Can the police arrest you because they had "a feeling"

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That is absolutely right. What permissions the owner sets on the router is entirely up to him. But if he sets the permissions to allow anyone within range to access the router, he shouldn't later be allowed to claim that he didn't really mean to set those permissions and get someone arrested.

In all honesty you sound like a 5 year old.

"I see the cookie! I take the cookie!"
mom - "no son, that cookie is not belong to us"
"but I see the cookie! I take the cookie!"

ignorance has never been an exuse for laws.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can you connect to a wireless network if it does not grant you access and assign you an IP address?
You must know something I don't.

Yes. That's how it works.

Don't bring a layer3 protocol (DHCP) into this discussion as it is not involved. We're dealing with layer2 here.

That's good enough for me. If you configure your router to grant access, then you have granted access, and the access is authorized.

Please learn about the technology before you post again.

I suggest you read about the association process first. Google should help you out. Then you can move onto authorization.

You can term drop all day long, but you acknowledged that the router granted access to the network. Who is responsible for configuring the router? The owner. He can set whatever permissions he wants, but he has to live with his decisions.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
That is absolutely right. What permissions the owner sets on the router is entirely up to him. But if he sets the permissions to allow anyone within range to access the router, he shouldn't later be allowed to claim that he didn't really mean to set those permissions and get someone arrested.

In all honesty you sound like a 5 year old.

"I see the cookie! I take the cookie!"
mom - "no son, that cookie is not belong to us"
"but I see the cookie! I take the cookie!"

If that's what you read, then my post was completely over your head.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp
You can term drop all day long, but you acknowledged that the router granted access to the network. Who is responsible for configuring the router? The owner. He can set whatever permissions he wants, but he has to live with his decisions.

You really, really, really don't understand how the technology works.

This is a part of the protocol, not the configuration of the AP.

I've already explained it. You actively connect to an AP regardless of any security set up on it.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
You can term drop all day long, but you acknowledged that the router granted access to the network. Who is responsible for configuring the router? The owner. He can set whatever permissions he wants, but he has to live with his decisions.

You really, really, really don't understand how the technology works.

This is a part of the protocol, not the configuration of the AP.

I've already explained it. You actively connect to an AP regardless of any security set up on it.

Yeah, only you understand technology. :roll:
I am sure your extensive wikipedia reading outweighs my advanced degrees iin computer engineering.
Why does it matter if you actively connect if the router authorizes the connection?
A connection being active doesn't make it unauthorized.

 

[BoberFett]

Apparently spidey07 is not only a network admin but an attorney as well. :roll:

Riddle me this spidey, imagine a physical area where there are two wireless access points. I am sitting there using my laptop and want to connect to one of them. One is access point to which I have been given permission to use. The other is secured and I do not have permission to use it. My computer sends out a wireless signal requesting a connection. Both access points respond, because they are simply responding to any request for access. Are you saying I've broken the law simply because a secured network responded to my request? Maybe I only wanted the access point to which I'm authorized to respond, and in fact it's the secure access point owner who has violated me and my wireless signal by responding when I didn't request it.

Sorry, but your black and white view of authorization is incomplete at best, and completely wrong at worst.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yeah, only you understand technology. :roll:
I am sure your extensive wikipedia reading outweighs my advanced degrees iin computer engineering.
Why does it matter if you actively connect if the router authorizes the connection?
A connection being active doesn't make it unauthorized.

Says the guy who calls an acces point a router.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Mardeth

Originally posted by: brxndxn
The real sad thing is that nobody seems to realize that the ONLY reason those laws exist is because cell phone companies are lobbying for them. Free wifi is direct competition to cell phone-based Internet services. It's bullsh1t.

Althought that might be true, I dont see this as unreasonable. The cafe bought the WiFi and was paying for it. And the guy in the car was basically stealing a service. Not really high on my list serious crimes, but a crime never the less.

How can you steel a free "service"? It's the coffee shops responsibility to secure their networks.

You are connecting to a computer you do not own or operate. You are stealing services you do not have permission to use.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Well we both just posted to a message board by connecting to a computer we do not own and operate. How do I know that I dont have the permission to use the wireless. In the internet age if you dont have permission to use something it usually says "access denied" or "you do not have permission to access" Unsecured Wifi just give you the same permission as any website - it is just there, waiting for connection.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yeah, only you understand technology. :roll:
I am sure your extensive wikipedia reading outweighs my advanced degrees iin computer engineering.
Why does it matter if you actively connect if the router authorizes the connection?
A connection being active doesn't make it unauthorized.

Says the guy who calls an acces point a router.

Nomenclature is not the issue here. Most people call wireless routers "wireless routers" because the wireless access point is usually integrated in a router.
If you want to call it access point, you can call it that, it doesn't really change anything.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Apparently spidey07 is not only a network admin but an attorney as well. :roll:

Riddle me this spidey, imagine a physical area where there are two wireless access points. I am sitting there using my laptop and want to connect to one of them. One is access point to which I have been given permission to use. The other is secured and I do not have permission to use it. My computer sends out a wireless signal requesting a connection. Both access points respond, because they are simply responding to any request for access. Are you saying I've broken the law simply because a secured network responded to my request? Maybe I only wanted the access point to which I'm authorized to respond, and in fact it's the secure access point owner who has violated me and my wireless signal by responding when I didn't request it.

