Video: The most clueless radio show caller ever?

posted at 1:20 pm on February 28, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Okay, let’s be honest. All of us, at one time or another, have poached on a wi-fi network in order to get Internet access while on the road. Even Leo LaPorte, the host of The Tech Guy radio show, admitted he’s done it, too, on occasion. However, he’s never been clueless enough to whine about losing access to the wi-fi router after poaching for over a year and a half from home, or asking for technical assistance to get access back into it again (via Melissa Clouthier):

Leo’s right; technically, this is theft, although no one’s going to arrest anyone for it. You’re taking resources (especially bandwidth) from people who have to pay for it. It’s not theft when using the public networks that businesses set up for their customers, such as Panera and other coffee shops, although it’s arguably unethical if one uses their networks without at least buying something from them. When using a private but unencrypted network for more than 18 months, that’s a completely different matter, ethically if not legally.

What are the morals to this story? If you have a wireless network in your house, encrypt it immediately, and make sure you check once in a while to ensure that only your devices are on the network. If you have to travel extensively (or just are out of the house on a regular basis), then get a wireless access device through the cell phone companies. I use Verizon’s MiFi 2200, and it works great; I can even network a few PCs off of it if I need to do so. For the home, get a bundled package from the phone or cable company for your own Internet connection. Remember that any unencrypted access point not only allows you access to the Internet, it allows the network access to your PC and the stream of communication you’re creating between your PC and the Internet. It’s like having sex with strangers and not using a condom; you’ll only get lucky for so long before getting a disease.

And if you poach someone else’s Internet access for 18 months, don’t whine when it disappears or call into tech shows to try to get it back — unless you really enjoy being an example to others and exposing yourself as a clueless cheapskate. As for her final defense, that the price of broadband Internet access drove her to poaching, it’s a great example of the entitlement mentality in current vogue — and her “someone should make it cheaper” demand is the impulse that drives statism.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

she should run for congress.

therightscoop on February 28, 2010 at 1:23 PM

good grief

BobH on February 28, 2010 at 1:24 PM

she should run for congress.

therightscoop on February 28, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Louise, honey, is that you?

Ed Morrissey on February 28, 2010 at 1:25 PM

This is why you use MAC address filtering.

Oh, and WPA/WPA2 encryption.

Ryan Anthony on February 28, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Remember that any unencrypted access point not only allows you access to the Internet, it allows the network access to your PC and the stream of communication you’re creating between your PC and the Internet. It’s like having sex with strangers and not using a condom; you’ll only get lucky for so long before getting a disease.

Even with friends and family, something hazardous is likely to happen…

ninjapirate on February 28, 2010 at 1:28 PM

If people don’t encrypt their networks, it is they who allow others to use their networks.

infidel on February 28, 2010 at 1:28 PM

I don’t even think we need to ask about her politics.

AUINSC on February 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM

If you have a wireless network in your house, encrypt it immediately, and make sure you check once in a while to ensure that only your devices are on the network

Sounds like good advice, but I have no idea how to ‘encrypt it’.

?????

bridgetown on February 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Leo’s right; technically, this is theft, although no one’s going to arrest anyone for it.

No, it isn’t, really. It would unbelievably rare for the wi-fi owner to be pushed out because someone else is pushing them on bandwidth. One the rare ocassions when that might happen, if the wi-fi owner is properly aware of the problem and can remedy it without more than a few fingerstrokes. I hardly consider that theft, in any real sense.

The danger in having people poach off of ones wi-fi is not some “theft of bandwidth” but in having the person send threatening letters to the White House or doing other illegal things, which will be traced back to the owner’s wi-fi and made his responsibility. It is, in that sense, identity theft.

Still, the wi-fi owner has the responsibility to take the minimal precautions necessary to avoid this, and should be aware of this problem.

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM

If people don’t encrypt their networks, it is they who allow others to use their networks.

infidel on February 28, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Practically speaking, yes, but ethically, no. If I leave my garage door open and someone takes my snowblower, I’ve “allowed” them to do that, but it’s still theft.

Ed Morrissey on February 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM

and her “someone should make it cheaper” demand is the impulse that drives statism.

