Verizon wireless - Wardriving is Legal. Legal opinions.

Author

Wardriving is Legal. Legal opinions.

Larry

2007-06-11, 12:33 pm

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....tract_id=585867

I've been attacked by the cellular hacks on these newsgroups because I
dare logon to open wifi systems and get my email, etc., instead of paying
the jerk cellular phone companies $70/month for slow, spotty service all
hobbled up with "you can't do that" legal jargon to prevent you from
using bandwidth.

According to many law schools and the courts (see the various papers from
this website), what thousands of people are doing with programs like
Network Stumbler to find open systems driving around are perfectly legal
and NOT theft, as the cellular hacks have tried to make it to preserve
company profits. It's just not true.

From the paper marked "Stanford Law School", MIT even has a course setup
to improve your techniques!
"Moreover, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung declared the movement a
“national sport” in the United States, and also noted that the practice
is quickly moving to Europe. Recently, a how-to wireless-hacking course
has been offered at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), promising to teach students how to perform wardriving techniques
and how to use “cool wireless tools for [their] tinkering pleasure.”

Screw cellular ripoffs and their denial of services....(c;

Get Net Stumbler from:
http://www.stumbler.net
When you see W4CSC on it, help yourself to my hotspot. It's running
400mw to a 9db omnidirectional antenna up 55'. Range is about 1.5 miles
to a Pringle's can antenna. Got a hotspot? SHARE IT!

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

Steve Sobol

2007-06-11, 3:33 pm

On 2007-06-11, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....tract_id=585867
>
> I've been attacked by the cellular hacks on these newsgroups because I
> dare logon to open wifi systems and get my email, etc., instead of paying
> the jerk cellular phone companies $70/month for slow, spotty service all
> hobbled up with "you can't do that" legal jargon to prevent you from
> using bandwidth.

It's not about cellular at all. If you use an open wifi system, you are
using a system that someone else pays for, generally without any compensation
to them. Now, if they INTENTIONALLY leave it open, there is no legal issue.
The real question is what happens when it is unknowingly left open.

The article cites FCC commish Powell as saying that people who want to
leave their systems open should be allowed to do so. I certainly can't
argue with that, although I won't leave my access point unprotected;
anyone wanting to cause trouble could do so without my knowledge, and
I'd be liable for the damages. But those who don't mind the risk certainly
should be encouraged to share.

I also agree with Powell that most if not all of the bad things that can
be done with open wifi are already covered by existing law enforcement
policies.

However, the article goes on to say that "the criminality of wardriving
remains to be tested in the courts."

I think I have to agree that wardriving itself probably isn't illegal. It's
interesting, because if you leave your house or car unlocked accidentally
and someone steals stuff out of the house or takes the car, they have
unquestionably broken the law. The article you cited indicates that there is
no such clear rule against the simple detection of open networks.

Thank you for posting that link!

balsofsteele@gmail.com

2007-06-11, 3:33 pm

Larry wrote:
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....tract_id=585867
>
> I've been attacked by the cellular hacks on these newsgroups because I
> dare logon to open wifi systems and get my email, etc., instead of paying
> the jerk cellular phone companies $70/month for slow, spotty service all
> hobbled up with "you can't do that" legal jargon to prevent you from
> using bandwidth.
>
> According to many law schools and the courts (see the various papers from
> this website), what thousands of people are doing with programs like
> Network Stumbler to find open systems driving around are perfectly legal
> and NOT theft, as the cellular hacks have tried to make it to preserve
> company profits. It's just not true.
>
> From the paper marked "Stanford Law School", MIT even has a course setup
> to improve your techniques!
> "Moreover, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung declared the movement a
> “national sport” in the United States, and also noted that the practice
> is quickly moving to Europe. Recently, a how-to wireless-hacking course
> has been offered at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> (MIT), promising to teach students how to perform wardriving techniques
> and how to use “cool wireless tools for [their] tinkering pleasure.”
>
> Screw cellular ripoffs and their denial of services....(c;
>
> Get Net Stumbler from:
> http://www.stumbler.net
> When you see W4CSC on it, help yourself to my hotspot. It's running
> 400mw to a 9db omnidirectional antenna up 55'. Range is about 1.5 miles
> to a Pringle's can antenna. Got a hotspot? SHARE IT!
>
> Larry

Some people fail to realize that *whatever* someone spews onto the ISM
band (the only spectrum worth mention at this point for data is 915, 2.4
and 5.15-5.825) falls under the same use restriction as CB radio.
Anyone can transmit, anyone can recieve - now, breaking into an
*encrypted* network, no matter how pathetic of encryption (yep, even
WEP56) is illegal but *NOT* due to the RF use, but the actual encryption
breaking itself (DMCA covers this)

There is etiquette issues of course, like don't hog up all of someone's
bandwidth.

There are some issues with running (and using!) a hotspot, like CALEA
compliance, privacy, security, that one should keep in mind. One should
not assume the hotspot they're connected to is any more legitimate than
their non-authorized use of it. You *could* catch the cooties! For a
humorous example see
http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/upside-down-ternet.html but this should
serve as a warning. Someone *could* infect files downloaded through
their hotspot just as easily as one can blur pictures...

