Activating an iPhone - Made SIMPLE by Apple.

In article <290620071245306411%[email protected]>,
nospam <[email protected]> wrote:

> that analagy does not apply since there is an expectation of privacy
> regardless of the door being locked or unlocked (or even open). people
> don't regularly just walk into other people's houses.
>
The legalities as of now are such that one (including both you and
me) what the expectation of privacy is. A person generally gets a
wireless router to hook up THEIR computers to the Internet. Might be a
good point for a DA to make.
Actually another key point is that most of what we discuss so far
has origins in common law. So there are some expectations over and above
(or in some cases even with nothing written) what is written. We really
don't have much common law to fall back on in this area since it still
ain't all that common.


> a better analagy is if you are running a sprinkler to water your lawn
> and some of it oversprays the sidewalk and street. suppose it is a
> blistering hot summer day - is it illegal for someone to stand on the
> public sidewalk (not on your property) and cool off, benefitting from
> your water?
Actually this is a good analogy for those who suggest open is open.
Now which one will out will be an interesting thing to watch over the
next few years.
Again, my personal bias is more toward their being a property
right attached to MY internet connection. You don't agree. Which is one
reason attorneys make the big bucks.


> > The person I was responding to said if it was on the public
> > airwaves it was public property. I was illustrating an instance where
> > that doesn't hold.
>
> unlike cellphones, as far as i know, there are no laws that explicity
> prohibit using public wifi networks. there is some debate as to what a
> public wifi network *is*, however.

Nope, but we weren't talking public (in the utility sense).
There seems to be a law (a couple of them--see earlier in the thread for
the URLs) that say that shalt not covet thy neighbor's wifi signal. The
debate then went off on whether or not these were enforceable and under
what possible theory.

>
> > > one could also argue that the network owner is sending the signals into
> > > someone elses property and into a computer that is known to
> > > automatically connect to open networks (standard configuration for mac
> > > & windows machines). thus, the network owner is at fault. don't
> > > underestimate what a clever attorney can do.
> >
> > Which is why I have stated many times that the interpretation from
> > the courts was even more important that what the law seems to say.
>
> true. and there haven't been any test cases yet. so far, the
> perpetrators have committed something else, like credit card fraud,
> child porn, etc.
Even then I don't think they have been where hopping on to another's
system to do it has been an issue.

---

› See More: Activating an iPhone - Made SIMPLE by Apple.

In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:


> If purely blindly connecting, perhaps.
>
> Why would anyone do that, with honeypots galore.

Hey there are stupid people looking for free access, too. The idiots
are not only on the house side of the wireless network>=

In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Alan Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>There is nothing to differentiate Wi-Fi access points that are left
> >>>>>>>>>open
> >>>>>>>>>deliberately from ones where the owner doesn't want you to use them.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>And since the owner can easily provide such an indication, the onus
> >>>>>>>>>should be on him or her to do so.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Which is why the word "PRIVATE" appears in SSIDs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Sorry, but SSIDs aren't read by humans most of the time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Really? You must have the only setup that doesn't indicate SSID.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>How do you know to what you are connecting, and whether it is the
> >>>>>>desired connection?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Dumb luck?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"Connect automatically to open networks".
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Aha. Which would preclude connection to any WPA/WEP secured network
> >>>>whose SSID indicated "PRIVATE".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yes.
> >>>
> >>>If a network isn't open, it isn't open.
> >>>
> >>>That's very good.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Right. So anyone attempting to access a closed network is -- what?
> >
> >
> > But we haven't been discussing closed networks.
> >
>
>
> I guess I must have misinterpreted your earlier comment:
>
> "Alan Baker wrote:
>
> There is nothing to differentiate Wi-Fi access points that are left open
> deliberately from ones where the owner doesn't want you to use them. And
> since the owner can easily provide such an indication, the onus should
> be on him or her to do so."

Yup.

Since we were discussing how one could or could not be committing an
offense by accessing an *open* Wi-Fi network, you sure did.

But no worries. :-)

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article
<kurtullman-4794F2.16234029062007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx
>,
Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <290620071245306411%[email protected]>,
> nospam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > that analagy does not apply since there is an expectation of privacy
> > regardless of the door being locked or unlocked (or even open). people
> > don't regularly just walk into other people's houses.
> >
> The legalities as of now are such that one (including both you and
> me) what the expectation of privacy is. A person generally gets a
> wireless router to hook up THEIR computers to the Internet. Might be a
> good point for a DA to make.
> Actually another key point is that most of what we discuss so far
> has origins in common law. So there are some expectations over and above
> (or in some cases even with nothing written) what is written. We really
> don't have much common law to fall back on in this area since it still
> ain't all that common.
>
>
> > a better analagy is if you are running a sprinkler to water your lawn
> > and some of it oversprays the sidewalk and street. suppose it is a
> > blistering hot summer day - is it illegal for someone to stand on the
> > public sidewalk (not on your property) and cool off, benefitting from
> > your water?
> Actually this is a good analogy for those who suggest open is open.
> Now which one will out will be an interesting thing to watch over the
> next few years.
> Again, my personal bias is more toward their being a property
> right attached to MY internet connection. You don't agree. Which is one
> reason attorneys make the big bucks.

