Re: Pls help - want to travel wirelessly and ckeck emails

(E-Mail Removed) wrote in message news:

> Since I need this service for less than a week.... what suggestions can
> anyone give me ?

One week? Just use any open WAPs that you can find, whether they are open intentionally or not.

> Any suggestions ?

You are going on a /vacation/. Leave the laptop at home!

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <GHCJf.83338$(E-Mail Removed)> on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:31:02
GMT, "Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) wrote in message news:
>
>> Since I need this service for less than a week.... what suggestions can
>> anyone give me ?
>
>One week? Just use any open WAPs that you can find, whether they are open intentionally or not.

For that matter, why rent a car? If you need a car, just find one with the
keys in the ignition and steal it.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <GHCJf.83338$(E-Mail Removed)> on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:31:02
> GMT, "Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>(E-Mail Removed) wrote in message news:
>>
>>
>>>Since I need this service for less than a week.... what suggestions can
>>>anyone give me ?
>>
>>One week? Just use any open WAPs that you can find, whether they are open intentionally or not.
>
>
> For that matter, why rent a car? If you need a car, just find one with the
> keys in the ignition and steal it.
>


Gotta agree with what you're really getting at, John. And I hope the
original poster got it. If not, she could well end up "leaving on
vacation, coming home on probation, and going back on violation."

Don't remember where I heard that. Maybe an old country song somewhere...

Seriously, Ms. Goldman, there are enough legitimate ways to stay
connected away from home that there's no reason to resort to jumping
onto an unknown person's network just because it's open-and plenty of
reason not to, not the least of which that it's arguably illegal in many
circumstances. It's also not safe from a security and privacy
standpoint. Please don't do it.

> Gotta agree with what you're really getting at, John. And I hope the
> original poster got it. If not, she could well end up "leaving on
> vacation, coming home on probation, and going back on violation."

Cite any law that makes it 'illegal'. You will find that they aren't any.

The 'ethics' can be, I'll agree, argued but it isn't 'illegal'. No crime, no criminal court. Civil? Judge Judy would call the WAP owner ignorant. You'd have to take your case before TV's 'Moral Court'.

Who cares if someone is using one of your WAPs for email (hopefully, SSL'd on their part) and light surfing, anyway?

I keep an open SSID on a captive portal just for that. I could care less who uses it.

...and yes, it is secure and isolated (seperate network) from my WLAN.

...and yes, it is safeguarded against potential abuse (spam gateway, juvenile BS such as running services, DDoS, ect).

...and yes, it filters pornography.

Chill out.

Eric wrote:
>>Gotta agree with what you're really getting at, John. And I hope the
>>original poster got it. If not, she could well end up "leaving on
>>vacation, coming home on probation, and going back on violation."
>
>
> Cite any law that makes it 'illegal'. You will find that they aren't any.

Not so fast, friend. You might want to run this one by a lawyer before
your next wardriving expedition around these parts:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5690000099.HTM

And yes, I know, wardriving (in its strictest interpretation) is not
gaining access, but merely documenting the presence of open WAPs, which
is arguably legal. It's what too many so-called "wardrivers" do next
that's a problem.

>
> Civil [liability]? Judge Judy would call the WAP owner ignorant.

So would a real judge, just as he or she would a victim who left the
keys in his or her car, or left his or her house unlocked. So would I,
in fact. But since when has contributory negligence on the part of a
victim served to absolve a *criminal* of liability for damages? It's
against the law for someone to steal a car or break into a house,
regardless of whether or not the actor has to force entry. If I'm on a
civil jury that has to decide whether he has to fork over the eleven
cents an hour he'll earn at his prison job to a victim enterprising
enough to actually sue him for it, he's just going to be out of luck-and
money.

> Who cares if someone is using one of your WAPs for email (hopefully, SSL'd on their part) and light surfing, anyway?

Your ISP possibly, for one.

>
> I keep an open SSID on a captive portal just for that. I could care less who uses it.

And if you make that fact known to anyone who happens across your WAP,
neither does the law-provided you aren't opening yourself up to an
action by your ISP for violating your agreement with them.
>
> ..and yes, it is secure and isolated (seperate network) from my WLAN.

That's smart.

> ..and yes, it is safeguarded against potential abuse (spam gateway, juvenile BS such as running services, DDoS, ect).

That's even smarter.

> ..and yes, it filters pornography.

One wonders how you'd know it does that, but on second thought, one
dares not ask.

> Chill out.

No thanks. It's supposed to get down to zero tonight, and it didn't get
much into double digits all day long.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:28:18 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , "Eric"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Cite any law that makes it 'illegal'. You will find that they aren't any.

You might want to consider a couple of points, firstly that your
knowledge of US law isn't relevant to 95% of the world's population,
and secondly that its sadly lacking in the first place.

>Judge Judy would call the WAP owner ignorant.

Who cares what some TV programme thinks? Since when was a TV show the
font of all knowledge and wisdom?