I'm guessing you've got either the SR2 or Senao 8602+ cards since you're
at 400mW. If you want something thats a bit more exciting you might
want to check out the Ubiquiti SR9. I find them to work amazingly well
on 5 mhz channel bandwidth under Mikrotik RouterOS. 900 mhz breaks
through foliage in a surprising sort of way. I've seen 4mbit @ 6 miles
with some foliage in the way, 7 dBi omni (top of 150' tower) to another
7 dBi omni (top of car) - with more optimal conditions it should work
well over 10 miles.

BS

sailingsoul

2007-06-11, 10:33 pm

If a home owner pays for His water and I trespass to get water from his
garden hose then, I can be charged with trespassing and theft. If that
same home owner sprays me with that water and I not on his property,
did i steal the water on my clothes? Or if I catch some and drink it am
I stealing? If that person wants to forbid open access they implement
password protection . As far as I know all routers have this feature.
Just a thought. SS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.wirelessforums.org/showthread.php?t=23177
http://www.wirelessforums.org

Larry

2007-06-11, 10:33 pm

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
news:slrnf6r4a4.m6j.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:

> But those who don't mind the risk certainly
> should be encouraged to share.
>

What risk, specifically? I can cut anyone off I don't want using it,
individually. I've had no problem, ever, with abuse. On top of the
enlisted barracks at the air force base, you'll find 3 Pringle's can
antennas pointed at my hotspot. They don't have broadband in the peon
barracks. I'm doin' my part for the troops!...(c;

I see no risk at all. As a matter of fact, if anyone can get to your
system to connect with the internet, you're fairly bust free when the
govt snoops "catch you"....

"Sir. Isn't it a fact that your IP connected to this kiddie porn website
in Bangledesh, as recorded by our illegal wiretap?"

"I don't know. Hundreds of people use my wifi link all the time. I
don't know or care what they do as long as they don't attack me or
another user. I don't track every webpage they look at or the whole
internet would be shut down all over!", I exclaim, innocently.

I'm no more responsible than Comcrap or Verizon. I'm just a pipe to
them....and that stands up just fine in court....no intent!

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

Larry

2007-06-11, 10:33 pm

"balsofsteele@gmail.com" <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote in
news:y3hbi.60816$0x.7198@fe11.usenetserver.com:

> I'm guessing you've got either the SR2 or Senao 8602+ cards since
you're
> at 400mW. If you want something thats a bit more exciting you might
> want to check out the Ubiquiti SR9. I find them to work amazingly well
> on 5 mhz channel bandwidth under Mikrotik RouterOS. 900 mhz breaks
> through foliage in a surprising sort of way. I've seen 4mbit @ 6 miles
> with some foliage in the way, 7 dBi omni (top of 150' tower) to another
> 7 dBi omni (top of car) - with more optimal conditions it should work
> well over 10 miles.
>
>

Senao, but the idea is to to provide STANDARD 2400 Mhz wifi to my, or
anyone else in range's laptop, which isn't on 900 Mhz. The router is in
an inverted plastic bucket up in a tree with the high gain antenna on top
of the bucket to make the coax really short. Ethernet provides both
bandwidth and DC to run it from my 2KW UPS in the shack. Two 330AH golf
cart batteries in series provide UPS power until I crank the diesel
genset. Knology Cable has a natural gas powered UPS driving all the
cable equipment in each node with interconnecting fiber. Telephone
providers, the whole system is independently powered....pretty nice.

Part of the reason you don't have much trouble being a hotspot in a
normal residential area (not a high-rise hacker haven) is the limited
range it covers. My magmount antenna on the car gets 5 open and 7
secured routers from the front yard on net stumbler, not including mine.
Hardly anyone even cares its there. It's not like you're providing 25
mile coverage over the data ghettos.

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

Ness_net

2007-06-11, 10:33 pm

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...om-his-car.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060622-7111.html

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/stor...p-8559268c.html

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070226/004000.shtml

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/S...b
r.shtml

There are many more....

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns994C7DF29A60
8noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....tract_id=585867
>
> I've been attacked by the cellular hacks on these newsgroups because I
> dare logon to open wifi systems and get my email, etc., instead of paying
> the jerk cellular phone companies $70/month for slow, spotty service all
> hobbled up with "you can't do that" legal jargon to prevent you from
> using bandwidth.
>
> According to many law schools and the courts (see the various papers from
> this website), what thousands of people are doing with programs like
> Network Stumbler to find open systems driving around are perfectly legal
> and NOT theft, as the cellular hacks have tried to make it to preserve
> company profits. It's just not true.
>
> From the paper marked "Stanford Law School", MIT even has a course setup
> to improve your techniques!
> "Moreover, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung declared the movement a
> “national sport” in the United States, and also noted that the practice
> is quickly moving to Europe. Recently, a how-to wireless-hacking course
> has been offered at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> (MIT), promising to teach students how to perform wardriving techniques
> and how to use “cool wireless tools for [their] tinkering pleasure.”
>
> Screw cellular ripoffs and their denial of services....(c;
>
> Get Net Stumbler from:
> http://www.stumbler.net
> When you see W4CSC on it, help yourself to my hotspot. It's running
> 400mw to a 9db omnidirectional antenna up 55'. Range is about 1.5 miles
> to a Pringle's can antenna. Got a hotspot? SHARE IT!
>
> Larry
> --
> http://www.spp.gov/
> The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP
>

