What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
110 Comments
- rauz, on 11/02/2008, -3/+87Set your WiFi to use WEP with a SSID like "thepasswordiswelcome123". Done.
- rauz, on 11/02/2008, -2/+61Why not? It's not illegal to share your WiFi, right?
- inactive, on 11/02/2008, -1/+58I've always thought the role of ISPs was to provide access to the internets. When they feel it's a burden to do so, I think it's time for them to close shop and find another ***** business model. None of their damn business what we do with our internets.
- czeman, on 11/03/2008, -0/+47God dictated "You shall not covet your neighbor's WiFi" to Moses, but Moses misunderstood and wrote 'wife'.
- freefallgrue, on 11/02/2008, -1/+42In related news, many neighbours of these people will have to pay for internet access soon.
- waddling, on 11/03/2008, -1/+36What they do a "drive by" on all their clients?
- mattyx, on 11/03/2008, -2/+32Or just set the security to WEP, that's essentially like having it open...
- tvanwyk, on 11/02/2008, -2/+26With regard to a quoted "secure your bloody wireless" clause, the article asks:
"Should an ISP be entitled to demand this?"
I know it's just a word, but a "demand" is different from a contractual stipulation and obligation. These wireless clauses we're seeing tend to be the latter.
With more and more ISPs these days, failing to secure your wireless is a breach of contract on the part of the customer, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with "demands." If you don't like what you see as a "demand," there is no government agency or something compelling you to enter into the contract. I realize that the choice of ISPs sometimes sucks, but still, folks... these days, if you have broadband there's a chance you agreed to secure your wireless by entering into the contract you agreed to be bound by.
It sucks, but it's a contractual condition, not a ransom demand or something. - Garmonbozzia, on 11/02/2008, -5/+20That might be a good way to defeat the ISP's strategy, but I don't think that would help you in court.
- BelatedHero, on 11/03/2008, -1/+14I'm pretty sure we all knew what he meant.
- 007brendan, on 11/03/2008, -0/+13I'm guessing tomis is upset because he didn't understand DarkShroud's comment and was forced to look it up on wikipedia. Get a ***** life.
- suckaPU, on 11/03/2008, -2/+15Jesus Christ says open wifi is not a sin
- Vusys, on 11/02/2008, -0/+12INAL, but I thought the ToS is a legally binding agreement.
- DarkShroud, on 11/02/2008, -1/+12What about leaving wifi open but setting it to only allow certain Mac addresses? I've done this at times for people who had problems remembering their passwords.
- inactive, on 11/03/2008, -5/+15"None of their damn business what we do with our internets."
But you are connecting via THEIR internet, and that makes it their business. If you have the right to do as you wish with your network they have the same right in regard to theirs. - digggggggggg, on 11/03/2008, -0/+9Two problems associated with that approach:
1. The traffic is not encrypted. Unlike WPA or even WEP, where all traffic is encrypted in some form, you're sending everything in the clear. Let's hope that all important information gets passed over SSL.
2. MAC addresses can easily be changed in software. All an attacker has to do is sniff for an ARP packet, then set that MAC address to their own to access the network. This can screw up the legit users' connection as well.
It's important to always use some form of authentication and encryption. MAC address filtering doesn't effectively do either. - cankillar, on 11/03/2008, -1/+10Yeah, I mean, ***** whiners, it's not like it takes any effort or anything to start your own ISP. I mean jeeze, just yesterday I started like 7.
If they can't afford it, wow. Maybe we should start an ISP welfare program or soemthing, I dunno. - Ajajadude, on 11/03/2008, -0/+9Good lord, what the hell crawled up your ass today?
- brianegge, on 11/03/2008, -1/+9The cable companies used to have some clause where you couldn't splice you connection and allow all you neighbors to share it. I think this is the same sort of thing. Possibly in neighborhoods with open wifi spots, the company sees half the number of paying subscribers.
- smotpoker, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7It has always been against TOS of most ISPs to redistribute access in any manner (barring some fair use protections), AFAIK.