No one is disputing that.

But there are instances when one must make one's property rights *and*
decisions in relation to one's property *known*.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article <[email protected]>,
Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:


>
> But there are instances when one must make one's property rights *and*
> decisions in relation to one's property *known*.

And there are other times when they don't. Depends on how the law is
written as to the amount it must be made known. In the absence of
written law, the case law would decide. I am just saying that for this
legal argument, there is also good reason to think the other might be
used, too.
All of this blustering on all our parts is nothing more than debates
saying what MIGHT be decided if the judge or lawmaker agree with us.
Nothing more and nothing less.

"Kurt Ullman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-08F399.07084929062007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
> There is ample precendent in other areas that suggest you are
> wrong. Excuse my fixation with trespass, but it seems to fit most often.
> If you enter my house (or even farm field) it is trespass whether or not
> I have the signs up.

Wi-Fi use has nothing to do with physical trespass.
If I stand on the public sidewalk and enjoy the shade from a shade tree that is
on your property, I'm not breaking any laws. Wi-Fi use is just like taking
advantage of the free shade from a tree that you fertilized and watered.
--
John Richards

"Kurt Ullman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-1E2F60.13351729062007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> I guess you really do believe that attaching to a wide open WLAN, of which
>> many *are* shared deliberately, is akin to criminal trespass.
> You would guess wrong. I have stated from the getgo that those who
> are deliberately shared (key word being deliberately, which is an
> affirmative action on the part of the OWNER of the system) are a whole
> different animal.

And how would a non-savvy user determine that the Wi-Fi signal was
deliberately shared? Is he going to run in and question the owner?
Of course not. In most cases he wouldn't know unless there was a large
sign advertising it. No, the only feasible way to do it is to place the burden
on the WAP owner to make it clear that the signal which he is radiating
into publicly-owned space is NOT to be shared.
--
John Richards

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kurt Ullman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:kurtullman-08F399.07084929062007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
>> There is ample precendent in other areas that suggest you are
>> wrong. Excuse my fixation with trespass, but it seems to fit most often.
>> If you enter my house (or even farm field) it is trespass whether or not
>> I have the signs up.
>
> Wi-Fi use has nothing to do with physical trespass.
> If I stand on the public sidewalk and enjoy the shade from a shade tree
> that is
> on your property, I'm not breaking any laws. Wi-Fi use is just like taking
> advantage of the free shade from a tree that you fertilized and watered.

Or taking advantage of the fruit which is hanging on my side of the fence.

Greg
--
Ticketbastard tax tracker:
http://ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

Dethink to survive - Mclusky

In news:[email protected],
G.T. <[email protected]> typed:
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Kurt Ullman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:kurtullman-08F399.07084929062007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
>>> There is ample precendent in other areas that suggest you are
>>> wrong. Excuse my fixation with trespass, but it seems to fit most often.
>>> If you enter my house (or even farm field) it is trespass whether or not
>>> I have the signs up.
>>
>> Wi-Fi use has nothing to do with physical trespass.
>> If I stand on the public sidewalk and enjoy the shade from a shade tree
>> that is
>> on your property, I'm not breaking any laws. Wi-Fi use is just like
>> taking advantage of the free shade from a tree that you fertilized and
>> watered.
>
> Or taking advantage of the fruit which is hanging on my side of the fence.
>
> Greg

Both of the above examples are receive only of what is being sent. What you
are doing has no effect on what is being sent. You being there has no
effect. There is no request being returned for something additional be sent
to you.

If All Wi-Fi were legally made free, we could all just cancel our internet
providers and go hook on to "FREE" Wi-Fi. But then where would the free
Wi-Fi come from?

IMHO IIRC wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> G.T. <[email protected]> typed:
>> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Kurt Ullman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:kurtullman-08F399.07084929062007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
>>>> There is ample precendent in other areas that suggest you are
>>>> wrong. Excuse my fixation with trespass, but it seems to fit most often.
>>>> If you enter my house (or even farm field) it is trespass whether or not
>>>> I have the signs up.
>>> Wi-Fi use has nothing to do with physical trespass.
>>> If I stand on the public sidewalk and enjoy the shade from a shade tree
>>> that is
>>> on your property, I'm not breaking any laws. Wi-Fi use is just like
>>> taking advantage of the free shade from a tree that you fertilized and
>>> watered.
>> Or taking advantage of the fruit which is hanging on my side of the fence.
>>
>> Greg
>
> Both of the above examples are receive only of what is being sent. What you
> are doing has no effect on what is being sent. You being there has no
> effect. There is no request being returned for something additional be sent
> to you.