Larry

2007-06-11, 10:33 pm

"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
news:obSdnZ44k_rgePD
bnZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@gi
ganews.com:

> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...an-arrested-for
> -using-cafes-free-wifi-from-his-car.html

Can't wait to see the CONVICTION records, not just the news reports trying
to scare off the users. This Michigan state law will be interesting to
watch. I hope the defense team has at least the brains to call in the FCC,
who very jealously guard their RF turf in all state/local cases. RF is not
in the state's domain. It's Federal and always has been....

Time will tell.

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

balsofsteele@gmail.com

2007-06-11, 10:33 pm

If you're sprayed with water its actually ASSAULT!! Hey, it *has* happened.

BS

sailingsoul wrote:
> If a home owner pays for His water and I trespass to get water from his
> garden hose then, I can be charged with trespassing and theft. If that
> same home owner sprays me with that water and I not on his property,
> did i steal the water on my clothes? Or if I catch some and drink it am
> I stealing? If that person wants to forbid open access they implement
> password protection . As far as I know all routers have this feature.
> Just a thought. SS
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> View this thread: http://www.wirelessforums.org/showthread.php?t=23177
> http://www.wirelessforums.org
>

balsofsteele@gmail.com

2007-06-11, 10:33 pm

Larry wrote:
> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
> news:slrnf6r4a4.m6j.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:
>
>
> What risk, specifically? I can cut anyone off I don't want using it,
> individually. I've had no problem, ever, with abuse. On top of the
> enlisted barracks at the air force base, you'll find 3 Pringle's can
> antennas pointed at my hotspot. They don't have broadband in the peon
> barracks. I'm doin' my part for the troops!...(c;
>
> I see no risk at all. As a matter of fact, if anyone can get to your
> system to connect with the internet, you're fairly bust free when the
> govt snoops "catch you"....
>
> "Sir. Isn't it a fact that your IP connected to this kiddie porn website
> in Bangledesh, as recorded by our illegal wiretap?"
>
> "I don't know. Hundreds of people use my wifi link all the time. I
> don't know or care what they do as long as they don't attack me or
> another user. I don't track every webpage they look at or the whole
> internet would be shut down all over!", I exclaim, innocently.
>
> I'm no more responsible than Comcrap or Verizon. I'm just a pipe to
> them....and that stands up just fine in court....no intent!
>
> Larry

CALEA doesn't quite agree with you.

The responsibility falls to the provider, which you become,
kinda/sorta... We'll see how the hand plays out in court.

BS

balsofsteele@gmail.com

2007-06-12, 4:33 am

Larry wrote:
> "balsofsteele@gmail.com" <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:y3hbi.60816$0x.7198@fe11.usenetserver.com:
>
> you're
>
> Senao, but the idea is to to provide STANDARD 2400 Mhz wifi to my, or
> anyone else in range's laptop, which isn't on 900 Mhz. The router is in
> an inverted plastic bucket up in a tree with the high gain antenna on top
> of the bucket to make the coax really short. Ethernet provides both
> bandwidth and DC to run it from my 2KW UPS in the shack. Two 330AH golf
> cart batteries in series provide UPS power until I crank the diesel
> genset. Knology Cable has a natural gas powered UPS driving all the
> cable equipment in each node with interconnecting fiber. Telephone
> providers, the whole system is independently powered....pretty nice.

Same here, except the last mile's a T1 (soon fiber, from an entirely
different direction)... I assume the 330AH batteries are 12V/each,
which would keep a tower-load of our gear for about... hrm... 260
hours? Our towers are "pure DC", running telco-style, kept charged by
the local electric co-op via switching psus (90%+ eff). Eventually
we'll add solar...

> Part of the reason you don't have much trouble being a hotspot in a
> normal residential area (not a high-rise hacker haven) is the limited
> range it covers. My magmount antenna on the car gets 5 open and 7
> secured routers from the front yard on net stumbler, not including mine.
> Hardly anyone even cares its there. It's not like you're providing 25
> mile coverage over the data ghettos.

Yes and no. It all depends on topography and mounting height. Your
setup could easily make 50 miles with a 24 dBi parabolic, high power
radio, and low noise floor on the far end, with clear (including
Fresnel) LOS..

Luckily theres no legal requirement for you to know where the client is
physically located. The rest is covered by CALEA.

If your magnet mount's coax is smaller than RG58/LMR195 I find they lose
more signal than they gain. 10+ db difference between my cheapie "7
dBi" antenna, and my big lmr-195 wired magnet mount with a "5.5 dbi"
n-male antenna screwed into it... the 5.5 w/ good coax beats the 7 by
9-10 dB consistently.