Personally, I've felt for years they should take these sorts of measures - but against morons who let their systems get infected and keep jamming up the tubes with spam/worms/attacks. They should setup NIDS and just start cutting off people who are infecting/attacking (wittingly or not). Just about anything mandates some form of responsibility, especially if it has negative impacts on those surrounding you. Malware is a MUCH worse threat than open wifi and should be treated as such.
Now if actual substantial malware activity is detected and verified coming into the network, the subscriber responsible for that entry point should be suspended/terminated, but for simply sharing access and not causing a major burden? no way! - CalcProgrammer1, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7The Internet is nobody's Internet, it's everybody's Internet, and it is the only Internet. If they aren't going to deliver the whole Internet then they aren't an Internet Service Provider. If a telephone company said you could only call people with even phone numbers, you wouldn't want to use their service. Same thing goes for ISP's. If they can't provide the full Internet, they're not an ISP. There needs to be some regulation on what can be called "Internet Service Provider" and what doesn't fit the name (such as ISP...but you have to follow this long list of our rules that are in tiny font at the bottom of some page). If they did this, ISP's would have to fight to make better policies so that they wouldn't lose their classification as an ISP.
- sirico, on 11/03/2008, -1/+8true,true
- yugiohdan6, on 11/03/2008, -1/+8but you wouldn't be sharing your Wi-Fi because it would be "encrypted" so you would have to prove someone cracked your WEP encryption AND downloaded some content.
- fucknuggets, on 11/03/2008, -4/+10oh the UK. For all the ***** you give us americans at least we don't have big brother monitoring us constantly.
- deeceefar2, on 11/03/2008, -0/+6Ya ours is a big sister and her name is the NSA.
- inactive, on 11/03/2008, -0/+5And when they get cut off they'll call the ISP. And then they can be told why, and how to fix it and get connected again.
- inactive, on 11/03/2008, -0/+5WEP isn't entirely useless, as Joe Apartmentdweller would easily be deterred from hijacking his neighbor's WiFi if it asked for a password. It won't stop scriptkiddies and their ilk, but like a door lock it keeps honest people honest.
WPA is pretty secure and definitely the preferred method, but ultimately anything is better than nothing. - minorgods, on 11/03/2008, -2/+7I, for one, actually do run an open internet-only wifi specifically for strangers. I throttle and filter it a bit (just to protect from them using my ip to do stupid *****)... Who knows when I may be backpacking around town some day with the need to check digg? Guess I should keep track of the laws just in case I'm aiding criminals tho (and install aircrack on my laptop)
- BossKey, on 11/03/2008, -0/+5>set up a "rouge" AP
"Rouge" as in red
which is interesting because in Spanish,
"red" means "network" ... - inactive, on 11/03/2008, -1/+6this company is known in the u.s. as comcast
- gnews, on 11/03/2008, -1/+6One of the major ISPs in the UK did the same thing, now we have 95%+ closed wifi in the UK... It sucks.
- Zalyster, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4I too wonder what those words means.
- smotpoker, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4You cannot just up and start an ISP because of regulations and money, and even assuming you could, there is no way the ISP could compete against established ones.
Our only choice is become rich, attract competitors that don't care about that specific TOS or go completely without. That is not much of a choice. Many contracts, EULAs etc are essentially forced.
For instance, suppose a class mandates MS Word but you do not agree with the EULA? What if you need to access your home network remotely but the TOS forbids running any open services? Maybe you need a cell phone but Verizon is the only one in the area. Should that person be forced to stick with that carrier or pay hundred if he looses the job he bought the phone for?
There is little/no real choice regarding what a consumer buys in many cases and the same is true when many choose to violate their obligation. And regardless of the fact people should be more careful and have more integrity, corporations should not be trying to restrict their freedom to such a degree - iofthestorm, on 11/03/2008, -1/+5The thing that people don't understand (and I didn't either for a long time) is that MAC filtering isn't really intended as a form of security. With unencrypted traffic, anyone with wireshark or something similar can just look at your traffic. I'm taking a Unix system administration class and we were talking about networking, and then the instructor (an undergrad, Berkeley has an awesome program where students can start and teach their own classes) started up Wireshark to show us how easy it is to snoop on people's AIM conversations.
