On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:02:28 AM UTC-4, wayne.b wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 04:26:27 -0700 (PDT), Flying Pig

wrote:



Dave Skolnick is on a mighty charger, let alone a horse, to say that it's WRONG - JUST WRONG - to log onto any open signal

to which you personally have not been specifically invited by the owner....



====



Perhaps so, but it can easily happen by accident/happenstance. Most

of my PCs are set up to automatically log onto my home or boat network

when they boot up, no specific action required. If my home network

had a SYSID of "linksys", "netgear" or one of the other popular

defaults, they would connect to any unencrypted network they found

with that same ID. People who choose to leave their router set to a

default SYSID for one reason or another will generally not use a

password or encryption either.

I agree with you - but he would have you responsible for verifying, whether by mac address or any other means at your disposal, that you were not "intruding" where you'd not been specifically invited.

That you were walking across a park and entered into someone's private land adjacent, which looked like, and had the same features/address/everything else other than a different color mailbox (mac address), which you'd have to go looking for, would not cut it in his view. You would be trespassing, and whether or not the owner gave a rip, you were degrading his grass, and otherwise using resources for which he'd paid, and therefore, breaking, if not a chapter law, a moral law, to walk there...

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:54:04 -0700 (PDT), Flying Pig
wrote:



Perhaps so, but it can easily happen by accident/happenstance. Most

of my PCs are set up to automatically log onto my home or boat network

when they boot up, no specific action required. If my home network

had a SYSID of "linksys", "netgear" or one of the other popular

defaults, they would connect to any unencrypted network they found

with that same ID. People who choose to leave their router set to a

default SYSID for one reason or another will generally not use a

password or encryption either.

I agree with you - but he would have you responsible for verifying, whether by mac address or any other means at your disposal, that you were not "intruding" where you'd not been specifically invited.

That you were walking across a park and entered into someone's private land adjacent, which looked like, and had the same features/address/everything else other than a different color mailbox (mac address), which you'd have to go looking for, would not cut it in his view. You would be trespassing, and whether or not the owner gave a rip, you were degrading his grass, and otherwise using resources for which he'd paid, and therefore, breaking, if not a chapter law, a moral law, to walk there...

======

It's his perogative to believe whatever he wants of course. Others
may believe differently, more along the line of "no blood, no foul" in
street basketball.

"Flying Pig" wrote in message
...


That premise was what I got out of one of my cited articles.
Yet the learned Dave Skolnick says that's patently untrue - that,
unlike a cell connection, WiFi enabled devices require specific
input from the user before a connection will be made.

Not true. Mine connects when I turn on the computer. I push the computer's
"ON" button and a few minutes later I'm connected to an available wi-fi
hotspot. Some, like McDonald's require me to click an "accept" button for the
TOS and then I'm on but unsecured networks don't even need that.

Those with a different experience could do me a favor by
logging into either the G+ or the FB conversation thread on the
subject and disabuse him of that notion, because, not owning
such a device myself, I can't, at least with any authority. He
asserts that Wired has its head up its ass and is mistaken.
That would be surprising to me, given that it's a techie
publication, BICBW...

The preceding, clipped, discussion about theft is left out here;
as seen in my original, there's some conflict about it. However,
Dave Skolnick is on a mighty charger, let alone a horse, to say
that it's WRONG - JUST WRONG - to log onto any open signal
to which you personally have not been specifically invited by the
owner...

Duh, this Skolnick is a moron. The fact that the network in not secured
is, itself, an invite for any and all to join. If somebody doesn't want you
to join their network they will password protect it.

If I had a home network near a harbor I would install a nice amplified
antenna like this one on my router.

http://www.radiolabs.com/products/wireless/waverv.php

And not require a password so boaters could use it to connect to the
Internet. So this idiot Skolnick is trying to say neither I nor anybody else
can do so and that in doing so I'm creating criminals and thieves.

Nonsense! The man's a PUTZ!


Wilbur Hubbard

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:58:21 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:15:00 -0400, WaIIy wrote:

As always, it depends on who you talk to:

They stole data. Period, no debate here.

===

I think stealing is probably the wrong word. As far as anyone knows
they did not use the data for any sort of criminal purpose. I agree
that it was wrong to collect it however, even though it was
unencrypted.

Man, what am I dealing with here?

There was software specifically designed to steal information.

"Copy" "Freeley available" Baloney


Suppose someone drives down your street and makes a log of your
address, house color, type of driveway and number of front facing
windows. Is that stealing data?


Suppose you do, start a new thread with a new subject.



Suppose you bugger off. You contribute nothing of worth to these discussions.

Wilbur Hubbard

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:02:03 PM UTC-4, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Flying Pig" wrote in message

...





That premise was what I got out of one of my cited articles.

Yet the learned Dave Skolnick says that's patently untrue - that,

unlike a cell connection, WiFi enabled devices require specific

input from the user before a connection will be made.



Not true. Mine connects when I turn on the computer. I push the computer's

"ON" button and a few minutes later I'm connected to an available wi-fi

hotspot. Some, like McDonald's require me to click an "accept" button for the

TOS and then I'm on but unsecured networks don't even need that.


The contention is over WiFi enabled cell phones, not computers.

Do, in fact, WiFi phones connect without your input???



Duh, this Skolnick is a moron.

Hardly. An ass perhaps, but not a moron. And that's the problem. He's a big wheel in SSCA, a 7000 member organization which takes image VERY seriously. He also teaches paid seminars on computer related material therein - and so has some impact, as well.



If I had a home network near a harbor I would install a nice amplified

antenna like this one on my router.

Larry, of electronics fame herein, has done better than that, making an amplified cantenna and aiming it at the local AF base, assuring airmen there a signal...