I'm installing a 900->802.11a repeater unit on the truck tomorrow. If
nothing else it'll be fun to show off (my laptop has an a/b/g adapter)

BS

BS

Steve Sobol

2007-06-12, 4:33 am

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-06-11, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
> news:slrnf6r4a4.m6j.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:
>
>
> What risk, specifically? I can cut anyone off I don't want using it

Yes. And if you're diligent and monitor who's using the wifi and how they're
using it, you can probably minimize the risk. Generally, out of my 24-hour
day, I am gone for at least twelve hours per day, and if I left my access
point open and someone decided to use my Internet connection to do something
illegal, it will be traced back to me and I will be held responsible. I can't
monitor my wifi to the point that I'd be comfortable sharing it with
strangers. Your situation, of course, might be different.

> I've had no problem, ever, with abuse.

Cool! As I pointed out, those who feel the risk of abuse is low enough
should be encouraged to share, and I'm glad you are sharing.

> I see no risk at all. As a matter of fact, if anyone can get to your
> system to connect with the internet, you're fairly bust free when the
> govt snoops "catch you"....
>
> "Sir. Isn't it a fact that your IP connected to this kiddie porn website
> in Bangledesh, as recorded by our illegal wiretap?"
>
> "I don't know. Hundreds of people use my wifi link all the time.

Do you really think that will be accepted as an excuse?

Contractually, Charter can throw me off the service if I spam/commit Denial of
Service attacks/break laws/etc. The agreement is between my wife and Charter,
since the account's in her name. She is responsible for what's done with the
cable account.

And if you really believe that you can use "I let random people use my
Internet connection, how was I supposed to know what they were doing" as an
excuse to law enforcement, I sincerely hope nothing ever does happen to you,
because I have a hard time believing they won't find you liable for *anything*.

> don't know or care what they do as long as they don't attack me or
> another user. I don't track every webpage they look at or the whole
> internet would be shut down all over!", I exclaim, innocently.
>
> I'm no more responsible than Comcrap or Verizon. I'm just a pipe to
> them....and that stands up just fine in court....no intent!

But any commercial Internet provider, in the case of criminal acts
committed using their service, does at least have logs of who used
their service. I'm not talking about specific browsing habits, I'm
talking about "IP address 1.2.3.4 was allocated to Larry in Camden,
South Carolina by our DHCP server from date and time X to date and
time Y." They can at least give a minimal amount of detail about
subscriber activity and will do so if served with a subpoena. Your
problem would be that you have nothing that proves anyone else was
using your wifi -- unless you have a device somewhere logging MAC
addresses and a few other pieces of key information -- so they'd
probably go after you.

Again, I'm not saying you should change the way you're set up, especially if
you don't have any abuse issues. I'm just saying your view of things may
deviate somewhat from reality.

Dennis Ferguson

2007-06-12, 3:33 pm

On 2007-06-11, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>
> What risk, specifically? I can cut anyone off I don't want using it,
> individually. I've had no problem, ever, with abuse. On top of the
> enlisted barracks at the air force base, you'll find 3 Pringle's can
> antennas pointed at my hotspot. They don't have broadband in the peon
> barracks. I'm doin' my part for the troops!...(c;
>
> I see no risk at all. As a matter of fact, if anyone can get to your
> system to connect with the internet, you're fairly bust free when the
> govt snoops "catch you"....
>
> "Sir. Isn't it a fact that your IP connected to this kiddie porn website
> in Bangledesh, as recorded by our illegal wiretap?"
>
> "I don't know. Hundreds of people use my wifi link all the time. I
> don't know or care what they do as long as they don't attack me or
> another user. I don't track every webpage they look at or the whole
> internet would be shut down all over!", I exclaim, innocently.
>
> I'm no more responsible than Comcrap or Verizon. I'm just a pipe to
> them....and that stands up just fine in court....no intent!

You are absolutely right that they won't (in theory, and probably
in practice) throw you in jail for something you didn't do just
because you pay the bill for the Internet connection it was done
from. It is individuals who commit crimes, not Internet connections.

The problem is that at the point you get to have the conversation you
imagine above the law enforcement officer will have in his possession
a warrant, justified by the observed usage of your connection, giving
him permission to search your property for evidence that you are the
individual who committed the crime, and he'll probably get to take your
computers, and backup disks, and your DVD collection, and anything else
which tickles his fancy, along with him for closer inspection after
he leaves.

Now if you did nothing wrong you'll come out okay. You'll eventually
get your stuff back. They might even apologize for bothering you.
On the other hand this will be long after someone has tromped through
your house looking at your stuff, and after the weeks or months it
takes for someone to get around to looking at your computers' disks
to see what they can find.

So I agree you have little or no risk of being convicted of something
you, personally, did not do, but you do bear the remote risk of being
inconvenienced while they determine that you did not do it. And there's
no guarantee of getting your disks back intact.

Note that I do run an open access point outside my house, or at
least I did until the power supply failed; I haven't replaced it yet. I
think the risk from this is quite small. On the other hand, I'm paranoid
enough about losing data I need from my computers (not only for this
reason but also from theft, or power problems, or something
more likely) that I already do automatic backups of everything I
care about to a computer outside my house. In the worst case I
could buy new equipment and be back to normal in a day or two.

