Jesse James said much the same thing, but he was referring to Banks. Differentiate between "dirty money" and the rest.
theft is theft is theft. Orion Robillard wrote: > > You know some people do want to give away their wireless service. If I go > down to my local internet coffee shop and get free wireless everyone is > happy. Why would I care if my neighbor is seemingly offering the same > service? How do I distinguish between free and non-free? I would rather live > in a world where I didnt have to question every free connection I get. If > there is a private SSID then I wont bother to use it. If im tresspassing on > someones land to receive the signal then I wont use it. But if I can sit at > home and open my iBook and a connection pops up, im using it. > > I think the people at http://www.austinwireless.net/ or > http://www.bawug.org/ would agree. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Teodorski, Chris [mailto:cteodorski@;ppg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:46 PM > To: Alaric Darconville; Jeff Knox > Cc: Mike Dresser; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: WIRELESS THEFT > > I am amazed that this discussion continues.....it seems to me....theft of > services is theft of services. You can't break into my house and use my > stuff just because I don't lock the door...... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Raoul Armfield [mailto:armfield@;amnh.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:59 PM > To: Alaric Darconville; Jeff Knox > Cc: Mike Dresser; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: WIRELESS THEFT > > :-----Original Message----- > :From: Alaric Darconville [mailto:alaric@;cowboy.net] > :Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 3:48 PM > :To: Jeff Knox > :Cc: Mike Dresser; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > :Subject: RE: WIRELESS THEFT > : > : > :"that means harmful interference to other devices" > :Which is precisely what I was talking about. To get any 'usable' > :downstream, you have to send upstream, at first just to initiate the > :connection that you want, and then the normal TCP acknowledgments as you > :receive the data. The bandwidth you use is bandwidth unavailable to the > :other users, therefore the interference you generate IS harmful (as it > :adversely impacts their authorized usage.) > > So are you saying that if I own a two way radio and interfere in the > conversation of a third party that I am breaking the FCC regulation? > > Don't get me wrong I agree that it is not proper to use the Wireless signal > that is being transmitted into the posters livingspace but it is a bit > farfetched to call it harmfull interference. > > Raoul -- James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA Booz | Allen | Hamilton phone: (410) 684-6566
