Wi-Fi Sniffing Question

William,

Very well said.

Scott

William Warren wrote:

In article , Peter Wilkins wrote: :Seems to me the law is an ass in this situation and needs updating to :take account of modern technology. I reckon that if anyone opens up a :WiFi system and doesn't protect it (which is pretty easy to do, as :even I can do it) then they shouldn't have any complaint if someone :else uses it.

My spouse doesn't use a steering wheel lock on the car. Does that mean we "shouldn't have any complaint" if someone puts a jimmy down the window and steals the car?

Thanks for that, but I seem to be using Toshiba software called "ConfigFree" and not the XP Zero Wireless Config.

I haven't yet found how to turn off autoconnect with ConfigFree - it's back to RTFM.

snip

I don't see a wireless network tab - probably because I'm using Configfree. Perhaps I should switch to using the windows S/W.

Ah, what the hell, I'll just leave it be: if I accidentally log on to someone else's network, I'll just turn off the wireless power switch.

Of course not: a car is too valuable for anyone to assume they can use it without permission. Everyone knows, or should know, that it's so.

A WiFi hotspot, however, can be used without damage or inconvenience suffered by its owner, and I think there's a societal paradyme shift going on, in which bandwidth is becoming inexpensive enough that it's not worth the cost to deny it to others.

The costs of wireless, like that of PC's (drive through any town on trash day: you'll see at least one PC that was worth over $1,000 less than half a decade ago) is declining, and I think it will reach the point where sharing it with others is simply a polite thing to do, like taking a turn providing coffee for the after-meeting social at your house of worship.

I may be wrong, and am probably overly optimistic, but that's life. If you don't think your connection should be shared, then don't. Even WEP, although flawed, is an effective "Keep Off" sign, and can be implemented quickly: please, however, don't assume that others agree with you.

We guard what we value: money, privacy, the respect of others. If everybody benefits from sharing wireless, and it costs little or nothing to do so, and our privacy can be assured, then I think average Internet users will lose respect for those who hoard.

FWIW. YMMV.

William

(Filter noise from my address for direct replies.)

As an aside, that's "paradigm", not "paradyme".

One thing that people frequently omit from these discussions is the question of who owns the bandwidth. There is a tendency to think the hotspot owns all the resources. In fact, the thing you want - the bandwidth provided by the ISP - does not belong to the hotspot at all. It's a service provided by an ISP under contract. People providing free wifi access to their home cable or DSL are almost always violating their EUAs. Technically, a case can be made that they are abetting theft of service. In practice, the provider will simply terminate the service if it's abused.

I belong to a volunteer wifi group that helps businesses install and provision wifi for free use. We council all venues to get business-class cable or DSL service. Local service providers agree that this class of service grants the client the right to make the service available to the public.

Bandwidth is certainly becoming cheaper and more widely available, but that fact is unrelated to ethical or legal questions about your right to use an unsecured hotspot.

You certainly have a right to share your personal network resources via wifi. But not services provided by someone else, unless they agree to it.

I think most people here agree that anyone who has a clue and doesn't want to be an open hotspot should at least be using WEP.

There's no free lunch. If every home connection becomes a portal for dozens of end users, then two things happen:

1. Cable/DSL load rises much more rapidly then planned, requiring additional buildout.
2. The subscriber base to pay for it grows far more slowly then planned.

The net result is that subscriber rates increase. I don't mind at all if someone else volunteers to pay more to subsidize free internet access, but if this free access raises my rates, it amounts to an unfair tax.

Just for info, I managed to switch to using Windows Zero Config and got it working OK, including not automatically connecting. However, the disadvantages of turning off auto connect are too great - When I move away from my desktop stations at home or work, and unplug the 100M ethernet cable, the laptop no longer automatically switches to the slower wireless connection, and I lose my connection. If I leave autoswitch on but set connections to manual, the laptop autoswitches and connects to the wireless OK but can't get an address assigned. Also, ConfigFree complains that the profiles I had set up for our different locations and networks will no longer work, as they have been overridden by Windows.

