Re: [nycwireless] Article: 'Stealing' Your Neighbor's Wi-Fi
Am I wrong that it's quite easy to configure a Linksys for decent WPA? If a LAN with WPA is cracked, there may be a case. But I don't feel that grabbing signal is an offense in any obvious way. If there is strong economic demand, then Linksys and the other vendors will create a more configurable WPA. I hope all of you will forgive me that I go out of my way to use WPA, mac filtering, and disabled SSID broadcast. Suppose that looks a bit selfish. On the other hand, I have clients who scare me because their networks are so open and they take no trouble to secure them. But it's their tough luck when their bandwidith chokes, their wireless routers need constant power cycling, and someone goes further to inspect the data on networked machines that are entirely without any sort of firewall. Robert Schainbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re: Article: 'Stealing' Your Neighbor's Wi-Fi I've asked this elsewhere and haven't received a response: When is authorization implied? In the case of crackers attempting to penetrate a poorly secured wire-network computer, laws have consistently fallen on the side of the computer owner. Before the US Patriot act, there were some cases where a computer intruder was not properly informed that all access to the computer was unauthorized unless permission was specifically granted - and in those cases, there was some wriggle room for defense attorneys to argue that permission was implied (perhaps by virtue of the computer being accessible from a public network.) After the Patriot act was established, that issue was apparently laid to rest, essentially making access prohibited whether spelled out or not. The evolution of wireless ethernet has practically placed an onus on the owner, as the vast majority of wireless clients use an automatic, or semi-automatic link hunting scheme. With the barrier to connecting to a wireless network so low, I doubt a case in court will establish a precedent that this activity is illegal - even with the accused sitting out front, on a public street. So now we have a battle of ignorant user versus ignorant user. If I am ignorant in installing a wireless access device in my house, and an ignorant computer user associates with that access point and begins checking out the game on ESPN.com, who is at fault? As a disclaimer, I strongly believe that those who invest in technology, be it a VCR or a combo router/access point -- have no protection in ignorance from the consequences when those technologies make them vulnerable. It is not unreasonable to expect a buyer to read the instructions (whether they be on paper or on an electronic disk) before they begin using a product. Especially at this juncture, when computer security is a well-known problem. What we have is a culture of laziness, and one where ignorance is rewarded and encouraged. Take as example the ban on cell phone monitoring which occurred around 1993. At the time, analog cell phones were relatively easy to monitor with inexpensive radio equipment. A particularly high-profile case, a politician's embarassing comments were turned over to a journalist by a rival. As a consequence, the FCC banned radios capable of receiving cell phone frequencies. The burden of ignorance was placed on the hobbyist. Not long after, cellular phone providers wised up and introduced encryption technology. Yet the ban continues. Will we see a similar ban on devices capable of open access? Probably not, but don't rule out the possibility that the FCC will mandate devices that only operate in a password access configuration, putting open access devices in a commercial-class. We may hack around these limits, but the FCC recently mandated that radio makers make it impossible to hack around the cellular block. The precedent exists to cripple technology in the name of ignorance. Don't punish the lazy fool, punish the engineer! As engineers, we try to further society through the application of technology. Yet, we're frequently abused because we enable freedoms that infringe on corporations, government or the ignorant. It is a trend that has existed throughout history, but perhaps never at such an individual level as with computer technology. Bill -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Article: 'Stealing' Your Neighbor's Wi-Fi
Re: Article: 'Stealing' Your Neighbor's Wi-Fi I've asked this elsewhere and haven't received a response: When is authorization implied? In the case of crackers attempting to penetrate a poorly secured wire-network computer, laws have consistently fallen on the side of the computer owner. Before the US Patriot act, there were some cases where a computer intruder was not properly informed that all access to the computer was unauthorized unless permission was specifically granted - and in those cases, there was some wriggle room for defense attorneys to argue that permission was implied (perhaps by virtue of the computer being accessible from a public network.) After the Patriot act was established, that issue was apparently laid to rest, essentially making access prohibited whether spelled out or not. The evolution of wireless ethernet has practically placed an onus on the owner, as the vast majority of wireless clients use an automatic, or semi-automatic link hunting scheme. With the barrier to