What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
310 Comments
- hinten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34Nothing against our law enforcement but...
How did the cops even know what the person was doing? Am I not allowed to sit in the car using my laptop? How would somebody know whether I am online or offline and what network I am using? Did he have to hack to get into the network or was it unprotected?
This whole story is missing crucial information for anyone to build an opinion.
Also, to add another analogy. Windows XP SP2 auto-configures to connect to unsecured wireless networks. So, for those people that use the old home-unlocked-door analogy: This is like buying a car, you get in, press a button and the car hijacks you and suddenly takes off. Your fault? - xptical, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33@hinten
My guess? He told them. They saw him using a laptop in his car. That, in itself, is an unusual thing. As geeks, we may think it's cool to sit in a car and type a report or something. But, in the world of security, that's a key sign of a "dry run". People sit in front of a target buisness and collect information about the employees' habits to make a robbery easier.
So, here is how it plays out in my mind: The cops see this guy. They walk up and ask him what's going on. They ask for ID, and he gives it to them. Then, as they write his info down, they casually ask him what he's working on. He opens his trap and says he's using some WiFi signal he just found. At that point, they either arrest him or cite him with a ticket.
Remember, you have the right to remain silent. No, it won't make things easier for you. But you can exercise that right at any time.
If you give up your right, then answer clearly and concicely without giving up information.
Them: Who are you?
You: My name is Xptical. Here's my driver's license.
Them: What are you doing?
Me: Working on my laptop.
Them: What are you working on?
Me: I had a few minutes with nothing to do and thought I'd play some solitare.
Them: OK sir, you have a nice afternoon.
Me: Thanks, officer. You have a good day too.
^^That's the right way.
Them: Who are you?
Me: Well, from looking at your eyes, I'm probably your daddy.
Them: What are you doing?
Me: Uploading pics of your wife to the internets.
Them: Can we see some ID?
Me: Sure, right after you show me where the Constitution says I have to carry ID.
Them: Sir, place your hands behind your back. You are under arrest.
Me: Do you really have to? I just bought a bunch of carrots and cucumbers and I was on my way to see your daughter.
^^That's the wrong way.
Just be kind and courteous. Be clear and short. Answer everything but offer nothing. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28I'm going to sit outside in my car tonight and use my laptop to access my WiFi.... lets see if I get arrested.
- SirChaos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25The real FULL Story is here:
http://digg.com/technology/WiFi_Freeloader_fined_$250.00_-_May_get_jail_time_
Instead of a link to a BLOG....a link to the local story where is this happening. - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Yeah, but the cable guy didn't leave a coax cable attached to the box and a sign above it saying, "Free Cable, jack in here!" Open WiFi spots that broadcast their SSID are basically advertising themselves as being available for use. Also, given that there a lot of people that make their WAPs available for use to passersby (myself included), one could make the argument that one could expect that an open WAP is open because it's meant to be used.
- zweben, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25The cop should be fined $250 for being a jerk.
- harshbarj, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20And here I wave at police as they pass while surfing on the net while standing on the corner. I'm sure if this guy really wanted to fight it he could have won (as he was doing nothing wrong).
- largobargo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17How did they know he was using the wifi signal?
I bet this guy spilled his guts and helped the police. What an idiot, always tell the police "I have nothing to say." and speak through a lawyer. - blaineg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19How is using this open network any different than using one at a coffee shop? If they are stupid enough to leave their network wide open then its their problem.
- Godric, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Would it really be that hard to ship routers pre-secured with a random password? Or perhaps ship them with an installer program that makes it easy for newbs?
Are Apple Airport Extremes secured out of the box?
It's ridiculous to see so many unsecured networks out there. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11there's a way to mass produce anything, so no it wouldn't be hard... it's mostly newbies that get in the way because it's just one more step in the setup instructions...
- Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"It wasn't "other folks private spaces" and you are making it sound like it is taking up physical space in other peoples property. I guess with that logic I should be able to intercept your cellphone signal if it is "intruding" on my private spaces."
