Stealing WiFi is, well, stealing

If I were on 146.52 would I be on 6.5 ft? 

That ought to confuse a few...

Ned said:

When our Datastorm was installed, they affixed such a caution sign to the ladder.? Of course, it was removed the next day as it interferred with climbing

Click to expand...

Oh Ned -- this is bad, bad, bad.? Are you not aware of the number of small children that are constantly climbing the ladders of MH's such as yours -- and also swarm around tripod mounts?? ? And of those children that constantly place their little heads between the dish and feed horn once they gain access to the roof mount or tripod that has dish lip less than 6 feet off the ground? Have you not seen the demo pic of the fellow that placed a bag of micro wave popcorn in that position and it became fully popped in short order?

Now, after reading this (unless you have no feeling about these little heads), you should march out there staight away and replace that sign.?

I'm right on it, Bob   We try to park where there are NO small children and nobody wanting to make popcorn.  And we broke off the bottom part of the ladder, so those short legs just can't get a leg up (so to speak).

I think we lost the sign, so I'll have to ask Hughes to send me another one, unless you have a spare.

Bob

Just to make you feel better we still have a sign on the roof right at the top of the ladder, that should suffice, but only if the kids can read it which is also true of the one on the ladder.

== but only if the kids can read==

Some years ago I was told of a lawsuit settled out of court, the city paid the family of the deceased

You see, there is a hill, it is in back of the Southfield Police department, but it was not always there,  When a freeway was bulit that's where they piled the dirt (The freeway is a "Ditch" type)

The city put a seven or so foot "Deer" fence (Barb wire topped chain link) around it and put signs up NO BYCYCLES and NO TRESSPASSING.

The kid lifte his bike over the fence, walked it to the top of the hill and road down LOOK MA LOOK NO (splat) HEAD!

What did he splat against?  The no bicycles sign of course

John In Detroit said:

== but only if the kids can read==

Some years ago I was told of a lawsuit settled out of court, the city paid the family of the deceased

Click to expand...

Which endorses my claim that sometimes people and/or government entities settle lawsuits or plead "no contest" or "guilty" just because it is easier even if they don't think they did anything wrong.

Sad to say, in our litigious society, it's often less expensive to settle than to go to court, even if innocent.? That's one reason insurance premiums are so high, the insurance companies find it cheaper to settle than to investigate even obvious false claims.? We can all thank the lawyers for this state of affairs.

I don't fault the insurance companies for doing this, it's a business decision, and I would expect nothing less if I were a stockholder.? However, as a client, I am disappointed that the many fraudulent claims aren't investigated and prosecuted.? Again, thank the lawyers for filing these fraudulent claims.

My apologies to the honest lawyers out there, but you seem to be in the minority these days.

Well,,, in the case of the kind smacking his brains out on the NO BICYCLES ON HILL sign

I suggested they offer to settle at 100% of the asking, and then hand the parents a ticket for violation of the NO BICYCLES rule valued at 300% of what they were asking.

In short, make them pay

But alas, they did not think of that.

The kid died as a direct result of breaking the law, He died by his own hand and if fault was to be found it was his, and his parents for failure to instill respect for other's property and rules  NOT the city's

John In Detroit said:

Well,,, in the case of the kind smacking his brains out on the NO BICYCLES ON HILL sign

I suggested they offer to settle at 100% of the asking, and then hand the parents a ticket for violation of the NO BICYCLES rule valued at 300% of what they were asking.

In short, make them pay

But alas, they did not think of that.

The kid died as a direct result of breaking the law, He died by his own hand and if fault was to be found it was his, and his parents for failure to instill respect for other's property and rules? NOT the city's

Click to expand...

In the old days, we used to cal that, "Evolution in action."

Sorry, I couldn't help it!? ;D

Al

AlGriefer said:

In the old days, we used to cal that, "Evolution in action."

Sorry, I couldn't help it!  ;D

Al

Click to expand...

We still do,, www.darwinawards.com  (One of the funniest sites on the net)

I also have links for heavenly bodies and one link which I can guarentee is just about the best time to be found on the internet.

John In Detroit said:

We still do,, www.darwinawards.com? ?(One of the funniest sites on the net)

I also have links for heavenly bodies and one link which I can guarentee is just about the best time to be found on the internet.

Click to expand...

The problem with the Darwin awards is thaqt most of those idiots have procreated by the time they win.

Well, pass on those links!!

Al

'Stealing' an open WiFi in a sea of open WiFi's to do a little browsing is like listening to someone else play a CD.
It's not your's, you're not paying for it, but so what? It's not my responsibiliy to plug my ears cause they have their radio up too loud....And like someone else said, do you really expect me to wander the countryside looking to the WiFi owner that is to lazy to enable security? I don't think so!