Dennis Ferguson

John B. Coarsey, PE

2007-06-12, 3:33 pm

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns994C7DF29A60
8noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....tract_id=585867
>
> I've been attacked by the cellular hacks on these newsgroups because I
> dare logon to open wifi systems and get my email, etc., instead of paying
> the jerk cellular phone companies $70/month for slow, spotty service all
> hobbled up with "you can't do that" legal jargon to prevent you from
> using bandwidth.
>
> According to many law schools and the courts (see the various papers from
> this website), what thousands of people are doing with programs like
> Network Stumbler to find open systems driving around are perfectly legal
> and NOT theft, as the cellular hacks have tried to make it to preserve
> company profits. It's just not true.
>
> From the paper marked "Stanford Law School", MIT even has a course setup
> to improve your techniques!
> "Moreover, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung declared the movement a
> “national sport” in the United States, and also noted that the practice
> is quickly moving to Europe. Recently, a how-to wireless-hacking course
> has been offered at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> (MIT), promising to teach students how to perform wardriving techniques
> and how to use “cool wireless tools for [their] tinkering pleasure.”
>
> Screw cellular ripoffs and their denial of services....(c;
>
> Get Net Stumbler from:
> http://www.stumbler.net
> When you see W4CSC on it, help yourself to my hotspot. It's running
> 400mw to a 9db omnidirectional antenna up 55'. Range is about 1.5 miles
> to a Pringle's can antenna. Got a hotspot? SHARE IT!
>
> Larry
> --
> http://www.spp.gov/
> The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

In Sparta Michigan this is a felony. Did you know this?
>

John B. Coarsey, PE

2007-06-12, 3:33 pm

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns994CD64BFAD2
noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> news:obSdnZ44k_rgePD
bnZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@gi
ganews.com:
>
>
> Can't wait to see the CONVICTION records, not just the news reports trying
> to scare off the users. This Michigan state law will be interesting to
> watch. I hope the defense team has at least the brains to call in the
> FCC,
> who very jealously guard their RF turf in all state/local cases. RF is
> not
> in the state's domain. It's Federal and always has been....
>
> Time will tell.
>
> Larry
> --
> http://www.spp.gov/
> The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP
>
If what you say is true then how can states such as Virginia outlaw radar
detectors? They are passive devices. If this is Federal turf whay hasn't
Uncle Sam stepped in?

SMS

2007-06-12, 10:33 pm

Larry

2007-06-12, 10:33 pm

"balsofsteele@gmail.com" <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Ngqbi.60858$0x.47235@fe11.usenetserver.com:

> I'm installing a 900->802.11a repeater unit on the truck tomorrow. If
> nothing else it'll be fun to show off (my laptop has an a/b/g adapter)
>
>

I'm a ham radio operator. We love repeaters....(c;
My car has a little Linksys "Range Extender" repeater in it. It's made
for 115VAC, but a little inverter-in-a-cig-plug makes that easy to use.
When I get to where I'm going, I simply sit the range extender on top of
the car, all logged onto whatever it can find. The laptop gets much
better signals with it on the car...unless I'm in a hotspotted
restaurant, etc.

Denny's doesn't have wifi. The range extender repeats the hotel's
hotspot into Denny's with 5 bars of signal...(c;

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

Larry

2007-06-12, 10:33 pm

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
news:slrnf6sei6.mva.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:

> if I left my access
> point open and someone decided to use my Internet connection to do
> something illegal, it will be traced back to me and I will be held
> responsible.

AS you are providing the same passthrough any ISP does, protected by the
passthrough laws he uses to be blameless, I don't see why you are
different than they are...blameless.

That might be fun to fight in court, though.

> Do you really think that will be accepted as an excuse?

Yes...for the same reason Charter uses it for an excuse....They're not
responsible for all that kiddie porn you download from their own usenet
server, either. They don't log who logs onto which newsgroup and what
they download. God, that would take a staff of hackers in a separate
office to administer.

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

Larry

2007-06-12, 10:33 pm

Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:slrnf6ts20.7o.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com:

> I already do automatic backups

Those $120 500GB "My Book" USB2 hard drives from Western Digital sure are
handy for backing up. I don't need archival, just crash protection.

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

Larry

2007-06-12, 10:33 pm

"John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:5d8clcF33t4noU1
@mid.individual.net:

> In Sparta Michigan this is a felony. Did you know this?
>

Huh? How did the cable company get them to pass this one??

How sad.

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

Larry

2007-06-12, 10:33 pm

"John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:5d8cp7F33687tU1
@mid.individual.net:

> If this is Federal turf whay hasn't
> Uncle Sam stepped in?
>

No political pressure to do so? Virginians simply need to vote to stop it.

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

Larry

2007-06-12, 10:33 pm

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:466f15da$0$2722
0
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> So be careful, as you may
> get an over-zealous cop going after you!
>

Cuff me. I need someone new to sue...(c;

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

Steve Sobol

2007-06-13, 4:33 am

On 2007-06-13, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>
> AS you are providing the same passthrough any ISP does, protected by the
> passthrough laws he uses to be blameless, I don't see why you are
> different than they are...blameless.

