SJS([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:04:28AM -0700: > begin quoting Wade Curry as of Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:16:43PM -0700: > > Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:04:59AM > > -0700: > [snip] > > > A more accurate analogy, I think, would be if you were > > > listening to your neighbor's music because both your windows > > > were open, were you stealing that music? > > > > > > Granted, the RIAA would probably say yes... > > > > Issues like this /used/ to be considered part of "netiquette". > > Um, they were? > Yes, they were. Netiquette used to be a much more visible thing when we were all on 33.6kbps modems. Netiquette was about realizing that the network was a shared resource. Hanging onto a modem line for hours or sending large e-mails was considered poor netiquette. I think using someone else's wifi fits roughly in the same category.
> > When you get on someone's network, you aren't just listening to > > the music with them, or reading by the same light. The only way to > > make these analogies even close is to imagine that by using their > > light, the light fades. Or, if you listen to their music, > > the volume is decreased. > > I like the water-spigot analogy -- but with a hosepipe. If you put your > hose on my lawn, who is engaged in a breach of etiquette? > Of course you like the spigot analogy. It fits your misperceptions the best. ;-) > If I choose to /use/ that hose, that's water that you're paying for, > not me... but you're the one putting your hose on my property. > If I leave my hose running in your yard, that /would/ be breach of etiquette on my part. It /doesn't/ justify you in using it to wash your car or your dog. If you find your neighbor has left his hose running on your yard it is not generally a matter of malice. The dignified response is to act in his benefit and turn it off for him. > This works well with the tramp as well... if he snags your hose to use > it from the sidewalk, sure, that's basically theft. > Yes, but this is somewhat different. When a "thief" is truly in need, people generally forgive this type of "theft". We should also forgive breaches of etiquette rather than capitalizing on them. > If your neigbhor is not controlling their wifi sufficiently to prevent > it from getting into your living room (and possibly interfering with > your equipment and/or bandwidth), then your taking advantage of it is > a simple case of tit-for-tat. > > You shouldn't be the one who has to build a faraday cage to keep your > neighbor's RF _out_. > Tit-for-tat behavior disgusts me. How well do you control your RF emissions? I don't know of any wifi device that stops at property lines. WPA, VPNs, etc. may stop folks from using their neighbor's bandwidth, but it doesn't keep it out of their airspace. I think the faraday cage argument completely misses the point. No one to this point has been arguing that it's lousy behavior if someone's wifi extends beyond his own property. What has been claimed is that if it is accessible to people, then use of it is implicitly justifiable. So far I haven't heard any convincing arguments. > > If my neighbor sees that 1) I own one car 2) my driveway is more > > than big enough for 2 cars, and 3) besides I'm not at home right > > now, he's still being a jerk if he decides to park there. I might > > be coming home in a U-Haul with some large furniture to > > load/unload, or I might be on vacation... but when I need it, I > > /don't/ want to find someone getting in my way. And, I do get > > grouchy when I have to ask someone to let me use what is obviously > > mine, not theirs. > > Yup. > > But borrowing your driveway for a minute or three (to swap cars, > say) isn't a big deal (so long as you don't have to clean up a big > oil slick afterwards). For an hour or three, not so nice; for a day > or three, well, better ask permission first. > Yes, I agree. As I said before, there are reasons to overlook sins and faux pas. I have no problems with someone using my driveway for a 3-point-turn, or to swap cars. And I actually don't mind sharing my bandwidth, either. Bandwidth is different, though. You can't assume that just because no one is home that the bandwidth isn't being used. While there may be no visible oil slick afterwards, that's not the same as saying there was no impact on the owner. > > Maybe it isn't obvious how that person's streaming video is being > > affected. Maybe it isn't obvious that the person is trying to get > > some work done quickly over a VPN. It /is/ obvious the bandwidth > > was paid for and belongs to someone else. Not mine. That's all a > > civilized human needs to know. > > Wifi bandwidth is limited as well. My wifi may interfere with your > TV, or with your (underpowered in comparision) access point. My > emissions may cause you to run around in a tinfoil hat for protection... > Yes, there could be interference. Oh no. (Those who run around in foil hats probably need the hat to keep dangerous things from escaping). I can't see how this is different from how we deal with our neighbors in any other arena. You have to cooperate with them, be respectful of them/theirs, and be generally kind. What sorts of solutions could come from that? Any of them would have to be better than saying, "He got wifi in my airspace, so I'll just take it as if it were mine." > > Should it be illegal? I don't think so. Is it courteous? Not > > remotely (really awful pun intended). > > You can also turn it off except when you want to use it. That > would make it less usable for your neighbors, and they'd > consequently be less inclined to steal your bandwidth. > That's a possible solution, but it also makes it less usable for the owner. It also puts on the owner the responsibility of enforcing the neighbors' courtesy. > > Don't squat on my wifi, and I won't have my yard sale on /your/ > > front lawn. (if you have a problem with that, why didn't you > > put up a large fence with a locked gate?) > > Paint your house with copper paint, and stop using your RF to > stomp all over mine. :) > Oh, come on... if Bert and Ernie can cooperate on Sesame Street, why can't we? Honestly, I don't see people complaining about how their neighbors' wifi is causing interference. It it causes interference, then I'd think the owner would have the responsibility of helping with that. Ham operators have been doing that kind of thing for years. > > This has been a public service announcement. :-P > > And we thank you for it. > Sheesh. You won't catch *me* making snide comments. ;-D Wade Curry syntaxman -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
