You missed my point. It’s not about the security or packet loss issues. I just have personally felt that speeds are affected by wireless transmission. I’ve had interruption problems, etc. For me, they have been far more concrete than “cuckoo” speculating.
YMMV.
QFT for emphasis.
I used to do computer support. Now I support them along with other duties, but my primary focus isn’t supposed to be on the computer (no matter how often it ends up that way).
I’ve had people;
>Spill a large coffee on their laptop and then demand we replace it.
>Demand we replace their computer because their email account isn’t working.
>The woman who demanded that we replace her computer because ‘it isn’t working’, and when I check the records, I find she’s called in over 60 times in 30 days and every goddamned call was because she couldn’t figure out how to do something. Take a course or return the computer, you’re too fucking stupid to own one.
>Delete important files and then demand that we compensate them several times the cost of the computer because it is somehow our fault that they didn’t know what that file was.
>I loved the guy who was so completely paranoid that he kept going down the list of important OS files, demanding to know WHO installed them and then deleting them, even when I told him not to. He would watch his bluetooth list, see people’s bluetooth headsets or phones appear on the list as they walked past his apartment, and then claim that this meant they were hacking into his computer. When I told him he’d probably have to reinstall his OS after deleting those files, he simply declared that if he had to do that, he would delete those files again.
>The woman who bought a 10 year old specialty software program from a flea market and then demanded that we make it work on her computer.
>People who called in with computers 3,5, even 10 years out of warranty and demanded that we replace it or upgrade it for free. Bonus points for pulling out the “But I’m a loyal customer” card. It still won’t get you a free computer.
>“I’m using your computer with these three other pieces of hardware (that you don’t make) and this software package (that you don’t make), and I can’t get it to work. You’re going to get it to work right now or I’m complaining to your company about you and I’ll never buy another one of your products again! Oh, and I’m going to insult and belittle you every step of the way, because you have to put up with it.” (Hint: No, I don’t.)
“Personally measured”, not felt. It’s quantifiable.
Sigh. Of course it’s quantifiable. Thank you for that technicality.
It’s also easy to distinguish with the naked eye if speeds are suffering (for WHATEVER reason, like I said, YMMV).
To say that I would need a program to quantifiably test my internet speeds in no way refutes my claim that WiFi has performed less than admirably for ME.
Glad WiFi works well for others, but I never liked it much. It works fine, sure, and probably works at 100% most of the time when compared to a wired connection. I’ve just had mixed results. Much easier to run a cable through a few ceiling panels and never have to worry about it again. Just IMHO.
Everything I’ve read says you’re both 100% wrong. AFAIK, any unsecured WiFi network is automatically assumed to be open for public use. If you don’t want people leeching your bandwidth, put a password on it (and, ideally, stop broadcasting its name, too).
Here’s a cite from an FCC spokesperson:
Not my thread. I m not bitching. Why so hyper sensitive.
Judges? Oooooh, I’m sorry, gonzo, the response we were looking for was, “lol u mad bro?”
That’s how I think it should work, but I’ve participated in several threads in which I’ve been told that doing so is illegal. So I’ll be glad if the legal situation has changed.
Told by whom? Someone pulling it out of their ass? Did they have *any *cites at all other than “this is how I think it should be”? Because AFAIK it’s ***never ***been illegal. Note that the article I posted was from five years ago.
Well, the thing is that, no matter what the FCC says, some states have their own rules that are more stringent.
A guy in Michigan a few years ago got a fine and community service (but theoretically faced prison time) for sitting outside a cafe and using their wireless internet without their permission. The guy got the fine and community service by pleading out. There were commentators at the time who believed that, had he fought, he probably could have beaten the charge altogether.
Here’s the Michigan statute that i believe he was charged under:
What you have to determine, i guess, is whether checking your email using an internet cafe’s wireless, without going inside to actually buy something, constitutes defrauding or "obtain[ing] money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise. "
Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, especially considering how easy it would be for the cafe to actually secure its connection to prevent non-customers from gaining access. A cafe i go to changes its password every day, and the password is printed on your receipt when you buy your coffee and pastry.
That’s exactly the point. It’s so easy to secure a network that any unsecured network is automatically considered, from a legal standpoint, to be open to all. Otherwise, how are truly free WiFi networks to be indicated?
If you don’t want people to access your wireless connection without your permission, put a fucking password on it. Period. Otherwise, anyone else may use it anytime they like, and you don’t get to bitch.
I mean, it would be like accusing someone of theft for eating a mint out of a bowl on a reception desk, as though that were the same thing as standing out in the hallway and rocking the vending machine to get a free candybar.
