Obtain internet connection

Hi all! I wonder how can I get the internet connection for free, if I have the SSID, Channel and 128 bit WEP key of an AP. I have LinSys bridge, but I don't have wireless card. I'm able to use my bridge to scan ssid and mac address, but not ip. How can I obtain the an ip and internet connection? Thanks in advance!

Reply to
xstanley007
Loading thread data ...

Thanks so much for your reply. There's no such law in country, and you can do what ever you want as there's no cyber law. If something went wrong, there's nothing involved with you. I really need your answer! Please help me!

Reply to
Stanley

In article , wrote: :Hi all! I wonder how can I get the internet connection for free, if I :have the SSID, Channel and 128 bit WEP key of an AP. I have LinSys :bridge, but I don't have wireless card. I'm able to use my bridge to :scan ssid and mac address, but not ip. How can I obtain the an ip and :internet connection? Thanks in advance!

If you had authorization from the AP owner then you would have been given an IP to use.

If you don't have authorization from the AP owner, then is what you propose to do legal in your jurisdiction (South Korea?) It would certainly not be legal in my jurisdiction (Canada). It -probably- isn't legal in the USA (someone would have to appeal a court case up fairly high to be find out whether it would be illegal wiretapping, violation of the computer abuse statutes, "theft by conversion", or illegal transmissions under FCC regulations.)

You'll have to excuse me not telling you... I don't want to risk an "aiding and abetting" or "conspiracy to commit" a crime charge by the local authorities.

Reply to
Walter Roberson

If you don't have permission to use that AP, it's called "theft of services". If you have permission, the owner will be able to help you.

Reply to
James Knott

In article , Stanley wrote: :Thanks so much for your reply. There's no such law in country, and you :can do what ever you want as there's no cyber law.

What is the "The Protection of Communications Secrets Act" then, if not cyber law? As is a WEP key not a "private key" under the Digital Signatures Act? Is using someone else's IP to access any commercial site not a violation of the owner's right to "control the commercial use of his or her identity", such as been upheld in court cases?

:If something went :wrong, there's nothing involved with you. I really need your answer! :Please help me!

If you really need an IP, then I suggestion you go and talk to the system owner and politely ask for one.

Reply to
Walter Roberson

Many public libraries have free Internet access via wireless node. Googling for "Free Wireless Access" gains hundreds of hits.

As for the rest: Since there are so many open access points Out There, why are you even bothering to try and crack what is clearly a secured site? Do you have any idea of the trouble that can get you into?

Try being nice and asking the site's owner if you can have access.

Reply to
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee

There's nothing wrong with using an AP, that the owner has provided for public use. However, if they're using WEP, that usually means restricted access.

Reply to
James Knott

Which is the important point, of course. If it really is that important, OP should talk to the owner of the AP and see if a deal can be made.

An interesting question, if a bit off-topic-ish for this froup, but anyway. Wiretapping, as in the recording of legally protected signals, or illegal transmissions, I'd not buy, since the frequencies 802.11 uses are free to use without licence. This in .eu and .us and .ca and a host of other countries, possibly .kr too. By the same token, I don't think associating with an AP, while playing by the rules of 802.11[3], should count as interference, or anything else illegal, regardless of ownership of the AP.

I know it isn't followed completely, everywhere, but I like the convention of Rome on this topic a lot, which AIUI basically says that you can try and receive anything you want. This I see as sensible, because, while sending equipment is relatively easy to locate by its transmissions, this doesn't follow for receiving equipment as easily. But, and here's the catch, what you do with the information obtained is another matter entirely. Then again, we don't know _how_ the OP obtained the key.

Which leaves "theft by conversion" (I don't know what that is) or computer abuse, which OP indicates isn't regulated in his country. I'd add "theft of service", since ``the wireless'' isn't a goal but a means to an end. I'd take the service being encrypted as a big hint that the owner or payer-of-the-internet-service-bills hasn't given permission, so even without ``digital regulations'', it is a kind of theft or abuse[2], this way or another.

