Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

There have been successful prosecutions in both the USA and Australia recently for WiFi theft. It is generally cheaper to do it legally than hire a good lawyer.

Pierre

formatting link

Reply to
Pierre
Loading thread data ...

Might be able to get the PIN from his computer.

Barry ===== Home page

formatting link

Reply to
Barry OGrady

It appears that Pierre shook an Etch A Sketch before scribbling:

Not to mention that hopping on an open access point is a great way to open

*your* computer up to someone else.
Reply to
TV Slug

Just to muddy, the terms "reasonable diligence" and "due diligence" are certainly not the same in the UK, totally different level of diligence needs to be demonstrated.

:)

David.

Reply to
David Taylor

A Linksys WET54GS5 will do what you want to do but I suggest you get approval first from the source you want to use.

Reply to
Christian

Point taken.

Reply to
Doug Jamal

Depends on the person, their skill levels, and the role they have. A computer admin could be reasonably expected to have a certain level of skill. A mentally impaired person a different one.

Yes. At least in the US, and until a successful suit shows otherwise...

hear hear. Though I'd much prefer routers to be shipped with a firmware that would not operate till it had run through the minimum security configuration, and compelled the user to enter a new SSID, and turn on some sort of encryption.

Reply to
Mark McIntyre

I meant the legal definition, not the functional definition. The way I under stand it, "reasonable" means average, typical, normal, and common as in a non-expert in the field. Where this will eventually cause trouble is defining what are "reasonable expectations" for a wireless router. For example, the advertising material and package for wireless routers all proclaim and substantial number of security features. Everything from encryption to stateful packet inspection. Would a *REASONABLE* person (i.e. not a computer admin) expect these features to be functional by default? I think so, and I suspect a judge would also agree. A reasonable person purchases a vehicle with anti-lock brakes, said reasonable person would normally expect those brakes to be functional on delivery. You can walk through an electronics store and read box and box of advertised features, all of which are enabled out of the box. The one exception are wireless routers security features. A liability and assignment of blame tends to drift toward the culprit with the deepest pockets, I suspect there will trouble ahead for the manufactories. Also, if they claim that it can't be done economically, there's always 2Wire.com, which has been shipping secure by default wireless routers for years.

It's rather common for class action suits to revolve around advertised features which are disabled or missing. Verizon's crippling of the Motorola V710 cell phone has already precipitated such a suit. How long will it be before some attorney decides that the non-activation of security features by default constitutes negligence and false advertising on the part of the manufactory?

As for responsibility, I somewhat follow product liability legislation and decisions. I consider many of the suits and decisions to be great entertainment value. It's very common for the "victim" to prove that he was not properly informed or warned of what constitutes proper operation and is therefore not responsible for consequential damages. By default, that means the manufacturer is responsible. That's what's driving the current generation of instruction booklets, that are mostly legal repudiations of responsibilities and attempts to inform the buyer of their allegedly very limited rights. Same with the useless warning labels and drug disclosure documentation. A friend just bought a new Toyota Prius. Before being allowed to drive the vehicle, the LCD panel presents a stupid repudiation of responsibility declaration and demands that the driver hit "ok" to agree to the terms. I'm rather surprised that Microsoft hasn't done something similar when Windoze first boots.

Well, the old Cayman 3220h routers would not function until you assigned a non-default password. I think the later Netopia models are similar. The firmware mods to do this are trivial. Perhaps the right approach would be to convince the Sveasoft people that their alternative firmware for the WRT54G might benefit from being secure on installation, or at least demand some level of security on initial setup as you suggested.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Despite my prior post, how zactly do you do this? What is "set my card"?

Reply to
Avalanche

Aw s***. Just like my washer and my microwave instruction books are fat, because the first hundred pages are warnings like "DO NOT PLUG IN THIS WHILE GRIPPING THE PLUG PRONGS WHILE STANDING IN WATER ON A MOUNTAIN DURING A THUNDERSTORM".

