photonic x86 CPU design

[Bill Davidsen]

Bill Davidsen wrote:
They would still be wrong and they would be stealing the neighbor's
bandwidth. However it seems reasonable to not get very upset since they
didn't realize they were doing it. It actually happened to me at my
daughter's house. Their wireless was encrypted but I didn't know that.
I got a signal on my laptop and went ahead. When she got home she
figured out it must be the neighbor's network when I said "your signal
is really weak".

But knowingly doing it without permission is certainly morally wrong in
my reference frame, although there are a lot of folks around in the
"what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable" camp.

And in the world today knowingly is also getting grey... one of the
local malls is adding wifi as a mall service. Starbucks sells the same
service. I think at some point there will have to be a clear legal
policy to clarify how much effort the AP must use to make it clear that
it's not public, and how much effort the client must make to verify the
permissions to use an AP.

Since the clients are operated in many cases by peole who have no
technical expertise, it makes practical sense to require more action on
the part of the AP owner.

At least in upstate NY and New England, this would be similar to the
requirement to post open land if you don't want people using it, while
prohibiting users from MIS-using it, even if it's not posted.

What is the moral difference between using some spare bandwidth off
someone's network and installing software from a borrowed cd?

Installing commercial software is obviously theft, AP choice my be
automated. Companies with wired offices seem to configure to use the
strongest AP as people carry their laptops around from office to meeting
to lunch room. So if I'm in the (free access) food court and Starbuck
has a stronger (for sale) signal, it better use wep or at least some
form of protection.

As I said the first time, because it's easy to unintentionally use an AP
the issues are more complex than borrowing the car idling next to the
beer store.

 

[Russell Crook - Computer Systems - System Engineer]

And in the world today knowingly is also getting grey... one of the
local malls is adding wifi as a mall service. Starbucks sells the same
service. I think at some point there will have to be a clear legal
policy to clarify how much effort the AP must use to make it clear that
it's not public, and how much effort the client must make to verify the
permissions to use an AP.

Since the clients are operated in many cases by peole who have no
technical expertise, it makes practical sense to require more action on
the part of the AP owner.

At least in upstate NY and New England, this would be similar to the
requirement to post open land if you don't want people using it, while
prohibiting users from MIS-using it, even if it's not posted.



Installing commercial software is obviously theft,

Umm, this is a bad choice of words here. Free commercial software
exists and is not theft to install and/or use (to use an
example I know about, Sun's Studio 11 compiler suite and associated
developer tools are free for use on Solaris and Linux once
registered. And of course Solaris and Linux as well
for that matter). Much GPL open source software is also
freely available for installation (though we may debate the
definition of "commercial").

And, of course, all those AOL CDs of yesteryear are another
well-known counterexample :-<

AP choice my be
automated. Companies with wired offices seem to configure to use the
strongest AP as people carry their laptops around from office to meeting
to lunch room. So if I'm in the (free access) food court and Starbuck
has a stronger (for sale) signal, it better use wep or at least some
form of protection.

As I said the first time, because it's easy to unintentionally use an AP
the issues are more complex than borrowing the car idling next to the
beer store.

Like WiFi access, it is getting more difficult to discern when sharing
software is condoned or encouraged, and when it really is theft...

Russell

 

[Scott Alfter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

And, of course, all those AOL CDs of yesteryear are another
well-known counterexample :-<

I'll agree that the AOHell CDs are useless, but the continuous stream of
AOHell floppies before that at least meant I never had to buy 3.5" floppies
when I needed them.

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDfitEVgTKos01OwkRAjXWAKDZMP2pw7bUJ0X3ha4hWtknqVtEwACgipBY
LGAmxI4zJk8mBxMUkkWYWdI=
=8Gc4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[George Macdonald]

And in the world today knowingly is also getting grey... one of the
local malls is adding wifi as a mall service. Starbucks sells the same
service. I think at some point there will have to be a clear legal
policy to clarify how much effort the AP must use to make it clear that
it's not public, and how much effort the client must make to verify the
permissions to use an AP.

Since the clients are operated in many cases by peole who have no
technical expertise, it makes practical sense to require more action on
the part of the AP owner.

At least in upstate NY and New England, this would be similar to the
requirement to post open land if you don't want people using it, while
prohibiting users from MIS-using it, even if it's not posted.

