Since the SDMB is supposed to be fact based, can anyone here locate any significant citation for utilizing an unprotected WiFi access point actually being illegal?
I can’t.
I don’t have a citation for you but in private practice, especially with technology, you have to be able to think like a judge who didn’t have any statutes or a lot of precedent to go by.
In that case, I would probably analogize it to “theft of service” in a manner similar to a cable or satellite tv company. Satellite would be particularly apropos since in both cases you have unused bandwidth that appears to be free for the taking. In fact, the argument might be even stronger with wi-fi since it could, in theory, have a negative impact on overall quality of service.
At the same time, even if illegal, many jurisdictions recognize something called de minimus violations of the law. If you’re caught with a tiny bit of “shake” (powdery pot remnants) in your pocket lint, while that might technically be considered “possession” in some states, there’s also a good chance it would be considered a de minimus violation of the law.
edit: I’m leaving the post as is to demonstrate my confuse state of mind but would like to point out that de minimus violation applies to criminal law and if something is a crime, by definition there would have to be a statute. Brain fart.
hit the 5 min edit limit - continued:
Although you could have a zealous prosecutor attempting to apply an existing law to a new situation. I’m going to stop talking now.
The computer store near me charges 65 bucks to analyze the problem. They say they will put that toward the repair bill. But if they find a video card loose and just reseat it ,what are the chances they will charge less?
If reseating a video card is what fixes the problem, then I’m happy to pay the minimum service fee. There are certain basic costs that are incurred every time a tech opens up a computer, including overhead.
I would go so far as to say that if you can’t check whether a video card is properly seated (at least, on a desktop computer), then you have no cause to complain if someone else wants to charge you $65 for doing it.
The reseat costs $1. The other $64 is knowing where.
Also, why should they charge less?
The cost for accepting your computer and analyzing the problem is $65.
If they take your computer, open it up, and find out that the problem is a poorly seated video card, they have done precisely what they said they would do for $65—they have analyzed your problem.
Basically, if you have a very simple and quickly-fixed problem like this, you pay $65 for the analysis, and you get the fix for free. As i said in my previous post, if you can’t check basic stuff like whether your components are seated properly, you end up paying for the expertise that you lack. That’s precisely what professional services—whether for lawyers or plumbers or computer repair—are all about.
That argument is not new, but some "so called " repairs do not deserve 65 bucks whether your expertise found it or not. Your just beginning apprentice ,with very little expertise, could have found it too.
How do you measure value?
If it’s so simple that it’s not worth $65, why don’t you do it yourself? And if you can’t do it yourself, how much are you willing to pay to get your computer running again?
It’s not like the fee is hidden. You said yourself that the shop tells you upfront that the cost of analyzing the problem is $65. You know, the minute you give them your computer, that you’re going to be $65 out of pocket.
What if they find out that the problem is something that’s so bad it can’t be fixed at all? Should they give you your whole $65 back just because they didn’t actually fix anything?
And what do you mean “so called” repair? If your computer is not working, and the cause of the problem is a poorly-seated video card, does seating the video card constitute a repair or not? I would argue that it does, because it takes a not-working computer and makes it a working computer. Which is precisely what you wanted the shop to do when you took your computer to them.
So you would have no problem giving them a bill with "reseated video card’ cost 65 bucks. If so, then fine.
I wouldn’t have any issue with that at all either.
There’s wages, taxes, insurance, building overhead (which is far larger than most people imagine) and all that. Sometimes you spend more than $65 worth of time resolving the issue, sometimes you don’t. That’s just the way it works.
Supply and demand, gonzo.
So go to the guy who’s willing to fix it for less. 
I do.
It’s 2010 and you don’t trust a wifi connection to deliver intact binaries to your computer? Wow… just wow. I’ve been hip deep in more desktop and notebook hardware guts and thorny driver issues than I ever want to think about and that’s just silly. I mean like cuckoo silly.
No it makes sense, sort of. When a wired option and a wireless option are both viable it is good security to go with the wired solution. Further a gigabit ethernet cable can kick 802.11n’s ass in raw speed, if convenience isn’t so much a factor.
Further WiFi does use the public spectrum 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz ranges. I’ve never had a problem, but things like wireless tv distribution systems and old school cordless phones can cause interference.
That said interference generally just lowers the speed, seldom drops the connection assuming it’s within a hundred feet, and definitely doesn’t scramble data. The exception is tv distribution systems. Those things trash the spectrum. TCP/IP has a checksum in the packet (assuming he’s not using UDP, and why would he if reliability is a concern?). This means if a packet is scrambled it’ll be dropped and resent. Further if encryption is enabled the packet will be encapsulated in an encryption packet with a integrity value (IV) check. Meaning it’s protected from corruption by two layers of encapsulation.
Also forgot to add:
Common interference like other wifi networks, and phones can generally be solved by changing the channel the network uses. Default is 6 on 2.4Ghz networks(B, G, and some N networks), and it’s best to get it atleast 2 channels away from the interference.
So what are you bitching about?
Ouch!! I suspect you are actually to honest for that.