Active Topics
-
Maemo repository (9)
to Community by nokiafemboy - 2 hrs, 4 mins ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (18)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 17 hrs, 28 mins ago -
Maemo 20th Anniversary (4)
to Brainstorm by teroyk - 2 days, 12 hrs ago -
Nokia Booklet 3G (RX-75) Drivers (64)
to Alternatives by teroyk - 2 days, 12 hrs ago -
Porting apps to Leste (46)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 4 days, 16 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2007-08-23
, 17:34
|
|
Posts: 641 |
Thanked: 27 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#22
|
Originally Posted by Rebski
Personally I think every wifi router should come with Fon capability built in
http://www.fon.com/en/
That way we have almost universal wifi and clear permission to use it.
You'd still most likely be breaking your TOS with your service provider. Most of them don't allow sharing your internet connection. I read somewhere a while back one of the bigger providers in the lower 48 was actually going around looking for open wifi and shutting down people's internet connection. I'll look around and see if I can find the article.
Found it.
http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,14759343
__________________
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.
SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.
SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
Last edited by barry99705; 2007-08-23 at 17:49.
|
|
2007-08-23
, 17:42
|
|
Posts: 22 |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
|
#23
|
Another poster's comment about the provision and access being a TWO-way street is especially important here (Liam1, are you reading? or just intent on spewing more sarcasm?).
Do you have a personal issue with my posts? A lot of other posts do not agree with your views, but I do not see you taking your precious time for personal attacks on them.
I did not comment on the 2-way argument as it is flawed to begin with, however you seem to conveniently agree with anything that remotely agrees with your views, and disregarding multiple posts by different people that have other ideas on the issue.
A wifi stream can only be two way like the light and flashlight example, if somebody retaliated with another wifi stream into the initial wifi stream owner's house. Then its a two way wifi stream, just like the flashlight example. As you can see, the two way stream is not a valid argument, and so is the flashlight example.
Arguing on analogies for this issue is futile, which as I said is a slippery slope. My only point was (which you conveniently ignored) while the law deems unauthorized wifi usage illegal, reasonable doubt can immediately be established by a competent lawyer.
Thats it. Please continue to make personal remarks as you wish.
And Iball, the quote that you gave below is again different than what I said. I said that the Wifi stream trespasses my property, and I was not referring to wireless device interference. Suing for wireless trespassing is just like suing for excessive noise or an offensive odors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam1
I will also charge him for trespassing my property with his Wifi Ghz waves
I don't know where YOU live, but here in the United States the FCC specifically states in their rules that any consumer-level wireless device MUST accept interference from any other wireless device.
|
|
2007-08-23
, 17:56
|
|
Posts: 641 |
Thanked: 27 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#24
|
Originally Posted by Liam1
Texrat,
Do you have a personal issue with my posts? A lot of other posts do not agree with your views, but I do not see you taking your precious time for personal attacks on them.
I did not comment on the 2-way argument as it is flawed to begin with, however you seem to conveniently agree with anything that remotely agrees with your views, and disregarding multiple posts by different people that have other ideas on the issue.
A wifi stream can only be two way like the light and flashlight example, if somebody retaliated with another wifi stream into the initial wifi stream owner's house. Then its a two way wifi stream, just like the flashlight example. As you can see, the two way stream is not a valid argument, and so is the flashlight example.
Arguing on analogies for this issue is futile, which as I said is a slippery slope. My only point was (which you conveniently ignored) while the law deems unauthorized wifi usage illegal, reasonable doubt can immediately be established by a competent lawyer.
Thats it. Please continue to make personal remarks as you wish.
And Iball, the quote that you gave below is again different than what I said. I said that the Wifi stream trespasses my property, and I was not referring to wireless device interference. Suing for wireless trespassing is just like suing for excessive noise or an offensive odors.
As long as it's within fcc limits, there's absolutely nothing you can do. It's within the unregistered public range. The only way I could see you actually being able to sue any one for their wifi intruding into your house is if it was screwing up some kind of medical equipment. Even then you'd have to prove it was doing this. The flashlight analogy I gave was for connecting. To be able to actually use a wifi connection, you have to transmit back to the access point, at which time you are connected to their network.
__________________
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.
SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.
SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
 |
|
2007-08-23
, 18:30
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#25
|
Originally Posted by Liam1
No personal issue, just that in 2 threads now you show a tendency to prefer sarcasm and disingenuity over reasonable discourse, and I pointed it out. Your right to use whatever mode of communication you like, of course, but surely you're aware that such tactics will be taken to task.
Texrat,
Do you have a personal issue with my posts? A lot of other posts do not agree with your views, but I do not see you taking your precious time for personal attacks on them.
I am not going to rebut every single post created, either, but rather the most egregious examples of flawed reasoning. I'm also not going to argue with those with whom I mildly disagree, either, or over points of pure opinion.
I did not comment on the 2-way argument as it is flawed to begin with, however you seem to conveniently agree with anything that remotely agrees with your views, and disregarding multiple posts by different people that have other ideas on the issue.
A wifi stream can only be two way like the light and flashlight example, if somebody retaliated with another wifi stream into the initial wifi stream owner's house. Then its a two way wifi stream, just like the flashlight example. As you can see, the two way stream is not a valid argument, and so is the flashlight example.
And you misunderstand the flashlight example. Try again (see Barry's clarification).