Installing commercial software is obviously theft, AP choice my be
automated. Companies with wired offices seem to configure to use the
strongest AP as people carry their laptops around from office to meeting
to lunch room. So if I'm in the (free access) food court and Starbuck
has a stronger (for sale) signal, it better use wep or at least some
form of protection.

I haven't used Starbucks' "service" but from what I hear, from one of our
road-warriors, the "protection" is at a deeper level of the connection:
they *want* you to get the Wi-Fi connection as easily as possible, then you
get invited to provide your credit card number to proceed past the ISP's
intro-screen.

As I said the first time, because it's easy to unintentionally use an AP
the issues are more complex than borrowing the car idling next to the
beer store.

This happens, especially to beginners who have a new AP but are not sure if
it's actually working or if they're leeching off a neighbor - most people
are quite well aware of the ramifications and honest people will make no
mistake about what arrangement they prefer. The guy who got caught in FL
had been parked in the street for several hours (3 or 4) and was an obvious
thief - no question of accidental leeching.

 

[Kai Harrekilde-Petersen]

I haven't used Starbucks' "service" but from what I hear, from one of our
road-warriors, the "protection" is at a deeper level of the connection:
they *want* you to get the Wi-Fi connection as easily as possible, then you
get invited to provide your credit card number to proceed past the ISP's
intro-screen.

All of the commercial services that I've seen/tried have done it this
way. OTOH, it is 1-2 years ago now, last time I checked.


Kai

 

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

You should be able to get both. If you're using his, then it's at
least theft of services, even if you aren't hurting him.



Maybe, but it's still theft. Intent does matter here though.

Yes, But is the neighbour guilty of:
a) Providing an attractive nuisance
b) Not shielding his wifi boundary, such that its' signal does
not leak into his heighbours territory, i.e. emitting rf interference

etc. etc.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[Ken Hagan]

Yes, But is the neighbour guilty of:
a) Providing an attractive nuisance
b) Not shielding his wifi boundary, such that its' signal does
not leak into his heighbours territory, i.e. emitting rf interference

The neighbour is probably guilty of (a) since it is relatively
easy to enable WEP or WPA and this step will prevent accidental
connection by those who don't know the password. They could argue
that their WiFi or OS vendor made it too easy to operate without
encryption or too hard to switch it on, but I think we are slowly
moving towards a general awareness among users that WiFi *ought*
to be secured. (I assume the neighbour isn't *trying* to provide
a public access point.)

The neighbour probably isn't guilty of (b) since that would be
an unreasonable requirement, particularly if you live in rental
accomodation.

 

[Andy Glew]

If the neighbor's unsecured WiFi access point is used by neighborhood
kids to read porn, is the neighbor guilty of contributing to the
delinquency of minors?

 

[Bill Davidsen]

I haven't used Starbucks' "service" but from what I hear, from one of our
road-warriors, the "protection" is at a deeper level of the connection:
they *want* you to get the Wi-Fi connection as easily as possible, then you
get invited to provide your credit card number to proceed past the ISP's
intro-screen.




This happens, especially to beginners who have a new AP but are not sure if
it's actually working or if they're leeching off a neighbor - most people
are quite well aware of the ramifications and honest people will make no
mistake about what arrangement they prefer. The guy who got caught in FL
had been parked in the street for several hours (3 or 4) and was an obvious
thief - no question of accidental leeching.

I certainly don't mean to imply that there are no dishonest people out
there, but I would like to see some requirement that those who don't
wish to share make at least a token effort to make that so, be it MAC
authentication, login, or the latest crypto. Just so people can't
accidentally connect.

If that means that WiFi routers start to ship with MAC auth or similar,
I can live with that.

 

[Bill Davidsen]

If the neighbor's unsecured WiFi access point is used by neighborhood
kids to read porn, is the neighbor guilty of contributing to the
delinquency of minors?

I take it you are helping make the point that the issues are more
complex than "user bad guy" approaches. I hope that was your intent.

 

[George Macdonald]

George Macdonald wrote:

I certainly don't mean to imply that there are no dishonest people out
there, but I would like to see some requirement that those who don't
wish to share make at least a token effort to make that so, be it MAC
authentication, login, or the latest crypto. Just so people can't
accidentally connect.

Placing the presumption of responsibility for theft on the victim is in
fact fairly common, especially with the police (unofficially of course) -
ever had anything stolen and called the cops? I do not see why there
should be a presumption that unless "locked up" a valuable item is free for
all to use. In some jurisdictions "stealing by finding" is a felony - no
new law is particularly needed.

