RE: WIRELESS THEFT

["Teodorski, Chris" <cteodorski () ppg com>]

Interestingly enough.....a coworker just pointed out to me that a recent group of articles on this subject just ran on 
infoworld.com

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/10/04/021004opethics.xml

and

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/10/11/021011opethics.xml

and most recently

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/10/18/021018opethics.xml

I thought they were all pretty good...

even if he and I disagree....


-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Warr [mailto:nick () mobilia it]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:37 AM
To: Teodorski, Chris; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: Re: WIRELESS THEFT


Not to debate your point, it is clearly theft, but your analogy doesn't
work.
They're not leaving the doors unlocked, they're leaving their stuff on his
doorstep, or maybe even on his kitchen table.

Nick


----- Original Message -----
From: "Teodorski, Chris" <cteodorski () ppg com>
To: "Alaric Darconville" <alaric () cowboy net>; "Jeff Knox"
<jknox () www fliphead com>
Cc: "Mike Dresser" <mdresser () windsormachine com>;
<security-basics () securityfocus com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 7:45 PM
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; security-basics () securityfocus com
> 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; security-basics () securityfocus com
> :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