Arguing on analogies for this issue is futile, which as I said is a slippery slope. My only point was (which you conveniently ignored) while the law deems unauthorized wifi usage illegal, reasonable doubt can immediately be established by a competent lawyer.
As far as analogies go, arguing valid ones is only futile when people argue to win, or solely to argue, as you appear to do. Get in line though; you have some competition here on those grounds. You'll find such trolling is not very welcome here.
Last edited by Texrat; 2007-08-23 at 18:32.
 |
|
2007-08-23
, 18:58
|
|
Posts: 729 |
Thanked: 19 times |
Joined on Mar 2007
|
#26
|
Originally Posted by Liam1
No, it's not. Why? Because you CANNOT prove in a court of law that there was any damage to you or your property from someone else's 802.11 signals somehow winding up on your property. And it would be VERY hard to prove since - by law - unlicensed 802.11 spectrum MUST accept interference from any other device.
And Iball, the quote that you gave below is again different than what I said. I said that the Wifi stream trespasses my property, and I was not referring to wireless device interference. Suing for wireless trespassing is just like suing for excessive noise or an offensive odors.
That's why you have no civil - and definately no criminal - case at all. No lawyer is going to even attempt to try that case.
Let's say YOU were running your own 802.11 wi-fi lan and the neighbor's wi-fi router was "jamming" you up somehow, probably because you're both running on the same channel.
Not a damn thing you can do other than jump channels (freqs) since both devices are operating in accordance with the law.
But that's what the "auto" setting on most wi-fi routers is there for.
|
|
2007-08-23
, 19:11
|
|
Posts: 22 |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
|
#27
|
No, it's not. Why? Because you CANNOT prove in a court of law that there was any damage to you or your property from someone else's 802.11 signals somehow winding up on your property. And it would be VERY hard to prove since - by law - unlicensed 802.11 spectrum MUST accept interference from any other device.
That's why you have no civil - and definately no criminal - case at all. No lawyer is going to even attempt to try that case.
Let's say YOU were running your own 802.11 wi-fi lan and the neighbor's wi-fi router was "jamming" you up somehow, probably because you're both running on the same channel.
Not a damn thing you can do other than jump channels (freqs) since both devices are operating in accordance with the law.
But that's what the "auto" setting on most wi-fi routers is there for.
The flashlight analogy I gave was for connecting. To be able to actually use a wifi connection, you have to transmit back to the access point, at which time you are connected to their network.
|
|
2007-08-23
, 19:22
|
|
Posts: 641 |
Thanked: 27 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#28
|
Originally Posted by Liam1
Iball, understood. Your example is almost the equivalent of saying in a noise disturbance, as long as no damage is done or there is no one in the house actually listening to the noise, then there is no case. It is only when the noise interferes with the listener (eardrums aching etc) is when there is a case. Good explanation.
Thank you Barry for the clarification. I understood your initial post, but I just wanted to point out that the flashlight analogy wasn't analogous an actual unauthorized wifi access, thats all.
There are noise ordinances though. So the sound noise thing doesn't really apply. I also don't see why the flashlight analogy doesn't work. That's about as close as you can get in layman's terms.
__________________
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.
SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.
SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
 |
|
2007-08-23
, 19:46
|
|
Posts: 449 |
Thanked: 18 times |
Joined on Apr 2006
@ Eureka, CA
|
#29
|
|
|
2007-08-23
, 19:51
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#30
|
As I see it the flashlight analogy is employed to demonstrate the differences between accessing a 1-way service versus a 2-way service.
If I willingly receive stray light from my neighbor, and take advantage of it without affecting his own use, there is no harm.
If I tap into his wifi without permission (note that a wilful act is required in initiating and/or accepting the connection, whereas receipt of stray light is passive), which automatically and unavoidably affects his own use, there is harm.
Conversely, if his lights intrude into my house I can file a civil complaint because visible spectrum isn't affected by the FCC interference code the way radio spectrum is.
If I willingly receive stray light from my neighbor, and take advantage of it without affecting his own use, there is no harm.
If I tap into his wifi without permission (note that a wilful act is required in initiating and/or accepting the connection, whereas receipt of stray light is passive), which automatically and unavoidably affects his own use, there is harm.
Conversely, if his lights intrude into my house I can file a civil complaint because visible spectrum isn't affected by the FCC interference code the way radio spectrum is.
And since most countries allow a device that's been through the FCC ringer to be used in their country (notable exception is Great Britain when it comes to FM iPod transmitters but that ban has been recently overturned) then it means they KNOW wireless signals cannot be stopped easily.
Also, if you went out and bought a Sky box and then proceeded to slap a hacked card in it to unlock all the premium signals coming in "over the air" then you would be immediately arrested and charged if they found out.
You also need to go look at your country's rules an regulations regarding public non-regulated radio frequencies.
When it comes to wi-fi though, it's a little different in the fact that it's much more "proven" since your traffic of course is going over the air but when it hits the actual WIRED connection then you're screwed. So yes, while you might get off the "borrowed wi-fi" charge, you'll never get off the "theft of services" charge since your data packets were travelling through something that was inside someone else's property (the actual router) and out the physical wire itself.
The same theft of service rules that came out when cordless phones started becoming popular apply to 802.11 wi-fi signals as well as any other unregulated wireless signal out there.