Ok. Linksys support page is now back. Checking the release notes for the BEFW11S4v1 v1.44z at:
Taking a moment's reflection, Jeff Liebermann mused: | | Where did you get the 78% increase in sales....
I read a stat that 99% of all stats used in a discussion are made up on the spot. ;-)
Including this one?
Surprisingly (or maybe not), Most people arent selfish self centered and out to make a buck... Ever go to a web page? Or before that use a BBS? Those are usually run by people that have nothing to gain, but do it as a service. Unfortunatly, it's the companies that stand to make money try and advertise things that make em money.. Even many internet cafes and coffee shops used to have free wireless internet hotspots, until the companies trying to make a buck came in and took em over. Remeber NetZero? They used to be free (that's how they got the zero in their name, now they are for profit and trying to make a buck).. Now they are $9.99.. didn't change their name to NetTen...
Got a sniffer? When I was in Couer D'Alane Idaho (small town but Adelphia cable has internet access), I logged 332 nodes, 308 of which were open, and
179 of them had internet access. I'm currently in Las Vegas, and just in a few blocks of my apartment here (Nellis Blvd and Boulder Highway), hit the max of 1000 (logger limits the number of nodes it remembers) there were over 900 open ones, and with most cable companies having internet access, quite a few of those have free internet also. If you want a better idea, find an online list of hotspots (most of which are pay), and drive thru the same area with a sniffer.. In many places you will find hundreds or thousands more than listed, and almost every one of them free. Went to Alaska this summer, even found open FREE nodes in Dawson City YUKON (dirt roads, boats across the river etc, but they had free open nodes with internet access!)As an aside, for busines users, some people have PDA's, that don't work real well with security stuff, or laptops (from visitors). Much easier to set up a VPN (Virtual Private Network) for your people/private stuff, and leave access and the rest (which can't access much other than the internet connection) open.
If this were Japan it would probably be ok. The problem with our society is that you have to actively discourage unwanted behavior - you simply can't trust people to respect your property or to exercise discretion when permitted to use it.
George
Greetings,
Just out of curiosity -- why do they have security disabled on purpose? (Serious question).
Because they live way out in the boonies, have no neighbors, and don't want the added complexity (and failure mode) of security. Since #define customer always_right I explain the tradeoffs to them and set it up the way they want.
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:51:53 -0800, Peter Pan spoketh
Theft is theft.
Lars M. Hansen
So what the heck does theft have to do with using an open ap? You better check the laws, before you start making such a stupid ass statements, and calling something that IS NOT ILLEGAL, theft. I set up free open TOTALLY LEGIT wifi hotspots for a living, just finished ANOTHER one at Mccarren Airport in Las Vegas, and it's stupid people like you, calling things names, makings false and stupid allegatioins/accusations about something you know absolutely nothing about.
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 23:20:59 -0800, Peter Pan spoketh
There's a difference between free public hotspots and unsecured private wireless networks. Again you go and make assumptions that fits your point of view. There's absolutely no reason to believe that the wireless networks the OP found in his condo building are "free public hotspots" like the ones set up at airports.
Check the law? Sure.
Massachusetts General law, chapter 266, Section 33A. Fraudulent Obtaining of Commercial Computer Services; Penalty. Whoever, with intent to defraud, obtains, or attempts to obtain, or aids or abets another in obtaining, any commercial computer service by false representation, false statement, unauthorized charging to the account of another, by installing or tampering with any facilities or equipment or by any other means, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more then three thousand dollars, or both. As used in this section, the words "commercial computer services" shall mean the use of computers, computer systems, computer programs or computer network, or the access to or copying of data, where such use, access or copying is offered by the proprietor or operator of the computer, system, program, network or data to others on a subscription or other basis for monetary consideration.
MGL, chapter 255, section 120F, Unauthorized access of computer systems; Penalty
Whoever, without authorization, knowingly accesses a computer system by any means, or after gaining access to a computer system by any means knows that such access is not authorized and fails to terminate such access, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than thirty days or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or both. The requirement of a password or other means of authentication to gain access shall constitute notice that access is limited to authorized users.
Lars M. Hansen
Ahh, yes ,this bit makes sense. Cheers.
Fair enough. Thanks.
the key here is 'with intent to defraud.' using an open network is not fradulent.
the key here is 'knowingly, without authorization.'
it would be difficult to prove 'without authorization' if there is no mechanism to authorize, i.e. a password.
the converse of that is that if the access point has no password or any other restriction (i.e. mac address filtering, splash page with terms of service, etc.), it is evidence that it is not limited to authorized users.