Y'know, you might be right.

> That might be fun to fight in court, though.

I have neither the money nor the time nor the desire.

> server, either. They don't log who logs onto which newsgroup and what
> they download. God, that would take a staff of hackers in a separate
> office to administer.

It would be a nightmare, yes. My point is that they do have some basic
info to give the cops to aid in tracking down the perp; stuff that you and I
wouldn't have in the same situation.

balsofsteele@gmail.com

2007-06-13, 7:33 am

Steve Sobol wrote:
> On 2007-06-13, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> Y'know, you might be right.
>
>
> I have neither the money nor the time nor the desire.
>
>
> It would be a nightmare, yes. My point is that they do have some basic
> info to give the cops to aid in tracking down the perp; stuff that you and I
> wouldn't have in the same situation.

What they want is simple, kinda.

http://www.askcalea.net/

The warrant requirements seems pretty straightforward... subscriber
name/mac/ip/time/date info, and/or a realtime data stream of specific
data as requested in the warrant. There are specific timeframe
requirements for response, etc.

Its really nothing that the courts didn't have access to do before, its
just streamlined now. Basically they can have a broadband wiretap
warrant served in 4 hours now, legally.

The whole things really a massive trainwreck in the real world. They
want the data in specific formats which have not been publicized. We'll
see how this plays out in the real world.

BS

Larry

2007-06-13, 10:33 am

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
news:slrnf6v28i.v1c.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:

> It would be a nightmare, yes.

I still don't think so. I'd simply tell them my system was an open wifi
and the perp they're looking for could be anyone "stealing my service",
just like the restaurant with the free wifi they busted the guy in the
parking lot for. No difference at all. I'm the victim of "theft of
service" in the matter, like all the Verizon hacks on here that think a
free wifi node is just a terrible threat to their company....(c;

It is.

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

Larry

2007-06-13, 10:33 am

"balsofsteele@gmail.com" <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote in
news:H0Qbi.81333$Ga1.2011@fe62.usenetserver.com:

> http://www.askcalea.net/
>
>

All this goes in the toilet when the homeowner, and that's what we're
talking about here, an easy cop target with little resources to fight,
when the homeowner ISN'T the end of the line, as he isn't in every home
system with an open wifi.

When someone steals your car and uses it to rob a 7-11, you are NOT
liable for the robbery! You are a VICTIM of car theft. So, by the same
token, I'm a victim of data theft if you sit outside my house and commit
a crime while STEALING my bandwidth.

And, any jury with even one juror with half a brain knows it. The cops
and prosecutors know that he knows....which is more important.

It stops pointing to YOU as soon as your system has that open door anyone
can walk through. The laws were written with one computer hooked to one
modem in mind....not an open system anyone can call into, a little
Comcast Cable with no logs.

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com

2007-06-13, 10:33 am

In alt.cellular.verizon, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> When someone steals your car and uses it to rob a 7-11, you are NOT
> liable for the robbery!

This may or may not be true, depending on all the circumstances. If, for
example, you pulled up in a bad neighborhood, got out with the engine
running, left the doors unlocked, and went into the liquor store, who
knows?

> It stops pointing to YOU as soon as your system has that open door anyone
> can walk through.

What happens to YOU if you leave your guns loaded, displayed in front of
your picture window, with the front door unlocked and wide open, and they
are stolen and used in a murder?

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

Traveling Man

2007-06-13, 3:33 pm

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:08:05 -0400, John B. Coarsey, PE wrote:

> If what you say is true then how can states such as Virginia outlaw radar
> detectors? They are passive devices. If this is Federal turf whay hasn't
> Uncle Sam stepped in?

Technically you're right, radio receivers (which radar detectors are) are
not illegal unless they are used to receive cell phone signals. This is a
federal law, which supercedes state and local ones.

What VA does is claim that, by using a radar detector, you are interfering
with the police in the performance of their duties. It's shaky, but no one
has yet fought it in court (the courts LOVE that speeding fine money).
Likewise if you refuse to give the cop your detector (they confiscate them
on the spot) you risk a disorderly conduct charge.

Interesting that Connecticut and New York states dropped their "no detector"
laws a few years back. Only Virginia and DC have them now.

FWIW, I travel through VA with my Escort on the seat. It still works fine,
and is not visable through the windshield. If you run in a crowd the cop's
radar detector detectors can't single you out.

Steve Sobol

2007-06-13, 3:33 pm

On 2007-06-13, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
> news:slrnf6v28i.v1c.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:
>
>
> I still don't think so. I'd simply tell them my system was an open wifi
> and the perp they're looking for could be anyone "stealing my service",

They aren't stealing your service if you knowingly leave it open.

Steve Sobol

2007-06-13, 3:33 pm

On 2007-06-13, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> All this goes in the toilet when the homeowner, and that's what we're
> talking about here, an easy cop target with little resources to fight,
> when the homeowner ISN'T the end of the line, as he isn't in every home
> system with an open wifi.