Sorry, but your black and white view of authorization is incomplete at best, and completely wrong at worst.

Nope. You are connecting to a network you do not own or operate.

We're splitting hairs at this point. It all will be resolved with the new standards. I think there is even a flag specifically for this scenario.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yeah, only you understand technology. :roll:
I am sure your extensive wikipedia reading outweighs my advanced degrees iin computer engineering.
Why does it matter if you actively connect if the router authorizes the connection?
A connection being active doesn't make it unauthorized.

Says the guy who calls an acces point a router.

Nomenclature is not the issue here. Most people call wireless routers "wireless routers" because the wireless access point is usually integrated in a router.
If you want to call it access point, you can call it that, it doesn't really change anything.

No, but it does prove that you haven't a clue about wireless technology.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Apparently spidey07 is not only a network admin but an attorney as well. :roll:

Riddle me this spidey, imagine a physical area where there are two wireless access points. I am sitting there using my laptop and want to connect to one of them. One is access point to which I have been given permission to use. The other is secured and I do not have permission to use it. My computer sends out a wireless signal requesting a connection. Both access points respond, because they are simply responding to any request for access. Are you saying I've broken the law simply because a secured network responded to my request? Maybe I only wanted the access point to which I'm authorized to respond, and in fact it's the secure access point owner who has violated me and my wireless signal by responding when I didn't request it.

Sorry, but your black and white view of authorization is incomplete at best, and completely wrong at worst.

Nope. You are connecting to a network you do not own or operate.

We're splitting hairs at this point. It all will be resolved with the new standards. I think there is even a flag specifically for this scenario.

No, you've been splitting hairs all along, claiming that the offense occurred long before he was assigned an IP address. You're saying that he was breaking the law the moment he even requested access.

Back up your logic or STFU.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
No, you've been splitting hairs all along, claiming that the offense occurred long before he was assigned an IP address. You're saying that he was breaking the law the moment he even requested access.

Back up your logic or STFU.

Stick to layer2 please. Stay in layer2.

This is all part of the 802.11 process.

Both APs respond, it is now the client's choice to which to connect. Again, the client is actively choosing which AP to authenticate with. Don't confuse authentication with authorization.

-edit-
Notice the laws are written about AUTHORIZATION! Not Authentication.

 

[BoberFett]

Stay in the law please. Stay in the law.

The law says nothing regarding the OSI model. Quit making things up as you go along.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Stay in the law please. Stay in the law.

The law says nothing regarding the OSI model. Quit making things up as you go along.

So why are people being prosecuted for such illegal activity? Isn't that how laws are enforced?

You can try to get around the law, try to justify, but you are still breaking the law.

-edit-
It's not like this is the first time this has happened.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down
It is still a public network, it is public because the public can access it.

As is your car if you leave the keys in the ignition.

So, imagine this is a magic, semi-intelligent talking car (no, not KITT ).

If the owner of the car parks it with the keys in the ignition and tells the car "Let anyone that asks take you out for a spin. Oh, and shout to everyone in hearing range that you're open for rides."

In this situation, if I go up to the car, ask it to drive around, and receive permission from the car, am I somehow at fault?

I'd say that's a closer analogy than the one you made.


Although, I think you were spot on about copyright:

Originally posted by: Vic
A copyright is only good so long as the rightful copyright holder chooses to enforce it. So suppose you hold a copyright, but decide to let the protected work going into the public domain by choosing not to enforce it.

I feel that network access should work in a similar fashion. It would put a slight burden on network owners, but it would reduce confusion overall.
If you don't secure it, and it's configured to give free access, it is public domain. Just my personal opinion.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
You can term drop all day long, but you acknowledged that the router granted access to the network. Who is responsible for configuring the router? The owner. He can set whatever permissions he wants, but he has to live with his decisions.

You really, really, really don't understand how the technology works.

This is a part of the protocol, not the configuration of the AP.

I've already explained it. You actively connect to an AP regardless of any security set up on it.

Yeah, only you understand technology. :roll:
I am sure your extensive wikipedia reading outweighs my advanced degrees iin computer engineering.
Why does it matter if you actively connect if the router authorizes the connection?
A connection being active doesn't make it unauthorized.

LMAO...Spidey is probably has the MOST knowledge and experience with Wifi...to call his experience/knowlege wikipedia makes you look like a troll.

 

[nweaver]

Ok, so lets talk about the laws here. For good or bad, it is YOUR responsibility to seek permission to use a resource (AP/Computer/access to the internet) NOT the owners to keep you out. This is a fact, it's the law good or bad. If you don't KNOW that you have permission, you should assume you DON'T.

802.11 association process....

Client sends a Beacon Request on all/most channels.

AP's reply with beacon information...nothing illegal here, you have not "accessed" the AP, you have done a public "shout" for AP's.

Client picks a network to connect to....client sends an 802.11 ASSOCIATION REQUEST......This is turning the doorknob on the wireless network (locked or unlocked makes no difference).

