Active Topics
-
[HOWTO] Comprehensive Firmware Flashing Guide for N9 (1,580)
to Nokia N9 / N950 by aspergerguy - 15 hrs, 5 mins ago -
Nokia N9-00 Prototype Build S1.12 (RM-680 codename "Dali") (250)
to Nokia N9 / N950 by en0s - 3 days, 11 hrs ago -
[Announce] Maebble - Pebble support for Maemo (118)
to Applications by glo-worm - 3 days, 23 hrs ago -
Possible to flash Leste to eMMC? (6)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Eri - 4 days, 14 hrs ago - more...
 |
linickx |
2007-08-23
, 13:21
|
|
Posts: 32 |
Thanked: 2 times |
Joined on May 2007
|
#1
|
Seen this on slashdot ? It's made me think about what I do when walking down the street with my n800 
 |
|
2007-08-23
, 13:29
|
|
Posts: 211 |
Thanked: 61 times |
Joined on Aug 2007
@ Washington, DC
|
#2
|
That's a good point... I haven't thought about it too much, but it's certainly on my mind more. If I'm outside or nearby a coffee shop with free WiFi, I make a point to buy a coffee if I'm really only interested in the WiFi access. One nearby shop has a router with great coverage, so it's possible to stay outside or go to the park while still using their connection. I still order a large mocha for their generosity.
With local or residential WiFi, I'm definitely gray on the idea. I know when my own access points were unsecure, I had neighbors using my 30Mb/s fiber. Unsecure access points are definitely an "open invite" for anyone's access.
How polite are others with their N770 or N800's?
With local or residential WiFi, I'm definitely gray on the idea. I know when my own access points were unsecure, I had neighbors using my 30Mb/s fiber. Unsecure access points are definitely an "open invite" for anyone's access.
How polite are others with their N770 or N800's?
|
|
2007-08-23
, 13:35
|
|
Posts: 874 |
Thanked: 316 times |
Joined on Jun 2007
@ London UK
|
#3
|
The BBC carries the story too and I am fascinated by peoples comments.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6960304.stm
Our collective moral compass is all over the place. For example some people seem to feel that theft is ok if the door is left open. I like the analogy of reading by the light from someone elses window.
We can argue over the morality and ethics of it but the law is clear.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6960304.stm
Our collective moral compass is all over the place. For example some people seem to feel that theft is ok if the door is left open. I like the analogy of reading by the light from someone elses window.
We can argue over the morality and ethics of it but the law is clear.
|
|
2007-08-23
, 13:40
|
|
Posts: 32 |
Thanked: 2 times |
Joined on May 2007
|
#4
|
Originally Posted by Rebski
I guess if he'd knocked on the door of the house and asked he'd have been alright.
We can argue over the morality and ethics of it but the law is clear.
|
|
2007-08-23
, 13:56
|
|
Posts: 211 |
Thanked: 61 times |
Joined on Aug 2007
@ Washington, DC
|
#5
|
Originally Posted by Rebski
The analogy of "reading by your neighbor's light" or "eating apples from your neighbor's tree from branches that overhang yours" are both apropos. In the absence of a common moral compass, I don't think the law (at least, in the US) is too clear. In Florida, Ben Smith (ST. PETERSBURG) was arrested for WiFi theft from a residence. In the US, the Sparta, Michigan case was well publicized because it was a gentleman using a cafe's WiFi without buying anything, and WITHOUT the proprietor pressing charges.
Our collective moral compass is all over the place. For example some people seem to feel that theft is ok if the door is left open. I like the analogy of reading by the light from someone elses window.
We can argue over the morality and ethics of it but the law is clear.
The clearest choice might be not to use any WiFi, unsecure or no, unless given express permission? I just don't think too many of us would live by such a stringent code of ethics.
 |
|
2007-08-23
, 14:19
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#6
|
I remember we debated this before and some posters here were saying theft of bandwidth was okay.
Given the obvious decline of ethics, I really wonder what business models will look like, say, 20 years from now. Here the US is moving toward a service-based economy and even services can be stolen...
My response to the OP's blog article:
Last edited by Texrat; 2007-08-23 at 14:30.
