They are capitalists first, you can't feed the church on good will... On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:
> But don’t they also vow to help the less fortunate? If they had more > food on the table than they could eat, wouldn’t they share with their > down-on-their-luck relative and neighbors? Well, they have more Internet > than they can use (how much Internet can you use if you don’t watch porn?) > So why waste the excess Internet when others are in need? Does McDonalds > Arctic Circle stop you from taking a doggie bag and giving your uneaten > fries to the homeless? > > > *From:* Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:19 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Scary Letter > > If you run a coax to the neighbors to use DirecTV or Comcast, they will > call it “theft of service”. Criminal theft of service. Federal code > specifically speaks to this. Just piggybacking on the same idea with the > verbiage. > > TWC says: > It is illegal not only to steal cable services but also to assist others > to steal cable services. In fact, federal law provides for criminal > penalties and civil remedies against people who willfully assist others to > steal cable services. Such assistance can take the form of distributing > "pirate" cable television descrambling equipment, assisting others to make > unauthorized connections to cable systems, promoting the free use of one's > wireless broadband network, or assisting others to hack into their modems > and uncap them. Federal statutes prohibit the assistance of theft of > services offered over a cable system. > > And it appears to be called “theft of service” if it is unwanted: > > http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/man-charged-with-theft-of-services-for-using-free-wifi-at-coffee-shop-in-for-a-brewed-awakening/ > > As far as the LDS folks go, it is not intended to scare them, it is > intended to trigger a guilty conscience. They vow to be honest. This is > intended to remind themthat this is not an honest behavior. > > *From:* Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 26, 2015 2:03 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Scary Letter > > Not for me. I would avoid the whole theft of service approach. I > think you are on shaky legal ground, plus it sounds lame unless LDS folks > really are easily scared. > > Say it is against the Terms of Service they agreed to, and will result in > disconnection of service. That doesn’t mean it is a crime. > > The better approach is probably that unsecured WiFi lets anyone within > range capture everything you transmit without encryption, allows them > access to your network and router on the trusted side of your firewall > making it much easier for hackers, and as you mentioned could cause law > enforcement to blame you for bad things someone else did on the Internet > via your IP address. > > > *From:* Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 26, 2015 2:39 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Scary Letter > > Brett, Ken does this wording work better? > > 5) Allowing a neighbor to use your WiFi connection instead of > purchasing service for their own house is a crime called “Theft of > Service”. You are collaborating in this theft and jeopardizing your own > service as well. > > >