If that means that WiFi routers start to ship with MAC auth or similar,
I can live with that.

Makes sense and all it would take is one mfr brave enough to test the
users' competence.

 

[Eric Smith]

If the neighbor's unsecured WiFi access point is used by neighborhood
kids to read porn, is the neighbor guilty of contributing to the
delinquency of minors?

If the neigbor leaves an issue of Playboy on his desk open to the
centerfold, and the neighborhood kids use binoculars to view it from
another home, is the neighbor guilty of contributing to the delinquency
of minors?

 

[David Schwartz]

If the neigbor leaves an issue of Playboy on his desk open to the
centerfold, and the neighborhood kids use binoculars to view it from
another home, is the neighbor guilty of contributing to the delinquency
of minors?

In both cases, it depends upon the forseeability of the kids accessing
the information and the reasonableness of the means needed to prevent such
contribution. Both the forseeability and the difficulty of avoidance are
significantly different in the two cases, so the culpability is probably
different as well.

For example, it's easier to secure your wireless network than it is to
hide any books that might contribute to the delinquincy of a minor.
Similarly, it's quite forseeable that an insecure wireless network would at
least be used by others, and much less forseeable that an open magazine
would be seen by others with binoculars.

To make the situations more comparable, you'd have to assume that
children seeing magazines with binoculars was an ordinary and well-known
occurance. And you'd have to assume that it was easy to create windows that
still let in the sun but that children could not look through with
binoculars.

DS

 

[Rob Warnock]

+---------------
| >> If the neighbor's unsecured WiFi access point is used by neighborhood
| >> kids to read porn, is the neighbor guilty of contributing to the
| >> delinquency of minors?
| >
| > If the neigbor leaves an issue of Playboy on his desk open to the
| > centerfold, and the neighborhood kids use binoculars to view it from
| > another home, is the neighbor guilty of contributing to the delinquency
| > of minors?
|
| In both cases, it depends upon the forseeability of the kids accessing
| the information and the reasonableness of the means needed to prevent such
| contribution. Both the forseeability and the difficulty of avoidance are
| significantly different in the two cases, so the culpability is probably
| different as well.
+---------------

The legal doctrine of "attractive nuisance" might possibly bear on this,
at least in the United States:

http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/attractive-nuisance-doctrine.htm
http://www.quarterh.com/legal18.htm
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a090.htm
...etc...


-Rob

 

[David Schwartz]

The legal doctrine of "attractive nuisance" might possibly bear on this,
at least in the United States:

http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/attractive-nuisance-doctrine.htm
http://www.quarterh.com/legal18.htm
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a090.htm
...etc...

Possibly, but it would be a novel extension of the doctrine for several
reasons. What that attractive nuisance doctrine says is that if you have
something so inviting to children on your property that it induces them to
trespass, then you owe them the same standard of care as if you had invited
them onto your property.

First, an unsecured wireless connection doesn't especially invite
children to trespass or harm themselves the way a pool might. It takes
sophistication to access the wireless connection that indicates knowing what
you're doing, which is not at all like falling in a pool. However, it is not
too far to say that detecting a wireless connection from off the property is
akin to seeing a pool from off the property and that accessing it is a
trespass.

Second, the doctrine just requires a higher standard of care. That is,
it is as if you invited the children onto your property. It's hard to
imagine that a reasonable standard of care for children on your property
involves securing your wireless internet connection. No reasonable person
inviting children onto their property would say, "oh, man, better secure
that wireless internet". However, it is not too far off to say that securing
your wireless internet is like putting a fence around your pool.

The whole point of the attractive nuisance doctrine is that children
don't appreciate dangers like adults do. Adults should know not to trespass
and play with someone else's horse, motorcycle, or in their pool. The
sophistication required to access a wireless internet connection is less
than the sophistication required to know that it's not yours and that you
have no right to use it. The sophistication required to use the connection
to access porn or otherwise get into trouble requires a knowledge of what
one is doing that's not like falling into a pool or getting kicked by a
horse.

So it could happen, but I don't think it's likely.

DS

 

[Evgenij Barsukov]

However, you clearly don't believe in property rights. The
communist has spoken.