Given the obvious decline of ethics, I really wonder what business models will look like, say, 20 years from now. Here the US is moving toward a service-based economy and even services can be stolen...
My response to the OP's blog article:
Although the rank-and-file seem not to understand it, ease of access does NOT negate laws governing theft. In some cases, in some areas, it does mitigate the circumstances (a car driver leaving keys in his vehicle can be charged as an accessory to theft) but the law stands clear: steal, regardless of the access situation, and you can rightfully be charged for it.
Your DVD example is very poor and if you think it is relevant you haven’t thought it all the way through. No one has a right to even enter your domicile without permission, period (unless it’s the police with a warrant), door open or otherwise. By the same token, even if a neighbor’s wifi is unsecured, they are still paying for it and unless they’ve given express consent to piggyback on it you just flat do not have the right to do so. Now, it could be argued that naming the access point something like “Free Wifi for Anyone in the Area” could constitute consent, but maybe that goes without saying. ; )
Last edited by Texrat; 2007-08-23 at 14:30.
|
|
2007-08-23
, 14:27
|
|
Posts: 143 |
Thanked: 32 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#7
|
this is silly. most computers automatically connect to wifi signals when they are turned on. most users don't know what signal they are connected to and don't care as long as it 'works'. if the law is interested in restricting use of open wifi signals it needs to go after either the way software connects or the way users set up their signals (for example, if a signal is carelessly left open a surfer can't be prosecuted for using it). sure, the person who uses the wifi that just 'works' is careless too, and some know what they are doing. but does the fact that the wifi owner pays for the signal give him a free pass to be careless?
|
|
2007-08-23
, 14:31
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#8
|
deb, you're also missing the essential point. It all comes down to permission. If it's granted, no problem. If it isn't, the law prevails.
|
|
2007-08-23
, 14:41
|
|
Posts: 211 |
Thanked: 61 times |
Joined on Aug 2007
@ Washington, DC
|
#9
|
D-Link, Linksys (Cisco), and Netgear have all been very good at updating their firmware as new vulnerabilities are made known. I think every OEM is aware of the free/not-free internet debate, but they don't want to build security as default out-of-the box. While I'd hate to be tech support at any company that did, having a bright orange "WARNING" pamphlet telling users that they're subject to anonymous freeloaders should be a requirement.
In the US, we have "Surgeon General's Warnings" on beer and cigarettes. If we have common sense warnings ("warning: this may kill you") on goods, we might as well have a federally-mandated ("warning: your neighbor might get free internet access") common sense labels on your WiFi AP from Best Buy.
If it's on the public airwaves like cellphones, radio, and WiFi, the best way to regulate it is to add security. If the security's broken, then you can prosecute for theft/misuse (no different than DMCA and DVDs).
In the US, we have "Surgeon General's Warnings" on beer and cigarettes. If we have common sense warnings ("warning: this may kill you") on goods, we might as well have a federally-mandated ("warning: your neighbor might get free internet access") common sense labels on your WiFi AP from Best Buy.
If it's on the public airwaves like cellphones, radio, and WiFi, the best way to regulate it is to add security. If the security's broken, then you can prosecute for theft/misuse (no different than DMCA and DVDs).
|
|
2007-08-23
, 14:47
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#10
|
I have a feeling the reluctance toward default security will be overcome, for better or worse. Microsoft is a prime example.
No company wants to foist the burden of security management on their customers, but unfortunately it's inevitable. In the meantime, just because someone has made wifi available, wittingly or unwittingly, doesn't automatically mean they're sharing-- regardless of how hotspot seekers work (technological ability or process does not trump law). It's always best to get permission. However, I expect very few prosecutions so jumping on the occasional news release of one here or there is probably exaggerating the situation.
No company wants to foist the burden of security management on their customers, but unfortunately it's inevitable. In the meantime, just because someone has made wifi available, wittingly or unwittingly, doesn't automatically mean they're sharing-- regardless of how hotspot seekers work (technological ability or process does not trump law). It's always best to get permission. However, I expect very few prosecutions so jumping on the occasional news release of one here or there is probably exaggerating the situation.