- Elementix, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4This is stupid. People should have a choice on how they want to share the bandwidth that they are paying for. Noone comes and takes your house because you didn't lock your door. ***** isp...
- ilikechaitea, on 11/03/2008, -2/+6the man's got a point
- ivencente, on 11/02/2008, -3/+6so draconian, but i wonder what that words means?
- vault, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3Yeah I mean I feel bad for the people who didn't know and just left it open but this is actually a good thing.
- barroni, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3Amen Brother
- kgasso, on 11/03/2008, -1/+4In the US, ISPs need to react to notifications from copyright holders by expeditiously removing access to the infringing material in order to protect themselves from liability under the safe-harbor clauses of the DMCA.
If the customer refuses to remove the material (if they admit to sharing it) or continues to have issues in the future with the same infringing material (even if from an anonymous 802.11 user), we MUST remove network access until the issue is resolved or we can face civil litigation.
So, blame the ISPs all you want, but it's really the DMCA that ties their hands with regard to this. - CalcProgrammer1, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3If companies want to do this kind of nonsense, we need to come up with a better set of naming conventions. A true "Internet Service Provider" does simply that, gives you a connection to the Internet (...the WHOLE Internet). If they don't provide the entire thing or have extra clauses that detract from "the WHOLE Internet", they should not legally be allowed to classify themselves as an Internet Service Provider. They could still sell their services, but since their services aren't the true Internet, they shouldn't get the privilege of calling themselves an Internet Service Provider. It makes sense from a consumer and legal standpoint and would be a way to keep the companies under control. It would help consumers find what they really want. This means that BitTorrent slowing, selective speed filtering, site and ad tracking, and annoying buggy JavaScript comment boxes that jump up and down like some moronic idiot on a trampoline that prevent you from seeing what you're typing would go away because companies would want to keep their customers.
- BossKey, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3Or here's another way to do it: Speakeasy considers an open access point a revenue-sharing opportunity ("NetShare"). Very open-minded.
http://www.speakeasy.net/netshare/terms/
>Speakeasy believes that shared wireless networks are in keeping with our core values of disseminating knowledge, access to information and fostering community, provided this usage does not have an adverse impact on the services of other customers, does not involve any illegal activity and is not otherwise in violation of any aspect of our existing Terms Of Service. Please remember that the Speakeasy account-holder is responsible for all activity... - Ajajadude, on 11/03/2008, -1/+4If you're using a particular product/piece of technology, you should know enough about it to use it properly. It's like going out and buying a car then expecting the dealership to show you how to drive safely. People need to take some responsibility in life. It's really quite difficult to not properly setup WiFi for your home. Most routers come up with setup guides that walk you through the process.
- bipolarruledout, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3Aren't all common forms of wifi encryption now easily breakable anyway? I don't think it would be too hard to prove this in court.
- gilbert2048, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3setup one network secure, then tell a friend to set up a "rouge" AP with a hidden essid but not secured, technically you didn't set it up...
- inactive, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3Go picket outside their HQ demanding them to remove the clause :) bad PR will make them change their mind real fast. Do an anonymous/scientology protest if you can't tolerate it. Unfortunately you use their internet connection and they can set as many demands in their agreement as they please; if you pay and accept, it is your own fault, unfortunately.
- jbond, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2I really wanted to live in a world where free Wifi was everywhere. For a while the default Linksys/belkin/dlink community network provided this. I for one am sad to see it go.
- iofthestorm, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2Dunno about other routers, but I think now AT&T (2wire) wifi routers come with a default WEP key. I really think all manufacturers should do that, or at least make their setup functions refuse to start broadcasting wifi until encryption is set up, but then that means less free wifi for random travelers.
- Angostura, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2actually it is very easy to sniff and spoof MAC addresses, so anyone could be using your set-up (and reading all your transmitted e-mail)
- BossKey, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2I keep thinking about switching to a different ISP to save money, but I keep hearing horror stories about Comcurse, Qworst, etc., plus I have no outages and they really do not hassle you about how you use it (can run FTP server, etc). On the other hand, they were bought by Beast Buy so who knows if it will stay this way.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is