Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Woman Discovers Her Wireless Internet Is Not Free

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the was-that-wrong dept.

Idle 62

But she'd been using it for a year and a half.

cancel ×

62 comments

Hehe (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262972)

I noticed she didn't have an issue interrupting the guy but from 2:45 on, you never hear her voice regardless of gaps in his speech. I wonder if when he mentioned that the internet was only $14.95 and she was just being cheap, did she hang up on him and he just kept going on?

Re:Hehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265048)

Or he muted it

Re:Hehe (1)

Pointy_Hair (133077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31274666)

I'm guessing she disconnected. She clearly had just avoided the unpleasant thought that someone somewhere had to pay for that service that she has been using for free all that time. When it finally sunk in, it wasn't what she wanted to hear and just dropped the call.

What is truly a shame is that this is a sample of what a lot of people think - that if it's out there for the taking that it's ok to do so. I liked his comparison to justifying shoplifting at a grocery store. Then this one had the arrogance or ignorance to complain when her "free" service disappeared!

Re:Hehe (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31276852)

While mooching someone else's wifi is hardly a good solution, I'm not sure it compares well to shoplifting or that it's "illegal". It's an open network, meaning anyone can connect -- so you can hardly say you're using it without authorization as there is, effectively, a blanket authorization for anyone to connect. Moreover, the signal itself is broadcast over your property, so it's really hard to make an argument for stealing. IANAL, but I don't think you can really compare this to shoplifting or call it illegal.

It'd be like if everything at the grocery store came, by default, with a sticker that said "take me I'm free" and it was up to the grocery store to remove those stickers if they didn't want to give away their product -- and also the grocery store was in your backyard on your property. Still shoplifting?

On the other hand, it's not a good idea for privacy reasons and its definitely *shady* since most open access points did not mean to be open -- but regardless, an open access point is a welcome mat, accidental or not.

Re:Hehe (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280556)

s/wirelist signal/unlocked car/g;

s/wireless signal/unlocked front door/gi

In both cases, you are still going to be arrested and convicted. Why? Because it's not YOURS to take.

Re:Hehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31282264)

s/wireless signal/unlocked front door/gi

In both cases, you are still going to be arrested and convicted. Why? Because it's not YOURS to take.

Well, you are obviously NOT a lawyer. In the U.S. of A we have something called "free property rights of horse and carriage" which makes taking somebody's car without permission legal in the U.S. (as long as it is returned in a timely manner, undamaged of course). The same law can also be applied to wireless Internet Access points. It involves complicated constitutional precedent and scholarship, but the lady IS in her right to demand free Internet.

Re:Hehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31285298)

Hey look, some massive bullshit!

Re:Hehe (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287854)

For those who miss the point, the reference to the "free property rights of horse and carriage" law of 1798 is a joke - there is no such law outside of crappy movies.

Re:Hehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31309470)

Exactly. Bullshit. Ever hear of "Trepass to Chattels?" It's not theft -- conversion -- but is a tort involving an interference in another person's use or possession of their things. Some states require damage (which may in fact be de minimus) or a substantial time of dispossession, but others allow the action for the mere act of dispossessing you of your property for any length of time -- even if you fully mean to return it.

Re:Hehe (2, Informative)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31310250)

{sigh}

    Don't take legal advice from movies. Good Will Hunting was drama, not a documentary. Other than the movie citation, I was completely unable to find any mention of the way.

    At least in 1798, horse thieves could be hung when they were caught, and the law looked the other way. Now, good luck getting away with either stealing the horse, carriage.

    You have just as many rights stealing Internet, as you do randomly trespassing on private or federal property. If you think differently, you have a better chance seeing this [google.com] than this [google.com] .

Re:Hehe (2, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31311260)

The use of shared wireless is not stealing. The only purpose for publishing the SSID of an unsecured wireless network is to make the network available to anyone who wants to connect to it. If people want to share their wireless, that's their business - not the court's. If that violates their terms of service that's a contractual issue between them and their ISP.

And talk of hanging people for using shared wireless? That's just madness. To use the same metaphor if your neighbor lets his horses, cattle and dogs roam onto your property or public rights-of-way then securing them isn't theft - it's being neighborly. Accepting the gift of anonymous free speech freely given? There's nothing at all wrong with that.

Re:Hehe (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31311782)

    I like your analogy. So if you find an animal off of the owners property, it's all fair to take them, eh?