> When someone steals your car and uses it to rob a 7-11, you are NOT
> liable for the robbery! You are a VICTIM of car theft. So, by the same
> token, I'm a victim of data theft if you sit outside my house and commit
> a crime while STEALING my bandwidth.

It's only stealing when you don't have permission. Let's use your open wifi
as an example. If you knowingly provide an open access point for people to use,
they're not stealing your bandwidth. The key here is that you meant to have it
open. If it's accidental, you could make a case that it is theft of services,
but there is simply no gray area when you knowingly provide the service to
other people without expecting any compensation. It's like putting a sign on
your house that invites people to come in and check their email at your
computer. Would you claim those people are engaged in theft of services? Of
course not; you specifically allowed them to use your computer and Internet
connection. Likewise, if you are INTENTIONALLY leaving your AP open with the
INTENT of having others use it, it is NOT theft of services when they use
your AP.

> And, any jury with even one juror with half a brain knows it. The cops
> and prosecutors know that he knows....which is more important.

Well, if you don't want someone to use your AP, you can lie and say they
didn't have permission. Chances are pretty good you'll get away with it too,
since I doubt there is anything in writing between you and the other person.

But prosecuting someone for stealing something you were actually giving away
is illegal and quite unethical. I wouldn't be surprised if you actually did it,
but that doesn't make it OK.

> It stops pointing to YOU as soon as your system has that open door anyone
> can walk through. The laws were written with one computer hooked to one
> modem in mind....not an open system anyone can call into, a little
> Comcast Cable with no logs.

Frankly, I don't care how you run your wifi. I hope that you don't end
up in a situation where you need to actually test any of the theories
we just discussed. I'm not arguing that you should get into trouble
for the way that you run your wifi; indeed, I agree wth most of what
you've said in this thread. I'm just saying that your opinions might not
exactly match reality.

balsofsteele@gmail.com

2007-06-13, 3:33 pm

Traveling Man wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:08:05 -0400, John B. Coarsey, PE wrote:
>
>
> Technically you're right, radio receivers (which radar detectors are) are
> not illegal unless they are used to receive cell phone signals. This is a
> federal law, which supercedes state and local ones.
>
> What VA does is claim that, by using a radar detector, you are interfering
> with the police in the performance of their duties. It's shaky, but no one
> has yet fought it in court (the courts LOVE that speeding fine money).
> Likewise if you refuse to give the cop your detector (they confiscate them
> on the spot) you risk a disorderly conduct charge.
>
> Interesting that Connecticut and New York states dropped their "no detector"
> laws a few years back. Only Virginia and DC have them now.
>
> FWIW, I travel through VA with my Escort on the seat. It still works fine,
> and is not visable through the windshield. If you run in a crowd the cop's
> radar detector detectors can't single you out.

Ironically, around here a lot of the city cars spew ad-hoc mode wifi
pretty much constantly. Netstumbler or kismet will detect a city car
farther than a high dollar radar detector.

This doesn't work with TX DPS, who seem to turn their wifi cards off
when they're on the job.

BS

Larry

2007-06-13, 10:33 pm

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
news:slrnf70g89.cf6.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:

> They aren't stealing your service if you knowingly leave it open.
>
>
>

Do you think lawyers, who cannot make a 2-cell flashlight work, handed it
in its pieces, know all that?

How do you convince them that Bubba stole your car and you didn't just loan
it to him to rob the bank? You don't.

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

Larry

2007-06-13, 10:33 pm

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
news:slrnf70gpq.cf6.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:

> Frankly, I don't care how you run your wifi. I hope that you don't end
> up in a situation where you need to actually test any of the theories
> we just discussed. I'm not arguing that you should get into trouble
> for the way that you run your wifi; indeed, I agree wth most of what
> you've said in this thread. I'm just saying that your opinions might
not
> exactly match reality.
>
>

One of the benefits of growing old (I'm nearly 62) is every year you care
less and less as more and more of your life is behind you and you have
less and less to look forward to as that "end point" fast, and I mean
FAST, approaches when "they" can do nothing "to you" any more. I think
its why old men in Washington don't give a damn about the young people
they kill, in ever greater numbers with ever more sophisticated machines,
in senseless wars that repeat themselves on a regular basis for monetary
gains.

Reality means a lot less as I crash headlong towards 70....and,
hopefully, beyond. I don't see much difference between dying in a prison
run by the Dept of Corrections and dying in a prison run by The Nursing
Home Corporation of the Universe...(c; Dept of Corrections will bury you
for free is one difference.

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

Steve Sobol

2007-06-14, 4:33 am

On 2007-06-14, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> Do you think lawyers, who cannot make a 2-cell flashlight work, handed it
> in its pieces, know all that?

The stupid ones don't, but they aren't all stupid.

EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com

2007-06-14, 10:33 am

In alt.cellular.verizon, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
> news:slrnf70g89.cf6.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:

[color=darkred]
> Do you think lawyers, who cannot make a 2-cell flashlight work, handed it
> in its pieces, know all that?

No, but lawyers like me know one hell of a lot more than you, you bigoted
fool.

> How do you convince them that Bubba stole your car and you didn't just loan
> it to him to rob the bank? You don't.