connecting to a wireless network so low, I doubt a case in court will establish a precedent that this activity is illegal - even with the accused sitting out front, on a public street. So now we have a battle of ignorant user versus ignorant user. If I am ignorant in installing a wireless access device in my house, and an ignorant computer user associates with that access point and begins checking out the game on ESPN.com, who is at fault? As a disclaimer, I strongly believe that those who invest in technology, be it a VCR or a combo router/access point -- have no protection in ignorance from the consequences when those technologies make them vulnerable. It is not unreasonable to expect a buyer to read the instructions (whether they be on paper or on an electronic disk) before they begin using a product. Especially at this juncture, when computer security is a well-known problem. What we have is a culture of laziness, and one where ignorance is rewarded and encouraged. Take as example the ban on cell phone monitoring which occurred around 1993. At the time, analog cell phones were relatively easy to monitor with inexpensive radio equipment. A particularly high-profile case, a politician's embarassing comments were turned over to a journalist by a rival. As a consequence, the FCC banned radios capable of receiving cell phone frequencies. The burden of ignorance was placed on the hobbyist. Not long after, cellular phone providers wised up and introduced encryption technology. Yet the ban continues. Will we see a similar ban on devices capable of open access? Probably not, but don't rule out the possibility that the FCC will mandate devices that only operate in a password access configuration, putting open access devices in a commercial-class. We may hack around these limits, but the FCC recently mandated that radio makers make it impossible to hack around the cellular block. The precedent exists to cripple technology in the name of ignorance. Don't punish the lazy fool, punish the engineer! As engineers, we try to further society through the application of technology. Yet, we're frequently abused because we enable freedoms that infringe on corporations, government or the ignorant. It is a trend that has existed throughout history, but perhaps never at such an individual level as with computer technology. Bill -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Re: Andrew Raisej on WiFi for NY in the New Yorker
Any candidate advocating the removal of the Public Advocate doesn't understand the job. Check out Candidate "Stormin' Norman" Siegel at the NY Press: [http://www.nypress.com/18/28/news&columns/AlexanderZaitchik.cfm] "When the office is not used as it should be, then the argument to get rid of it has some credibility," he (Norman Siegel) says. "I don't want that to happen. It's the one place where you can have an outsider, a gadfly, a troublemaker, a problem solver who doesn't really want to be part of the club. It is the quintessential whistleblower position. And every day there's a story that requires someone to blow the whistle." Back on topic, it'd be good to get each candidate's position on city Internet access, wired and wireless... -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Be Your Own HotSpot - Stompbox
guys, Tor, of Stompbox Fame compared the junxion box with the XVWorks Based MIS GRADE EVDO Router. ( http://evdo-coverage.com ) at: http://hacks.wirelessinternetcoverage.com/viewtopic.php?t=6 On 7/14/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Be Your Own HotSpot - Stompbox > Again, when following these instructions, you'd be wise to use the > StompBox instead: Robert Q Kim, Wireless Internet Advisor > http://evdo-coverage.com > http://wirelessinternetcoverage.com > http://hsdpa-coverage.com > > 2611 S. Pacific Coast Highway 101 > Suite 102 > Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007 > 206 984 0880 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Article: 'Stealing' Your Neighbor's Wi-Fi
From: http://www.mobilepipeline.com/165702232#_ July 14, 2005 Opinion: 'Stealing' Your Neighbor's Wi-Fi By Dave Molta Like most laws enacted by civil societies, there's a certain "smell" test that must be passed before you start locking people up. Laws that can't pass this test are routinely violated, and law enforcement officials are loath to get involved. In basketball games where contact inconsistent with the rules takes place on nearly every play, we sometimes call this no harm, no foul. So, what if I hop on my neighbor's RoadRunner connection by connecting to his wireless router? Are you supportive of the local constable hauling me off to jail? The recent case of the St. Petersburg, Fla., Wi-Fi Bandit, arrested and charged with third-degree felony unauthorized access to a computer network, strikes us as interesting in large part because borrowing the neighbor's Wi-Fi seems about as serious an offense as driving 70 in a 65 MPH zone. As Wi-Fi continues its relentless march to ubiquity, the network of free hotspots grows ever larger. In my home, my son sometimes uses the neighbor's network, from which he gets a better signal because of the vagaries of RF. Some assert that there is great danger with these open wireless networks. Not only are home computers more vulnerable to security attacks that come from an individual surreptitiously attached directly to