Actually it's illegal to intercept cell calls because it's encrypted. It's not illegal however to listen in on someones unprotected cordless phone transmissions to its base station, as long as you don't have to decrypt the signal. - burnt1ce85, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Agreed.
this world would be so much more productive if we can all share our internet access. - AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13It wasn't "other folks private spaces" and you are making it sound like it is taking up physical space in other peoples property. I guess with that logic I should be able to intercept your cellphone signal if it is "intruding" on my private spaces.
- Mr.Scientist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This would be really really simple if people started to wrap their heads around the fact that we're talking about automated individual communication, not television sets, physical property or other stupid analogies. If you have trouble understanding why unsecured wireless LANs should be treated as public, here's a typical situation: uneducated consumer 1 buys a laptop and a netgear access point. He configures his laptop to automatically connect to the "netgear" SSID. He goes on a business trip with his laptop. His email application is running and he happens to be in the vicinity of uneducated consumer 2 who also owns a netgear access point. Consumer 1's laptop will then automatically connect to consumer 2's access point and the email application will automatically retrieve and send email. If unsecured wireless LANs are not fair game, consumer 1 is now guilty of theft of service, all because he used the hardware in the same negligent fashion as consumer 2.
- xocomil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9While I agree that having an unsecured network is begging for trouble, I also can see how this situation could merit police intervention. On the one hand, you have a company that hasn't secured its network. On the other hand, they are still legally and financially responsible for things that happen on their network. I have a very hard time believing that someone using an unsecured wireless network in the middle of the night had legitimate reasons to be there. More than likely he was looking for some kind of fix that this network could give him with relatively little chance of being caught.
If for some reason this network was used to perpetrate credit card fraud, launch some kind of worm, steal data from unsecured computers on the wireless network, or some other crime, it would be difficult to track him down. I'm just saying that someone sitting in a car in the middle of the night using an unsecured wireless network is very suspicious. The fact that he chose not to fight it tends to make me believe he doesn't want people to know what exactly he was doing. - AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17Because Coffee shops that offer wifi give you permission to use it. Just because something is there doesn't mean you should take it. With your reasoning I should be able to walk up to you and take something of yours off the table because it wasn't secured down.
- FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You can be arrested and convicted for not obeying a police officer, which they use to get around that ID issue. Not providing ID for an officer is not obeying.
http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/index2.html - LNahid2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Yeah, they really should make all routers pre-secured since it's too hard for the average user to setup WPA. But then I wouldn't be able to borrow wifi when my internet goes out.
- Ignathius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"The point is, just because it's there doesn't mean it's free to use. It should be common knowledge that you shouldn't be connecting to other peoples networks without permission."
it should also be common knowledge by now that if you don't want people using your WiFi, then secure the damn thing. - spacebar14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Your router tells you the MAC, and what frequency people are connecting via ..
At least mine does anyways!
(DI-524) - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You're kidding, right? You're trying to equate physically getting into someone else's car with your OS connecting automatically with the first available open access point? Assuming that you happened to have an exact key (which blows the analogy right there as there is no such key necessary to connect to an open access point), there would be clear and obvious indications that it wasn't your car. For the analogy to be valid at all, even the most minute differences would have to be taken away, though. If the two cars had exactly the same mileage, amount of wear, cleanliness, VIN number, etc... Then the analogy starts to make sense. But, if all of those things are exactly the same, if there is absolutely NO way to tell the difference in the cars, then NEITHER owner will know that they don't have the correct car, so the police would never be involved because neither owner would ever call them. Two WAPs from the same manufacturer, configured the same way are indistinguishable to the average user. About the only difference I can think of would be the MAC address and that's NOT something that's broadcast. You'd have to basically do things that might be construed as hacking to find the MAC of the WAP.