>Who cares if someone is using one of your WAPs for email (hopefully, SSL'd on their part) and light surfing, anyway?

Who cares if someone is using your phone to call overseas sex
chatlines?

>I keep an open SSID on a captive portal just for that.

Thats fine - anyone using it has your permission, by design.

>I could care less who uses it.

You presumably mean you couldn't care less.

Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Jonathan L. Parker" wrote in message ...

> > Cite any law that makes it 'illegal'. You will find that they aren't
any.
>
> Not so fast, friend. You might want to run this one by a lawyer before
> your next wardriving expedition around these parts:
>
> http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5690000099.HTM

You have to be joking.

Even if I lived in Missouri, this state statute is so damn vague and open to
interpretation that I doubt it has been to put to use against one single
:wireless network user that "knowingly and without authorization or without
reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization" I'm talking
non-illicit acitivities over open and unsecure wireless networks, of course.

Hell, by this statute, your defense could simply be WinXP; "I didn't know I
was connected to an unauthorized network. WinXP's WZC automatically just
connected!"

How many people, in the US, have been prosecuted so far for unauthorized use
of home wireless internet pipes? (Not doing anything illicit.) I count,
one, two, three... ZERO. The only event that comes to my mind is that dude
in Florida, who was parked in the street outside someone's house. There
never was a follow up to the story, most likely because it was thrown out of
court.

I have no interest in getting into a long winded thread about
intrepretations, because in the end it doesn't even matter. One of the
reasons why it doesn't matter is because in the REAL WORLD, how would you go
about taking action against someone making use of your home network? Call
the cops? They aren't going to waste their time. Plus, cops aren't exactly
known for being all that bright. I have a friend that is a cop and he (like
many others) even takes 'pride' in being 'dumb'. If you are lucky, there
may be one or two cops in the office that are computer literate enough to
understand your complaint -- and they are just going to tell you that if you
see someone is using your network then you should be able to shut them out!

[Snipping rest of anal retentive BS]

Get over yourself.

Eric wrote:

> How many people, in the US, have been prosecuted so far for unauthorized
> use
> of home wireless internet pipes? (Not doing anything illicit.) I count,
> one, two, three... ZERO. The only event that comes to my mind is that
> dude
> in Florida, who was parked in the street outside someone's house. There
> never was a follow up to the story, most likely because it was thrown out
> of court.

One that comes to mind was a case of a fellow being arrested after parking
outside a home to download kiddie porn. I'm not going to try to search it
out because I expect it would just back up your point - the man will have
been charged for the child porn and it's doubtful they'd make any attempt
to prosecute for theft-of-service.
--
derek

Eric wrote:
>>Gotta agree with what you're really getting at, John. And I hope the
>>original poster got it. If not, she could well end up "leaving on
>>vacation, coming home on probation, and going back on violation."
>
>
> Cite any law that makes it 'illegal'. You will find that they aren't any.
>
> The 'ethics' can be, I'll agree, argued but it isn't 'illegal'. No crime, no criminal court. Civil? Judge Judy would call the WAP owner ignorant. You'd have to take your case before TV's 'Moral Court'.

On the federal level it's not illegal, well maybe it is, ""A broad
statement concerning the access of unprotected wireless networks as
being always legal or illegal simply can't be made," said Jackie Lesch,
a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice. "It's just kind of dicey."

The reason for the murkiness is that if the owner of the network permits
open access then it's legal. But does permitting open access imply
permission or does permission need to be more explicit?

It's in a gray area, because so many wireless networks are intentionally
left open for anyone to use.

I.e, I'm on vacation now. I can pick up 11 wireless networks from my
hotel room. Seven are unsecured. Four are secured. Some of the unsecure
ones have names that clearly indicate that anyone is invited to use
them. Some of the unsecure ones have names that don't indicate they are
free, but if you connect, you have to pay with a credit card (these are
networks from hotels in the area). None have the default names that come
with the router, so the owners clearly did not leave the networks open
out of total ignorance, since they did at least set up the network with
an SSID other than "default," "Linksys," "Netgear," or "2wire." These
are more in the vein of "you can use my network, but don't abuse it or
I'll secure it."

It really all boils down to what constitutes permission. The burden
would be on the prosecution to prove that the network owner wasn't
intentionally sharing. I guess we have to wait for some precedents to
know for sure, but don't hold your breath waiting for some poor
prosecuter to waste time on a case like this, especially given the way
Windows happily connects to any available wireless network. Now if
you're breaking someone's WEP encryption, or driving around a
neighborhood looking for networks, that's a whole other story of course!

You can download the pre-eminent paper on the subject at
"http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=692881"

Always connect via VPN when using an unsecure wireless network. You can
get free VPN from iPig at "http://www.iopus.com/ipig/download/".

Mark McIntyre wrote:

>>I keep an open SSID on a captive portal just for that.
>
>
> Thats fine - anyone using it has your permission, by design.

That's the key question here. Does leaving a network open, by design,
constitute permission. The law is unclear. There are no precedents.