Insurance companies are another matter. And FYI, I don't have cable (it's not available in my area, not that I would get it due to AT&T's track record). And the lack of DSL in my area makes me look for non-DSL and cable alternatives, including wireless. It's too bad the US, which is suppose to be the most advanced especially in the IT field, really isn't compared to Canada, South Korea, Japan, and certain parts of Europe. Of course, the new quantum entanglement experiements especially the one in Australia that was successfully able to encode a laser beam with a signal, destroy it and re-create it a meter away, sheds new light on better ways to link computers. (I wish they make a quantum entanglement ethernet bridge so I can get FTTH in Japan and use it here.... ^_^ yup...wishful thinking)
Access point, though it can be used to share a connection with other people in other locations, it can also be used to use the connection within the same location, especially if Cat5 cabling isn't a good option or for a notebook within the house, etc. And unfortunately, I must agree with you that only the rich can do anything anymore. I wonder what our founding fathers (and mothers) would think. I'd bet they are spinning like crazy in their graves. It's no longer "Give me liberty or give me death" but "Give me $$$ or give me death" I know and I hope this isn't the downside to capitalism....but just a side-effect of greed. And lobby....the legal form of bribery. Too bad there isn't a cap on it. Something about having a bigger pocketbook equates a bigger voice is inheritly unDemocratic. G. Ken Meyer wrote: > 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 -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
