begin quoting Wade Curry as of Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 02:43:42AM -0700: > 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.
Whoa. I didn't realize acoustical couplers were (a) that loud and (b) that fast. > 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. Wait a minute... I missing how this has to do with stealing music because the neighbor's windows are open. > > > 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. BTW, can I say that I like the last one? I *want* to be able to turn down the volume from across the street now and again. Calling the cops is overkill. . . . > > 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. ;-) Heh. I'm not necessarily arguing my beliefs here. I do think the issue is a little more complicated than most folks are making it out to be. > > 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. Why not? It doesn't justify my walking over to your spigot and turning it on, so I can have water to wash my dog from your hosepipe. And if you're putting out enough water so that it's going to cause me problems, I have a case for trespassing across your yard to turn off the spigot. Otherwise, that's trespass...is that more or less rude than washing my 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. And the analogous action would be what, logging in to his router, changing the administrative password, and locking it down for him? That's dangerous ground... "fixing" someone else's problem "for them" is more of a breach of etiquette than taking non-destructive advantage of a (potential) problem. > > 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. It's easier to forgive the theft of bread than of gold. > > 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. It's the most rational behavior out there, game-theory-wise, isn't it? :) > 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 keep my wireless access point unplugged/powered off when I'm not using it. > 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. The problem with complaining about "stealing bandwidth" is that your neighbor's excessive RF emissions are stealing _your_ bandwidth. If we are going to go around saying that one shouldn't "steal" another's bandwidth, then we're left with the conclusion that faraday cages are mandatory. The point being made there is that the act of "stealing" isn't as clear-cut as one might think. Or we can all just ignore the issue, and pretend that since everyone is stomping on everyone else's signal, it's a moot point, and we'll just not talk about /that/ issue. . . . Anyway. How's this for an argument: there are people who get a kick out of providing free wireless access. They like to live in a world where anyone can get online quickly to check their email or look up where they're going on Google Maps. These people have a convention for allowing others to use thier wifi networks -- they don't lock 'em down. This is a useful and widely recognized convention. Some people are ignorant, and engage in behavior that looks *exactly* like this. Other people use their service. Unpleasantness ensues. So... yet another analogy: Let's say we have a town where bicycling is common, and some citizens have established a bike-sharing convention: they leave bicycles just sitting around for anyone to use. If you need to dash somewhere, doing so on a bike is a socially useful and beneficial activity. However, you can't be taking everyone's bike. You need a way to specify that some bikes are part of this bike-sharing convention, and others aren't. So the convention is established: neon-orange bikes, and no bike lock. So then we introduce somebody who decides that they'd like a neon-orange bike, and they ride it to the store and forget to lock it. Presume that they don't know about this convention that's used all over town (perhaps they're visitors). Someone jumps on their bike and rides it away. Is it theft? Or is it merely the downside of ignorance? I have a REALLY hard time with eliminating useful social conventions because some folks might be ignorant. (Can't read? get rid of street signs! -- Hey!) [snip] > > 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 don't know if I consider it a sin or a faux pas. I kind of think that considering such a usage a sin or faux pas is, in itself, wrong, and part of the larger problem. There ought to be a place for "reasonable use". If our etiquette can't accomodate that, then it's broken. (McQuary's Limit was a 'reasonable use' compromise, for example. I'm not seeing much compromise from the don't-steal-my-bandwidth camp.) > 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. Indeed. But when you start worrying about "impact on the owner", we come back to the faraday-cage issue; if your wifi network interferes with mine, then who is the one at fault, and how bad do we let the asymmetrical abuse go until we consider it a problem? > > > 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. This touches on above ... the convention is that an unlocked access point is free for all to use, because it is, well, free for all to use. The alternative is to build a society where "free for all to use" is not allowed, because some ignorant twits can't be bothered not to act like generous people, and get upset when people take advantage of their unintended generosity. These are the sorts of twits that get laws made. > > 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). There *will* be interference. Why is the ignorant and careless person in this relationship being given the benefit of the doubt? > 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. Um, I don't think I've ever seen that sort of ideal neighborhood, at least not in an urban environment. Neighbors get by, or get long, they don't cooperate, and respect is a chancy thing. > 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." When someone mails you an unsolicited gift, you're free to do with it as you please. When you dump a signal into MY home, I ought to be able to do what I want with that signal. The problem comes in when then project a signal into YOUR home to take advantage of the signal you're putting into MY home. Now we have *mutual* tresspass. (If I just sniff your signal and monitor your traffic, however, there's no problem at all. Right?) > > > 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. Um, no. It doesn't. It's only less usable for the neighbors, and *more* courteous. If you can't be bothered to get off the sofa to turn on the WAP, get an X10 remote... > It also puts on the owner the responsibility of > enforcing the neighbors' courtesy. Before he starts enforcing the neighbor's courtesy, perhaps he should exercise a little of his own first. [snip] > > 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? Oh, we can, we can. If you want to run an open wifi access point, run a nice high-powered one and don't lock it down. If you don't want it open, lock it down, and turn it off (or limit the range) when it isn't in use. Simple, eh? > 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. Think of wifi like ethernet without the wires. The more access points there are, the more collisions you'll get. Bad for bandwidth. > Ham operators have been doing > that kind of thing for years. And how do HAM operators do this? I presume that they don't transmit except when they need to, and they don't transmit during those times of day that are most likely to cause problems with the neighbors... > > > This has been a public service announcement. :-P > > > > And we thank you for it. > > > Sheesh. You won't catch *me* making snide comments. ;-D I know. You're too sneaky. -- A sort of snarky kind of malarky, If I said it was snide, I lied. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
