A lot of supposition, I dont need a license to operate win2k from the government or any other agency except the user license from Microsoft.
I do not need to be certified to operate or install the software. I am not liable for what others do on my server that I use to allow my 4 ice cream stores to send their cone counts to me over the internet. I do not offer it for anyone elses use but my employees. One doesnt hold the Victims of the Mitniks of the world liable for what the mitniks did. If the internet is a dangerous place let me find out myself . Zombies Alive! Sort of anyway :) If Microsoft makes inherently open and dangerous software let them fix it. If I wanted to roll my own I would buy (download) Linux. -----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 > > -----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 -- 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