Especially not when supposedly the manual of the device the OP wants to use will explain a) if the device supports the intended mode of operation, and if so, b) in detail how to configure it to that end. (Oooh, look! criminal manuals![1])

[1] I'm thinking ``betamax'' here. This doesn't mean such will apply for jurisdictions elsewhere. [2] The gravity of the offense I'll not measure here. [3] As accepted by local rules, etc.
Reply to
jpd

My point exactly. I've come across (and used) plenty of free/open access nodes. The one the original poster was referring to, though, is apparently using WEP.

While WEP is not exactly secure (crackable in a matter of hours), it is still the electronic equivalent of a "No Trespassing" sign. I tend to take such things seriously.

Keep the peace(es).

Reply to
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee

I'd like a reference please. AFAIK, the UK and many EU countries licence and tax TV (&radio) receivers. Is this "freedom to receive"?

Maybe not, but the British drive "TV Dectector" vans around. I believe most of these are bogus, but I believe TVs do have a circuit that can be detected at least when powered on.

Cracking into computers is legal in .kr??? I'd be very surprised if the chaebol would tolerate this. A WAP is a small computer (usually with a MIPS CPU) and a nice web interface. Most keep access logs, and I check mine regularly for interlopers.

-- Robert

Reply to
Robert Redelmeier

Unlocked APs are similar to unlocked doors. You can't walk into someone's home, unless you're invited in. As for account sharing, that's another issue and many businesses do share, according to the terms of their contract with the ISP. Home accounts are generally restricted from such sharing.

Reply to
James Knott

I am not actually qualified to explain this, but I think it has something to do with obtaining value by using objects which you don't own. Something like selling Internet access through your residential ISP account. You don't own the ISP network, or the connection. Most ISPs prohibit such sharing; using the boundaries of the premises as the demarcation in order to allow households to have multiple computers sharing the connection, while still prohibiting sharing the connection with the neighbors.

Reply to
NormanM

In article , jpd wrote: :An interesting question, if a bit off-topic-ish for this froup, but :anyway. Wiretapping, as in the recording of legally protected signals, :or illegal transmissions, I'd not buy, since the frequencies 802.11 uses :are free to use without licence.

It's more complicated than that, at least in the US. The frequencies are only free to use without a license for certain -kinds- of transmissions -- certain data formats, certain power levels. It isn't a free-for-all band -- and the fact that one does not require a license within those allowed uses doesn't mean that it is legal to intercept and decode encrypted transmissions within those bands. It's been a few months since I looked at the material, but if I recall correctly, the applicable FCC regulations specifically disallow interception in the case of encrypted transmissions in that frequency range.

:This in .eu and .us and .ca and a host :of other countries, possibly .kr too. By the same token, I don't think :associating with an AP, while playing by the rules of 802.11[3], should :count as interference, or anything else illegal, regardless of ownership :of the AP.

An AP is a "computer" within the meaning of US and Canadian law. Both countries prohibit accessing computers without the owner's permission. [The only exception in US law is that it isn't illegal to hack on an information kiosk computer: US law presumes that if you are able to convince the kiosk computer to do something then you were authorized to do that by the people who provided the computer. I'm not sure why they singled out such systems as being exempt.]

:Which leaves "theft by conversion" (I don't know what that is) or

I do not think I can write a precise definition, so I will give some examples. Theft by conversion includes:

- tapping into someone's phone line in order to place toll calls without paying for them

- hooking up to a neighbour's cable TV in order to not have to pay the cable company yourself

- relaying email (e.g., spam) through a computer system so that the resources of that computer system go into delivering the messages instead of having your own computer tied up [recall here that one relayed email message can have *many* recipients listed... thousands.]

