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

[pony]

Nope, not with a normal private house.

You reckon someone will be done for trespass for walking into an open house
calling "anyone home"?

Back up your claims, profanity boy.

Nothing like.


You'd have to explain why you didnt just knock on the door.

Of course, you idiot. Stop trying to make pointless distinctions.

Complete pig ignorant drivel. You dont get to open
any unlocked door and walk inside any house you like.

Right, so opening a door saying, "Anyone home", a magistrate will actually
find you guilty of trespass or award civil damages to the occupier?

What's your answer? Profanity and abuse doesn't suffice.

Bullshit.

You're wrong, and all you can do is knee jerk profanity.

Back up your claim.

Completely different.

Yeah, "completely different". Back up your claim.

Nothing like.


Pig ignorant lie.

You're wrong Trespass has not been workable theory because the line
between participation in internet protocol and intentional access is too
difficult to draw.

In the case of wifi could I sue the network owner for his signal appearing
in my wifi list?

Of course not. The theory is too difficult. Thus the amendments to the
Telecoms and Broadcasting acts. You look them up, and back up your
claims -- without profanity.

 

[Colin ®]

Still total bullshit.

Well bugger you with your 'bullshit' to everything.

See you later when I have another question

 

[John]

Go ahead and use it. They wouldn't be able to prove who was tapping into
it.

Yes they would

 

[Colin ®]

in message
I'd drop that email addy. Could result in QRM

 

[Rod Speed]

You reckon someone will be done for trespass for walking into an open house
calling "anyone home"?

Nothing like your original pig ignorant drivel.

Of course, you idiot. Stop trying to make pointless distinctions.

Even a donkey should be able to bullshit its way out of
its predicament better than that pathetic effort, asschild.

Right, so opening a door saying, "Anyone home", a magistrate will actually
find you guilty of trespass or award civil damages to the occupier?

Nothing like your original, donkey.

You're wrong,
Nope.

and all you can do is knee jerk profanity.

Caught lying, as always.

Back up your claim.

Go and **** yourself.

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to do the backing up.

THATS how it works.

Yeah, "completely different". Back up your claim.

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to do the backing up.

THATS how it works.

You're wrong
Nope.

Trespass has not been workable theory because the line between participation
in internet protocol and intentional access is too difficult to draw.

Not a fucking clue, as always.

In the case of wifi could I sue the network owner for his signal appearing in
my wifi list?

Pathetic, really.

Of course not. The theory is too difficult. Thus the amendments to the
Telecoms and Broadcasting acts. You look them up, and back up your claims

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to do the backing up.

THATS how it works.

-- without profanity.

You get no say what so ever on anything at all, ever.

 

[Rod Speed]

Well bugger you with your 'bullshit' to everything.

Even a refugee from the biggest sheltered workshop
in the country should be able to bullshit its way out
of its predicament better than that pathetic effort.

 

[pony]

Nothing like your original pig ignorant drivel.

Wrong. This was precisely the scenario given.

Even a donkey should be able to bullshit its way out of
its predicament better than that pathetic effort, asschild.

What do you mean by this profane jibberish?

Not a fucking clue, as always.


Pathetic, really.

Err, should I take that as conceding defeat?

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to do the backing up.

THATS how it works.

You made the claim that wifi access = trespass. You back it up.



Now, here's a another chance for you to spew out some more profanity. Do
your worst.

 

[pony]

Yes they would

average home wireless network? playing the odds I think you would be safe.

if you are able to stop the wireless card sending its MAC address, then only
by radio triangulation would they be able to work out where you are. Who
would have that equipment on hand?

anyway, it would cost the network owner far more in legal fees than what
would be gained by pursuing it legally. Until this area is formally
regulated, you will be fine.

 

[The Real Andy]

True but you can break out of the wizard. What Deadly suggests is that you
have to use it ( I think)

PCs are sold as being as safe and easy as a toaster. WiFi is not and the
average punter does not know that and is not told.