One a few that drive statism. Ignorance is not an impulse (unless it\’s willful ignorance) but one underlying defect that drives statism-\”The state (socialism/progressivism) is that fiction that everyone can live well at the expense of everyone else.”-Bastiat

Amendment X on February 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Whatever you try to do, don’t attempt to set up a wireless print server!

daesleeper on February 28, 2010 at 1:33 PM

What do you mean “maybe they moved?” Nobody consulted me!

What a joke.

Dash on February 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM

*facepalm*

Ingenue on February 28, 2010 at 1:36 PM

No, it isn’t, really.

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Yes, it is.

John the Libertarian on February 28, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Yea; Congress would welcome her with much fanfare.
Especially since she truly has the “entitlement mentality” firmly implanted.

Cybergeezer on February 28, 2010 at 1:37 PM

If I leave my garage door open and someone takes my snowblower

Al Gore will get that right back to you.

Spirit of 1776 on February 28, 2010 at 1:37 PM

If I leave my garage door open and someone takes my snowblower, I’ve “allowed” them to do that, but it’s still theft.

Ed Morrissey on February 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM

You are equating the use of something, which doesn’t affect the owner, which stealing something (i.e. keeping it and disallowing the owner from using it, again).

No. Poaching wi-fi is better compared to you having a couple of basketball courts on your property and neighborhood kids using one, every so often, without your knowledge or affecting you in any way. Is it tresspassing? Without a fence or a sign warning them not to play on the courts? I doubt it, especially given how our legal geniuses have decided to treat an “attractive nuisance”. It is definitely not immoral to play on your courts, if it doesn’t affect you.

The big legal key would be when someone sues the wi-fi owner for something that happened while poaching on his wi-fi. But, as with attractive nuisances, we all know how our courts would rule on that …

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Another example is a household that drops their trash into the neighbor’s trash tote so that they don’t have to pay for trash service.

capricorn on February 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Another suggestion: If it works for signal strength, put the wireless router downstairs in your basement. That way the wireless signal broadcasts up, not out.

Amendment X on February 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Does this mean my tip calculator has been compromised?

BL@KBIRD on February 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM

She wants something for nothing; is definitely a Democrat.

Tasha on February 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM

On an open WiFi access, someone can download movies, or watch streaming video, and take up an enormous amount of bandwidth.
And, additionally, cause your bill to go up for the extra megs.

Cybergeezer on February 28, 2010 at 1:42 PM

I’ve never heard of “DSL Extreme”. I’m trying to dump AT&T, anyone know if it’s any good?

Knucklehead on February 28, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Some providers will terminate your service for too much usage.
Check your provider.

Cybergeezer on February 28, 2010 at 1:45 PM

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Uh…. no….

We push the limits of our internet bandwidth all the time in my house.

Ergo, if someone else is using the same bandwidth, all of our downloads slow down.

I PAY for a specific amount of bandwidth… if someone else is using part of that, it is not available for me… it IS theft.

Romeo13 on February 28, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Not only could of they moved or locked it up ect, they could of had it disconnected for missed payments.

tjexcite on February 28, 2010 at 1:47 PM

I’ve never heard of “DSL Extreme”. I’m trying to dump AT&T, anyone know if it’s any good?

Knucklehead on February 28, 2010 at 1:44 PM

I believe that is just the speed of a DSL product and that it is AT&T also.

Vince on February 28, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

fivefeetoffury on February 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM

I’ve never heard of “DSL Extreme”. I’m trying to dump AT&T, anyone know if it’s any good?

Knucklehead on February 28, 2010 at 1:44 PM

I haven’t, but I’ve heard Verizon has a similar price. Also, threaten to drop ATT, they might lower their price.

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Whenever I install a wireless router I always turn on the password protection. It’s a pain trying to get the customer to remember the password, but it keeps them safe.

JimK on February 28, 2010 at 1:49 PM

That woman is an example of democrat entitlement.

Ironic thing is, Leo Laporte is a huge Obama fan.

cubachi on February 28, 2010 at 1:49 PM

I PAY for a specific amount of bandwidth… if someone else is using part of that, it is not available for me… it IS theft.

Romeo13 on February 28, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Then it is incumbent upon you to secure your wi-fi access, which I’m sure you do. Wi-fi extends past your property and leaving it open is an invite to people, not on your property, to use something flying through the air. The point is that you have no right to broadcast your access to the world and then demand that the world not use it, outside of your property.

