-box SSID.

Now, 10 out of 12 have security on. And because 8 of these have distinctive names as assigned by Verizon FIOS, I surmise they have the WEP key stamped on their router.

(Of course, there is one other factor; Verizon requires that its technician do the install, so you have somebody turning on the security and getting the household's computers to connect to the network who has some idea of how to get it to work.)

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

I was in (Dublin) Ireland recently; everyone has broadband, everyone has wireless routers provided to them by their ISP. You seek for an AP on your laptop in a normal neighbourhood, and you'll get dozens of SSIDs. They're all nearly-identical, with the ISP's name embedded in the SSID, and they're all WPA-secured.

I don't understand why North American ISPs don't do the same thing. This would go a long way towards fixing this legal problem. People who don't know what they're doing will just use the router supplied to them by the ISP. Those who want to share their networks will open them up explicitly, and they won't prosecute.

Of course, there'll always be jerks who set up a honeypot and then prosecute you if you "trespass".

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

I dont thik an antenna will get you much, radio signals deterate fast. by the cube maybe. when i was playing with wifi tool other networks were around -60 db compared to mine at -30 db alot of antennas only give you 10 db , the fontenna for example is 6 db,

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

Eh, what?

Radio signals don't deteriorate on their own. They spread (result is an inverse squared intensity falloff), and they are absorbed (exponential fall-off; for air, over any reasonable distance, negligible). No effects worthy of consideration fall off as the cube of distance.

The antenna suggested in the original linked article is rated as 14.5dBi. (A dipole, for reference, is about 2 dBi.) And you point out that other networks were about 30 db below yours; but if they're separated, and/or you use a directional antenna to reject the undesirable signals from your AP, that doesn't mean you can't access them. Without knowing the sensitivity of the receiver, and the reference power, those numbers are meaningless except to discuss SNR.

Edit: a half-wave dipole, of course.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

Hang on a second, O Lord of Sarcasm..

YOU have every right to provide free wifi. If you choose to do so, then cripes, do the smart thing and make the SSID obvious. Solved.

For a crime to be prosecuted, SOMEone has to act as the victim. In your case, you're deliberately choosing not to. Ergo, no legal problem. Not for you. Not for your beneficiaries.

On the other hand, consuming bandwidth without *some* sort of permission, tacit or overt, IS theft of services. Period. Those who like to rationalize their way out of that simply don't have a legal leg to stand on. They can argue their view on idiots who don't protect their service but under current law they'll get nowhere.

Now... maybe SOMEday providing unprotected wifi without obvious permission/identification will be the virtual equivalent of leaving your keys in your car for the next desperate thief or GTA fan to enjoy. But we're not there yet. So for crying out loud, people, just err to the side of caution. Exactly how hard is that, after all?

This subject continues to confound me...

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

2benson radio waves only deteriate by the square in a 2 dementional situation, since some of waves travel upword it would be more like 3 d situation. Almost everyone has a 200mw radio. It is very easy to check the sensitivity by taking a walk down the steet. lets do an experment

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

umm.. no.

Radio waves deteriorate in the same manner, regardless of direction (in open space). That is to say, there is no component of the radio wave that is adversely affected by gravity or altitude. Benson's statement(s) is(are) correct.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

You have to also take into account the antenna and its directivity... like highly directive dish antennas can beam weak RF signal thousands (millions?) of miles, while a simple dipole can not because the RF power is dispersed everywhere. For comparison think about laser light: You can beam it to a building half mile away and see it there, but try the same with a lightbulb... :rolleyes:

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

You, sir, are were deluded and/or confused.
Inverse-square is relevant to 3-dimensional situations.

Try a little high-school calculus; Volume of a spherical wavefront increases with the radius cubed; how does the volume swept out by an expanding wavefront vary?

Nice to know that almost everyone has a certain transmission power; that tells nothing about receiver sensitivity.

To check the sensitivity by taking a walk down the street? You can do that, but if your street is typical, it won't tell you much. Multiple APs are likely to exist without sufficient frequency separation; you will then lose the weakest AP due to SNR, before the signal is too weak, so this sensitivity "measurement" is only helpful for similar circumstances; when you reject those other APs with a directional antenna, you'll need to re-analyze with the actual sensitivity.

But go ahead, and do experiment; the numbers would be helpful for use with an omni, anyway, and that's better than what you have now.

Edit: Some more concise people have beaten me; thanks, Brian and Mara.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

This is a state by state issue. In NY ( where I live ) if the owner has not taken any steps to secure the AP then I am free to use it without fear of prosecution. If the owner has done anything, including hiding the SSID, that would probably be enough to invoke the trespass laws.

Most states have not clearly spelled out exactly what's the responsibility of the owner and the user of the AP. I, personally, would love to see something at the federal level that spells out the fact that it's up to the owner to take a step, any step, to secure their routers before they can criminalize otherwise non-criminal access by others. EDIT: this is what I want, the current reality is a hodge-podge of state laws and conflicting opinions.

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

Great; congressional meddling would be just what we need. :rolleyes:
I hope you mean a precedent set in a federal court?

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

2benson you are exactly correct. Who knew., For a " interesting" video on antenni watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY8Wi7XRXCA

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

Ummm... I thought that black hole and its gravity field does indeed bend radiowaves, or even suck them in? (At least it bends the light... so shouldn't radiowaves obey it as well?)

However, this example is really out of this world we are living in... :p

EDIT: Had to check that out. It is true:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/gravit...worldbook.html

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

Indeed. But vague disclaimers always save the day. "(in open space)" could mean free space (no material interactions), brand new universe with no objects moved in from infinity, or whatever...

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

hahaha... yeah, that's what I meant.

or, how about "(in open space, and not near an event horizon)"

Re: free internet (kinda)
 

There need be no event horizon for the curvature to be non-negligible. :p

Go on, fix it, I'm gonna go read up on string-theory. What good is modern physics if you can't prove that anything someone says about physics is just an asymptotic approximation?