AP will either ask for the key (protected/locked door) or it won't (unprotected/unlocked door).

Assuming unprotected, you have now opened the door and walked into the private network that had it's door unlocked. You have broken the law, unless you have express permission to use said network.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: nweaver
Ok, so lets talk about the laws here. For good or bad, it is YOUR responsibility to seek permission to use a resource (AP/Computer/access to the internet) NOT the owners to keep you out. This is a fact, it's the law good or bad. If you don't KNOW that you have permission, you should assume you DON'T.

802.11 association process....

Client sends a Beacon Request on all/most channels.

AP's reply with beacon information...nothing illegal here, you have not "accessed" the AP, you have done a public "shout" for AP's.

Client picks a network to connect to....client sends an 802.11 ASSOCIATION REQUEST......This is turning the doorknob on the wireless network (locked or unlocked makes no difference).

AP will either ask for the key (protected/locked door) or it won't (unprotected/unlocked door).

Assuming unprotected, you have now opened the door and walked into the private network that had it's door unlocked. You have broken the law, unless you have express permission to use said network.

Do you have any law you wish to cite when you claim it is people responsibility to seek permission to use a resource? All the laws I can find only making it illegal to use one KNOWING that you don't have permission. If you don't know one way or the other then accessing the resource is legal.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: Vic
A copyright is only good so long as the rightful copyright holder chooses to enforce it. So suppose you hold a copyright, but decide to let the protected work going into the public domain by choosing not to enforce it.

I feel that network access should work in a similar fashion. It would put a slight burden on network owners, but it would reduce confusion overall.
If you don't secure it, and it's configured to give free access, it is public domain. Just my personal opinion.

Here here! But until the law is changed...

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: nweaver
Ok, so lets talk about the laws here. For good or bad, it is YOUR responsibility to seek permission to use a resource (AP/Computer/access to the internet) NOT the owners to keep you out. This is a fact, it's the law good or bad. If you don't KNOW that you have permission, you should assume you DON'T.

802.11 association process....

Client sends a Beacon Request on all/most channels.

AP's reply with beacon information...nothing illegal here, you have not "accessed" the AP, you have done a public "shout" for AP's.

Client picks a network to connect to....client sends an 802.11 ASSOCIATION REQUEST......This is turning the doorknob on the wireless network (locked or unlocked makes no difference).

AP will either ask for the key (protected/locked door) or it won't (unprotected/unlocked door).

Assuming unprotected, you have now opened the door and walked into the private network that had it's door unlocked. You have broken the law, unless you have express permission to use said network.

Do you have any law you wish to cite when you claim it is people responsibility to seek permission to use a resource? All the laws I can find only making it illegal to use one KNOWING that you don't have permission. If you don't know one way or the other then accessing the resource is legal.

So.....if I don't know that I DON'T have permission, I can use your car, or do you have to explicitly tell me "Don't use my car!"

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: nweaver

So.....if I don't know that I DON'T have permission, I can use your car, or do you have to explicitly tell me "Don't use my car!"

Don't fight the collective, Comrade. "All your property are belong to us!"

 

[flexy]

does this ALL make any sense ?

I mean i am aware of the topic and they recently started to go HARD after piggybackers....BUT:

See it from the technicl side please !


a) If someone has an open WiFi Network and NO encryption whatseoever it is my opinion that the OWNER of the network has a certain responsibiloty TOO.


b) If i have a notebook with standard wireless network settings and HAPPEN to pick up a unecyrpted network...WINDOWS *automatically* connects to that network.

There is no WARNING given or any hint that this connection might be against a law.

I happened to see at my in-laws (OMG:.did i just say inlaws.....lol..have to tell my GF ..they live in an average suburb.

Their router/PCs lists a whole range of networks in the neighborhood and it just HAPPENED by default they connect to the strongest one showing up in the list.

When i was configuring the router i myself hooked up REPEATEDLY to some router/admin interface...and i was wondering whats going on since something didnt make sense...ad it DAWNED upon mke i am actually in the admin-GUI of some neighbours router and NOT the linksys my GF's parents had.

It also looked like at the beginning (before i started to check their network) they were not even connected to their OWN - of course unknowingly to themselves, just because of lack of technical knowledge and since Windows just connects to whats THERE, and this happened to be somewhere in the neighborhood.

So...there is no question that piggybacking is equal to stealing, becaue you DO use someone elses network and resources.

But i DO think its a "problem" (sorta) that Windows itself would connect to whatever is there....and in adition to the fact that i DO see responsibility in the network's owner (encryption !) i can NOT agree with ALL the blame on the piggybacker.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: flexy
<snip>

You bring up good points, but not entirely applicable to this situation, where the guy made a point of driving to this cafe and stayed in his car instead of going inside where he no doubt would have been expected to purchase something if he wanted to stick around and use their Internet.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: nweaver

So.....if I don't know that I DON'T have permission, I can use your car, or do you have to explicitly tell me "Don't use my car!"

Don't fight the collective, Comrade. "All your property are belong to us!"

But but but it's an authoritarian state if I'm denied from stealing your property!