your home wireless router, there is also the danger of anonymous and illegal cyber-activity, trading in child-porn being the most frequently cited possibility. But in truth, the danger is broadly perceived as minimal. Although Wi-Fi sharing is common, reports of horror stories are rare. The ActionNews team will have to find something else for its 11:00 PM report. Although open sharing of wireless networks is fairly common, what caught our attention in the St. Petersburg case was the fact that the bandit stole his Wi-Fi signal while parked in front of the victim's home. It's not clear whether the accused was engaging in illegal activities, but even if not, there seems to be broad acceptance that it isn't socially acceptable to park your rig in front of my house and catch a free broadband surf on my dime. It's not that I'm really worried about you stealing a few bits. I get much more than I can possibly eat from Time-Warner anyway. But I don't even like it when the neighbors park in front of my house, except maybe when there's a party. That's my space. Somewhere, there's a line of rationality where laws balance with human behavior and social norms. Securing a wireless LAN is a sinfully complex undertaking we expect users to endure in a technology culture where ease-of-use is the most coveted computer system attribute. That Linksys router is about as close to plug-and-play as you can get. And Windows is all too eager to jump on whatever Wi-Fi network it can. Why mess it up with a bunch of security hurdles? Broadband service providers may feel threatened by the soft boundaries of consumer Wi-Fi networks. In the early days of DSL and cable modems, providers tried to restrict access to a single computer system, but two factors condemned that policy to failure. First, there was legitimate user demand spurred by an increase in the proportion of homes with multiple computers. And as home routers began to flood the market, often with features designed to overcome whatever restrictions service providers might try to use, multi- computer home LANs became the accepted norm. Once Wi-Fi was added to the basic home router, the neighbors could hop a ride for free. I'm not aware of any systematic studies that have measured the number of people who engage either in deliberate sharing or in anonymous stealing, but the number is surely quite high--and climbing. For some, sharing the broadband connection is a neighborly thing to do, an opportunity to beat the system at very low risk. As technology improves, it will become increasingly easy for people to share should they choose. The latest generation of notebook computers offers significantly enhanced range, and relaxed FCC antenna rules make it easy for an individual to expand the coverage area. As the popularity of MIMO grows, range will get even better. And even if service providers have contract provisions expressly forbidding connection sharing, it's almost impossible to enforce. It conjures up images of the cable police, busting customers for stealing HBO. Over time, the web of wireless services will grow increasingly complex, making it more difficult to control. Policy-makers will be faced with difficult choices as they seek to balance conflicting interests. Let's just hope that whatever they do, the smell test is applied. -- Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.nycwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireles
[nycwireless] Be Your Own HotSpot - Stompbox
Be Your Own HotSpot - Stompbox Again, when following these instructions, you'd be wise to use the StompBox instead: [http://www.popsci.com/popsci/how2/article/0,20967,1076525,00.html] Thanks, [http://www.evdoforums.com/about472.html|EvDO Forums] -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Cellphone maven needed
Micah, The subway in Seoul, South Korea has full wireless phone coverage underground. Provider is SK Telecom. Best of luck, Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cellphone maven needed Is anyone on this list a cellphone maven? We want to demonstrate that it need not be so complicated to get decent cell service onto subway platforms, and are looking for help. Contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Micah Sifry eCampaign Director Advocates for Rasiej p.s. Glad other folks noticed the AM New York cover story on municipal wireless today. Their online poll on citywide wifi is running 78% yes, 22% no: http://www.nynewsday.com/other/special/amny/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: 1-800-Magic-PizzaBox
Does anyone think Verizon would actually chase such a small issue? I mean this is the same company that resells access points with their DSL service. - Dustin - R K wrote: This is what I don't understand. How do companies offer these things: [Wifi Gateway|https://evdo.sslpowered.com/wifi-router-evdo-sharing.htm] [Entree|http://www.entreewireless.com/] Are they all on shaky legal footing. I thought I read somewhere that you needed to become a Verizon "reseller". What hoops do you have to jump through to make this legal? KJ __ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Re: 1-800-Magic-PizzaBox
This is what I don't understand. How do companies offer these things: [Wifi Gateway|https://evdo.sslpowered.com/wifi-router-evdo-sharing.htm] [Entree|http://www.entreewireless.com/] Are they all on shaky legal footing. I thought I read somewhere that you needed to become a Verizon "reseller". What hoops do you have to jump through to make this legal? KJ __ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Junxion in NY Times
