Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: WIRELESS THEFT
From: ONEILL David J <David.J.Oneill () state or us>
Date: 18 Oct 2002 07:55:34 -0700
Not to flame you, but W R O N G ! ! ! . . . This would be no different than using a ham radio. If you broadcast the message, even if you intended it to be received by a single recipient, you still have no legal expectations that no one but the intended target will listen and/or respond (becoming a participant in the communication link.) Therefore, if the transmitter does not take any action to limit who can received an respond to the broadcast signal, its their problem. That said, if your are hacking though a authentication system to use the openly broadcast signal, then I would say that you may be breaking into some legal issues. The analogies of cutting into a water line or splicing into a cable do not even fit this situation. David J. O'Neill NEDSS - IS7 Parkway Bldg., 2nd Floor Phone: (503) 378-2101 ext. 364 FAX: (503) 378-2102
Ishmann () aol com 10/17/02 06:53PM >>>
One of the things you should be looking at is >>>> Are you a member of their organization (a resident??) If not then it is not for you to use. Example would be, a group of homes get water piped or brought into there property. You in turn tap into that pipe ..... lets say because it leaks someplace close to your property. What the law will say, as a responsible neighbor did you tell the coop about the leak? Knowing that they pay for that water. Or in another version did you tap into the pipe to get water, knowing that it does not belong to you. Reality is you know it is not yours to use. If you should get caught it is hard to claim ignorance if you only pay for dial up and they have some DSL, RR type service :)and you are using it! So you be your own guide there. It is still considered theft of service (Using that which you do not pay for or does not belong to you)... Theyre are numerous tort cases with telephone and cable companies and wireless services that cover this issue, (not to mention federal and state laws that now also cover this issue) you dont necessarily want to be the one that they make the case about :) if you know what I mean.... Aloha Bob
Current thread:
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT, (continued)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT Brett Hiscock (Oct 18)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT Alaric Darconville (Oct 18)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT Mike Dresser (Oct 18)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT Alaric Darconville (Oct 21)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT Jeff Knox (Oct 21)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT Alaric Darconville (Oct 22)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT Raoul Armfield (Oct 22)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT Alaric Darconville (Oct 23)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT Mike Dresser (Oct 18)
- Cisco PIX - Anti Spoof - ip verify reverse -path McKenzie Family (Oct 21)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT David (Oct 21)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT Jason Kohles (Oct 22)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT Jay DeSotel (Oct 22)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT Stevie A. Jones (Oct 22)
- RE: WIRELESS THEFT ATD (Oct 23)
- Re: WIRELESS THEFT Shaolin Tiger (Oct 24)