If there's a wifi or wireless connection nearby is it moral to tap in and use it?

This might interest you.

Well, at least I got a new ( to me) insult !!!!!

Cheers, Colin

Unfortunately this is one area of law where the onus is on the "offender" to prove there was no malicious intent. In other words, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. That defence has been tried and failed - a B&E on a commercial premises, person found inside (no witnesses to say that person actually committed the B&E), person claimed they had been walking past, saw the broken window, and entered to check if anyone was inside. The defense failed as they were still trespassing and that was not deemed a lawful excuse....

Read the actual Act - with trespass the offender must prove lawful intent, not the owner prove malicious intent. This is one reason why any sensible security officer LOVES the Inclosed Lands/Tresspass Acts, because it is the only instance where they actually have some powers, and generally more than Police as they are acting as the "person apparently in charge" with the consent of the owner/occupier, whereas without a warrant the Police must be invited onto the premises and can always be asked to leave...

Bottom line - if you are on private property you can be charged and convicted unless you can convince a Magistrate that you are indeed innocent. Simply walking in through an open/unlocked door is not going to be good enough - if you thought something was wrong you should've called the Police not walked in on your own.

"Break" refers to the breaking of a seal, not necessarily a lock, so if the door is closed it is taken as "sealed" and that "seal" has to be "broken" in order to enter...

At least that's how it was explained in every security course I've ever seen, including Police Officers as instructors. Their explanation says that the door/window doesn't necessarily have to be locked to prove break & enter, although logically in some instances it would make it much harder...

How unfortunately true... I had a "bouncer" trying to tell me how to do Patrols once, so I asked him how many patrols and alarm responses he had actually done, to which he said "none, but I've been a bouncer for 10 years so doesn't that count?" - to which I replied "no, you can train a monkey to be a bouncer - they shouldn't even be licensed under the same Act, makes the rest of security look bad.."

I don't think he appreciated my views..... oh well...

Martin wrote

Correct.

Wrong.

Its total bullshit.

Just opening a closed door doesnt qualify as break.

He could have bounced you |-)

Yeah, commerical premises, why would anyone go inside?

Walking in into an open shop or a house saying "Anyone home" is a different story.

The important question is what tapping into a wifi network is analagous to. The answer is that it is not analgous to any of them, because the network owner is theoretically trespassing by broadcasting its signal. Hence specific statutes such as Telecommunications and Broadcating to deal with these issues.

pony wrote

Nothing like the same thing. It STILL sends the MAC address, whatever that happens to be set to, you stupid pig ignorant f****it clown.

Who do you think you're fooling? You said that it couldn't be altered.

If you can spoof the MAC address then they they can't prove it was your wireless card. It's like I'm teaching a primary school child.

pony wrote

Pathetic, really.

Like hell I ever did you silly little pathological liar.

Pity that that is JUST ONE POSSIBILITY, so your original absolute claim is STILL just plain wrong, you silly little pathological liar.

Here it is again,

You cant actually be THAT think, you've got to be a pathological liar.

And so stupid that you cant even manage to work out the difference between a normal residential house and a shop either.

You said it you couldn't stop the wireless card sending its MAC address.

If you spoof the MAC address, you are stopping it sending its MAC address.

Stop making pointless distinctions just to give you an excuse to be profane and abusive.

the average home wifi network owner would not have logging in place to incriminate you.

therefore it was a perfectly reasonable statement. only if you are desparate to be profane and abusive would you try to argue otherwise.

You use a directional antenna and you track the radio signal. Or you can use three stationary receivers to triangulate the source of the signal. We have had the ability to use this kind of tracking technology for almost as long as we have had radios!

As for collecting MAC addresses and serial numbers. Yes, this would also track the item. Especialy if it was a notebook. Wholesalors and retailers keep track of serial numbers for warranties.

pony wrote

Lying, again.

Lying, again.

You cant actually be THAT stupid.

On second thoughts, since you cant actually work out the difference between a residential house and a shop, legally, presumably you actually are that stupid.

Lying, again.

you mean this:

You can keep ignoring if you like but you would just be making a fool of yourself

err, there's no difference, but let's see what ridiculous pointless distinction you will try to make in order to be profane and abusive.

pony wrote

Lying, again.

He's right.

you mean this:

You can keep ignoring if you like but you would just be making a fool of yourself

You still haven't explained the difference. I'm looking forward to it.

Who, one of your multiple personalities?

pony wrote

I dont bother trying to explain basic stuff to stones either.

Or the legal difference with a residential house and shop either as far as entry without knocking is concerned either.

Hold your breath.

He's right.

Since when?

One of the great annoyances about the firewall in XP SP2 is that it only does incoming filtering - anything can send outgoing data.

Even MS say it doesn't filter outgoing, (just search for 'outgoing'):

You need to use IPSec to filter outgoing on XP SP2.

Otherwise use a third party firewall, (which are far and away better than anything I'd trust MS to come up with).

IIRC, Windows Vista _may_ have firewall that works in both directions.

Dave

you mean this:

You can keep ignoring if you like but you would just be making a fool of yourself

pony wrote

He's right.