It's all too hard for this senile 70 year-old brain. I've set everything back to auto and if I inadvertently connect to someone else's network for a few minutes until I notice and disconnect, then I just hope I don't get caught. Still, it probably won't matter if I do

- I'll be long dead and gone before it would ever get to court here!

Seems to me the law is an ass in this situation and needs updating to take account of modern technology. I reckon that if anyone opens up a WiFi system and doesn't protect it (which is pretty easy to do, as even I can do it) then they shouldn't have any complaint if someone else uses it.

Someone who jimmys your window did so because you took the sensible precaution of locking your car. That's all I ask - that people who don't want others to use their WiFi networks take the sensible and simple precaution of locking (encrypting) them.

That's not to say that people should feel free to use other peoples unsecured WiFi networks without any conditions - but a one-off transient shouldn't be a problem to anyone. I do use a neighbours network on a fairly regular basis when visiting my daughter - but only after going to the trouble of finding out which neighbour it was, and then asking him if it was OK.

Noted, thanks.

I agree. If I implied that I thought ADSL/Cable/whatever connections should be shared with "dozens" of end users SO AS TO DENY THE ISP REVENUE, then I wrote unclearly, and I apologize.

My argument is that when "everybody" has an always on, high speed connection, that it will become a societal norm for people to share it via WiFi, so as to afford mobile access to others who ALSO have always on, high speed connections and who ALSO share them. In this scenario, the ISP gains by selling pipes to multiple subscribers, and by the increased revenue from value-added services that only make sense in an environment where portability is taken for granted, such as paperless menus in restaurants.

Nobody likes a freeloader, least of all me, but we all make exceptions for the elderly, the infirm, and the disadvantaged, according to a set of norms that change over time. I think those norms will change to make shared WiFi something we all just do, like mowing our lawns.

I may be wrong. I hope not.

William

(Filter noise from my address for direct replies.)

I am not saying its right but if they cant lock down there wireless

routers then its there own fault. People need to read and learn about

there equipment, if you dont your just an idiot who deserves it.

Good lord. If you are going to refer to other people as idiots, you really need to get a basic grasp of spelling and punctuation.

----- I am not saying it's right, but if they can't lock down their wireless routers then it's their own fault. People need to read and learn about their equipment. If you don't, then you're just an idiot who deserves it.

-----

Notice the differences?

And of course, that should be "counsel".

Pot to kettle, come in... If you really must start criticising other people's use of English, better make sure you double-check your own posting. LOL

John

Kettle back to pot.

You're right, it's "counsel". Thanks for pointing this out. At least my misspelling is actually a word, though not the one I intended.

Taking a moment's reflection, Walter Roberson mused: | | Could you clarify which 'stipulation' that is?

It was in the FCC charter. However, upon looking at the dates of my source documents, I see they are likely no longer current (early 80's).

Taking a moment's reflection, Walter Roberson mused: | | My spouse doesn't use a steering wheel lock on the car. Does that mean we | "shouldn't have any complaint" if someone puts a jimmy down the window | and steals the car?

If there existed a culture of some car owners leaving their cars in public places for anyone to use, you might not. Of course, that would also assume the doors were left unlocked too. ;-)

Which nicely suggests the basic question at the heart of this thread: What are the social conventions regarding use of an unencrypted wireless network by a stranger?

Wi-Fi is still too new to have much in the way of generally accepted conventions. (Consider that we're still arguing about SSID hiding.) That newness also means that many owners of access points are quite clueless about the technology they're using. Such widespread ignorance has to be taken into account when making inferences about unencrypted networks. From my home, I can see two other wireless networks. One uses WEP, and the other has an SSID of "linksys". Can I infer that the owner of "linksys" doesn't mind if I use it to get Internet access? No. Were the network named "come and get it" or were I sitting in a restaurant in a commercial zone, my answer would probably be different.

The only sensible approach, given the current state of public knowledge, is that any wireless network must be presumed to be private unless its owner has in some way advertised, by a descriptive SSID or otherwise, that it is open for public use.