|
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
Lots has been written about how to fetch and utilize a signal when you're
afloat. However, using WiFi, other than to paid or other unusual sites, may well be illegal. I started a thread over in Google Plus, to which one of our previously active members responded. Here it is: Do you own a WiFi-enabled cell phone? Are you aware that you most likely (unless you never leave your ISP-provided signal area in your home) break the law, perhaps hundreds of times a day? You might be committing multiple felonies if your iPhone jumps from network to network while you walk down the street, for example. Simply put, there are Federal laws against accessing an open WiFi signal - sometimes, even with permission of the owner. It's part of why some areas are enacting laws requiring all routers in use in the jurisdiction be encrypted. Don't believe it? Check out the cites below. You can probably ignore the references to prosecutions which were years ago - in the computer world, that's the dark ages. That doesn't change the law... 6 comments Skip GundlachYesterday 3:37 PMEdit "Though using an open Wi-Fi network doesn't feel like hacking, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act sees things differently. That 1986 law makes it a felony to access computer systems, including routers, without authorization." http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/0...fi_squatting/? Skip GundlachYesterday 3:37 PMEdit"Wi-Fi wireless technology simplifies the sharing of network connections between multiple computers and people. Even if you don't subscribe to Internet service, you can log on to public hotspots or to a neighbor's wireless access point to get online. However, using someone else's Internet service isn't always a good idea. It may even be illegal. " http://compnetworking.about.com/od/w...free_wifi.htm? Dave SkolnickYesterday 5:58 PMSkip - Do you have a WiFi-enabled phone? If so it works much differently than mine does. I only connect to a hotspot by selecting one.? Ed Kelly9:08 AMAs a former career federal prosecutor who prosecuted computer crime and was involved for years nationally on enforcement and training prosecutors in the Cybercrime area, I would not be concerned unless you access a network knowingly using a code or password other than the default code programed into the equipment, unless the other network is posted as not open to the public... When units are not secured they are said to be in "promiscuous mode". I am speaking only for myself as a private lawyer now but would happily defend someone charged with such a violation.. but I cannot imagine any prosecutor who would prosecute such a case. However we are on yacht ANGEL LOUISE currently in our second year abroad, now in Istanbul where we have cruised on our boat. I can also be found at Twitter at @CaptEdKelly and on facebook as Ed Kelly. EdKelly at netins.net is my spam protected email ? Dave Skolnick10:47 AMEd - I certainly defer to you on the statistics. Does not being caught, or if caught prosecuted, make something okay regardless of the law? For SSCA members and particularly for Commodores does it constitute a Clean Wake? I return to my previous examples: leaving a home, boat, or car unlocked may be stupid but it is not an open invitation to avail oneself of the contents thereof. Particularly in the Out Islands of the Bahamas and most of the Caribbean where people pay for access by the bit (unlike the "unlimited" broadband in much of the United States) connecting to a private access point without permission truly is theft of services (at least from this layman's point of view). That a bar, restaurant, or private person CHOOSES to make an access point available is their right (subject to contractual agreements in their provider's TOS) but I do not think one can make the assumption that a promiscuous access point is "open."? Skip Gundlach10:50 AMEdithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act The law is a bit murky, as to ordinary citizens roaming with their WiFi devices, according to this link. Of course, a wiki entry is not a legal opinion, but it does shed some light on the discussion. This (the wiki entry) isn't the chapter and verse on the Act (law), but it appears (to me) to be aimed at protecting financial institutions, with the specific citation of "protected computer" being the murky part, as you'll see below. It appears (to me) to protect only financial institutions or the US government. Yet, the citations of various prosecutions include many which aren't of either stripe. The law is being interpreted very broadly, ranging far from US security and financial institutions, and broadly interpreting the meaning of "protected computer" as well, as suggested from this citation from the above link: United States v. Neil Scott Kramer, 2011. Kramer was a court case where a cellphone was used to coerce a minor into engaging sex with an adult. Central to the case was whether a cellphone constituted a computer device. Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that a cell phone can be considered a computer if "the phone perform[s] arithmetic, logical, and storage functions," paving the way for harsher consequences for criminals engaging with minors over cellphones. [25] Yes, yes, I know this isn't directly related. However, it does show that the Act is being interpreted very broadly (this involves neither financial institutions nor the security of the US), and includes cell phones, now defined as a computer. Despite the assertions of former US Federal Computer Crime Prosecutors and current Law professors, and likely hundreds of others, that they would gladly defend someone brought up on charges of illegally accessing an open signal, you do so at your own risk, whether or not the local prosecutor would be likely to proceed on such charges. As to that likelihood, as a friend pointed out to me, keeping up with traffic (analogous to being among a horde of folks accessing an open WiFi signal) will not prevent you from being stopped for speeding, nor prevail in a court case you were defending against that speeding ticket. The only "defendable" safe/legal access appears to be with your own service provider. However, that provider may well have limitations in your TOS (terms of service) as to whether you may provide access to others, as well, which ALSO means that, on a practical level, whether or not the local law requires it, that you must encrypt your signal to prevent access by others than those you secifically allow, if you have a router or other device providing access to your data, in order to avoid running afoul of either the law or your provider's TOS, AND that you must never access an open WiFi signal, knowingly or not, without having specific knowledge and permission that the provider expects and encourages you to do so. AND... I can provide personal experience where the PERCEPTION that you may be doing something illegal, even though entirely mistaken, can follow you around for the rest of your life. Big brother is watching - and may well bite you where you sit - even if he "sees" something which isn't happening . I'm neither a lawyer, nor do I even play one on TV, but that's my take on the realities of open WiFi signal use and propagation. Are there any lawyers looking on who can clarify or otherwise contradict my interpretation?? L8R Skip -- Morgan 461 #2 SV Flying Pig KI4MPC See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery ! Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog When a man comes to like a sea life, he is not fit to live on land. - Dr. Samuel Johnson |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:28:46 -0400, "Flying Pig"
wrote: I'm neither a lawyer, nor do I even play one on TV, but that's my take on the realities of open WiFi signal use and propagation. Are there any lawyers looking on who can clarify or otherwise contradict my interpretation?? === It's clearly a case of where the letter of the law contradicts the reality of the law, sort of like driving a few miles per hour over the speed limit. It's very easy to connect to the wrong access point accidently if the AP uses a default SYSID and is unencrypted. It would be extremely difficult to prove intent in a case like that. There are also gray areas such as connecting to an encrypted AP which freely gives out logon passwords to patrons. What if you are now outside the establishment? Are you still a patron? Some rocks are better left unturned. If you are really paranoid you can always spoof the MAC address of your PC or router but that might also establish intent if caught. It would certainly muddy the evidence trail however. |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
"WaIIy" wrote in message
... Ironic that you're posing this in Google Plus, considering the thousands of wifi networks they stole info from via "Street View". Did they steal info from them, or merely record their existence? I haven't followed that story... L8R Skip -- Morgan 461 #2 SV Flying Pig KI4MPC See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery ! Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog When a man comes to like a sea life, he is not fit to live on land. - Dr. Samuel Johnson |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:17:52 -0400, WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:35:20 -0400, "Flying Pig" wrote: "WaIIy" wrote in message . .. Ironic that you're posing this in Google Plus, considering the thousands of wifi networks they stole info from via "Street View". Did they steal info from them, or merely record their existence? I haven't followed that story... L8R Skip Steal === As always, it depends on who you talk to: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...le-streetview/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1464047.html http://blogs.computerworld.com/20106/google_engineer_at_center_of_street_view_wi_fi_con troversy_authored_the_groundbreaking_netstumbler_a pp |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:15:00 -0400, WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:29:30 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:17:52 -0400, WaIIy wrote: On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:35:20 -0400, "Flying Pig" wrote: "WaIIy" wrote in message m... Ironic that you're posing this in Google Plus, considering the thousands of wifi networks they stole info from via "Street View". Did they steal info from them, or merely record their existence? I haven't followed that story... L8R Skip Steal === As always, it depends on who you talk to: They stole data. Period, no debate here. One can't steal data via wifi snooping. i.E. Take it, and deprive the intented user of that data.. You can copy it.. but not steal it.. In Google case... the data in question was being freely transmitted to the street at the time they passed by. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...le-streetview/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1464047.html http://blogs.computerworld.com/20106/google_engineer_at_center_of_street_view_wi_fi_con troversy_authored_the_groundbreaking_netstumbler_a pp |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
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? |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