Re: Junxion in NY Times The Junxion box appears to be a Soekris in a bright green case: http://www.junxion.com/product/ If so, it's little different from the Stompbox (just more expensive and less customizable): http://moro.fbrtech.com/~tora/EVDO/index.html Rob -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Junxion in NY Times
July 14, 2005 For Surfers, a Roving Hot Spot That Shares By JOHANNA JAINCHILL When the Sunningdale Country Club in Scarsdale, N.Y., opened its gates last week to a location shoot for "The Sopranos," a new fixture was on display in the mobile dressing rooms - a roving Wi-Fi hot spot. With a device called the Junxion Box, the production company can set up a mobile multiuser Internet connection anywhere it gets cellphone service. The box, about the size of a shoebox cover, uses a cellular modem card from a wireless phone carrier to create a Wi-Fi hot spot that lets dozens of people connect to the Internet. The staff members of "The Sopranos," squeezed into two trailer dressing rooms, needed only the Junxion Box and their laptops to exchange messages and documents with the production offices at Silvercup Studios in Queens. "We used to fax everything," said Henry J. Bronchtein, the show's co- executive producer. "The paper would jam; it was messy. This is much more reliable." Junxion Boxes have also been spotted on Google's commuter buses for employees and along Willie Nelson's latest tour. But what may be a boon for wandering Web surfers could quickly become a threat to wireless providers. "The premise is one person buys an air card and one person uses the service, not an entire neighborhood," said Jeffrey Nelson, executive director for corporate communications at Verizon Wireless. "Giving things away for free doesn't work anymore. It never did." Unlimited service on cellular modem cards for PC's costs about $80 a month. The carriers are clearly worried about a technology that could destroy that business, but they have not formed a united front against Junxion. The makers of the Junxion Box, based in Seattle, seem eager to head off any battle by forming partnerships with the wireless companies. "We're not trying to build a radar detector," said John Daly, 42, co- founder of Junxion Inc. and vice president for business development. "We believe we're creating an opportunity for the carriers. It may not be entirely comfortable for them right now, but we hope we can get to a point where we can collaborate with them." The Junxion Box was created by Mr. Daly and two partners, David Hsiao, 38, the company's president, and Peter Polson, 31, vice president for product development. The commercial version of the box retails for $699. They plan a less expensive consumer version next year. John Kampfe, director of media and industry analyst relations for Cingular Wireless, said the Junxion Box was being evaluated and certified by Cingular and could eventually be sold in conjunction with Cingular's wireless service for wide-area networks. "There is a whole pricing model that has to take place with the Junxion Box," Mr. Kampfe said. So far Junxion has about 200 customers, many of whom are testing the product. The company went around the wireless companies by making Trio Teknologies, a wireless services reseller, its exclusive distributor. Peter Schneider, a partner at Gotham Sound, the communications equipment company in New York that supplied Junxion Boxes to the sets of both "The Sopranos" and the rapper 50 Cent's upcoming movie, "Get Rich or Die Tryin'," said his customers would not be interested in wireless modem cards were it not for the possibility to share the connection through the Junxion Box. "That's the exact appeal of it" for his customers, he said. "That you can rent it to a group. As word gets out, it will become part of the communication equipment they rent." But for carriers like Verizon Wireless, which spent $1 billion on its broadband network, it is difficult to let users piggyback on that service. "We're not surprised that people are building services like this and trying to attach them to our network," Mr. Nelson of Verizon said. "It verifies how cool and how important our network is. We're going to protect that investment." That may prove to be an uphill battle as new technologies like Junxion alter the wireless carriers' control over the use of their networks. "That's just something they have got to live with because that's the technology now," said David Anderson, Willie Nelson's tour manager of 31 years. "Most people wouldn't or couldn't afford to have that many cards. They weren't going to get 22 customers, but now they got 6." There are two Junxion Boxes in each of the two tour buses and each has three wireless modem cards so they can switch to the cellular provider network with the best local coverage. It allows Mr. Nelson, whom Mr. Anderson describes as a computer geek, to check his e-mail and surf the Web while on the road. "The Junxion Box is good for going down the highway," Mr. Anderson said from Hillsboro, Tex., where Mr. Nelson was performing earlier this month. "It was frustrating in the older days. It's finally the way it should be." -
