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

___________________
Everything is beautiful. Let the music carry you. Baby I will follow you forever. Nowhere else I'd rather be when you're lying next to me. Let the music carry us together.
anti-JennyPie Alliance
SuspicionVandit: Are you God?
Paul Van Dyk 09-24-2009: No, but I can sign your sleeve under that name if you let me!

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

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.

___________________
Everything is beautiful. Let the music carry you. Baby I will follow you forever. Nowhere else I'd rather be when you're lying next to me. Let the music carry us together.
anti-JennyPie Alliance
SuspicionVandit: Are you God?
Paul Van Dyk 09-24-2009: No, but I can sign your sleeve under that name if you let me!

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.

___________________

Download and review ! Omega_M - In the Mix (Beta Version)

Originally posted by twilightki : It feels like something you'd listen to at 4 in the morning, or listen to in your car while you're going in a tunnel.

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.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

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)

___________________
Everything is beautiful. Let the music carry you. Baby I will follow you forever. Nowhere else I'd rather be when you're lying next to me. Let the music carry us together.
anti-JennyPie Alliance
SuspicionVandit: Are you God?
Paul Van Dyk 09-24-2009: No, but I can sign your sleeve under that name if you let me!

Hack the planet!!