Having been to Urbana (Lived & worked in Champaign for 2 or 3 years), I'd note to the list that the "woodedness" of Urbana would be fairly light-density growth. Not really much "woodedness" to speak of, probably roughly equivalent to San Jose, CA (maybe slightly worse, since what trees are there are somewhat denser), and a quarter to an eigth that of Albany, NY (where I live now). Keeping that in mind, I'd say that if you can find high rooftops to mount the antennas on, you shouldn't have too much trouble, though I don't expect you'd get full speed with omnis at much range. Of course, with an omni high enough in that area, you should only need a few of them to cover the whole town. David Young said: > > In Urbana, Illinois, I am working with a community group that is trying > to build a rooftop to rooftop network with 802.11b. I am not > discouraged by the woodedness of Urbana, because for most of our > participants, it is no more than one to two blocks from one's home to > another's. I think that the trees will actually be good for our > network: by limiting propagation, they will help us to re-use the > available bandwidth. > > We fully anticipate that operating at rooftop level, our link topology > will change, even if it only changes seasonally, or during storms. For > that reason, we have a notion of a "pod" in our network design. A pod > is a set of hosts with omni antennas, each host being within radio > range of at least one other host in its pod. Pod hosts route and > forward packets to one another. In this way, each pod host can > (hopefully) reach every other host in the pod (even if only by a > multi-hop path through pod hosts) choosing new pod routes as link state > changes. One or more hosts in a pod will link to the Internet and to > other pods, usually through robust connections made with directional > antennas or copper. > > We have produced an IP schema for our network, and the plans for a > bootable NetBSD CD-ROM that will autoconfigure a stock PC with radio > modem to work as a router/CPE on our network. I am presently working > on a bootable NetBSD CD-ROM that implements our plans. I have already > had some modest success with the CD-ROM. > > Even if I am mistaken about the trees, and they are our undoing in the > radio department, I feel certain that we will succeed in the software > department. > > Dave > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 09:32:01AM -0700, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Send wireless mailing list submissions to >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of wireless digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. question about WiFi in Bloomfield County, Colorado (Jim Kissel) >> 2. Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? (Eric Warnke) >> 3. Re: question about WiFi in Bloomfield County, Colorado >> (DonChicago) 4. RE: Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? >> (Enrique LaRoche) 5. RE: RE: Time Warner Nasty-gram (Jeff M) >> 6. Re: Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? (DonChicago) >> 7. RE: Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? (B.C. Krishna) 8. >> Re: Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? (John Foust) >> 9. RE: RE: Time Warner Nasty-gram (Matthew Kaufman) >> 10. RE: Time Warner Nasty-gram (Matthew Kaufman) >> 11. Time Warner Nasty - gram (Ken Leisten) >> 12. RE: Time Warner Nasty-gram (Jim Aspinwall) >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:42:25 +0100 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> From: Jim Kissel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: [BAWUG] question about WiFi in Bloomfield County, Colorado >> >> >> In a recent article "How DIY wi-fi makes 3G networks dinosaurs" >> http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,668735,00.html >> Greg Anderson, IT director for Broomfield County, Colorado said: >> ".....forsaking 3G for a wi-fi system to cover its 36 square miles. >> Anderson says the return on the $60,000 price of the new system will >> be 'astronomical': mobile phones cost far more. " >> >> and >> >> "3G is slower than what I have now," he told Computerworld. >> "Our system is much better and has zero operating cost." >> >> I have had a look around the net, and have found a couple >> of references to this, but I have a problem with the coverage. >> >> 36 square miles for $60,000! and how do you cover 36 sq miles >> with 802.11a or b when everything I read on the net suggests >> that the broadcast radius is less than 100 meters >> (say 330 feet on a good day)? >> >> Any feedback on how that major "miracle" can be accomplished >> would be greatly appreciated. >> >> thanks in advance >> >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:10:54 -0400 (EDT) >> From: Eric Warnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: [BAWUG] Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? >> >> >> Hell all, >> >> I have been researching setting up a wireless project in my home town >> of Albany, NY. Topographical maps show that my friends and I should >> have no problem establishing LOS, but in reality nobody can actually >> see anthing because of the trees in the area. We would all be >> shooting from at least two stories and there are no buildings in our >> way ( as far as we can tell ). Links will be shooting 1-3 miles. >> Using the radio mobile tool I have been able to show that even with >> urban factors(?) we should be able to maintain a connection of 20db >> over a noise floor of -87db ( 10mV ) using grid parabolic 24dB dishes. >> >> So how bad is it? Without true LOS are we going to be doing this and >> get no return? >> >> Their is another possibility and that would require us to shoot to a >> southern mntn ridge that is 9 miles off and I'm not sure that we could >> serve a whole community off a single point like that. >> >> Anyways, any practical info on p2p 2.4ghz shooting through good NE >> foliage would be very helpfull. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Eric >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 3 >> From: "DonChicago" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jim Kissel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [BAWUG] question about WiFi in Bloomfield County, >> Colorado Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:58:27 -0500 >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jim Kissel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 6:42 AM >> Subject: [BAWUG] question about WiFi in Bloomfield County, Colorado >> >> >> > >> > In a recent article "How DIY wi-fi makes 3G networks dinosaurs" >> > http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,668735,00.html Greg >> > Anderson, IT director for Broomfield County, Colorado said: >> > ".....forsaking 3G for a wi-fi system to cover its 36 square miles. >> > Anderson says the return on the $60,000 price of the new system will >> > be 'astronomical': mobile phones cost far more. " >> > >> > and >> > >> > "3G is slower than what I have now," he told Computerworld. >> > "Our system is much better and has zero operating cost." >> > >> > I have had a look around the net, and have found a couple >> > of references to this, but I have a problem with the coverage. >> > >> > 36 square miles for $60,000! and how do you cover 36 sq miles >> > with 802.11a or b when everything I read on the net suggests >> > that the broadcast radius is less than 100 meters >> > (say 330 feet on a good day)? >> > >> > Any feedback on how that major "miracle" can be accomplished >> > would be greatly appreciated. >> > >> > thanks in advance >> > >> Assuming they set up an outdoor WiFi system with roughly 3.4 mile >> omnidirectional range, they'd have just over 36 square miles of >> coverage. If you examine the outdoor range values published by Cisco >> and others for their outdoor antennas, this is well within the >> expected values. Actually, with good line of sight and sector antennas >> operating at the FCC limits for transmit power, a 360 square mile cell >> would be quite possible. Distant clients would probably need high-gain >> antennas, but the link-quality calculations work. >> I routinely use a licensed 25.2 mile LMDS radio link for internet >> access. Although the modulation is different, the LMDS radio link >> operates at 2.1/2.5 Ghz, with WiFi-comparable power levels and an >> antenna very similar to the high-gain parabolic grids used for WiFi >> clients and bridge links. That LMDS cell effectively covers over 3600 >> square miles. >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 4 >> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> From: "Enrique LaRoche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Eric Warnke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: RE: [BAWUG] Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? >> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 07:56:59 -0700 >> >> LOS is LOs and trees will dramatically reduce your range. >> Others here may respond with the Figures but I have just tried it and >> Trees seem to be made of the same stuff walls are. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric Warnke >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 7:11 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [BAWUG] Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? >> >> >> >> Hell all, >> >> I have been researching setting up a wireless project in my home town >> of Albany, NY. Topographical maps show that my friends and I should >> have no problem establishing LOS, but in reality nobody can actually >> see anthing because of the trees in the area. We would all be >> shooting from at least two stories and there are no buildings in our >> way ( as far as we can tell ). Links will be shooting 1-3 miles. >> Using the radio mobile tool I have been able to show that even with >> urban factors(?) we should be able to maintain a connection of 20db >> over a noise floor of -87db ( 10mV ) using grid parabolic 24dB dishes. >> >> So how bad is it? Without true LOS are we going to be doing this and >> get no return? >> >> Their is another possibility and that would require us to shoot to a >> southern mntn ridge that is 9 miles off and I'm not sure that we could >> serve a whole community off a single point like that. >> >> Anyways, any practical info on p2p 2.4ghz shooting through good NE >> foliage would be very helpfull. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Eric >> >> -- >> general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> >> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:13:23 -0400 (EDT) >> Subject: RE: [BAWUG] RE: Time Warner Nasty-gram >> From: "Jeff M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> I'd love to say lets agree to disagree, but this is a problem that has >> far-reaching legal ramifications. Since it doesn't appear to me that >> either of us are lawyers, I'd suggest we find a lawyer who can answer >> the following question: >> Posit: >> 1) Person X has an agreement with company C to receive access to a >> given amount of bandwidth.2) The agreement between X & C prohibits X >> from redistributing X's bandwidth. 