- using someone else's internet connection without authorization so as to not have to pay for a connection yourself

As a rough approximation, "theft by conversion" deals with the obtaining of a thing of value by misuse of an intengible, such as a service [including the labour sense of 'service' as well as the electronic sense.] Possibly it has some other meanings as well, such as if one were to secretly break windows in order to gain business in your window repair or replacement shop. You don't literally take away a tangible object, but you illicitly gain value.

"Theft of service" could be one kind of "Theft by conversion". Both are, I believe, lay terms for matters spelt out in more detail in law... no-one wants to have to quote a 25 subparagraph law in order to give the general sense of what is being talked about.

:computer abuse, which OP indicates isn't regulated in his country.

If his country is South Korea, as the posting IP would seem to indicate, I'm not convinced that it is not regulated: I found references to specific initiatives and crime units and court cases involving computer abuse in South Korea.

Reply to
Walter Roberson

The catch with that statement is that there are many APs which can be accessed because the owner is too lazy to secure the AP, yet which should not be accessed because the owner of the AP is not the owner of the network the AP accesses. In the U.S., at least, most residential ISP accounts prohibit sharing the ISP connection with non-members of the household. The account holder could lose his account, and the person accessing the AP could still be charged with theft of service from the ISP, as well.

Reply to
NormanM

Not quite. Every AP is it's own small network that usually has routing to an ISP. But is a separate network, usually with private IP addresses and the router does NAT.

They may even prohibit sharing within the household. This is a contractual matter.

Perhaps, it will depend very much on state law. I doubt the ISP will be able to press charges (the tap is not on their equipment), although the account holder might (in exchange for restitution by the ISP). OTOH, an open WAP might be viewed as an invitation to access, and not an unlocked closed door. A user might not be aware of where they're accessing, or indeed that they're not accessing their own WAP.

-- Robert

Reply to
Robert Redelmeier

I wasn't aware that the FCC regs or enabling law prohibited any _reception_ in any frequency band. Transmissions are always regulated.

This varies enormously state-by-state.

-- Robert

Reply to
Robert Redelmeier

In article , Walter Roberson wrote: :It's more complicated than that, at least in the US. The :frequencies are only free to use without a license for certain -kinds- :of transmissions -- certain data formats, certain power levels. :It isn't a free-for-all band

Following up myself on that point: the frequency band assigned to Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) equipment does NOT allow for unrestricted use for telecommunications, in the USA.

Reply to
Walter Roberson

In article , Robert Redelmeier wrote: :I wasn't aware that the FCC regs or enabling law prohibited :any _reception_ in any frequency band. Transmissions are :always regulated.

Sec. 15.9 Prohibition against eavesdropping.

Except for the operations of law enforcement officers conducted under lawful authority, no person shall use, either directly or indirectly, a device operated pursuant to the provisions of this part for the purpose of overhearing or recording the private conversations of others unless such use is authorized by all of the parties engaging in the conversation.

Recall that in the US, interception of cell phone calls is generally illegal, with it being illegal to sell consumer devices able to pick up those frequencies. I seem to recall hearing of restrictions on the sale of consumer devices that can pick up emergency or police frequencies. I say "consumer devices" here my recollection is that it is possible to be licensed for this kind of equipment (at least for the police frequencies.)

Recall too that in the USA, decryption of satellite TV signals is considered illegal. The FCC regulations are long; I'm not sure I could find a precise reference. In Canada, it is not sufficient that one has paid the broadcaster for reception rights: one has to restrict oneself to domestic broadcasters (ExpressVu or StarChoice) for such signals [but unencrypted FTA is legal.]

Reply to
Walter Roberson

Yes, there are rules under the ECPA (1986).

No, police scanners are generally legal but there are some restrictions and illegal uses.

It might be under the DMCA.

I'm surprised. Why should the US laws and FCC regs have any effect in Canada (beyond broadcast treaties)? Does Canadian law have a provision incorporating US law?

-- Robert

Reply to
Robert Redelmeier

:> In Canada, it is not sufficient that one has paid the :> broadcaster for reception rights: one has to restrict :> oneself to domestic broadcasters (ExpressVu or StarChoice) :> for such signals [but unencrypted FTA is legal.]