Of course, this is all moot, really, as it takes all of two seconds to secure ones wi-fi. But once you broadcast the access outside of your property you are inviting the world to use it.

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:49 PM

If people don’t encrypt their networks, it is they who allow others to use their networks.

infidel on February 28, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Practically speaking, yes, but ethically, no. If I leave my garage door open and someone takes my snowblower, I’ve “allowed” them to do that, but it’s still theft.

Ed Morrissey on February 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM

The analogy holds if the person ‘accidentally’ leaves their wi-fi unencrypted. My home wi-fi is unencrypted, deliberately so. Anyone using it is not engaging in theft, they are partaking of a gift freely given. If it ever becomes a problem I will encrypt, to date that has not been necessary.

Enkidu on February 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM

How long before our government decides that this is a big enough problem that we need a new set of laws to ensure that bandwidth theft is prosecuted? I suspect right after the NBC news special on the subject.

conservnut on February 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM

No. Poaching wi-fi is better compared to you having a couple of basketball courts on your property and neighborhood kids using one, every so often, without your knowledge or affecting you in any way. Is it tresspassing? Without a fence or a sign warning them not to play on the courts?

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Yes

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM

I believe that is just the speed of a DSL product and that it is AT&T also.

Vince on February 28, 2010 at 1:47 PM

It’s doesn’t look like it. I’m looking at their webpage and products right now.

Knucklehead on February 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM

This is one stupid woman.

ladyingray on February 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM

I have AT&T DSL and am completely happy with it. The tech support is great and I have a “Gateway” which allows me to use my laptop anywhere around the house. I can also print using my laptop from the back porch or kitchen. It is encrypted and secure.

Vince on February 28, 2010 at 1:52 PM

I PAY for a specific amount of bandwidth… if someone else is using part of that, it is not available for me… it IS theft.

Romeo13 on February 28, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Oh, yeah… good point.

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 1:52 PM

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM

That is still trespassing. It might be without your knowledge, but it is trespassing.

and Wi-fi does not “invite” people.

Ingenue on February 28, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Then it is incumbent upon you to secure your wi-fi access, which I’m sure you do.

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Not really. Someone that is using his wi-fi without his permission is well, using it without his permission. That’s like going into the grocery store and stealing something because the grocery store didn’t have an adequate security system. Still stealing.

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Broadband is actually pretty cheap, at least for what you get, which is ACCESS TO THE WHOLE DARNED WORLD FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. If you don’t want to pay for it, go to the public library.

Although from time to time my wifi will go belly up and I find myself connected to a nearby unencrypted signal–I have no idea whose it is. The computer automatically searches for another signal if the main one goes down, I guess. I usually only notice when the printer–which is set up to work with our wifi–won’t communicate with the Mac.

It’s like I tell my students about using colored pencils in class–yeah, you can use mine, but they might be stubs and not the colors you want. If you want to use pencils that you like, buy your own.

Bob's Kid on February 28, 2010 at 1:54 PM

Great poster. How much you wanna bet she’s a democrat?

Mojave Mark on February 28, 2010 at 1:54 PM

I got a hundred bucks that says the caller was an Obama voter.

jukin on February 28, 2010 at 1:55 PM

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Yes, my basketball analogy was almost as bad as Ed’s snowblowers being stolen. I fixed that in my response to Romeo. When someone BROADCASTS access outside of their property, the onus is on them to secure it, not on those outside of their property to know not to try to access it. I mean, that would be like you broadcasting video of your family and then demanding that no one else look at it. The Wi-fi broadcaster is actively putting a signal into the public domain and the onus is on the transmitter to secure that signal, not on everyone else – especaily as most wireless connections will automatically search for any wireless available, and everyone knows that.

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:56 PM

I got a hundred bucks that says the caller was an Obama voter.

jukin on February 28, 2010 at 1:55 PM

That or she was too lazy to even go out and vote.

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 1:56 PM

How many times have we heard that access to the internet should be ‘free’. Yet these same idiots look shocked when you suggest that they work ‘for free’.

GarandFan on February 28, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Must be an Obama seminar caller.