3) X installs a wireless access >> point (WAP) for accessing the bandwidth. 4) X makes the assumption >> that the WAP is only accessible to X >> 5) The WAP is actually available to anyone who can transmit & receive >> signals to the WAP.6) Person Y happens upon the signal on Y's own >> property and uses the WAP to access the internet.Question: >> 1) Is X in violation of X's agreement? >> 2) Has Y committed a violation of some sort, and if so, precisely >> what? >> >> NOTE: >> >> These are two separate questions. It may be possible that Y is >> violating a law by accessing X's WAP and Y's network without >> authorisation, but X is in violation of X's agreement by negligently >> allowing Y access at the same time. (thus, both X and Y are at fault) >> I also have some comments in the e-mail below: >> >> >> Enrique LaRoche said: >> > >> > >> >> 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. >> >> Really? If I violate a law without intent and find out about my >> violation later when I'm charged with violation, I still expect to be >> found guilty if I actually did what I'm charged with. Why are >> agreements different? >> >> > 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 >> >> No, but you do have the burden of upholding your agreement with them. >> >> > >> > If a particular level of security is required as a condition for >> > using wireless routers then this should be defined in the contract. >> >> It was. The contract said don't let other people on the network. >> >> > >> >>> 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. >> >> The person taking the money is guilty of theft. The person leaving >> the money in the lobby may be held partly responsible for his >> negligent behavior. >> > >> > Authorized use of a connection requires authorization and any un >> > authorized use would not constitute redistribution. >> >> Authorised use of a connection requires authorisation and is >> redistribution, unauthorised use of a connection *MAY* constitute >> redistribution, and would certainly be arguable in court. >> The person making unauthorised use of an unprotected connection may >> plead ignorance as well, by claiming that they thought they were using >> an open public network. >> >> > >> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 6 >> From: "DonChicago" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Eric Warnke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [BAWUG] Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? >> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:14:18 -0500 >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eric Warnke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 9:10 AM >> Subject: [BAWUG] Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? >> >> >> > >> > Hell all, >> > >> > I have been researching setting up a wireless project in my home >> > town of Albany, NY. Topographical maps show that my friends and I >> > should have no problem establishing LOS, but in reality nobody can >> > actually see anthing because of the trees in the area. We would all >> > be shooting from at least two stories and there are no buildings in >> > our way ( as far as we can tell ). Links will be shooting 1-3 >> > miles. Using the radio mobile tool I have been able to show that >> > even with urban factors(?) we should be able to maintain a >> > connection of 20db over a noise floor of -87db ( 10mV ) using grid >> > parabolic 24dB dishes. >> > >> > So how bad is it? Without true LOS are we going to be doing this >> > and get no return? >> > >> > Their is another possibility and that would require us to shoot to a >> > southern mntn ridge that is 9 miles off and I'm not sure that we >> > could serve a whole community off a single point like that. >> > >> > Anyways, any practical info on p2p 2.4ghz shooting through good NE >> > foliage would be very helpfull. >> > >> > Thanks in advance, >> > Eric >> I tested an 1800 foot radio link through typical Midwest suburban >> summer foliage between a 100 milliwatt Cisco Air-BR342 Wireless Bridge >> in AP mode using a 10 dBi Cisco omni antenna @ 35 feet above ground >> level and a notebook running a Cisco Air-LMC352 (PC Card @ 50 >> milliwatts) into a 19 dBi antenna, also at 35 feet AGL. The SNR >> averaged no better than 10 dB, a marginal link. The same pair of >> radios works fine at 5.6 miles range with Line Of Sight. >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 7 >> Subject: RE: [BAWUG] Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? >> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:17:57 -0400 >> From: "B.C. Krishna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Eric Warnke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> It would be great if somebody would provide the definitive treatise on >> this. Really, isn't the issue the moisture in the trees and leaves >> (creating a dielectric barrier) that's the problem? >> >> I don't have sophisticated tools, but measured with NetStumbler, I >> don't see any signal degradation