I think the radio analogy is the most suited. To make it more apt, we can make it satellite radio. You pay for it, but if you're playing it outside, you're broadcasting it to everyone within earshot. If you don't want anyone else to listen to the music you're paying for, get a set of headphones. If someone comes over and pulls your headphones to their ear, THEN you've got a complaint. - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Okay, consider this scenario. You're in the middle of an area that has free municiple WiFi. There also happen to be five or six other, privately owned open WAPs in the area. Like most people, the names of the WAPs haven't been changed from their default. So I crank up my Zaurus and it snags the strongest signal which happens to be one of the privately owned, yet open, access points. Am I breaking any laws? If not, why not? I mean, after all, y'all are trying to establish that attaching to an open WAP is against the law. If so, how am I supposed to know that the WAP I'm attached to isn't the muni WAP, since there's no way TO know unless someone has done a smidgeon of leg work on the WAP owner's end.
- tablatronix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6technically competent cops ?
- eurleif, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The Internet is based on the idea that if a device lets you access it without a struggle, you have implicit permission to do so. I would be willing to bet you don't have Kevin Rose's explicit permission to use his servers' bandwidth, but you know it's all right to because Digg.com accepts your browser's HTTP request without asking for a password.
If this principle weren't in place, the Web would be almost impossible to use. Before connecting to a Web site, you would have to speak with its owner and confirm that they didn't mind -- and you wouldn't be able to ask via email, since connecting to their email server would require prior permission. Search engines would be almost impossible, since every Web site's owner would have to be contacted before their site was indexed.
If you accept this principle when it's applied to servers being contacted over the Internet, why do you deny it when it's applied to servers being contacted over the air waves? Why should I assume that a wireless router which is actively inviting me to contact it shouldn't be used? - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Why not just secure the WAP and be done with it? Why invite people to come in and then screw with them? Sounds mighty childish to me. There are much better things to do with your time. Or... maybe not. I don't know anything about your private life. :P
- equusdc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Nope. If ignorance of the law is not a defense, then neither is ignorance of the technology for which you are enforcing the law.
APs BROADCAST the fact that they are open and, if there is a DHCP server there configured to toss out info to ANY machine, it will VOLUNTARILY give you everything you need to connect to the internet. The hardware is almost literally saying "Hi! My name is Bob. I will be your server today. Feel free to go where you like, here's a map of the facility and a menu. Please sit a table #4 and give me a holler if you need anything!" You can turn off this broadcast and tell the DHCP server to only give a "seat" to specific people--still, no encryption. In effect, like having a blank building with no sign or receptionist to give out any identifying information, but alas, with a side door open.
Now, if someone felt welcome to use the facilities of the former, it'd be pretty jack-booted to give the knock-down drag out and slap a fine on him for accepting the invitation. In the latter case, though, even though the door was unlocked, a reasonable person would probably say, "hey, obviously that wasn't a 'public' place offering you anything, otherwise they would have had a sign and a receptionist, so off you go with a ticket for trespassing." Now, if the door WAS locked, then it's off to the clink for breaking and entering. - xptical, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@fathed
My office has a security system under contract. This morning, I set it off. Within 2 minutes, two armed guards showed up. Both had guns drawn as I came out.
You know what?
It wasn't a problem. I put my hands up, made eye contact, and politely asked permission to get my ID.
They responded that I should use one hand and move slowly.
Within a few minutes, we were sitting at my desk filling the report and drinking coffee.
My point?
Anyone can turn a bad situation into a really-bad situation. What would have happened if, instead of asking, I'd have just reached in and grabbed my wallet? Well, I'd probably be dead now.
What if I'd smarted off? Well, I probably would have given some guy a really bad day.
People need to be polite to everyone. Even if you hate "the man", remember, he has a gun and won't hesitate to shoot. That, in itself, should be reason enough to use "please", "sir/ma'am", and "thank you". But, more than that, you should *want* to treat other people with respect.
While I can't comment on an extended hand as an assault, remember that every story has two sides. Cops don't like being touched. In fact, they see any break of an arm's length bubble as a potential assault on them. They have to. Things are different when you carry a gun.
Some cops are *****. Maybe they were born that way. Maybe they became that way after getting *****. But, you can't do anything about that. Just act polite and expect that in return. If they aren't treating you properly, ask nicely if they could call someone else for you to deal with. Ask for a badge number. File a complaint.
When you complain, do it politely. A desk sargent or chief is more likely to listen to a polite citizen than a loud-mouthed *****. - eadnams, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5People exaggerate to make a point. But, a lot of people don't believe in 'grey areas' in regards to privacy, its either a violation, or its not.
