Active Topics
-
Maemo repository (9)
to Community by nokiafemboy - 10 hrs, 29 mins ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (18)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 1 day, 1 hr ago -
Maemo 20th Anniversary (4)
to Brainstorm by teroyk - 2 days, 20 hrs ago -
Nokia Booklet 3G (RX-75) Drivers (64)
to Alternatives by teroyk - 2 days, 21 hrs ago -
Porting apps to Leste (46)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 5 days ago - more...
|
2008-05-01
, 08:27
|
|
Posts: 477 |
Thanked: 118 times |
Joined on Dec 2005
@ Munich, Germany
|
#22
|
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.
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.
|
|
2008-05-01
, 16:55
|
|
Posts: 481 |
Thanked: 190 times |
Joined on Feb 2006
@ Salem, OR
|
#23
|
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).
Originally Posted by Jerome
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.
A simple waveguide or microstrip sector antenna would be a much, much better choice, for example.
 |
|
2008-05-01
, 17:12
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#24
|
Originally Posted by Jerome
But it's beneficial because you're not leashed with a USB cable.
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.
 |
|
2008-05-01
, 17:43
|
|
Posts: 772 |
Thanked: 183 times |
Joined on Jul 2005
@ Montclair, NJ (NYC suburbs)
|
#25
|
Originally Posted by ioan
Here in my neck of the woods, that's basically what's happening by default.
I believe the manufacturer should set the security on by default and write on the manual a unique password
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.)
__________________
N900 Guide Brief intro to the Nokia N900 (http://n900guide.com/)
Maemoan since July 2005 )
N900 Guide Brief intro to the Nokia N900 (http://n900guide.com/)
Maemoan since July 2005 )
 |
|
2008-05-01
, 18:13
|
|
Moderator |
Posts: 7,109 |
Thanked: 8,820 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
#26
|
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".
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".
|
|
2008-05-01
, 18:20
|
|
Posts: 220 |
Thanked: 19 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
|
#27
|
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,
|
|
2008-05-01
, 18:39
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#28
|
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.
Last edited by Benson; 2008-05-01 at 18:50.
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.
Last edited by Benson; 2008-05-01 at 18:50.
 |
|
2008-05-01
, 18:47
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#29
|
Originally Posted by geneven
Hang on a second, O Lord of Sarcasm..
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.
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...
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
|
|
2008-05-01
, 20:06
|
|
Posts: 220 |
Thanked: 19 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
|
#30
|
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
- 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"?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.