[Tfug] OT: Cox cable

[Tyler Kilian]

A wireless network isn't considered inherently different than a wired 
network by law.   You can intend on having people connect or not and 
it's all policy based and not technology based.  The old "Cyber Cafes" 
were wired and open, akin to a modern day WiFi hotspot, for example.  
You can't say that because a "Cyber Cafe" let people connect that any 
given network drop you find at, say, a company, is likewise fair game.  
It's all on the intent and rules set aside by the owner of that 
network.

The argument that because you don't secure it, it must be considered 
public is flawed.  The same logic would allow anyone to come into your 
house and watch TV just because your door was open.  Bad idea to leave 
your door open or not secure WiFi?  You bet, but it doesn't change your 
intent and it doesn't mean that anyone can legally use your network.

The bottom line is that if you attach to someone's wifi without their 
knowledge you may be committing a crime.   A court's view of this could 
vary, as you say, might be the purview of good or bad lawyers on either 
side.

On Jan 26, 2007, at 4:17 PM, JD Rogers wrote:

> On 1/26/07, keith smith <klsmith2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Isn't that illegal and comes with a nice prison term?
>>
>> Since you would be gaining access w/o permission?
>
> I'm pretty sure this still has never been tested in court. I would
> think the first time this goes to court, it will depend greatly on the
> quality of the lawyers for each side. However, my opinion is that when
> you see an unsecured wifi access point, it is broadcasting an
> invitation to connect. When you connect, you are simply accepting this
> invitation. Otherwise, how would it be any different than connecting
> to a coffee shop. Now if you break into a weakly secured AP (i.e.
> crack the wep key using kismet something), that would be a whole
> different issue.
>
> In the end, I say if the AP is left open, it should be considered fair
> game and if the default on most AP's is open, that is the fault of the
> manufacturer AND the owner for not changing the settings.
>
> My $0.02
> JDR
>
>> I always see my neighbors wifi but stay away from it for this reason.
>>
>>
>> bigj at flatwan.net wrote: >
>>> I wish you would stop bragging about FiOS. :-) It's not that 
>>> widespread..
>>> http://www.dslreports.com/gmaps/fios
>>> ..and even the future deployment maps are somewhat limited coverage
>>> (i.e. nothing for Tucson planned yet).
>>>
>>> Also, I would say that Tucson was 'not so much pricey as middle'
>>> because cable modem access here in chicago will be more like 
>>> $55-60/mo
>>> or just over $100/mo with basic extended cable.
>>>
>>
>> As bad as this sounds it may be cheaper to invest some money for a 
>> high
>> gain roof mount wifi antenna and mooch off of your neighbor's open 
>> wifi.
>> I'm not saying I currently do that *cough* but if I were I would be 
>> saving
>> a little bit of cash each month *cough*.
>>
>> --
>> Jon
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>> Subscription Options:
>> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>>
>>
>>
>> Keith Smith
>> A link from my website to yours
>> Submit Your Metro Phoenix Website
>>  __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>> Subscription Options:
>> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>