Should old rotting hags create the computer laws?

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Should old rotting hags create the computer laws?

Posted by SuspicionVandit on Jun-01-2007 17:07:

Should old rotting hags create the computer laws?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276720,00.html
i was reading this here and i was like holy shit.
The coffee shop's wi-fi was NOT encrypted.
In a broadband world, the cost of bandwidth used to look up "information on his favorite bagpipe band" is almost non-equivalent to the punishments he was asked to select from (ranging from 5 years jailtime, $10,000, 40hrs comm service)

not to mention the picture that got me into that article

Posted by Sunsnail on Jun-01-2007 17:33:

I guess it was too late for the coffee shop owner to say that he had permission to use the internet?

Posted by SuspicionVandit on Jun-01-2007 21:13:

quote:
Originally posted by Sunsnail
I guess it was too late for the coffee shop owner to say that he had permission to use the internet?

considering it was unencrypted, it was his own doing and a harmless exploit done by Mr. Bagpipe.
I think its much different than the argument that it's the same as exploiting the fact that someone's front door might be unlocked. The signal is out to as far as across the street, so it has to be assessed as a public signal for use. Mr Bagpipe didn't do anything to circumvent the public signal's security (or lack thereof), and the owner obviously didn't know how public wi-fi can be exploited, or look into basic (free, might i add) tools of time-sensitive tokens or passes that can be given to people he chooses or designates as authorized users.

Posted by Omega_M on Jun-01-2007 21:24:

quote:
Originally posted by SuspicionVandit
considering it was unencrypted, it was his own doing and a harmless exploit done by Mr. Bagpipe.
I think its much different than the argument that it's the same as exploiting the fact that someone's front door might be unlocked. The signal is out to as far as across the street, so it has to be assessed as a public signal for use. Mr Bagpipe didn't do anything to circumvent the public signal's security (or lack thereof), and the owner obviously didn't know how public wi-fi can be exploited, or look into basic (free, might i add) tools of time-sensitive tokens or passes that can be given to people he chooses or designates as authorized users.

the means of exploitation are different but in essence, the argument is not. The signal is not meant for public use, even if it is not encrypted. Anyone found leeching it must be punished. Being ignorant of the law does not make you inculpable.

Posted by shaolin_Z on Jun-01-2007 22:15:

If you want a secure wireless network, fucking encrypt it you dumbasses! That's kind of like leaving your property all over town and complaining that it disappeared. Idiots.

Posted by SuspicionVandit on Jun-02-2007 00:18:

it shouldn't be punishable at all if nothing was done to circumvent security, and the signal starts crossing over into public areas, be it someone else's property (the neighbors), or onto the street. Both encrypted and unencrypted wireless are visible (by default) to anyone snooping. If it just happens to be unprotected, it can just be rightfully assumed the signal is being openly shared, since his signal is openly accessible in MY living room, MY backyard, etc.
Of course, if you use the signal to gain network administration rights to snoop on HIS privacy, or cause malfunction to HIS property, or claim the connection of the cable modem's traffic (that he is paying the services for) to be yours alone, that's a problem.

sharing is caring

there were no traffic logs stating that Mr Bagpipe was doing anything illegal with the connection (child porn, piracy etc), so if anything, the only person who should have gotten punished was the Cafe owner (and by punished, i mean a 20 minute lecture from a computer nerd about the dangers of openly accessible wifi)

Posted by DJ Shibby on Jun-02-2007 02:08:

Hack the planet!!