Eh?

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

Bruce Markowitz

2007-06-14, 10:33 pm

I am not sure I understand this discussion. If someone uses your wifi setup,
whether you left it open dieliberately or not, to download kiddie porn, YOU
are going to get arrested and indicted. Because, the trace comes right back
to you. YOU are going to have to somehow prove that it was some "intruder"
that stole your service to commit the crime. Just exactly how are you going
to do that? The trace ends at your router. YOU be in big trouble. The
Government does not have to prove who did it, only that it was done, and it
was YOUR IP address that it went to. Case closed.
<EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:f4rg98$l2l$3@re
ader2.panix.com...
> In alt.cellular.verizon, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>
it[color=darkred]
>
> No, but lawyers like me know one hell of a lot more than you, you bigoted
> fool.
>
>
loan[color=darkred]
>
>
> Eh?
>
> --
> The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
> certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
> -- Bertrand Russel
>

Just Me (remove

2007-06-14, 10:33 pm

Wrong. They have to prove you are in possession of it. Or have
transfered it. If it ain't on your machines than you are clear. But
this would be after you were arrested and your machines impounded. I
bet they find a trace of something unless you are squeaky clean.

I sure as hell would do my best to keep my WI-fly closed. Kind of
pricey for a good lawyer and you would never get the press to apologize
after they perp walked you out of your house in handcuffs.

Bruce Markowitz wrote:
> I am not sure I understand this discussion. If someone uses your wifi setup,
> whether you left it open dieliberately or not, to download kiddie porn, YOU
> are going to get arrested and indicted. Because, the trace comes right back
> to you. YOU are going to have to somehow prove that it was some "intruder"
> that stole your service to commit the crime. Just exactly how are you going
> to do that? The trace ends at your router. YOU be in big trouble. The
> Government does not have to prove who did it, only that it was done, and it
> was YOUR IP address that it went to. Case closed.
> <EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
> news:f4rg98$l2l$3@re
ader2.panix.com...
> it
> loan
>
>

Bruce Markowitz

2007-06-21, 10:33 pm

No, I am right, you didn't read my post properly. You WILL get arrested and
indicted. If they can not prove it at trial, that is something else. And
don't be so sure that they have to actually catch you with it. It can be
inferred from the fact that the download traces back to you. It is called
circumstantial evidence. They can argue that you looked at it and wiped it,
or took that machine out of the house. You are still in a bad position.
"Just Me (remove <nospam> to reply)" <2000-nospam-cam@verizon.net> wrote in
message news:W4kci.7162$xg4.3988@trnddc08...[color=darkred]
> Wrong. They have to prove you are in possession of it. Or have
> transfered it. If it ain't on your machines than you are clear. But
> this would be after you were arrested and your machines impounded. I
> bet they find a trace of something unless you are squeaky clean.
>
> I sure as hell would do my best to keep my WI-fly closed. Kind of
> pricey for a good lawyer and you would never get the press to apologize
> after they perp walked you out of your house in handcuffs.
>
>
> Bruce Markowitz wrote:
setup,[color=darkred
]
YOU[color=darkred]
back[color=darkred]
"intruder"[color=darkred]
going[color=darkred]

it[color=darkred]
bigoted[color=darkre
d]
so[color=darkred]

Just Me (remove

2007-06-22, 3:33 pm

Nope, missed it by that much. You are right that it would be a "bad
position" but...

In America you are INNOCENT until proven guilty. At least that was the
case before Cheney's bush took office.

I don't have to...

Quote

Unquote

I am presumed innocent in court. They (the DA) has to...

Quote[color=darkred]

Unquote

If it ain't on my machine and THEY can't prove I scrubbed it clean by
finding a tiny fragment or prove that I sold or destroyed the machine in
question, any defense lawyer worth his salt would get it kicked. If it
did make trial they'd be hard pressed to find a jury to convict with
nothing but a trail to an IP address that MAY have been assigned to my
DSL at some time.

My main point was that you'd be stupid to leave your WiFi open not
because you MIGHT get indicted or convicted, but because even being
questioned is enough for the idiot masses and the press to lynch you and
make it miserable to continue to live in your community. You'd have to
spend your life savings just to defend yourself and your neighbors would
always be sure you were evil. The government doesn't apologize and come
over to tell your friends they were wrong. You'd never get the "pedo"
stink off yourself as a completely innocent person.

You don't need to be indicted or convicted to have your life ruined.

Bruce Markowitz wrote:[color=darkred
]
> No, I am right, you didn't read my post properly. You WILL get arrested and
> indicted. If they can not prove it at trial, that is something else. And
> don't be so sure that they have to actually catch you with it. It can be
> inferred from the fact that the download traces back to you. It is called
> circumstantial evidence. They can argue that you looked at it and wiped it,
> or took that machine out of the house. You are still in a bad position.
> "Just Me (remove <nospam> to reply)" <2000-nospam-cam@verizon.net> wrote in
> message news:W4kci.7162$xg4.3988@trnddc08...
> setup,
> YOU
> back
> "intruder"
> going
> it
> bigoted
> so
>
>

LinkBot