They are told not to write their PIN number on their CC etc. but not told
that they have effectively done it by firing up an unsecured network using
the MS inbound-only FW.

MS firewall in XP SP2 does outbound filtering.

 

[Rod Speed]

Wrong. This was precisely the scenario given.

Lie.

It was YOUR pig ignorant drivel being discussed, liar.

So stupid that it didnt even delete that particular steaming turd.

What do you mean by this profane jibberish?

Nothing 'profane' about it, you silly little fuckwit donkeychild.

Err, should I take that as conceding defeat?

Even a donkey should be able to bullshit its way out of
its predicament better than that pathetic effort, asschild.

You made the claim that wifi access = trespass.

Lying, again.

You back it up.

You go and **** yourself, again.

<reams of your peurile shit even a stupid lying donkey
should be able to do better flushed where it belongs<

 

[Rod Speed]

average home wireless network? playing the odds I think

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

you would be safe.

Nothing like your original pig ignorant shit, asschild.

if you are able to stop the wireless card sending its MAC address,

You cant, you pig ignorant shit asschild.

then only by radio triangulation would they be able to work out where you are.
Who would have that equipment on hand?

Pathetic, really.

anyway, it would cost the network owner far more in legal fees than what would
be gained by pursuing it legally.

Nothing like your original pig ignorant shit, asschild.

Until this area is formally regulated, you will be fine.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you've never ever had a fucking clue.

 

[pony]

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

average home wifi network would have sufficient logging to incriminate
someone? good onya.

Nothing like your original pig ignorant shit, asschild.


You cant, you pig ignorant shit asschild.

can't spoof the mac address on a wireless card? idiot.

Pathetic, really.

what is this supposed to mean? you give up? thought so.

Nothing like your original pig ignorant shit, asschild.

what? in english?

 

[pony]

perhaps need to look up 'profane' in the dictionary, Rod?

regardless, the pattern seems to be that when someone else knows a bit about
something that you don't, you explode into rage of profane insults. it's a
bit pointless really.

 

[Rod Speed]

perhaps need to look up 'profane' in the dictionary, Rod?

Nope, donkey.

regardless, the pattern seems to be that when someone else knows a bit about
something that you don't,

Lying, as always. You dont know a damned thing
about what is illegal and are so stupid that you cant
even manage to work out the difference between a
normal house and a shop, or anything else at all, either.

you explode into rage of profane insults.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, asschild.

it's a bit pointless really.

Pathetic, really.

Keep desperately lying, you might actually
manage to fool someone, sometime.

 

[Rod Speed]

average home wifi network would have sufficient logging to incriminate
someone?

Nothing like your original steaming turd, you flagrantly dishonest arsehole.

can't spoof the mac address on a wireless card? idiot.

Not a fucking clue, as always.

what is this supposed to mean? you give up? thought so.

Pathetic, really.

what? in english?

Pathetic, really.

 

[Peter]

Thanks Rod, got it.

Colin

This might interest you.

http://airsnort.shmoo.com/

 

[Colin ®]

Even a refugee from the biggest sheltered workshop
in the country should be able to bullshit its way out
of its predicament better than that pathetic effort.

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


Cheers,
Colin

 

[Martin]

You reckon someone will be done for trespass for walking into an open
house calling "anyone home"?

Back up your claims, profanity boy.

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.

 

[Martin]

Not break, just enter.

"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...

There's a reason its a bouncer...

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...

 

[Rod Speed]

"Break" refers to the breaking of a seal, not necessarily a lock,
Correct.

so if the door is closed it is taken as "sealed" and that "seal" has to be
"broken" in order to enter...
Wrong.

At least that's how it was explained in every security course I've ever seen,
including Police Officers as instructors.

Its total bullshit.

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...

Just opening a closed door doesnt qualify as break.

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...

He could have bounced you |-)