[ale] [Fwd: Re: wireless at Starbucks]

[Robert Reese~]

> Robert Reese~ wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> I would agree with you there, but if my neighbor leaves his
>>> keys in his car with the door unlocked, I'm not going to take
>>> it for a spin. Even if I know he's not going to be using during
>>> the time I would be away.
>>>
>>
>> That's an excellent analogy.  I wouldn't take it for a spin
>> either, but then I wouldn't hesitate to use it if I had to take
>> my child to the hospital if I had no other method of
>> transportation.  But while you or I wouldn't take it for a spin,
>> your neighbor really doesn't have much to complain about if
>> someone else does; the only thing he is lacking is an flashing
>> red neon sign saying, "Ride Me".


> That's a totally different spin on the whole thing as you've thrown
> in a whole different variable.  In the same situation, I'd break
> into my neighbors house, take their keys and car. (assuming they
> weren't home) My expectation is, my neighbor would understand, but
> wouldn't concern me if they didn't.  I've certainly broken traffic
> laws in the past when my child's welfare was at stake.

Exactly.


>> There is a slight difference in the analogy compared to wireless:
>> the law is codified to still say it is illegal to use the
>> vehicle.  I know of no such law here in GA or the U.S. Federal
>> law that prohibits its use.
>>
>
> The car or the network?  If you're talking about the car, seems
> those two lines contradict each other.

Yeah, it was poorly written.  The last line is in regards to the wireless. :cP


>> Nor should there be, as it shirks a person of their
>> personal responsibility.  OTOH, if someone provides prudent and
>> reasonable attempts to secure their network and someone
>> deliberate circumvents that security, then it is reasonable to
>> criminalize that activity.
>>
>
> Ah, define reasonable.  The car is a good analogy.  My car is more
> secure then my neighbors as mine is in my garage, his is not.

In this case it is reasonable that taking the keys out of the car means you don't want someone using it by the fact that there is a reason for the LOCK on the car's ignition which is to give the owner the opportunity to prevent someone else from using the vehicle.  Enforcement of the barrier that lock presents by removing the key inherently says "do not drive me".  Forcibly bypassing the lock barrier again is, to the average person's definition of reasonableness, asserting one's will over the will of the owner.  There's also a reason that some insurance companies won't cover vehicle theft if the key is left in it. ;c)  Reasonable reasoning, no?

As far as being in the garage versus outside, don't mistake that as more secure.  If your neighbor does not have his key in the vehicle and you do, then in both cases only a single barrier exists to prevent the unauthorized use of the vehicle (assuming your garage door is down and locked).  BTW, here's an interesting recent event: in Roswell in the Martin's Landing subdivision, there was a string of vehicle thefts from garages.  It seems the folks out there were parking in their garages and leaving the garage door open.  While many did leave the keys in the vehicle's ignition, the thieves were discovered to be brazen enough to actually enter the home via the inside garage door, where most all of them led to the kitchen, and they simply grabbed the keys off the counter/table/keyhook, etc. and drove the vehicle out of the open garage.


>
>> To extend that to your analogy, let's say you don't leave your
>> keys in the car, and someone uses their _own_ key in your car
>> (there are only about 50 different key cuts needed for each
>> door/ignition keyway).  You've take prudent and reasonable action
>> to prevent the use of your vehicle.  c)
>>
>
> Have you ever seen the show 'bait car?'  Pretty much the same
> thing, only the engine isn't running and the doors are closed, but
> the keys are there and the doors are not locked.  Take the car and
> you're going to jail.

Nope, I missed it.  But keep in mind that there is a law prohibiting taking the vehicle.  There is no such law where the internet is concerned, at least not here in Georgia.  OTOH, I'd also argue that the law is unnecessary.  If someone is dumb enough to leave their keys in their car and the doors unlocked, it serves them right.  People really shouldn't have a right to be rewarded for or defended against their own stupidity.


>> I'll posit that someone that just plugs in a wireless router
>> without bothering to secure it is not only "leaving the keys in
>> the ignition and the door unlocked" but has the door standing
>> wide open with the engine running whilst in a "bad part of town"
>> at midnight.
>>
>
> I would tend to disagree, as I think the 'part of town' is a big
> part of the puzzle.  I would expect more attempts at attaching to a
> unsecured network at, say a college campus, then in my neighborhood.

True, but a college campus is the 'bad part of town' in regards to unauthorized wireless access, just like the row of crack houses might not be the best neighborhood in which to park your vehicle with the keys in it and the doors unlocked.


>> Personally, I've been known to access the router's management and
>> change the SSID to U_R_HACKED and securing the wifi with a random
>> WEP key at its maximum length.  With the exception of one case
>> the router was fixed and secured within one day. I just wish I
>> had been a fly on the wall of the owner when they discovered this!
>>  The word "priceless" comes to mind.  c)  BTW, the one case
>> where I've done this and the owner has not yet fixed or replaced
>> it (over one year now) obviously only uses the router as a wired
>> router; I've done the owner a favor without her or she realizing
>> it.
>>
>
> I would hope you knew the person, because I suspect that you could
> likely be dragged into court of the issue.

Well, they could try.  However, there is no damages and no law was broken.  But even if there were, I'd tell them they're suing the wrong party.  A: Go sue my LLC in Nevada because you are suing the wrong entity.  B: Find a D.A. or court that is willing to waste their time on this frivolous charge/suit.  C: What law are you saying my company broke or what damages are you claiming?  C: Prove it happened.  D: Prove it came from here.  E: Be willing to pay my legal fees should you lose.


> Just the same, I have printed to a shared printer on one of my
> neighbors networks, as a joke.  The output said: "your network is
> not secure, call me if you'd like me to help you with that, you
> neighbor Geof."  Of course, we were on friendly terms, so he got a
> kick out of it.  His wife, on the other hand, didn't find it
> humorous at all. ;)

Ha!  I'll bet she was wanting to make sure the network was secure after that.  I hadn't even thought to look for a shared printer, and then I probably wouldn't have thought to send them a message in such a manner.  That's a good idea on retrospect, and definitely worth pursuing in the future; at least I'll get to see the look on their face. ;c)

R~