|
View Poll Results: Should browsing on an unsecured wireless network become legal? | |||
Yes, it should become legal | 26 | 59.09% | |
I have no opinion | 6 | 13.64% | |
No,browsing on unsecured wireless networks is and should remain illegal | 12 | 27.27% | |
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
11-18-2008, 03:52 PM | #46 | |
WWHALD
Posts: 7,879
Karma: 337114
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Mitcham, Surrey, UK
Device: iPad. Selling my silver 505 here
|
Quote:
addresses(*), because we're paranoid I can't think of a good reason why it would be a bad idea to control access by MAC address. It can get annoying if you have a lot of devices to add, but it is reasonably secure (not completely, nothing is). (* MAC(***) addresses are the machine numbers, or more accurately the network card(**) identifiers, that each network device has. It has nothing to do with Apple Mac computers) (** computers etc that connect wirelessly still have a network card of sorts) (*** It stands for Media Access Control. And yes I know I've played silly buggers with the order of the footnotes ) Last edited by ShortNCuddlyAm; 11-18-2008 at 03:52 PM. Reason: can't spell this evening... |
|
11-18-2008, 04:45 PM | #47 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,018
Karma: 67827
Join Date: Jan 2005
Device: PocketBook Era
|
Quote:
Not necessairly. There was an incident a few years ago where a person hijacked a Home Depot wireless network to set up a child porn server. The server basically ran off his car, which he parked near the store. It took the police quite some time to track down the server since it was almost never there when they were. |
|
Advert | |
|
11-18-2008, 04:48 PM | #48 | ||
Wizard
Posts: 1,018
Karma: 67827
Join Date: Jan 2005
Device: PocketBook Era
|
Quote:
Quote:
What negligence? It's not illegal to open your wireless network. It may be a violation of your contract with your service provider, but there's no law against an open network. |
||
11-18-2008, 05:07 PM | #49 | |
Enjoying the show....
Posts: 14,270
Karma: 10462841
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Arizona
Device: A K1, Kindle Paperwhite, an Ipod, IPad2, Iphone, an Ipad Mini & macAir
|
Quote:
I'm sorry, but I just can't buy your argument. In this day and age, you must take whatever care you can to keep from being a victim. Saying that securing your connection links you to the crime committed by thieves is ludicrous. |
|
11-18-2008, 05:54 PM | #50 | ||
Wizard
Posts: 1,018
Karma: 67827
Join Date: Jan 2005
Device: PocketBook Era
|
Quote:
So I'll ask yet again: how is it negligence to have an open network? Quote:
You claim your network is secure. The bad guys used your network to commit a crime. Since your network is secure, the bad guys must have had your cooperation, which makes you an accessory. It's a rather simple argument and, unless the court is tech savvy, one that is reasonable. |
||
Advert | |
|
11-18-2008, 06:15 PM | #51 | ||
WWHALD
Posts: 7,879
Karma: 337114
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Mitcham, Surrey, UK
Device: iPad. Selling my silver 505 here
|
Quote:
Quote:
In the same way that it is not a criminal offence to leave the door of your premises(*) unlocked when no-one is in, but if some one then waltzes in and does something illegal then you would be considered, at the very best, naive and a bit stupid. Although your arguments suggest you think people should leave their front doors unlocked, as if they claim to have secured their premises by locking the door, and a criminal gains entry by picking the lock, then you must have co-operated with the criminals. The jury and/or judge may not be tech savvy, but the prosecution should explain things to them in a way a lay person can understand - or call witnesses who can. I'm sure there must be plenty of things brought before court in which the jury are not experts... (* house, car, office, shop etc etc and so forth) |
||
11-18-2008, 06:24 PM | #52 |
Beepbeep n beebeep, yeah!
Posts: 11,726
Karma: 8255450
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: La Crosse, Wisconsin, aka America's IceBox
Device: iThingie, KmkII, I miss Zelda!
|
The principle of "Attractive Nuisance" makes you liable for having an open network that someone uses for nefarious purposes.