    I presume since you can apply this to subjugating the paid service of another person, I presume you can apply it to anything else left in the open. Bicycles... Cars... Empty houses... Yup, you have a real grand concept of reality. You'll have a wonderful time in court and prison.

   

Re:Hehe (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31312054)

Securing is not taking. Making the animal safe does not deprive the owner of the use of it, nor does using the shared wireless. You're reaching so hard it's obvious you have an agenda. What is it?

Re:Hehe (1)

pegdhcp (1158827) | more than 4 years ago | (#31312322)

An analogy is just this, an analogy. If you do not want somebody you do not know to use your wireless connection, you need to secure it. At least you need to prove in the court that you tried to secure it. If the network does not have any protection _/AND/_ the SSID is being broadcast, this is simply an invitation for anonymous utilization.
Yes there are lousy APs that do not not offer any protection and broadcast SSID by default, but this does not mean the owner has no liability. S/he should have RFTM before plugging it in... Coming to your analogy, yes not using (at least) WEP is putting the animal out of your property, but if you do not announce its existence, there is a small chance an ordinary passerby would notice the fact. As wireless access is not a horse, and without a SSID broadcast, you would need to look harder to see the network.
Admittedly a semi-professional attacker would see the network and utilize it for whatever purposes he wants. However a semi-professional attacker should be -by definition- able to penetrate any wireless network. Also when in the court of law, you can say "yes your honor, I am stupid and misinformed _by the producer of this gadget_, however I at least _tried to secure_ my network".
Please keep in mind that IANAL and the legal system I live in is not based on Common Law, but in several occasions I needed to act as an advisor/consultant to our legal system, I saw that trying to do something -albeit stupidly- is better than being a completely ignorant fool.

Re:Hehe (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347568)

So long as you give it back when the owner needs to use it, I don’t think he has much justification to complain that you plowed two rows with his mule.

Re:Hehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31349170)

I like your analogy. So if you find an animal off of the owners property, it's all fair to take them, eh?

Funny thing is, when I was a kid I used to always "use" my neighbour's unsecured dogs and cats, and nobody ever called the police on me, much less put me in prison.

Once again, I don't think you get the analogy (like you NEVER got my joke about being allowed to steal cars because it was quoted in a movie).

To complete the analogy, if I went to take the dogs and cats into my house and lock them up so that, in essence, the neighbours couldn't benefit from their possessions, then the police probably would be involved. The same with Internet access; if people don't take the actual physical router away or "root" the system with malware, then for all intents and purposes it is not stealing.

I will specifically state and disclaim here that I am not giving legal advice. In fact I will disclaim that using some-ones open wi-fi may in fact be considered illegal depending on where you live (but IMHO most sane people would not consider it "stealing"; not in the criminal sense at least). And assuming that using some-ones hot-spot was considered illegal, I doubt that you could convince the police to do anything about it unless you had evidence that people were using it for a kiddy-porn ring. Police (in my experience) are either too lazy, or too busy dealing with frivolous complaints to really give-a-damn otherwise.

Re:Hehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31347360)

Poster warns against taking advice from movies:

{sigh}

        Don't take legal advice from movies.

Poster then goes on to give legal advice on Slashdot (and gets up-moderated):

You have just as many rights stealing Internet, as you do randomly trespassing on private or federal property.

At least the movie advice was satire (since I wrote it, I should know. At least TOM seems to understand the "joke").

Re:Hehe (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347600)

You have just as many rights stealing Internet, as you do randomly trespassing on private or federal property.

Yes: Unless marked as private property, posted no trespassing, or secured in some way (e.g. fenced), I have every right to be there unless or until I’m asked to leave.

Re:Hehe (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31349364)

    Good luck with that.

    I can name quite a few places that you can go and either get shot at or arrested for being near.

    You should realize by now, everyplace is private property of some sort. Even property that you own, you are only leasing from the government. If you don't pay your lease (taxes), they'll reclaim it.

    It may have been nice to believe in such things years ago, but it's not the reality of today.

Re:Hehe (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31349852)

I can name quite a few places that you can go and either get shot at or arrested for being near.

And they aren’t fenced, locked, or at least marked with signs?

Then how am I supposed to know I was to keep out?

Re:Hehe (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31353586)

    Well, lets start with, you aren't 3 years old and you have lived in the same society that the rest of us do. You were taught the same social graces as the rest of us, which hopefully includes using the restroom and not messing your pants. Well, assuming you do remember to wear pants out of the house.