BKennedy on February 28, 2010 at 1:57 PM

We lived in a duplex and ordered cable. The cable guy found the neighbors were bootlegging service and clipped them. The folks got mad at us.

gooddad on February 28, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Yes, my basketball analogy was almost as bad as Ed’s snowblowers being stolen. I fixed that in my response to Romeo. When someone BROADCASTS access outside of their property, the onus is on them to secure it, not on those outside of their property to know not to try to access it. I mean, that would be like you broadcasting video of your family and then demanding that no one else look at it. The Wi-fi broadcaster is actively putting a signal into the public domain and the onus is on the transmitter to secure that signal, not on everyone else – especaily as most wireless connections will automatically search for any wireless available, and everyone knows that.

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:56 PM

OK, so what do you say about copyright laws and such? I mean, even if I go and buy a CD, that doesn’t mean I can duplicate it and then sell it… Even though the actual CD is my property, the contents on the CD belong to the artist (both legally and to some extent philosophically speaking)

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

We lived in a duplex and ordered cable. The cable guy found the neighbors were bootlegging service and clipped them. The folks got mad at us.

gooddad on February 28, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Closest to the real problem with this. The woman isn’t really stealing from her neighbor, she’s stealing from the ISP.

Right-brained on February 28, 2010 at 2:01 PM

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Uh…. no… legaly you are incorrect.

Thats like saying “he didn’t lock his bike at the grocery store, so it was OK I stole it”.

Romeo13 on February 28, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Sad thing is if more people quit freeloading and paid for service competition would bring the price down.

Right-brained on February 28, 2010 at 2:02 PM

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Not “everyone” when my parents had their wireless installed the installer mentioned nothing about encryption or any of that. The only reason I knew anything about it is because my husband is an internet guru and had to fix his parents own wireless when he came back from college because it was broadcasting. This isn’t something that “everyone” knows about.

Ingenue on February 28, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Remember that any unencrypted access point not only allows you access to the Internet, it allows the network access to your PC and the stream of communication you’re creating between your PC and the Internet. It’s like having sex with strangers and not using a condom; you’ll only get lucky for so long before getting a disease.

I hate it when my PC gets the clap.

boomer on February 28, 2010 at 2:03 PM

You are equating the use of something, which doesn’t affect the owner, which stealing something (i.e. keeping it and disallowing the owner from using it, again).

No. Poaching wi-fi is better compared to you having a couple of basketball courts on your property and neighborhood kids using one, every so often, without your knowledge or affecting you in any way. Is it tresspassing? Without a fence or a sign warning them not to play on the courts? I doubt it, especially given how our legal geniuses have decided to treat an “attractive nuisance”. It is definitely not immoral to play on your courts, if it doesn’t affect you.

The big legal key would be when someone sues the wi-fi owner for something that happened while poaching on his wi-fi. But, as with attractive nuisances, we all know how our courts would rule on that …

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM

So using a resource that isn’t available for free and doesn’t belong to you is not stealing? Really?

The basketball court analogy doesn’t hold up. It’ more like downloading movies and video games. Is it stealing? You haven’t taken a physical object from a store or caused anybody to incur a loss of money that they already invested. So, by your definition it’s not really stealing, is it? It is because you are using something that you should not have access to and not paying the entity that provides it, in this case the internet provider, what is due for providing it. You prevent them from making a profit on their investment. That is definitely stealing.

The basketball analogy would be better if it were a fenced in private court that charges admission and the kids found the gate unlocked by accident. Not only are they trespassing they are also stealing the admission price.

oddjob1138 on February 28, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Poaching wi-fi is better compared to you having a couple of basketball courts on your property and neighborhood kids using one, every so often, without your knowledge or affecting you in any way. Is it tresspassing? Without a fence or a sign warning them not to play on the courts? neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM
Yes MeatHeadinCA

I agree. If it is on my property, neighborhood kids need an invitation to use it. If they aren’t given permission, keep out. They have no business being on my property. But about the internet password protection, just do it-cheap insurance.

indypat on February 28, 2010 at 2:04 PM

oddjob1138 on February 28, 2010 at 2:03 PM

But those downloadable movies and games are inviting people to download them!

