Very few automobile accidents are intended, but that doesn't let you off the
hook, even if you weren't speeding, yakking on the cell...whatever, or
whatever
you claim that no one can prove otherwise.

How this philosophy may apply to the digital world is, IMHO, going to be one
humongous precedent-setting suit.  That is, if I install Win2K Server, and I
have no
idea what a port is, not to mention how many are beckoning enticingly to the
coterie or crackers, and if I then become a factor in a DoS attack that
costs Amazon
an hour at $735 lost revenue per minute (I heard that today; have no idea if
it is realistic), then do I and anyone else they can identify owe them?

Seems that the, "Gosh I'm a newbie at this stuff..." argument is the same
here as the
application to the unprotected wireless net.

But, geez, why not just put the AP and your wired stuff behind a cheap
router/switch
with NAT turned on.  Then they would have to war-drive your 'hood in order
to identify
your node, would they not??

If those of you on ATTBI have read that AUP closely, you will note that
hooking ANY
device that is not reflected on your account (i.e. paid for) to the modem is
deemed
to be "theft of service" (something added when the excite schism occurred).
Of course,
they aren't enforcing that, to my knowledge, and it's not even clear how
they can prove
whether you are into NAT overloading.  Can they?

But the legal beagles probably want to establish the precedent, in case some
one
figures out how to do it, or you are naive enough to confess to the Helpless
Desk
folks (the last one wanted me to reboot my modem by unplugging BOTH ends of
the
power cord from wall and modem...WHAT!, but that was while I was remembering
that
I hadn't pushed the little reset button, and getting back in sync without
unplugging
either end).

Kyot


-----Original Message-----

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 4:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: Re: [BAWUG] RE: Time Warner Nasty-gram

I disargee with your assumption.  It's not redistribution to a third party
if
it was not intended (stupidity, ignorance...maybe).

You can't just assume that everyone in the world is computer literate and
knows
how to setup a WiFi access point that's protected.  Most ppl, unfortunately,
expect things to work since they plug it in (hence the term "plug n' play").

G.

Enrique LaRoche wrote:

> Here we disagree
> > If someone driving by were to stop and login to the internet this would
> > not seem to be an intentional redistribution.
>
> If your access point were unprotected, this would be redistribution.
>
> > The First time you advertised your hotspot , then it would seem to
> > violate the agreement.
>
> This is also redistribution.
>
> To Violate an agreement one generally must have some intent to Violate.
>
> If I install my wireless connection to meet my needs and I do not need
> security because I am simply not intertested in security then the burden
is
> not on me to protect the interests of AT+T
>
> If a particular level of security is required as a condition for using
> wireless routers then this should be defined in the contract.
>
> > Looks like the only way these connections will mesh is via a truly
> > underground and free approach.
>
> You can mesh the connections, but you cannot grant the mesh access to the
> internet through your Time Warner account.
> > For Example I have been in dense SanFrancisco neighborhoods and logged
> > into several waps with no commercial intent.
> > Were any of thoose users in violation?
> > I doubt it.
>
> Yes, they were.
>
> Again I disagree.
> unauthorized use of a connection does not depend upon your attempt to
secure
> the connection .
>
> If you find a stack of money in the bank lobby it is not yours just
because
> it was not locked in the vault.
>
> Authorized use of a connection requires authorization and any un
authorized
> use would not constitute redistribution.
>
> Least thats the world I am used to living in.

--
general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/>
[un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Reply via email to