Bricker, for one. See post 46 in this thread, for one, in which he cites a particular Virginia law. Note that the thread is five years old, so things may have changed. Another thread, this one from 2004.
And you should also be grateful that they didn’t screw you by charging you for a video card because the one that was in it when you brought it in was totally blown.
-Joe
But it’s not quite the point, is it?
While i agree with you about the moral or ethical issue, and i believe that it should not be a crime to access unsecured networks, you are stretching the point when you say that “any unsecured network is automatically considered, from a legal standpoint, to be open to all.” That is a legal assertion, and it’s one that appears to be factually incorrect.
The Virginia law cited by Bricker in the thread linked by Dewey Finn is still in effect. Here’s the statute.
The Wikipedia entry on Legality of Piggybacking cites four cases, from four different states, where someone was charged with a crime for using an unsecured wireless connection. In at least two of those cases, the person charged actually received a sentence of a fine and either probation or community service. If a court fines you and puts you on probation for using an unsecured network, then it seems pretty clear that an unsecured network in that jurisdiction is NOT “automatically considered, from a legal standpoint, to be open to all.”
For more than you ever wanted to know about the issue, check out this article (PDF): Matthew Bierlein, “Policing the Wireless World: Access Liability in the Open Wi-Fi Era,” Ohio State Law Journal, 67 (2006), pp. 1123-1186.
Bierlein notes that laws regarding this issue vary from one jurisdiction to another, and also observes that many statutes are simply not very clear about what level of intrusion might constitute a crime:
After a section on the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Bierlein looks at the ways in which the states incorporate statutes about wireless access into their laws.
He notes that states use differing mens rea terminology in their laws, and also vary in determining which terms the mens rea applies to. Most states, however, “apply the mens rea to the access phrase” of their statutes, while others apply it to the authorization part of the law. The different wording leads to different requirements for criminal prosecution. In some states, you have to show that the person accessing the network knows that the access is not authorized. In others, this is not the case:
This is an important issue, because mens rea is a central factor in defining criminal intent in the legal system.
He notes that, while most states hae pretty clear definitions of what “access” means, “few states define what constitutes authorization.”
He goes on to talk about the different ways that states deal with the issue of harm and damages, noting the wide variety of requirements from state to state, and the differing levels of punishment based on differing levels of harm or damages.
Interestingly, he notes that New York’s statute about unauthorized use:
Other states give defendants the opportunity to avoid punishment
Note that, despite all of his discussion about the different statutes, Bierlein agrees with you and me about what the law should be. He says that his article:
And that’s the key here. It’s one thing to argue that open networks should be fair game for anyone who wants to use them, but it’s simply wrong to argue that open networks are open to everyone “from a legal standpoint,” because many states do, in fact, make access to such networks illegal.
Like it or not the vast majority of repairs are not rocket surgery, and in my case it sometimes takes several hours to figure out exactly what the breakdown is. The $65 diagnosis type scenario (its $49 in my shop) does not differentiate between 4 minutes of diagnosis and 4 hours of diagnosis and its also why we very rarely will start on a computer in front of the customer because when it turns out to be something simple they start grousing about the price. Replacing a bad power supply is also a very common and easy to diagnose and resolve problem, in some cases I have done it while the customer waits, but I also blow it out, fire it up, check startup tasks and fragmentation, few other basic tuneup type tasks.
Also part of what you are paying for is general overhead to check you in, check you out and collect payment, etc.
It seems to me that most states are simply *ambiguous *about unsecured networks. Do any of them *explicitly *ban people from accessing a WiFi network that has not been secured with a password? Or is it all more crap like Briker’s cite about “obtain[ing] computer services without authority”? Because, to my layperson’s eye, that says absolutely nothing about accessing an *unsecured *network. There are plenty of reasons that someone may wish to allow other people to access their WiFi network without charge or other authorization, and the easiest way to do that is to leave it unsecured. Conversely, the easiest way to prevent people from using your WiFi connection without your permission is to apply a password, which takes approximately five fucking seconds. See my analogy upthread about taking a mint out of a candy bowl on a reception counter–is there any jurisdiction where I could be legitimately charged with theft for doing so? The fact that the bowl is left out in a public place is, ISTM, tacit approval of my helping myself to a treat. Likewise, leaving a WiFi connection unsecured is tacit approval for anyone else to make use of that connection’s bandwidth without further obligation or authorization required.
A handful of people may have be fined, but that doesn’t mean that if they would have fought the charges that the courts wouldn’t have agreed that the fact of a WiFi network being unsecured *does *imply consent on the part of its owner for anyone else to make use of it.
Fortunately for him…yes.
Bumping to note that the OP now appears in The ComputerWorld Shark Tank. Enjoy your t-shirt drachillix.
I am IT legend! 