Comments on: Wi-Fi Piggybacking? Watch Out for the Fine http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855 Independent Tech News and Product Reviews from former VP and head of CNET.com and Longtime Computer Shopper Columnist, Alice Hill author of the popular "Hard Edge" column. Originally named AliceandBill.com. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:32:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Al http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-851922 Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:08:30 +0000 http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-851922 I'd like to piggy back if I am presented with such opportunity. Most people, idiots or not, would not like other people accessing their wifis, even if access speed is not affected. Therefore, piggybacking, over time should be a fully defined cyber crime. Manufacturers of wifi routers should be able to simplify network security to the next level. They should also be required to contain an advisory that tech idiots should refer to social idiots (geeks) when installing such devices beyond their comprehension. Still, if tech idiots continue to disregard this notice, then it must be assumed that people leave their wifi might actually be geeks trying to make money via settlement of a law suit or just want to share what they have out of generosity. I’d like to piggy back if I am presented with such opportunity. Most people, idiots or not, would not like other people accessing their wifis, even if access speed is not affected.

Therefore, piggybacking, over time should be a fully defined cyber crime.

Manufacturers of wifi routers should be able to simplify network security to the next level. They should also be required to contain an advisory that tech idiots should refer to social idiots (geeks) when installing such devices beyond their comprehension.

Still, if tech idiots continue to disregard this notice, then it must be assumed that people leave their wifi might actually be geeks trying to make money via settlement of a law suit or just want to share what they have out of generosity.

]]> by: 翻译公司 http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-780033 Mon, 19 May 2008 03:39:43 +0000 http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-780033 the pilot cried: Wenchuan has become hell on earth because of the serious road fracture Ta, the aftershocks continue, <a href="http://www.bjjnmc.com/" rel="nofollow">阳光房</a>the Chengdu Military Region of the vanguard force can not be rushed Wenchuan County city. the pilot cried: Wenchuan has become hell on earth because of the serious road fracture Ta, the aftershocks continue, 阳光房the Chengdu Military Region of the vanguard force can not be rushed Wenchuan County city.

]]> by: me2 http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-392177 Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:50:55 +0000 http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-392177 When you log on to any network you don't get access if that router says no. Essentially if it does say yes, I'd say thats authorized access. You should be responsible for the security. Someone surfing the web unless their doing something illegal shouldn't be a crime. Though I agree its not open invitation to hack into their computer and go through their files. But were talking internet here. As long as it wasn't for doing illegal things then I wouldn't care. I doubt it costs less if I don't use it or more if I do. In my opinion using the internet which should be a free resource for all anyway cause they make money from advertising not ISP's is fine. In other words your cable bill isn't cheaper cause you didn't watch 170 out of 200 channels. Same difference. My advice protect yourself. Your name could be ruined if a hacker gets on and looks up child pornography or does something illegal. You might get cleared you might not. Not to mention the identity theft. When you log on to any network you don’t get access if that router says no. Essentially if it does say yes, I’d say thats authorized access. You should be responsible for the security. Someone surfing the web unless their doing something illegal shouldn’t be a crime. Though I agree its not open invitation to hack into their computer and go through their files. But were talking internet here. As long as it wasn’t for doing illegal things then I wouldn’t care. I doubt it costs less if I don’t use it or more if I do. In my opinion using the internet which should be a free resource for all anyway cause they make money from advertising not ISP’s is fine. In other words your cable bill isn’t cheaper cause you didn’t watch 170 out of 200 channels. Same difference.

My advice protect yourself. Your name could be ruined if a hacker gets on and looks up child pornography or does something illegal. You might get cleared you might not. Not to mention the identity theft.

]]> by: Laurel Lee http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-344101 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:26:36 +0000 http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-344101 Is the following a repetition? Perhaps the most fundamental US law is the golden rule. All other law is a variation on it, if it is good law. How does the golden rule apply to wifi piggybacking? The superficial application would be that trespass on private property is a grievable offense, and using somebody else's private access is trespass. However, a person who pays for wifi access at home may need to access it unexpectedly (or expectedly) away from home. Do peole who complain about piggybacking already piggyback. Will people who contemplate suing piggybackers discover a need to piggyback themselves? I think so. Is the following a repetition?

Perhaps the most fundamental US law is the golden rule. All other law is a variation on it, if it is good law.

How does the golden rule apply to wifi piggybacking?

The superficial application would be that trespass on private property is a grievable offense, and using somebody else’s private access is trespass.

However, a person who pays for wifi access at home may need to access it unexpectedly (or expectedly) away from home.

Do peole who complain about piggybacking already piggyback.