... 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? Does one 'steal data' when one listens to an NFL football game on the AM or FM radio? NOT! So if somebody's wi-fi router/transceiver is broadcasting a microwave signal (wi-fi) and your computer's or phone's wi-fi transceiver logs onto that "open" broadcast on the public airways is that stealing? NOT! An inanimate object like a computer or a cell phone that has a wi-fi transceiver can and does 'automatically' log onto open wi-fi networks. All a user has to do is turn the machine on. What the machine does after an owner turns it on is not the owner intending to 'steal' data. In many cases an owner might be completely unaware that a connection has been made. Wilbur Hubbard |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
"Free Willy" wrote in message
... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... 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? Does one 'steal data' when one listens to an NFL football game on the AM or FM radio? NOT! So if somebody's wi-fi router/transceiver is broadcasting a microwave signal (wi-fi) and your computer's or phone's wi-fi transceiver logs onto that "open" broadcast on the public airways is that stealing? NOT! An inanimate object like a computer or a cell phone that has a wi-fi transceiver can and does 'automatically' log onto open wi-fi networks. All a user has to do is turn the machine on. What the machine does after an owner turns it on is not the owner intending to 'steal' data. In many cases an owner might be completely unaware that a connection has been made. Wilbur Hubbard Forgery!!!! |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
I'm going to address just one snippet - and hope that the google discussion goes off somewhere else, as, while it, too, is important, this discussion will get lost in the trash if it doesn't...
On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:09:12 PM UTC-4, Free Willy wrote: An inanimate object like a computer or a cell phone that has a wi-fi transceiver can and does 'automatically' log onto open wi-fi networks. All a user has to do is turn the machine on. What the machine does after an owner turns it on is not the owner intending to 'steal' data. In many cases an owner might be completely unaware that a connection has been made. Wilbur Hubbard 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. 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... |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
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. |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
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... |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
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. |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
"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 |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
"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 |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
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 |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
"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 |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
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 |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
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? |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
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 |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
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 |
Wi-Fi under way and at anchor
Just a couple of quick comments...
First, I've given several seminars about wireless communications (all forms, but the one which is the hot button is WiFi) for cruisers. I want to be certain of presenting accurate information, regardless of how the receivers choose to act on it. Up until now, I've not cited law, because I wasn't aware of any. Skolnick has a hardon for me and my neutral position. If he were just any other slob, it would be irrelevant, but he has tremendous influence in a group of which I'm a member (SSCA, which takes the image cruisers present very seriously). I don't KNOW that he's trashed me to others there, but he's made it very plain that he holds me to be a scofflaw and whether or not case law proves it, moral law is being broken nearly universally when I connect, let alone share that signal with anyone else alongside me, through my router, left open. There was an incident during my first time in George Town (see my log and Loose Cannon post) wherein, due to a total idiot behaving as he thought best, I have a reputation which has followed me around like a barracuda - the child's game of "telephone" has amplified and modified even the "truth" as those who heard the radio exchange themselves knew it - which was entirely mistaken, but nonetheless, I was branded a pirate, a hacker, a signal-blocker and a variety of other nefarious things, none of which is/was true. I've heard variations on the theme all over the Bahamas, and in the yard where we've been camped, now, for 18 months. I expect that were we to venture outside those areas, we'd hear it anywhere we went. Correcting the misapprehensions is tedious at best, and having some upstream (as opposed to downstream) retellings/corrections might be useful. At a minimum, neutralizing Skolnick's position on my WiFi use would be helpful. And, back to the first point, I owe anyone I counsel the reality, regardless of how they choose to use it. So, getting some chapter and verse, both on case and practical levels, is useful to me. I still don't have the answer of whether a cell phone automatically makes or transfers connections, as Wired mag's article suggested. Nobody's claimed their phone (other than Skolnick) does or doesn't do that... L8R, y'all Skip, off to the boat for the last bits |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com