:I'm surprised. Why should the US laws and FCC regs have :any effect in Canada (beyond broadcast treaties)? Does :Canadian law have a provision incorporating US law?

The situation in Canada is independant of US law, except perhaps in the indirect sense of copyright and contract law.

It was pretty clear under Canadian law that unauthorized reception/ decoding of satellite TV signals was illegal: we implimented the Berne Convention on Copyrights years before the US did, we didn't have anything resembling the First Amendment until relatively recently (1982), and we have no legal history that '"freedom of speech" includes "freedom to listen" to that which to "speaker" does not want heard'.

We also had CRTC regulations governing domestic licensing of TV, cable, satellite, and other like forms of transmissions [but no-one has advanced a serious argument that the CRTC governs Internet

*content*... though it does have some control over the provision of data circuits.] The CRTC is, amongst other things, a instrument for bilingualism and retention of national culture [e.g., Canadian Content rules.] But more-so, the CRTC is an instrument for enforcing exclusive Canadian distribution rights (including, and this turns out to be a big contention, the right to substitute Canadian commercials for the US commercials.) The overall effect is that to deliver content to Canadian markets, you need a permit, and you aren't likely to get a permit unless you can convince the CRTC that the major media companies have no interest at all in going after that market any time in the next 20 years or so. Thus, it's best to be applying with respect to content that the existing major companies don't believe they could make a profit in serving.

Now, what was -not- completely clear under Canadian law was the situation in which a customer was willing to pay a US satellite company [e.g., Dish Networks] full retail value for the equipment and channels used. This situation did not fall under the "theft of service" arguments because the customers were paying and the US providers were willing to serve those customers. [I heard a figure at one point that up to 20% of Dish's customers were in Canada -- an amazing number when you consider the 10:1 population ratio.] The RCMP used to "turn a blind eye" on the situation, especially in rural areas where cable TV didn't reach: what harm, after all, is being done by a customer willingly paying the asking price for a service that was perfectly legal at it's point of origin. They'd go after the illict decoders, but ignore the people with paid equipment. The government and RCMP were, though, heavily pressured by StarChoice and ExpressVu to respect the exclusive distribution agreements that those companies had, so they set up a couple of high profile raids of stores, grabbed customer lists, and charged the store owners.

The main case went right up to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that Yes, the law -did- give the CRTC jurisdiction to decide which signals to allow or not, and thus that it was indeed the CRTC's perogative to ban the importation of foreign satellite signals even when "grey market" [paid for] decoders were being used. judgement did take note that there was a Charter of Rights argument that could be made about free speech, but that that was not what the case they had in front of them was about: the case had come up through the path of whether the CRTC had jurisdiction in such cases, so in deciding that the CRTC did have that jurisdiction, the CRTC-claimed ban on importation of signals was upheld. The Supreme Court judgement practically invited people to start a new case upon the issue of whether the CRTC regulatory procedures were "justifiable" limitations upon free speech "in a just and democratic Western society".

From a US perspective, the issue was whether or not Canada would uphold copyright law and "exclusive distribution" contracts... from that perspective, Canada didn't really have any choice in the matter, not without serious kerfuffle that would spill over into all manner of contracts. Too high a stakes to not recognize the validity of the contracts.

If there is to be a successful challenge to the law, then it will come from an ethnic community which is unable to gain access to programming related to its own language, culture, and religion, and the argument will be that since StarChoice and ExpressVu have expressed complete disinterest in serving those markets, that it is an unreasonable imposition upon the members of the community to be denied access to stations that are already there in the aether and for which they are willing to pay reasonable access fees. Community members would have to present copies of letters requesting access from those companies, and copies of the companies' replies that they weren't interested in providing that service. I have reason to believe that that sort of evidence is available.

Reply to
Walter Roberson

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.