<rant> It seems to me that the whole argument is based on infringing on the property of the home owner. So if I step on their property, I'm trespassing. Fine. What about radio signals? Are they no longer someone's property when they leave the properties boundaries? What about the space above my house? If a plane flies over my house, can I sue them for that too? Clearly not enough people in this world taking responsibility for their own actions. As for security, I believe everyone's signal should be secured however it's not that easy. People like my parents didn't grow up with computers and can barely use them yet they run out and buy a wireless router, etc and use it's defaults with no security. Probably one of the reasons that 1st level support for most router companies are now in a foreign country. Which, by the way, if I have someone in a foreign voice tell me to reboot my router because they've developed a bad firmware release, I'm going to get cranky. But that's another story. :) </rant>
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Froehle Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Treo] Unprotected wi-fi Levi, That may be your attitude, but, and I say this with respect, it's certainly not aligned with the law. IANAL, but as I understand it, the radio signals are differentiated from the network they travel on. You can intercept the radio signals without consequence (our routers do this all the time automatically, but they discard the packets), but you cannot lawfully *interact* with the _network_ they're part of without permission of the network's owner. Of course, you also can't decrypt encrypted packets that you've received without running afoul of some law or another (e.g., DMCA?), so there's that limitation as well. Using someone else's network to get email, for example, would clearly require you to *use* their property (routers, Internet service). Just as you can lawfully sit on your back porch and read a newspaper illuminated by the neighbor's porch light (photons), you are NOT allowed to go over and turn it on/off or make it brighter (interact with their property) unless he/she says it's OK for you to do that. You say "The owner of the unprotected wifi signal has some responsibility to protect it as well." That's a fairly specious argument, since it would be like saying that anyone without locks on their doors gives up the right to not have people entering their home or car at will. That's obviously false. While I *also* personally feel that it should be OK for someone to use another person's unprotected network for legal (and reasonable) uses, this attitude is not consistent with what the law (as I understand it) allows. Beyond that, willfully sharing your Internet connection with people outside your family (or the residents of the address) is a violation of most ISP's service agreements. Not that I agree with that either, of course. ;-) One of the most inappropriate arguments I keep hearing as a defense for accessing open networks is that it isn't costing anybody anything. Technically, it's costing the ISP something (of course, something really, really small) to provide that extra bandwidth to the host, which the user is not compensating either the host or the ISP for. A similar, and similarly false, argument has been made to defend sneaking into movies: "hey, they're already showing the movie for the people who paid; we're not costing them anything more by watching it when there are open seats." Of course, this isn't a valid defense. I hope an actual lawyer can give us the latest thinking on this issue...anyone? Bueller? - Craig On 9/16/05, Wallach, Levi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My attitude about this is that if you are on your own property and someone's unprotected wifi signal comes into it, you should be able to use it. That doesn't mean using it for illegal purposes (hacking into the person's network, or doing something illegal on the net like child porn or scamming people), but as long as you are doing normal internet stuff, this is you are on your own property for Pete's sake! Heck, even if you are on public property, I can see it, but at LEAST on your property. The owner of the unprotected wifi signal has some responsibility to protect it as well. If they can't do this, in my mind they forfeit their connection as one to be shared by others who are receiving it through no other action than turning on their computer and having a list of signals presented to them. This is of course a sticky issue and I think one that will have to get some work in the courts. I've heard a number of different opinions and it is a pretty interesting issue since it's one of those new technology issues that just doesn't lend itself well to comparison with existing laws... > > Levi Wallach > > Blog: twelveblackcodemonkeys.com <http://twelveblackcodemonkeys.blog-city.com> > DVD Review Site: dvdmon.com <http://www.dvdmon.com> > Pictures at: http://wallachexpressions.smugmug.com/Photos%20by%20Levi <http://wallachexpressions.smugmug.com/Photos%20by%20Levi> > -- http://www.GearBits.com -- Tech. Culture. Ideas. Opinions. _____ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit your group "treo <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/treo> " on the web. * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . _____ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/y2FxlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/treo/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