across the boundary of my house >> siding (cedar shingles). Wood, but dry. >> >> So, leaves do seem to dramatically reduce range, as do windows with >> leaded glass. >> >> cheers, bc >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Enrique LaRoche [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> >Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 10:57 AM >> >To: Eric Warnke >> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Subject: RE: [BAWUG] Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? >> > >> > >> >LOS is LOs and trees will dramatically reduce your range. >> >Others here may respond with the Figures but I have just tried it >> >and Trees >> >seem to be made of the same stuff walls are. >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric Warnke Sent: >> >Friday, June 28, 2002 7:11 AM >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Subject: [BAWUG] Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? >> > >> > >> > >> >Hell all, >> > >> >I have been researching setting up a wireless project in my >> >home town of >> >Albany, NY. Topographical maps show that my friends and I >> >should have no >> >problem establishing LOS, but in reality nobody can actually >> >see anthing >> >because of the trees in the area. We would all be shooting >> >from at least >> >two stories and there are no buildings in our way ( as far as >> >we can tell >> >). Links will be shooting 1-3 miles. Using the radio mobile >> >tool I have >> >been able to show that even with urban factors(?) we should be able >> >to maintain a connection of 20db over a noise floor of -87db ( >> >10mV ) using >> >grid parabolic 24dB dishes. >> > >> >So how bad is it? Without true LOS are we going to be doing >> >this and get >> >no return? >> > >> >Their is another possibility and that would require us to shoot to a >> >southern mntn ridge that is 9 miles off and I'm not sure that we >> >could serve a whole community off a single point like that. >> > >> >Anyways, any practical info on p2p 2.4ghz shooting through >> >good NE foliage >> >would be very helpfull. >> > >> >Thanks in advance, >> >Eric >> > >> >-- >> >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 >> > >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:19:32 -0500 >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> From: John Foust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [BAWUG] Theoretical LOS vs the reality of trees? >> >> At 10:10 AM 6/28/2002 -0400, Eric Warnke wrote: >> >Anyways, any practical info on p2p 2.4ghz shooting through good NE >> >foliage would be very helpfull. >> >> 2.4 Ghz doesn't like water. Leaves and wood have water, and >> rain-wettened leaves are even more water especially at moments >> when there's rain in the air. Although a quick survey might >> reveal a signal at a certain level, what you really want is a >> survey conducted over time with the equipment you plan to use. >> >> In other words, even if you think you can punch through some trees, >> over time your real installation may show you that the signal >> degrades. Sometimes the degradation is tough to assess: it could be >> water in a cable coupling, wind shaking a loose mount, ice on the >> Yagi cover cap, etc. >> >> You should also web-research "Fresnel effect" to determine >> the effect of obstacles in any seemingly clear path. >> >> - John >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 9 >> From: "Matthew Kaufman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "'Jeff M'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: RE: [BAWUG] RE: Time Warner Nasty-gram >> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:37:07 -0700 >> >> My take? >> >> 1) Maybe. It really depends on the text of the agreement. They >> certainly have a good defense. >> 2) Yes, absolutely. Violating state and federal criminal law. Their >> defense is extremely poor. >> >> Odds are, neither one will get caught unless they're extremely >> un-subtle. >> >> > 1) Is X in violation of X's agreement? >> > 2) Has Y committed a violation of some sort, and if so, >> > precisely what? >> > >> > NOTE: >> > >> > These are two separate questions. It may be possible that Y >> > is violating a law by accessing X's WAP and Y's network >> > without authorisation, but X is in violation of X's agreement by >> > negligently allowing Y access at the same time. (thus, >> > both X and Y are at fault) I also have some comments in the >> > e-mail below: >> > >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 10 >> From: "Matthew Kaufman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [BAWUG] Time Warner Nasty-gram >> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:38:07 -0700 >> >> >> > Perhaps it's like cell phone calls; I can listen but I can't >> > disclose what I heard. >> >> No longer legal as of 1986, thanks to the same ECPA that protects the >> privacy of your email. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 11 >> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:09:12 -0700 >> From: Ken Leisten<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [BAWUG] Time Warner Nasty - gram >> >> Cable Firms Faulted For Restrictions On Internet Service >> (Washingtonpost.com, June 28, 2002) >> Some cable providers have imposed "troubling" restrictions on how >> their high-speed Internet networks can be used by consumers and >> businesses, a coalition of high-tech companies has told federal >> regulators. >> Full text article is at >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58542-2002Jun27.html >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 12 >> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:31:17 -0700 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> From: Jim Aspinwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: RE: [BAWUG] Time Warner Nasty-gram >> >> >> Actually, according to the FBI and a local attorney that is NOT true - >> if you leave the door open to your house anyone can walk in and >> browse around (local laws may vary). >> >> 'Trespass' is NOT legally defined in terms of the Internet and >> personal computers. Not known to be tried, tested and precedent set >> in courts. >> >> "Invasion of privacy" is not universally defined legally - in some >> cases it may be overt "peeping tom" and in others peering over the >> neighbors fence or walking into their house is NOT. >> >> "The Internet" is not known to be or defined as private by any means - >> as a whole or part. The existence of a host on the Internet, by >> nature and lack of legal definition, comprises a publicly available >> resource on the Internet. There is NO differentiation (yet) of >> whether or not you use FTP, HTTP, NetBIOS, port 52387, Telnet, etc. >> to define and delimit private v. public systems and resources on the >> Internet. The day the Feds start defining 'legal' based on port and >> protocol is the day we may as well give up on the 'Net as-is. Hence >> - they ONLY way to define anything illegal on the Internet so far is >> tangible damages. >> >> Common sense says that most people do not just walk around other's >> back yards and into their bedrooms - but they are essentially free to >> do so. You may and should ask them to leave, or ask the police to >> intervene - but unfortunately there isn't always an implicit >> 'trespass' violation until the 'guest' refuses to leave. >> >> True it is a horribly frightening annoyance - but, like having private >> info (check privacy rules) *available* does not constitute mis-use or >> damages UNTIL it is mis-used or causes damage. >> >> If I have your SS# and bank account #, mother's maiden name and >> password - so WHAT? If I do nothing with it, what harm have I done >> but scare the heck out of you and piss you off ???? An emotional >> reaction of course - we've been 'violated' - but until I spend a dime >> of your $$ I have caused no actual tangible damage. Looking at your >> open wallet in plain sight on the seat of your car does not >> constitute illegal search, trespass or anything else illegal. >> >> Conversely, and of course the way we FEEL about things - walk into my >> house uninvited or I catch you on my network you may begin to imagine >> hearing cold steel moving against cold steel and visualize a long >> cold black hollow cylinder pointed at your forehead or delicate >> parts...or begin to feel like a fastball headed towards Barry Bond's >> bat and then winging your way toward SF bay - which is what keeps >> most of us from doing such things... >> >> What no one has said, though it appears from some of the reactions >> that I or someone did say it - is that you are wrong for not taking >> preventive measures, or that you are inviting or taking liability for >> others' wrong-doing - NO WAY - questionable reasoning for not taking >> such steps perhaps, but not wrong. >> >> Except, unless the moron who walks into your house uninvited hurts >> himself, you are not liable for leaving that attractive nuisance as >> an open door or open LAN available to the public (as I would be for >> not building a locked six foot fence to keep the neighbor kids from >> drowning in my pool, whether or not the kid entered the yard or drown >> in the pool...) any more than the questionable nature of running an >> open SMTP relay or unprotected IIS server (heck, any IIS server). >> >> Points are and have been clearly: >> >> - legal or not the ISP can clip your wings anyway they want >> - correcting that is up to how much time and effort and legal backing >> you can afford to deal with it >> - tangible damages are clearly on the books, emotional damage is >> harder to prove and outside the context of the discussion >> - we do what is smart and reasonable to protect our homes and >> networks >> because it makes sense to invoke some measures of reasonable >> self-protection and emotional comfort - out of fear and perhaps ethics >> and common sense, not out of non-existent legal mumbo-jumbo >> >> "Wrong. >> By using any tool to browse someone else's hard drive without their >> explicit permission, you have committed trespass and breached their >> privacy, in exactly the same way that walking into a person's unlocked >> house and rooting through their dresser drawers without an invitation >> constitutes trespass and invasion of privacy, regardless of whether >> you take or damage anything or not." >> >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> -- >> general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> >> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> End of wireless Digest > > -- > David Young OJC Technologies > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering from the Right Brain > Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933 > -- > 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