- prockcore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This really is no different than those loitering laws... which this guy was probably violating at the exact same time.
- FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm an American, and to me that means I must rebel against EVERYTHING!!!! :)
I'm really just pointing out what you can be arrested for, and in this country, it's pretty much everything. Even extending your hand to shake a police officers hand can be considered assault. Someone has been convicted for that, I'm not going to find the link for it though. - vypergts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Let's just make it clear; this guy was charged under a state law and this has absolutely nothing to do with the FEDERAL DMCA.
Second, “Likewise, our residents need to know that it is a crime, punishable by up to a year in jail, to access someone else’s computer, wireless system or Internet connection without that person’s approval.”
If I was to actually obtain another person's approval, than to cover my ass I would have to obtain that permission in writing. Since this essentially makes wi-fi EXTREMELY inconvenient, laws like this are absolutely retarded. It should be the owner's responsibility to secure their connection, (and to make YET ANOTHER goofy analogy) just as owner's are held responsible when their pit bull attacks someone else. At most this should be a civil matter, but of course since the company can't even make a password they probably can't tell if anyone is using their connection to pursue charges either. - C00001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think the "cable box" is a poor example. While I'm not positive, I would guess that the cable box is owned by the cable company, and would therefore be considered private property. Which would then be more akin to something like going in and borrowing your neighbors connection by plugging in to their router (which obviously isn't OK, even if they leave the door unlocked).
What if we compare it to a movie? I know --screw the MPAA, etc-- but just for a second: sneaking in to see a movie without buying a ticket is theft of services. But what if someone projects the movie onto the side of their house, and, while on the sidewalk (or in your car), you see the movie. In that case, it is not theft of services to watch the movie. In fact, the person projecting the movie for all to see is the only one breaking the law (violating copyright) (I know, screw the MPAA...). Again, if you walked onto their private property and sought out movies to watch, that's another story. - easygoing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That non-profit agency publicly announced their service as being available for use by broadcasting the SSID outside their premesis. I'm no lawyer but I'd say that was an open invitation for others to try their services. Because there was no security bypasses, I don't feel they could prove malicious intent in court. Also the burden of proof is greater in criminal cases.
- blaineg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I think your example of taking something off my table because its not secured down is a bit extreme. Stealing something and using a open network aren't the same thing at all. If someone steals something from me then I am left without whatever they stole and the thief should be punished and/or the item returned. In this case the company lost only a small amount of bandwidth which wouldn't even be noticeable.
- spacebar14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Can't wait until someone using an EVDO or HSDPA cellular data card in their car gets arrested by a police officer who doesn't recognize the difference."
lmao -- ditto
it would be impossible to convince them. seriously. - spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It doesn't make it legal to rape her, but I sure as hell shouldn't be fined for staring as much as I want to.
Btw, does your friend come up with scenarios of women being raped often? - Mikesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3
OK, here is a BASIC WIFI lesson.
Open access points broadcast ALL the time, "Here I am!!" Your network card says "Can I use you?" The reply, "Sure! Here is an IP address!" And away you go.
As the OWNER set up the network to automatically INVITE people to use it, he should not be surprised when people do.
This is more akin to knocking on a door and asking a child if you can come in and take a bath. If Mom and Dad allow the kid to answer the door, and talk to strangers, they should expect strange things to occur. Mom and Dad might not like it, but no one can argue about permission. Kid gave it, so no crime.
In this case, owner set up network to invite usage, someone did, no crime.
We have devices grant permission and access all the time. If you were in my house and had a key and the alarm code, the cops would not arrest you. They might ask you to leave, but at some point in time PERMISSION was granted by me to you because of the key and the code. Now if you copied the key, or stole the code that is different, but remember, we are talking about OPEN access points that automatically GRANT access.
And additionally, computer trespass specifically requires that you are accessing a network that you do not have permission to use. As the WIFI router has granted permission for the owner to the user of the network AUTOMATICALLY, it is no longer computer trespass. - panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It is wrong. It's just like coming up to my house and using my hose without permission. It is theft. Nothing you can say will change the fact that it is against the law.