Property rights should apply to consumables. To something that disapears
if being used, and therefore society benefits from its _concervation_.
However, knowledge is non-consumable. Society benefits from its _usage_,
whereas non-users are lazy bastards who do harm to society. So _use of
knowledge_ has to be encouraged, and non-use punished.
Intellectual property and copyright concepts, that has been created
in the 18th century and has since many times artificialy modified and
expanded to non-suitable areas, do not follow above concept.
They punish use of knowledge by requiring those who use it to pay,
and encourage non-use (e.g. anti-social behaviour) by allowing non-users
to withold payment. So as oweral result we encourage anti-social
behaviour. This is absurd and has to end.

Of cause the creation of knowledge has to be encouraged monetary,
which so far have been implemented using above scheme, which is as I
have shown is absurd. So this encouragement has to be done differently.
The overal result should be that both users and non-users of
knowledge have to pay equaly, which punishes the anti-social non-users
(they get nothing which should make them think about using more
knowledge) and encourages the society friendly users of knowledge
because they get something for their money.
So far advertizement sponsored content creation is one
good example how this can work, because obviously everybody are paying
for advertizement inderectly through the price of goods, but only
users of sponsored content (e.g. knowledge) are benefiting.
But advertizement sponsoring has limits. The concept should extend
wider, to involve other types of tax money, while parallely eliminating
the concept of intellectual property and replacing it with concept of
"society payment for content creation".

Communists incorrectly extended the rejection of property rights to
consumables. Consumbles have to be protected because giving them
for free encourages anti-social wastful behaviour.

Regards,
Evgenij

 

[David Schwartz]

Property rights should apply to consumables. To something that disapears
if being used, and therefore society benefits from its _concervation_.
However, knowledge is non-consumable. Society benefits from its _usage_,
whereas non-users are lazy bastards who do harm to society. So _use of
knowledge_ has to be encouraged, and non-use punished.

You are reasoning from the implied premise that individuals should have
no rights except those that benefit society. I'm curious if you really
believe this.

For example, suppose there is someone who definitely did not commit a
murder, the real murder is dead. But the community believes he did, is
living in fear, and would benefit tremendously from his execution. Does he
have the right not to be executed? Even if that execution inarguably
benefits society?

DS

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

You should be able to get both. If you're using his, then it's at
least theft of services, even if you aren't hurting him.

I'd imagine it'd be very difficult to prove theft of service if he weren't
using the connection himself and were paying a flat rate for said
connection. Theft, by its nature, requires a loss to the owner -- at least
here. There might be other charges that apply, however.

Maybe, but it's still theft. Intent does matter here though.

Well, IANAL, but it depends on the laws of your jurisdiction. For instance,
in my state, the law provides for an explicit defense to prosecution based
on "mistake of fact". For instance, if my AP and my neighbor's were both
set with the same SSID, I could get out of a theft charge by saying I
thought I was using my own AP. If his SSID were different, however, and I
configured my laptop to use anyway, I'd not be able to use that defense.

Of course, I have my AP set to an SSID that isn't broadcast and have WPA
enabled, so unless someone's really good at guessing 128-bit encryption
keys, I don't have to worry about someone using my Internet service.
Frankly, if someone managed to do it, I'd be more likely to commend them
(after improving my setup) than to file charges.

S

 

[David Schwartz]

I'd imagine it'd be very difficult to prove theft of service if he weren't
using the connection himself and were paying a flat rate for said
connection. Theft, by its nature, requires a loss to the owner -- at
least here. There might be other charges that apply, however.

Argue trespass, not theft.

DS

 

[George Macdonald]

I'd imagine it'd be very difficult to prove theft of service if he weren't
using the connection himself and were paying a flat rate for said
connection. Theft, by its nature, requires a loss to the owner -- at least
here. There might be other charges that apply, however.

All connections have a bandwidth usage limit and often a limit on user
count - if the perp had been saturating the thing with e.g. hours of VOIP,
the ISP concerned might very well have something to say; in that case the
victim could end up with the choice of prosecuting the perp or loss of
service. Even apart from that there is no doubt about a loss and I'm
surprised that so many seem to want to ignore it - "loss of comfort" is
reason enough to go after a thief.

Well, IANAL, but it depends on the laws of your jurisdiction. For instance,
in my state, the law provides for an explicit defense to prosecution based
on "mistake of fact". For instance, if my AP and my neighbor's were both
set with the same SSID, I could get out of a theft charge by saying I
thought I was using my own AP. If his SSID were different, however, and I
configured my laptop to use anyway, I'd not be able to use that defense.

Let us know when someone decides to test that legal umm, situation - I'd
not be optimistic about a happy outcome.