Reply to
Avalanche

Yes, how much common sense are we obliged to use?

A Maasachusetts lady bought a new house next to the ninth hole a few years ago. She sued the golf course for balls hitting her house, car, etc. (Her landscape crew wears helmets:)

Superior Court found against her.

Appeals Court just overturned, saying she was entitled to relief!

Hey, you buy a beach house, ypu should know you risk waves!

Reply to
Avalanche

Exactly what it said "set my card to get an ip address from his access point / router"

Replace "my" with "your" to make it work for you.

David.

Reply to
David Taylor

If the neighbor didn't bother to enable security then no doubt he is intentionally allowing others to share his connection. There is a whole movement that believes in open access in order to spread free network access across the world (similar to open-source software).

Enabling security on a wireless network is an extremely trivial task, taking just a couple of minutes to set up, so it can be assumed that anyone that doesn't enable it is intendending to share his connection.

A lot of people could easily share their secured wireless network with their neighbor(s), and split the cost. As long as you put a firewall on each PC, which you should do anyway, there is no risk. With POP3 e-mail access on gmail, there isn't really a need for the ISP's e-mail service. Some ISPs now include VPN access as well, further increasing security.

In San Francisco there is so much free Wi-Fi, both commercial and private, that it has got to be affecting sales of DSL and cable broadband.

Reply to
SMS

Totally untrue. There is plenty of doubt based upon the default configuration and skill set of many home users.

Nope, no such assumption can be made. Wishful thinking is not enough. :)

Usually a breach of the ISP T&C's.

I'd welcome figures but I'd doubt it.

David.

Reply to
David Taylor

I'm sure the people that have the figures are the ones that would never realease them. But you can deduce something from the effort by cable TV companies, local phone companies, to pass laws against free municipal WiFI. They are terrified that this cash cow will be lost to them.

Reply to
SMS

Not necessarily true. For the majority of wireless users, if it works straight out of the box, that's enough for them. Furthermore, many users are deftly afraid to tinker with their pc so you know they won't tinker with their wireless configuration.

Although this may be true, it still doesn't mean that every open wireless network is an attempt to spread free access. Surely, you agree.

For those of us who enjoy tinkering with our systems, this is true, however, we are in the minority. What may be trivial to us may be a major source of irritation to others.

I beg to differ. Sharing the cost of an internet connection may be in violation of the agreement between the owner and his or her ISP. Now if you're just sharing files other than copyrighted material, then that would be different.

Still, in order to access the gmail, an ISP provider is needed.

Thus giving ISPs the leverage they need to prosecute violators of their service agreements and those who illegally access their network.

Reply to
Doug Jamal

Where does this WiFi come from? Someone has to install it, who gets the money? The provider. Someone, somewhere is paying for it.

Given that there are no figures it seems, it's a bit pointless debating whether they're bothered or not.

David.

Reply to
David Taylor

This is true, but they are not paying nearly as much as multiplying all the individual subscribers by the cost per month that each is paying. The infrastructure is not all that expensive.

Given that they are frantically trying to get a law passed that prohibits any municipal funding of WiFi, it's clear that they are bothered. They've even given the bill a Bush-like 1984 name, the "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005." It's as if bookstores tried to pass a law that prohibited municipal funding of libraries.

Reply to
SMS

Check this out:

formatting link
' scary.

"And, my personal favorite:

9) PREEMPT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM BUILDING COMPETING NETWORKS. The Act basically adopts the ?Pennsylvania Plan.? If a local or state government wants to build a network, it must issue a request for proposal (RFP) to see if any private company wants to build the network instead. Only if no private provider offers to build a ?comparable? network can the state or local government build and operate the network. Any system in existence at the time of the act is grandfathered, but only if it does not expand its network or type of service offered. If you are on the wrong side of the street when the statute passes, too bad for you."

SMS wrote:

Reply to
Airman Thunderbird

Well without any figures, it's pretty pointless discussing it really.

Reply to
David Taylor

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.