;-)

Ingenue on February 28, 2010 at 2:05 PM

The analogy holds if the person ‘accidentally’ leaves their wi-fi unencrypted. My home wi-fi is unencrypted, deliberately so. Anyone using it is not engaging in theft, they are partaking of a gift freely given. If it ever becomes a problem I will encrypt, to date that has not been necessary.

Enkidu on February 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM

That’s mighty generous of you to allow people to eat up the bandwidth everyone else is paying for.

boomer on February 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Mixed feelings about this one. I have a family member who has been poaching off her neighbor for years. It makes me really uncomfortable. But then I have a friend who deliberately leaves his wifi unencrypted, specifically so others can piggyback.

It’s not exactly difficult to encrypt, so I suppose if you choose not to, it’s probably because you don’t care either way.

entropent on February 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM

But about the internet password protection, just do it-cheap insurance.

indypat on February 28, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Of course one should. But lack of precautions shouldn’t lead to lack protection for a victim

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Enkidu on February 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM

I just would like to say . . . you’re clueless.

Ingenue on February 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Enkidu on February 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM

You go ahead and explain that to the FBI after someone uses your “gift” tO upload or download massive amounts of kiddie porn.

thphilli on February 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Proly voted for obambam

grapeknutz on February 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM

I called my local newspaper to complain that I’m no longer able to find the morning paper in front of my neighbor’s house any more.

/sarc

gregbert on February 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM

But then I have a friend who deliberately leaves his wifi unencrypted, specifically so others can piggyback.

entropent on February 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM

And that friend can change his mind whenever they want. Also, they probably won’t be pressing charges and such.

I mean, certain artists actually encourage their fans to burn CDs and such… that doesn’t mean in general, fans have a right to burn everyone’s CDs and distribute in some way.

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM

gregbert on February 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Thank you for that. Hahaha

Ingenue on February 28, 2010 at 2:12 PM

What some people don’t seem to understand is that there is only so much bandwidth. If everyone who used it paid for it then the companies could expand the available amount of bandwidth and give everyone better access. The problem is if you have people who are not paying for the service then that is bandwidth being used up and no money coming in to pay for expanding the service. It’s hard on everyone that way. I live in a rural area and bandwidth is at a premium here. I pay $80 a month for 500k and that speed actually rarely happens. What we actually pay for is a percentage of the available bandwidth and that isn’t a very big percentage. Seriously. The fiber cables in the area are full and all those who are stealing access only make it more expensive for those who are paying for it.

boomer on February 28, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Of course one should. But lack of precautions shouldn’t lead to lack protection for a victim

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Wrap it our ‘clap’ it, Meat? Yeah, if I found out my neighbors were stealing bandwidth, I’d make sure to go pee in their pool or throw a Baby Ruth in it….

HornetSting on February 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM

It’s also a byproduct of the moral relativism of the age–your service provider may think it wrong of me to poach, and you might think it wrong of me to poach; but what’s that got to do with me?

Chris_Balsz on February 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM

One item not addressed with WiFi routers is antennas. The antennas you get with the routers are bare minimum for the system to work, unless you have an upgrade other than the basic router.
Buying an antenna with more “gain” can create better access for the intended users, and not broadcast to the neighbors.
Most people opt to buy “more power” to get their signal strength boosted for optimum performance throughout their house. Venders make good money on signal relays, and power boosters.
A better antenna can accomplish better signal strength, and not end up competing with your local A.M radio station.
Also, microwave ovens work on the same frequency as many WiFi routers.
You might notice slower, or dropped connections, when using your microwave oven. Some wireless phones use the same frequency, also.

Cybergeezer on February 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM

What would be the parasite’s excuse had her computer infected the host system from whom she was mooching?

Just because something is not secured like Ft. Knox doesn’t mean it is public domain. I recommend the clueless caller camp out in someone unsuspecting person’s front yard because there is no fence around it. Preferably in rural Texas. Then whine loudly about it. She should be careful to bring along some tweezers. Those should help with removing the many bird shot pellets from her posterior.

viking01 on February 28, 2010 at 2:14 PM

If she works in the public sector, I can understand her confusion. Lots of things are “free” there.

RBMN on February 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

fivefeetoffury on February 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Sadly, sometimes I think the same thing.