If you have a secured network, then you are covered inasmuch as the prosecution needs to prove that you cooperated with the criminals who hack your system. There is no ipso facto assumption that if they are there, you are complicent. I would be interested in case law that would support the idea that a secured network menas that you are liable for what hackers do when they illegally enter your system. |
11-18-2008, 07:16 PM | #53 |
Reader
Posts: 11,505
Karma: 8720163
Join Date: May 2007
Location: South Wales, UK
Device: Sony PRS-500, PRS-505, Asus EEEpc 4G
|
It occurs to me, pshrynk, that if you ever work from home (answering emails, for example, or writing up notes) that your workplace might well help with computer security. Mine will provide some help in this area because they realise that academics work from home or use their laptops in archives.
|
11-18-2008, 08:23 PM | #54 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 8,478
Karma: 5171130
Join Date: Jan 2006
Device: none
|
|
11-18-2008, 08:55 PM | #55 | |
Enjoying the show....
Posts: 14,270
Karma: 10462841
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Arizona
Device: A K1, Kindle Paperwhite, an Ipod, IPad2, Iphone, an Ipad Mini & macAir
|
Quote:
Wrong, oh kemo sabe. I claim I secured my network as recommended by my network provider, using their guidelines, to prevent unauthorized used of my bandwidth. Now, tell me how in the widest stretch of the imagination you can possibly say I 'conspired' or in anyway helped thieves gain access?? (sorry, would have answered sooner but was away.....) |
|
11-18-2008, 10:20 PM | #56 | |
Beepbeep n beebeep, yeah!
Posts: 11,726
Karma: 8255450
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: La Crosse, Wisconsin, aka America's IceBox
Device: iThingie, KmkII, I miss Zelda!
|
Quote:
|
|
11-19-2008, 06:09 AM | #57 | ||
Wizard
Posts: 1,018
Karma: 67827
Join Date: Jan 2005
Device: PocketBook Era
|
Quote:
Quote:
Let's use your example: You have a house with a top of the line security system. You go on vacation. A bad person comes in and uses your house for illegal purposes. They are caught and, when examined, the top of the line security system was working properly and had not been disabled. Are you going to tell me that a court will not try, very hard, to not hold you responsible for what the bad person did? A prosecutor will make a very convincing case that you had knowledge since the bad person was able to use the house despite your top of the line security system. |
||
11-19-2008, 06:10 AM | #58 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,018
Karma: 67827
Join Date: Jan 2005
Device: PocketBook Era
|
Quote:
An open network is not an "Attractive Nuisance" since you won't notice it unless you are looking for it. |
|
11-19-2008, 06:12 AM | #59 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,018
Karma: 67827
Join Date: Jan 2005
Device: PocketBook Era
|
Quote:
Having your network secured as recommended by your network provider, using their guidelines, to prevent unauthorized used of my bandwidth, only makes it harder for you to claim that you had nothing to do with it. |
|
11-19-2008, 08:31 AM | #60 | |
Enjoying the show....
Posts: 14,270
Karma: 10462841
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Arizona
Device: A K1, Kindle Paperwhite, an Ipod, IPad2, Iphone, an Ipad Mini & macAir
|
Quote:
No sense in continuing this discussion. Your arguments remind me of my 5 yr old granddaughters......"But Whyyyy?" Buh Bye! |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unsecured Text | thymaster | Sony Reader | 4 | 09-10-2010 04:01 PM |
Windows CE 95%+ English for SmartQ, wireless network working | Houndx | Alternative Devices | 24 | 01-14-2010 09:15 AM |
can't connect to wireless network | RibRdb2 | iRex | 9 | 12-11-2007 09:40 PM |
Verizon to Open Their Wireless Network | RWood | Alternative Devices | 1 | 12-07-2007 11:41 PM |
User Friendly Wireless Network Management | alanine | iRex | 7 | 10-22-2007 09:06 AM |