Re:Hehe (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31393500)

What's that got to do with knowing whether property is private or not? In a city it's bloody obvious, out in the country it isn't.

Re:Hehe (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397390)

    Actually, having lived out in the country for many years, it is pretty obvious.

    If you're on a road, you're on public property. Well, technically state owned property.

    If you leave the road, you're on private property, or you're on state owned property.

    I use the term state to apply to any government body.

    If the state has designated an area to be for public use, sure you can go wandering off. If it isn't, you're trespassing. Just because the state owns property, and you pay your taxes, doesn't mean you're welcome going on it. I found that out the hard way a long time ago. Wandering around on state property that had unmarked trails, we were approached by the local Sheriffs department. We had been spotted by one of their helicopters, who sent a patrol after us. We were not, under any circumstances, allowed on that property, regardless of the lack of markings.

Re:Hehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31407558)

Notwithstanding the question of why a local Sheriff's department would be conducting regular helicopter patrols of empty land (not exactly a productive use of taxpayer money)...

My understanding of it isn't that unmarked == okay to be there, but that unmarked == they can ask you to leave. If it was a well-marked area (or somewhere you otherwise should know better than to be), then they could try to prosecute for trespass. If it's unmarked and you leave promptly when asked, I don't think that meets the standard of being a crime.

Of course, the local Sheriff may be the type who arrests first and (doesn't) ask questions later - but then it's not a matter of law.

But, coming up with analogies for internet matters generally isn't the right way to go, is it? It's too easy to reduce matters to nonsensical conclusions. My two cents - connecting to an unsecured network without prior explicit permission should not be seen as problematic by anyone. If the owner of the access point asks you not to connect in the future, then don't do it. But there are so many places out there - hotels, coffee shops, yes, even friendly neighbors - who intend to provide open access that unsecured should be effectively interpreted as "willing to provide open access".

Re:Hehe (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287522)

s/wirelist signal/unlocked car/g;

s/wireless signal/unlocked front door/gi

But in neither of those cases are there circumstances where it is find to take what is available (the car, the opportunity to enter the house) whereas there are unsecured wireless APs out there, many of them, that are free for you to use as far as the owner is concerned. So you can argue that you thought it would be OK to use the wireless where you can't so easily argue that it would be OK to borrow the car for an hour. Whether the law takes account of this sort of difference I don't know though, I'll leave that question to legal experts or those that claim to be the same.

Re:Hehe (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288050)

The accepted way to let people know you want your AP to be free is to name it something like "FREE" or "FREENET" or "PUBLIC" (if you want to get lots of users, name it something along the lines of "FREEPORN"). Have all incoming http requests redirect to your home box, which should list hundreds of videos - all with "interesting" names - and all just being another copy of a Rick Roll vid. After all, Rick Rolling the Vice Squad == PRICELESS!

Re:Hehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302156)

Typically, however, the contract/service agreement/AUP that most ISPs put in place do not allow for you to redistribute the services provided...in which case the internet connection is not actually yours to share to begin with.

Re:Hehe (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#31433316)

Which is completely and totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Good job.

Re:Hehe (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 4 years ago | (#31308572)

In both cases, you are still going to be arrested and convicted. Why? Because it's not YOURS to take.

Not necessarily. Some areas have free and open Wireless providers e.g. some airports and cities plus some people opt to share their network access with others. Hence if you see an open access point it is possible that it is intended to be used. This is hard to argue with an unlocked car or house....although it is also somewhat hard to argue for a network called "LINKSYS" as well!

Re:Hehe (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 4 years ago | (#31372010)

Nope. Still gotta prove intent to prove theft.

Re:Hehe (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31378554)

Nope. Still gotta prove intent to prove theft.

Actually, you don't. Not for things like communications theft. It's in the statute.

Re:Hehe (1)

Ziwcam (766621) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287790)

You can see him reach over and hit a button. I imagine he just muted her.

Re:Hehe (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347480)

I'm guessing she disconnected. She clearly had just avoided the unpleasant thought that someone somewhere had to pay for that service that she has been using for free all that time. When it finally sunk in, it wasn't what she wanted to hear and just dropped the call.

I use unsecured wireless networks all the time, and I quite frankly have no problem with using a service that somebody else paid for. They obviously don’t care if other people use it, and I feel no reason to refuse a gift.