It is morally reprehensible as well...how do you know if there is bandwidth to spare? How do you know how their system is supposed to work and that your unauthorized access will not impair their normal functions? For example, perhaps they are running 4-6 lines of VoIP on their DSL service. It is easy to see in that case that even downloading some email attachments might interfere with their service.
Who the hell do you think you are that you can access anything just because it doesn't have a lock on it? What if it is a rudimentary lock (ala WEP or a luggage padlock)? What then? Is it OK to break the lock to get what you want? - Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If it's illegal to use someone else's WiFi, then it should be the law to secure your WiFi. If you don't secure your own wireless network, it's your own fault.
To use an analogy that was on TWiT, If someone's got a garbage bucket sitting on the edge of their driveway, and I have garbage, I'm gonna stick it in their trash. If they don't want me to, then they should put a lock on it.
It should only be illegal to use someone's WiFi if it involves actively hacking their WEP or WPA. - MartinBob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9"Because Coffee shops that offer wifi give you permission to use it. Just because something is there doesn't mean you should take it. With your reasoning I should be able to walk up to you and take something of yours off the table because it wasn't secured down."
Yeah, but that isn't common knowledge' It's not nearly the same as your example. This situation seems more like walking into McDonald's and getting fined $250 for taking a straw when you bought no beverage... - ashtonium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5wow, that has got to be the most ridiculous analogy I've ever heard...
using a freely provided (whether intentional or not) service = raping nudist joggers - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ all the armchair lawyers. STOP! Almost everything you write is dreadfully wrong, and the rest isn't very useful. There is almost no case law on this issue, and actual lawyers can't seem to agree about its legality. State and local regulations further complicate the issue.
@ all the people sharing ridiculous analogies. STOP! Open WAPs are not like car stealing, rape, or listening to somebody else's radio. It is a complicated issue that defies most attempts at analogy.
Fact: There are an incredible number of locations that provide legal, free wi-fi. It is perfectly ethical to connect to these access points.
Fact: Many open access points are either unintentionally left open or left open with no intention of sharing. It is morally (and possibly legally) questionable to use these connections.
Fact: It is difficult to tell the difference. The only two ways are by questioning the owner of the access point or examining the SSID. Contacting the owner is only possible if you can locate the origin of the signal. Determination by SSID is made difficult by cryptic and unnamed connections and an utter lack standard naming conventions.
Given this ambiguety I see two basic issues. Is it the responsibility of the WAP owner to identify their connection as private or the responsibility of the user to identify a connection as public? If it is the owner's responsibility game over--any WAPs not identified as private by encryption or other means are fair game legally. If it is the responsibility of the end user to identify the WAP as public, what form of due dilligence is required?
Must I actually speak with the owner? Must there be a physical sign stating access is public? Is examining the SSID enough? Am I still liable if I honestly mistake a private open WAP for a public open WAP? Heck, I thought Joe's Coffee public WAP was westinc-ap1, not wireless7. If you can't determine with certainty whether an owner intended to share their wi-fi, is it illegal to connect? What if your computer connected automatically? To my knowledge these questions have not been answered in a court of law. If they have please provide a citation to the case.
If you must use an analogy, make sure it fits. Analogies claiming using open wi-fi is illegal should account for many people providing the same item being "stolen" for free. It's not like stealing a car unless many people are legally leaving their cars on the street with the express intention of being stolen. Your analogy should also account for difficulty in contacting the owner to determine their intention and an easy method the owner could have used to prevent theft but neglected to implement. The item in question should be left in a public space and of comparable value. Even assuming it IS stealing, it's not grand theft auto--it's taking water from your hose.
If your analogy argues for legal use of open WAPs you should acknowledge that you are depriving the owner of bandwidth. While the owner may have the intention of sharing it, it is still a finite resource. Analogies referring to listening to someone's radio or watching their TV fail. Your analogy should also account for users that neither intend to share the resource nor know they are doing so.