And not require a password so boaters could use it to connect to the

Internet. So this idiot Skolnick is trying to say neither I nor anybody else

can do so and that in doing so I'm creating criminals and thieves.



Nonsense! The man's a PUTZ!

Well, that, too.

L8R

Skip





Wilbur Hubbard

"Flying Pig" wrote in message
...

The contention is over WiFi enabled cell phones, not computers.

Do, in fact, WiFi phones connect without your input???

A wi-fi enable cell phone IS a computer, Skippy. A hand-held computer. The
only difference is in size between a lapton, tablet or cell phone. Some
laptops are even 3G and 4G enabled so the distinction is nill.

Duh, this Skolnick is a moron.

Hardly. An ass perhaps, but not a moron. And that's the problem.
He's a big wheel in SSCA, a 7000 member organization which takes
image VERY seriously. He also teaches paid seminars on computer r
elated material therein - and so has some impact, as well.

Just ignore the wankstain. He's got NO power over your wi-fi connections.
Have you heard of the legal concept of "standing"? Unless you happen to
connect to HIS wi-fi, he's got NO STANDING as to your connection
activities.

If I had a home network near a harbor I would install a nice amplified
antenna like this one on my router.

Larry, of electronics fame herein, has done better than that,
making an amplified cantenna and aiming it at the local AF
base, assuring airmen there a signal...

And not require a password so boaters could use it to connect to the
Internet. So this idiot Skolnick is trying to say neither I nor anybody
else
can do so and that in doing so I'm creating criminals and thieves.

Nonsense! The man's a PUTZ!

Well, that, too.

And a freaking busy body. . .

Wilbur Hubbard

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:22:50 -0700 (PDT), Flying Pig
wrote:

Duh, this Skolnick is a moron.

Hardly. An ass perhaps, but not a moron. And that's the problem. He's a big wheel in SSCA, a 7000 member organization
which takes image VERY seriously. He also teaches paid seminars on computer related material therein - and so has
some impact, as well.

=======

I'm having a hard time understanding why Skolnick's opinion is so
important to you. He has no way of knowing what you do, or not do,
with WiFi aboard your boat unless you tell him or someone else.
There are lots of perfectly legitimate WiFi hotspots available to
cruisers, some free, some not.

As an aside, I'm told that Batelco in the Bahamas now offers tethered
(USB cable) data plans. You'll need an unlocked GSM phone which
supports tethering and a Batelco SIM card to take advantage of that.
In Puerto Rico and the USVI you can use standard aircards just as you
would in the USA. That is equally true for 3G and 4G tablets, smart
phones, etc. Farther down in the islands there are quite a few
(intentionally) open hot spots.

I have a Verizon 4G LTE aircard (USB attached) which provides us with
blazing fast connections on the boat when we're in US waters. It is
more or less permanently attached to a Cradle Point router which
automatically maintains the Verizon connection and creates a hotspot
on the boat. The aircard is about $50/month for 5 GB bandwidth, with
10 GB available for more dinero. This eliminates a lot of hassles
with trying to find open hotspots. When I'm traveling off the boat I
just unplug the aircard and bring it along with me. This is great for
avoiding ripoff hotel and airport WiFi plans. You're not supposed to
use it on airplanes but I suspect it would work there also.

http://www.amazon.com/CradlePoint-PHS300-Personal-Hotspot-Wireless/dp/B001212ELY

http://www.amazon.com/Verizon-Wireless-Pantech-Aircard-UML290/dp/B005ESVW96

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:53:35 -0400, WaIIy wrote:

===

I think stealing is probably the wrong word. As far as anyone knows
they did not use the data for any sort of criminal purpose. I agree
that it was wrong to collect it however, even though it was
unencrypted.

Suppose someone drives down your street and makes a log of your
address, house color, type of driveway and number of front facing
windows. Is that stealing data?

If your car is in front of your house with the keys in it, I might as
well drive it away.

===

Wally, unfortunately I'm beginning to think that Harry might be right
about you. Please prove me wrong.

I know you are, or were, a boater. Why not post something about
boating for a change?

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:53:35 -0400, WaIIy wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:58:21 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:15:00 -0400, WaIIy wrote:

As always, it depends on who you talk to:

They stole data. Period, no debate here.

===

I think stealing is probably the wrong word. As far as anyone knows
they did not use the data for any sort of criminal purpose. I agree
that it was wrong to collect it however, even though it was
unencrypted.

Suppose someone drives down your street and makes a log of your
address, house color, type of driveway and number of front facing
windows. Is that stealing data?

If your car is in front of your house with the keys in it, I might as
well drive it away.

It isn't quite the same thing. If you broadcast a radio signal the
courts have ruled that anyone can listen to it. That ruling dates back
to the early days of broadcast television and the days of "decoders"
to unscramble the T.V. signal.

--
Cheers,
Bruce

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 22:28:05 -0400, WaIIy wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 06:43:06 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:53:35 -0400, WaIIy wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:58:21 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:15:00 -0400, WaIIy wrote:

As always, it depends on who you talk to:

They stole data. Period, no debate here.

===

I think stealing is probably the wrong word. As far as anyone knows
they did not use the data for any sort of criminal purpose. I agree
that it was wrong to collect it however, even though it was
unencrypted.

Suppose someone drives down your street and makes a log of your
address, house color, type of driveway and number of front facing
windows. Is that stealing data?

If your car is in front of your house with the keys in it, I might as
well drive it away.

It isn't quite the same thing. If you broadcast a radio signal the
courts have ruled that anyone can listen to it. That ruling dates back
to the early days of broadcast television and the days of "decoders"
to unscramble the T.V. signal.

and that isn't the same thing.

I suspect that the courts would first ask whether the signal/data was
encoded or not. If not you would have trouble proving theft.

--
Cheers,
Bruce