You are right. A violation is a violation. People, who contest the fact that it's a theft of service, is justifying the violation.
It would be best if there is an explicit law or AUP (Acceptable Use Policy) that state this. Regards, Leonard Ong Network Security Specialist, APAC NOKIA Email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile. +65 9431 6184 Phone. +65 6723 1724 Fax. +65 6723 1596 -----Original Message----- From: ext Teodorski, Chris [mailto:cteodorski@;ppg.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:46 AM To: Alaric Darconville; Jeff Knox Cc: Mike Dresser; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: WIRELESS THEFT I am amazed that this discussion continues.....it seems to me....theft of services is theft of services. You can't break into my house and use my stuff just because I don't lock the door...... -----Original Message----- From: Raoul Armfield [mailto:armfield@;amnh.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:59 PM To: Alaric Darconville; Jeff Knox Cc: Mike Dresser; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: WIRELESS THEFT :-----Original Message----- :From: Alaric Darconville [mailto:alaric@;cowboy.net] :Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 3:48 PM :To: Jeff Knox :Cc: Mike Dresser; [EMAIL PROTECTED] :Subject: RE: WIRELESS THEFT : : :"that means harmful interference to other devices" :Which is precisely what I was talking about. To get any 'usable' :downstream, you have to send upstream, at first just to initiate the :connection that you want, and then the normal TCP acknowledgments as you :receive the data. The bandwidth you use is bandwidth unavailable to the :other users, therefore the interference you generate IS harmful (as it :adversely impacts their authorized usage.) So are you saying that if I own a two way radio and interfere in the conversation of a third party that I am breaking the FCC regulation? Don't get me wrong I agree that it is not proper to use the Wireless signal that is being transmitted into the posters livingspace but it is a bit farfetched to call it harmfull interference. Raoul