Here's some ideas on analogies to get you started:
1. It's like taking a pen from the basket full of them at your bank even though you're not sure they intend to give them away.
2. It's like taking food off a buffet in a public place even though there's no sign saying whether it's meant for the general public or not.
Finally it is important to note the distinction between legality and morality. I think the legality of the issue--despite the beliefs of many Digg posters--is far from being settled. It is a complex issue that current laws seem inadequte to fully address. As a moral issue we should all be able to agree that it is moral to use a connection intended to be public and immoral to use a connection which is obviously private. When you can't determine which is which? Now THAT is a great subject for argument. - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6You can't compare the two. Leaving your door unlocked is different than leaving a WAP open and broadcasting your SSID. It would be more like if you left your front door wide open and put a sign over it saying "Free Snacks" and then getting torqued when people started wandering around your kitchen rifling through the refridgerator.
- mwebb1984, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Only that the cable guy didnt forget to lock it up... The wifi's owner effectively put a splitter in the cable line and ran it over to your house/etc saying "here, use this. " Maybe they didnt "know" that's what they were doing, but ignorance has never been a legal excuse..... If you buy something, you are responsible for knowing how to properly use it. That's why we have licenses for driving cars and buying firearms. That's why if you buy a swimming pool and dont have a gate blocking a kid from wandering onto your property and falling in, you get fined. If you buy alcohol and get "intoxicated" in a public place, that's also you breaking the law. Routers' instruction manuals are very clear that with the signal set to broadcast and no security settings the router WILL connect to other people's devices. By purchasing one and setting it up in this state, one is effectively Giving Permission to everyone (within ### feet range) to use it. That being said, anyone sitting in a car during the middle of the night in front of a business/home/etc to use the open wifi seems very suspicious.
- setec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Using someone else's WIFI w/o permission is illegal. The problem is that the laws in the US haven't caught up with the technology yet. Here in PA, we can fit this crime into a few existing laws, but the judges and district attorney's don't want to charge, YET, because its too vague.
Panera Bread - They allow you do use their wifi. Its advertised and encouraged. So, thats not illegal. Most libraries in PA, for instance, now have free wifi for anyone to use whether your a member or not.
But just because you drive down the road and find and open wifi network, doesn't mean you get to acquire an IP address on that person or business's network and get to use their bandwidth. Its not the person's or company's responsibility to lock their wifi network down, although its a good idea. Saying that its the fault of the person or business because the wifi was open is like saying you were allowed to go inside their house or business because they left the door unlocked.
Its illegal, but people will continue to get away with it for years until the law catches up with technology.
Although my point of view is that its illegal, you have to show intent for theft. If I check into a motel/hotel, pop open my laptop to work on a word document and I realize that I have wifi access, it could be a defense to say that you thought it was the wifi provided by the hotel since most hotel's are beginning to do this. Although, sitting in the middle of a parking lot across from a business, I don't think you could argue that you expected to get wifi legally.
This is what the lawyers will do to drag this out to death until the laws catch up.
And lastly, I have these views because I am a police officer in PA and this is how I view the law. But I will agree that since no one seems to want to prosecute this YET in PA, it seems that the view is that, for now, its not illegal. I actually think it does fit into our theft section, but for now, thats just my view. - DEFSMAC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3how about just securing your network. i would find it funny if you "messed" with the guy then he turned around to be a HAM and used radio direction finding to to find out where you live then threw a brick through your window.
- samdu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You get free cable? Where is this magical place that cable companies aren't trying to squeeze every cent out of their customers?
- tomkroening, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Open WiFi should be fair game to anyone where as breaking into encrypted or locked down wireless should be treated as intrusion.
Think about it this way... If your neighbor is watering his lawn and you stand in the street to catch a drink from the overspray no one is going to stop you or fine you.... but if your neighbor has a fence and you hop the fence to get a drink you are trespassing. Not the best example but you get the idea. - boff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Guys, this is dumb as hell. If I put a bench on my lawn bordering the sidewalk (wifi) I am in no position to be upset if someone sits on it.
If I do not want people to use my bench, I need to put up a sign that says so (password). -
Show 51 - 100 of 310 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is