I'm robbing the other person of their fruit because their fruit is
radiating outside of their control, just like radio waves. If one
doesn't want to run some type of encryption on their WiFi network and
they want to keep people off of their radio waves then they need to do
whatever it takes to keep their signal within the walls of their house,
e.g. aluminum paint on the walls, lowering the power on their AP, etc.

One way or another they have to do something to prevent access to their
network, no matter how simple.

>
> If All Wi-Fi were legally made free, we could all just cancel our internet
> providers and go hook on to "FREE" Wi-Fi. But then where would the free
> Wi-Fi come from?

Now that is one helluva a non-sequitur.

Greg
--
http://ticketmastersucks.org

In article <[email protected]>,
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:


> I'm robbing the other person of their fruit because their fruit is
> radiating outside of their control, just like radio waves. If one
> doesn't want to run some type of encryption on their WiFi network and
> they want to keep people off of their radio waves then they need to do
> whatever it takes to keep their signal within the walls of their house,
> e.g. aluminum paint on the walls, lowering the power on their AP, etc.

The radio waves out are, which means you should be able to listen
in, under this theory. But you are also radiating waves back in and that
could be where is gets sticky legally.


>
> One way or another they have to do something to prevent access to their
> network, no matter how simple.
>
Depends on how the laws are (will be) written.

"R. P." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wi-Fi use has nothing to do with physical trespass.
>> If I stand on the public sidewalk and enjoy the shade from a shade tree that is
>> on your property, I'm not breaking any laws. Wi-Fi use is just like taking
>> advantage of the free shade from a tree that you fertilized and watered.
>
> Except that you rob some bandwidth through Wi-Fi.

Probably no more so than my 'robbing' some shade from your tree.
--
John Richards

In article <[email protected]>,
"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "R. P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Wi-Fi use has nothing to do with physical trespass.
> >> If I stand on the public sidewalk and enjoy the shade from a shade tree
> >> that is
> >> on your property, I'm not breaking any laws. Wi-Fi use is just like taking
> >> advantage of the free shade from a tree that you fertilized and watered.
> >
> > Except that you rob some bandwidth through Wi-Fi.
>
> Probably no more so than my 'robbing' some shade from your tree.

One's passive. You just sit there and enjoy the shade. The other is
active in that you have to send waves back into the lawn or dwelling or
whatever to actually use the thing. That means you have to come on to my
property (and something that no onecan really suggest that they don't
know is is someone else's property), to use the Wifi, unless one is
merely listening.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "R. P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Wi-Fi use has nothing to do with physical trespass.
>>>> If I stand on the public sidewalk and enjoy the shade from a shade tree
>>>> that is
>>>> on your property, I'm not breaking any laws. Wi-Fi use is just like taking
>>>> advantage of the free shade from a tree that you fertilized and watered.
>>> Except that you rob some bandwidth through Wi-Fi.
>> Probably no more so than my 'robbing' some shade from your tree.
>
> One's passive.

Taking fruit from the tree isn't passive.

Anyway, back to my original point. Currently in the USA if there is no
way to tell that I am unwanted on a wireless network then I have a solid
legal defense, just like if I wondered onto someone's rural unsigned and
unfenced property.

Greg
--
http://ticketmastersucks.org

G.T. wrote:
> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "R. P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Wi-Fi use has nothing to do with physical trespass.
>>>>> If I stand on the public sidewalk and enjoy the shade from a
>>>>> shade tree that is
>>>>> on your property, I'm not breaking any laws. Wi-Fi use is just
>>>>> like taking advantage of the free shade from a tree that you
>>>>> fertilized and watered.
>>>> Except that you rob some bandwidth through Wi-Fi.
>>> Probably no more so than my 'robbing' some shade from your tree.
>>
>> One's passive.
>
> Taking fruit from the tree isn't passive.
>
> Anyway, back to my original point. Currently in the USA if there is
> no way to tell that I am unwanted on a wireless network then I have a
> solid legal defense, just like if I wondered onto someone's rural
> unsigned and unfenced property.
>
> Greg

Not to mention that if somebody who doesn't want you on their network is
too dumb to secure it they probably won't know you're there anyway. In
this day and age with all the warnings about securing the networks and
the setup wizards that are part of the router's setup dialog, I consider
an unlocked signal to be an open invitation to the public. If I hang a
basket of fruit on my front gate on the sidewalk side, I expect people
to help themselves.