Leo is not right on some details (1)

dch (540591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31273470)

1. When you log into most webmail servers (hotmail, google in the early days, facebook, etc) the password is not transmitted "over the air, unencrypted". Most of the time the password page (and the password submission) is encrypted with ssl, but after that they drop back to regular non-encrypted http for reading of the email. So the password is encrypted, but reading the emails are not. Also the cookie (which could be seen as a temporary password) is sent not encrypted during the reading of the email. This means that someone could take that cookie and get onto the email account while that cookie lasts. So he is almost right but they do not get the actual password. 2. Secondly there is this program called SSLStrip which could allow the attacker to get her all her actual passwords including bank passwords and information. Now with a few exceptions she could detect that the encryption was stripped off, but if she is as clueless as she sounds she would probably not notice. As I mentioned there are some exceptions that would make it so she would not notice at all (browser bugs not dealing with null characters in the cert domain name, and others). I have a write up about this at my blog: http://clarkehackworth.com/content/intoduction-ssl-strip-and-building-better-browser [clarkehackworth.com]

Worthless "Tech Guy" (0, Troll)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281282)

This guy is completely worthless. The caller mostly understood what she was doing. It's not "illegal" as he claims. It's not really even as "risky" as he claims. She even mentions firewalling her systems after he claimed that evil hackers had access to all of her files.

He's pushing DSL service from one of his sponsors. He accuses the caller of "stealing" and "wire fraud" and then admits to doing the exact same thing. Personally I think he should be prosecuted, if he really believes that he's committed such a serious crime.

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (2, Interesting)

Faerunner (1077423) | more than 4 years ago | (#31283766)

It's called showmanship and every radio broadcaster out there does it, if he wants to keep his listener numbers high.

The woman actually seemed like she understood the basics of "stealing" internet service, but certainly didn't have much common sense if she had to call in just to agree with the guy's accusation that she's stealing.

Personally, I'd like to see some changes in the current systems before we go accusing people of theft for hopping on a wireless signal. For one thing, Windows automatically detects networks in the area, and a lot of the time will attempt to connect whether people ask it to or not. For the technologically inept, this method of connection may ensure that they can get on their neighbor's open signal without ever knowing what they're doing. And the basic router setup (Linksys routers appear to be ubiquitous) makes it easy to get online through an insecure network, because most people barely recognize how to use an included antivirus program, let alone a wireless security protocol. What it comes down to is that between the router default settings (broadcast without security) and the windows default settings (attempt to connect to the nearest network), it could be argued that idiot consumers aren't being given the house door and the key to unlock it; they're being given a house with an already-unlocked door, and told that if they want to get the key to lock the door they have to read the instruction manual - and for those people, reading a tech manual is equivalent to reading Latin.

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (0)

touchin_myself (1755036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289332)

You are full of crap windows will never ever automatically connect to a wireless AP unless you specifically tell it to. Without user input you will never have wifi on a windows machine, period.

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31293328)

Unless you happen to have your system set up to automatically connect to the Coffee Shops network (linksys) and someone else has the audacity to use the same SSID elsewhere...

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (1)

touchin_myself (1755036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31295558)

SO like i said... Windows will not automatically connect to an access point unless you specifically tell it to... If you have it automatically connecting to coffee shops etc. you deserve whatever happens.

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347524)

If you have it automatically connecting to coffee shops etc. you deserve whatever happens.

Free internet is what happens.

If somebody intentionally wants to give their internet away for free, that’s great by me. If they’re too dumb to know that they’re even doing that, well, that isn’t my problem.

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (1)

Faerunner (1077423) | more than 4 years ago | (#31299710)

My bad. I guess I meant to say that it automatically detects every network in range if the wireless is turned on, and pops up a notification (unless you disable them) which alerts you to the fact that there are networks in range should you desire to connect. Not quite as bad as automatically connecting, but if you do choose to connect to a network it offers the default of auto-connecting to that network in the future.

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#31319566)

If you're that inept, your AP at home is likely "Linksys", or perhaps you've used one in a coffee shop or something. The next time it sees that SSID, it connects automagically unless you turn it off.

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347510)

Certain versions, and certain wireless configuration utilities, may very well do just that. Are you familiar with all of them?

If nothing else, it notifies you that wireless networks are within range, and suggests that you connect to one of them... and guess which ones you’re able to connect to? The open ones.

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303294)

reading a tech manual is equivalent to reading Latin.

Tech manuals are frequently wrong. Believe me, I've written tech manuals and read Latin. Latin is nothing compared to some tech manuals.