Using an open AP without permission *is* theft. Do you disagree?
If its deliberately set up as a free hotspot, then of course its not theft. Its hard however to see the relevance to Lars' remarks. AFAIK the OP didn't say it was a public AP to which he was granted permission. You assumed it was.
Perhaps you ought to calm down and consider that you're also making stupid and false allegations.
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:46:29 -0800, nospam spoketh
Really? Using someone elses' service (who they pay for) in order to avoid having to pay for said service is not fraudulent?
You forgot "knows that such access is not authorized". Just because there the door isn't locked, you don't have the right to barge in. There's no reason to believe that you are authorized to use any open wireless network you can find, in the same manner that any unlocked car is not free-for-all.
That's open to interpretation. It says that if you are required to enter a password, then no other notice is needed to tell you that access is restricted. However, it does not say that the lack of password implies a free-for-all.
Lars M. Hansen
does the person with the access point charge people to access it? if not, then there is no avoidance in paying since there is no payment. their internet account is more than likely flat rate (at least in usa, anyway), so no additional charges to them would be incurred. also, no misrepresentation or tampering is made to access it. i don't see it as fraud.
i didn't forget it. without querying the owner of the access point, one has no idea whether it is permissible or not. there are private access points that welcome guests, so it is certainly possible that an open access point is intended for public use.
furthermore, the computer might connect to someone else's access point without the users knowledge at all. i doubt the typical user checks the specifics of their network connection unless it doesn't work.
everything legal is open to interpretation. :)
Sorry, I think you may be way wrong on that.. If you care to look at what the realities are, go to
i still say it is not fraud. it might be theft of service or unauthorized use. but fraud? no.
a network with no password required to access.
if i deliberately pick his network then yes, its knowingly. if the computer picks which network (i.e. the strongest signal), then its not knowingly until the user notices it. some tech savvy users will probably notice it right away. others might never notice it at all.
i know someone who has a wireless network in his house, and so does his neighbor. his computer had been connecting to his neighbor's network for a while and he didn't realize it until he went to print something. he tried a few times but nothing came out of his printer. then a few days later his neighbor asked him if he printed something - it came out of *their* printer. it was a simple screwup and they all worked it out. point is, accidental use does happen.
new york disagrees.
In fact, the companion New York State computer crime law, NY Penal Code Section 156 (6), requires that, before you can be prosecuted for using a computer service without authorization, the government has to prove that the owner has given actual notice to potential hackers or trespassers, either in writing or orally. In the absence of such notice in New York, the hacker can presume that he or she has authorization to proceed, under state law.
entirely different scenario. cars and houses are personal property registered to the owner. very very rarely are they publically shared. it is not reasonable to expect a car with keys in it is free to use for anyone or a house with a door open is free to visit and partake in the food.
there are many free public access wireless networks, with more appearing every day. it is reasonable to assume that a network with no password at all could be open to the public. it isn't a guarantee, of course, but it is certainly a reasonable conclusion.
you'd need to prove intent to abuse the naive or ignorant. i think that would be difficult for simply accessing an open network, especially with laws such as the aforementioned one in new york.
i don't know if this ever became law or not (the article is from 2003), but in new hampshire, not securing the network might be considered negligence:
A bill that's breezing through New Hampshire's legislature says operators of wireless networks must secure them -- or lose some of their ability to prosecute anyone who gains access to the networks.
This is true ONLY if the owner of the network has given permission for you to access it, and has all necessary permissions from his own providers to make such access available.
Perhaps you need to define 'open' before we carry on this debate as we seem to be discussing different things.
And accessing a wireless network, without the owner's authorisation, would be 'knowingly' I believe?
I'm afraid you're wrong.
Just because I leave the keys in my BMW doesn't mean I gave you permission to drive off in it. Just because I left my house door open, doesn't mean you can help yourself to the contents of the fridge and wine cellar.
No, its merely evidence of naivete or ignorance on the part of the owner. And the law tends to deal VERY severely with those who use their knowledge to abuse the naive or ignorant.
This might work in your favour in terms of sentence reduction, but ignorance of your actions' consequences is not generally a defence.
Agreed, if you could show that you didn't intentionally make the connection and had no realisation that you even had it, you'd be most unlikely to be prosecuted in the first place.
True. Some things less so than others mind you...
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.