Will people who contemplate suing piggybackers discover a need to piggyback themselves?

I think so.

]]> by: Don http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-284704 Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:19:41 +0000 http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-284704 The airwaves flow freely across each one of our backyards so it seems strange that you would have to pay a company to use a free natural resource that was free to begin with. There should be a price for the technology to access the resource but to impose a fee for continued access to this free resource is the real theft! The airwaves flow freely across each one of our backyards so it seems strange that you would have to pay a company to use a free natural resource that was free to begin with. There should be a price for the technology to access the resource but to impose a fee for continued access to this free resource is the real theft!

]]> by: WiFi Take over http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-246926 Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:25:19 +0000 http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-246926 Hey my motto is: If it's in the air it's free as the wind. Like satelite tv. So what the signal is encrypted! Because someone is smart enough to get around it and obtain access then, hey more power to them. I build wifi Satelite dishes to obtain further range and to pull those weak signals in, so I guess im breaking the law. I took an old microwave apart and after several projects and different methods I manged to make an amplifier that really pumps out wifi further and screwed up peoples satelite receptions if you point the dish at theres. It's funny. I do see it being Illegal interupting peoples satelite reception but people should know that little label from the fcc that this digital blah blah is to fcc standars and this device may receive interfearence even if it causes undesired operation. So how should it be illegal with a label like that? Hey my motto is: If it’s in the air it’s free as the wind. Like satelite tv. So what the signal is encrypted! Because someone is smart enough to get around it and obtain access then, hey more power to them. I build wifi Satelite dishes to obtain further range and to pull those weak signals in, so I guess im breaking the law. I took an old microwave apart and after several projects and different methods I manged to make an amplifier that really pumps out wifi further and screwed up peoples satelite receptions if you point the dish at theres. It’s funny. I do see it being Illegal interupting peoples satelite reception but people should know that little label from the fcc that this digital blah blah is to fcc standars and this device may receive interfearence even if it causes undesired operation. So how should it be illegal with a label like that?

]]> by: ClapekDodki http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-231226 Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:56:48 +0000 http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-231226 <a href="http://eros-amatoriali.iitalia.com/26-piccole_poppe/" rel="nofollow">piccole poppe</a> piccole poppe

]]> by: ClapekDodki http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-230449 Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:04:13 +0000 http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-230449 <a href="http://eros-amatoriali.iitalia.com/5-lesbe/" rel="nofollow">lesbe</a> lesbe

]]> by: John http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-20087 Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:11:56 +0000 http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-20087 Look people, here's how DHCP works: the laptop sends out a REQUEST to be ALLOWED on to the network. If the router authenticates that request, then you have been ALLOWED on to the network. You didn't hack your way in, you ASKED to be allowed in. It's not like breaking into someone's house, it's more like going up to the door, asking if you can be let in, and coming in. The fact that the router and not the owner is doing the "allowing" is one level removed from the responsibility of piggy-backer. Look people, here’s how DHCP works: the laptop sends out a REQUEST to be ALLOWED on to the network. If the router authenticates that request, then you have been ALLOWED on to the network. You didn’t hack your way in, you ASKED to be allowed in. It’s not like breaking into someone’s house, it’s more like going up to the door, asking if you can be let in, and coming in. The fact that the router and not the owner is doing the “allowing” is one level removed from the responsibility of piggy-backer.

]]> by: Nick http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-20073 Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:31:51 +0000 http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2855#comment-20073 Idiots Blame the Victim only happens in the case where there is an identifiable victim. In this case, the victim would the the service provider. The person who has an open wireless network is not a victim. Nothing is being stolen from him. The guy who was arrested was using a wireless network that was most likely not currently in use. Anyone with high speed internet knows you generally pay by the time period, not by the byte, even in the mega, kilo, or giga varieties. All of you who think we should "crack down on wireless internet piracy" are the same idiots who file frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit because you can get money out of someone. Why dont you take some responsiblity about your lives and protect YOURSELF or else just decide you dont care and stop whining. Idiots

Blame the Victim only happens in the case where there is an identifiable victim. In this case, the victim would the the service provider.

The person who has an open wireless network is not a victim. Nothing is being stolen from him. The guy who was arrested was using a wireless network that was most likely not currently in use. Anyone with high speed internet knows you generally pay by the time period, not by the byte, even in the mega, kilo, or giga varieties.

All of you who think we should “crack down on wireless internet piracy” are the same idiots who file frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit because you can get money out of someone.

Why dont you take some responsiblity about your lives and protect YOURSELF or else just decide you dont care and stop whining.

]]>