I ran across one just a few weeks ago. The latest Panasonic televisions run embedded Linux, and connect to the internet to download programming information. They have an ethernet jack. The tech manual [tigerdirect.com] calls this a "PC Connection". It says that, in order to use a wireless network, you need a "Wireless Repeater".

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (1)

newdsfornerds (899401) | more than 4 years ago | (#31417572)

I doubt many ppl have been convicted of stealing WiFi. I agree that "borrowing" WiFi should not be a crime.
I keep hearing people say "they have to make it (computing) simpler" and "I just want to use my computer for email and all this other stuff just gets in the way." This attitude never lasts. People always want to do "other things" after a while. Most features are there because somebody uses them. The idiot consumer will always be with us and he doesn't want to put any effort into learning how to use his system.

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (1)

Crimsonjade (1011329) | more than 4 years ago | (#31295148)

He said someone could sniff the traffic. Her personal firewall is irrelevant here.

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31297408)

Using somebody's wireless network without permissions IS illegal. It is covered under the same laws that prevent you from walking over to your neighbors house and plugging in an extension cord to use their electricity.

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347450)

It is covered under the same laws that prevent you from walking over to your neighbors house and plugging in an extension cord to use their electricity.

Trespass?

If they left their extension cord draped over my privacy fence, damn right I’d be within my rights to plug my radio in.

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (1)

TheLuggage2008 (1199251) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373168)

Trespass?

If they left their extension cord draped over my privacy fence, damn right I’d be within my rights to plug my radio in.

Exactly! Just like the time when a neighbour of mine parked his car on my driveway while he was shoveling snow off his driveway... I went out and slapped a "for sale" sign on that puppy and made an easy $3,000. He was pissed, but I told him "if something of yours comes on to my property, it's mine to use any way I want".

Good thing he doesn't know about the time his wife came over to drop off some mis-delivered mail...

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373302)

Since the car magically rematerialized when he decided he wanted it back, I really don’t see why he would be upset.

Oh wait... it didn’t.

But if the aforementioned hypothetical neighbour with the extension cord doesn’t like the electric bill I racked up, he’s free to yank the cord back over to his side of the fence.

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31300652)

This guy is completely worthless. The caller mostly understood what she was doing. It's not "illegal" as he claims.

I disagree and you are a completely worthless fuck! It *is* illegal. No matter what Leo said about other things in the video he was completely correct about it being illegal. Taking what rightly belongs to another -- in this case their paid-for internet access -- is stealing and therefore ... illegal
dl52guns

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31301436)

So I suppose you're stealing Slashdot's bandwidth by posting your crap here?

Re:Worthless "Tech Guy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31349828)

In his defense, what's wrong with pushing your sponsor's product? Isn't that expected? Do you fault NASCAR teams for displaying their sponsors' logos on their cars?

Theft of services.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289542)

It all depends on where she lives. In some states it would constitute theft of services. In others it would not.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/ [uslegal.com]

password in clear? (1)

incripshin (580256) | more than 4 years ago | (#31301842)

Okay, I'm pretty sure Gmail never sent passwords over the clear. Like everybody else, they used encryption only for establishing credentials.

Yes, they did... Sort of. (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302542)

Okay, I'm pretty sure Gmail never sent passwords over the clear. Like everybody else, they used encryption only for establishing credentials.

Actually, Gmail used to have a login scheme where you could send your username and password as GET parameters encoded in the URL. If you weren't using encryption between your computer and router and that URL went out over the air, yeah, someone could have pulled it right out of the URL itself.

Re:password in clear? (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302578)

Define "everyone else," please.

nonsense (1)

dmfarley (1122069) | more than 4 years ago | (#31353670)

if you can get arrested for using someone else's wireless signal, then they can get arrested for trespassing. if the signal wasn't in your house, you wouldn't be able to use it!!

Re:nonsense (1)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373894)

if you can get arrested for using someone else's wireless signal, then they can get arrested for trespassing. if the signal wasn't in your house, you wouldn't be able to use it!!

But then, you would be arrested for trespassing by transmitting your HTTP requests into THEIR house.

Well, (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 4 years ago | (#31391780)

If they're going to beam THEIR microwaves onto MY property, then I'll be damned if I'm not going to beam microwaves of my own right back at them.

She knew she was stealing. (1)

newdsfornerds (899401) | more than 4 years ago | (#31417116)

What a moronic waste of skin.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...