They don't end-up in legal action because the insurance companies calculate
the cost of settling vs. the cost of litigating, and may settle even when
you want them to defend you -- that isn't in their contract.  The fleeing
suspect isn't going to be improving his resources while moldering in the
slammer, but in the small chance that he does have existing assets, I
believe a case is coming down the chute.

I don't know what your cable AUP says, but I doubt if it addresses your
contrived analogy.  In any event, the whole thrust of my post was that I
don't think that this sort of thing has been addressed in the courts, and it
will be interesting to find out.  Even the police are willing to do illegal
things until someone has the intestinal fortitude and bank account to
challenge them -- and then the "punishment" may be merely a "cease and
desist" order.

I would also be interested in the T/W response to a guarantee that WEP was
up.  Perhaps that would fix it...perhaps.  Wishful thinking, perhaps as
well.

Kyot


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

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

true....but it doesn't doesn't necessarily end in legal action (car
accidents
that weren't intended and was not through any fault of the driver, like a
deer
that jumps out....or being broadsided by a fleeing suspect in those infamous
high-speed chases).

Now here's a thought.  Guy A lives in House A and gets cable TV.  Guy A also
has
a big glass window and a big screen TV.  Neighbor B gets an universal remote
and
watches Guy A's cable on Guy A's TV when Guy A is not at home.
Is Guy A liable?

I hope not.

Besides from what I heard originally, the problem was that the guy didn't
enable WEP and thus his AP was public.  Intent?  Probably none.
The best way is for him to enable WEP.  Pure and simple.  And let his
service provider know that the AP is no longer public and has been
made secure (at least to those who aren't technologically-knowledgeble).

G.

Ken Meyer wrote:

> 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

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

Reply via email to