[ale] kimset

[James P. Kinney III]

Here's the key point to the wireless access argument:

If your neighbors AP signal is in your yard, by virtue that in is now in
your property, you have the right to do with it as you want, it is
yours.

But in order to do anything with it, you must send your signal into his
yard and he has the same right to access your signal as you do his.

I would argue that a salient issue here is the intent of the AP owner.
Passively receiving the signal from the AP should be expected in the
same manner that the neighbors can see you walking around in the yard.
But to interact with the source of that signal should require permission
as that interaction requires entering the private property containing
the AP hardware.

As for the passive reception of satellite tv signal and the subsequent
us as the receiver sees fit, the satellite company is blasting their
noise/signal into my property space. I own that portion of the signal
that enters my space in as much as I can use in my personal space. If
they don't want me to receive it without giving them some form of
compensation for their intrusion, they need to find a way to selectively
send the signal to only those locations that meet their compensation
requirements.

On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 09:04, cfowler wrote:
> Then again you are talking about a mall. A mall that is on private
> property. Totally different story.
>   
> 
> Not radio signals entering my private property against my will.
> 
> So back to my last email.  If I walk onto private property and access
> that AP then I've done wrong?  Yes.  Even though accessing the AP may
> not be illegal, I can be prosecuted by trespassing.
> 
> If I access that ap from my private property not on their private
> property, have I done wrong?  Don;t know.  There seems to be no law that
> I know of that covers this one. So until a landmark case is heard or a
> law is developed, All of us here will be opinionated on this subject. 
> Otherwise do whatever the hell you want.  I'll be sure to lock down my
> stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 08:54, Geoffrey wrote:
> > cfowler wrote:
> > > Circumventing access controls is wrong.  But what if there are no access
> > > controls?
> > 
> > So you walk up to the mall at 11:00 am on a Sunday, try the door, it's 
> > not locked!  You walk in, pick up something and walk out.  Have you 
> > broken the law?  Yes.
> > 
> > So you walk up to the mall at 11:00 am on a Sunday, try the door, it's 
> > not locked!  You walk in,  walk around a bit, and a officer of the law 
> > spots you through the glass.  Have you broken the law?  Will you be 
> > prosecuted??
> > 
> > I don't really know, although you could likely be trespassing.  The 
> > average person knows the hours of the mall and isn't open, but I suspect 
> > some are open at 11:00 am on Sunday.  What if it was 1:00 am?  I suspect 
> > you'd be hauled off and booked.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at 3times25.net
> > 
> > The latest, most widespread virus?  Microsoft end user agreement.
> > Think about it...
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
-- 
James P. Kinney III          \Changing the mobile computing world/
CEO & Director of Engineering \          one Linux user         /
Local Net Solutions,LLC        \           at a time.          /
770-493-8244                    \.___________________________./
http://www.localnetsolutions.com

GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics) <jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7 

 This is a digitally signed message part