And before you get all high and might on me, don't be telling me you don't ever steal, everyone does to some degree. If you are ( or were ) at work and make a grocery list, your stealing time from the company. Leave a pencil in your pocket and bring it home? theft...

I DO agree that there is theft if there is intent to defraud.

Sorry we disagree but the difference  in YOUR example is when you listen to somebodies CD music you are not expending any of the service they are paying for or decreasing how many times they can listen to that CD.  However, folks that have a internet connection usually are paying for an amount of bandwidth that is available to them. Some thief connecting to his network and using his available bandwidth is decreasing the amount of available bandwidth for which the network owners are paying for. In addition you could very well be reducing their internet speed.

Sorry as the subject states Stealing WIFI is, Well just plain stealing.  Anybody using somebodies WIFI without their knowledge or permission is in my opinion just another thief.

Ron
I think you may be right on the terms, but way to literal in practice.  The bandwidth when shared is imperceptible.  If 200 users suddenly looged ina and downloaded music (going to illogical ends here), then yes it would be nioticeable, but...  going on and surfing a bit, or getting email, there would be no difference to another user, or owner. 

The provider doesn't guarantee constant throughput for speed to a user.  When I had cable internet and it was a snowy day with no school, the speed would decline.  Fact of life, many more users would degrade system to a certain degree.  Add another user or more, (had 4 ports active at home), you could not notice anything. 

So, all that said, if I were the judge I would likely toss the case.  I would also tell the owner (if he even objected to the use), that if he wanted no users he better learn how to secure the access. 

All that being said, I live in Florida, there are orange trees everywhere, there are many trees loaded with ffruit, by the side of the road, yet I do not pick them.  Would the owner notice?  No, would it make a difference in his profit at harvest?  No, but they are on private property. 

If his trees sprouted outside his fence, had fruit hanging, I would not hesitate to try an orange.  Might have sprouted from his oranges seed, might be getting nutrition from his land, but it is public access area. 

If you go back and read my original message, you'll see that it is a crime, at least in Winnebago county, IL.  That was the point, an individuals opinion on the legality doesn't matter, the law does.  Do you want to be a test case?

And one user most certainly degrade the service to near unusability.  Think of downloading a few 700MB ISO files on a stolen connection.

Hi.  I just signed up to this forum yesterday and have spent my time browsing the various areas.  Now to get to the question at hand.

There are a couple of issues here regarding the WiFi.


First a radio signal once it hits the airwaves enters the public domain, so the interception of the radio signal by itself is not theft.


However when someone makes a connection and then uses that connection without the permission of the person or corporation to which that belongs is guilty of theft.


The degree to which an individual will and could be prosecuted are of course up to the courts.  An example that I am sure is becoming more and more common in various neighborhoods  Using the various wizards that come on PCs today the end-user needs minimum knowledge as to what is really going on with his/her hardware.  So it is common that there will be multiple WiFi signals that are floating the ether.  The wizards under the presumption the the stronger signal is the owners will set that signal as the connection of choice.  However during the course of moving the portable PC around your residence you can get better reception from say your neighbors. 

In this case you are using a signal without permission yet there was not intent.  So it would be harder in a court of law to prosecute.

As a network administrator I highly recommend that all WiFi networks be secured.

That being said the unsecured network does not give individuals any implied access rights.

Hope this add some useful info to the discussion.

Jim

New RVer

Excelent post Jim, and very accurate:

"However when someone makes a connection and then uses that connection without the permission of the person or corporation to which that belongs is guilty of theft."

Thinking of the argument "Well, if he did not want me using it, why was it unsecure"

Now, there are some accounts, which clearly state they are "Free", IE: Panera Bread stores

However if it is just some homeowner, or RVer who failes to put a password on his Internet WI-FI then to the folks who use the argument "unsecured is free" I say

If you forget to lock your front door,  Does that mean I'm feee to take for my own personal use.. Your televison, computer, stereo, and silverware?

TV show NUMB3RS,  Last night's show started with a couple of Phreaking Phishers crusing and looking for a Wi-Fi Hot spot so they could jack some bandwith.

They found one... The FBI's. Next stop... Jail

Too bad that is just a TV show  (And when you are jacking "Free" bandwith.... You never know, it might just be some task force gets an idea or two from the TV show, it has happened before on occasion that a cop got an idea that way)

Folks, I moved a couple of messages from this discussion in the interests of maintaining harmony. It's something I rarely have to do, but I could see the discussion going downhill, in addition to being off-topic.

If someone is unhappy about me moving their message, please read our forum rules.

Thanks.

I am sorry but loss of bandwidth to a WIFI thief is preceptable depending on how much bandwidth the rightfull owner plans on using and how much the thief steals.  It only takes one thief to start downloading a huge file and a great loss of service to the owner will become very evident.