AsianGirlInTights on February 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Wrap it our ‘clap’ it, Meat? Yeah, if I found out my neighbors were stealing bandwidth, I’d make sure to go pee in their pool or throw a Baby Ruth in it….

HornetSting on February 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM

I’d throw a tootsie roll in their pool :D

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM

neurosculptor’s position is a farce. It deliberately ignores all the illegal activities that could be conducted via an unsecure network which would only trace back to the OWNER of the stolen connection. Online gambling. Internet harassment / bullying. Music and movie intellectual property sharing / theft sites. Child Porn sharing sites. Threats against anybody. Threats against politicians / the President.
Nuerosculptor would pretend these things don’t exist. And that people who do them wouldn’t be deliberately looking to mask themselves by using someone else’s open connection.

‘Theft of services’ is NOT about inconveniencing the legitimate owner, as nuerosculptor pretends with his basketball court analogy. He’s an unethical scumbag trying to paper over his own thefts, no doubt.

rayra on February 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM

OK, so what do you say about copyright laws and such? I mean, even if I go and buy a CD, that doesn’t mean I can duplicate it and then sell it… Even though the actual CD is my property, the contents on the CD belong to the artist (both legally and to some extent philosophically speaking)

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

You know that copyright laws say that you must put the copyright declaration on the papers/Cd’s/etc. to alert people of it. THis is comparable to requiring you to do the minimum of securing your wi-fi before it is broadcast outside of your property.

As I wrote above, most wireless connections will automatically search for any open access and connect to it. People who use wi-fi are responsible for understanding what they are doing, as they are actively broadcasting, and, if you consider other connections to them to be illegal, they are almost entrapping people whose wireless connections are scanning the air for any open connection – as they all do by default.

Also, as I wrote above, people open themselves up to many legal problems if someone decides to jump on their wi-fi and do something illegal. But, the onus is on the individual broadcasting access to control that access, which is exceedingly simple. Copyright law says that you must include the copyright on pieces that you put out for public access.

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM

viking01 on February 28, 2010 at 2:14 PM

But if you drive cattle across a guy’s land for 18 months you may have an easement.

Chris_Balsz on February 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

neurosculptor’s position is a farce. It deliberately ignores all the illegal activities that could be conducted via an unsecure network which would only trace back to the OWNER of the stolen connection.

rayra on February 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM

I most certainly did address that.

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Ed, the radio caller you Tweeted about scared the hell out of me. Directed from the Obama website, and he hasn’t quite calculated how many millions will need to be killed to pull off his Socialist utopia. Scary times.

sybilll on February 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Heh – I’m a Mac tech peson and I’ve had my wireless network set up since 2001. Initially, I didn’t lock it down only because it was kind of a PITA – and not many people were leeching in those days. It was also before I did any banking or other critical communication on the internet, too. I did, however, check it on [rare] occasion to see if anyone was using my bandwidth. In early 2003 we had some shady neighbors move in and I thought I’d better take another peek at my network activity and, lo and behold, NINE moochers were logged on! Right then and there, I locked it down — TIGHT! I also renamed my wireless network “Reality Distortion Field” because it cracks me up when I “see” it listed among the other generic “linksys” and unimaginative names. ;-) [Look it up, non-Apple people!]

Logic on February 28, 2010 at 2:19 PM

fivefeetoffury on February 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM

AsianGirlInTights on February 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Ditto

Ingenue on February 28, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Wrap it our ‘clap’ it, Meat? Yeah, if I found out my neighbors were stealing bandwidth, I’d make sure to go pee in their pool or throw a Baby Ruth in it….

HornetSting on February 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM
I’d throw a tootsie roll in their pool :D

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Sorry, Caddyshack. FTW~it looks like ‘CORN’!

HornetSting on February 28, 2010 at 2:19 PM

You know that copyright laws say that you must put the copyright declaration on the papers/Cd’s/etc. to alert people of it. THis is comparable to requiring you to do the minimum of securing your wi-fi before it is broadcast outside of your property.

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Well, as the TechGuy pointed out, what she did was illegal (I don’t know if it is, for sure. Is he lying?) That said, let’s say that using someone’s wifi without their permission isn’t illegal because the wifi client didn’t give ample warning. Is it still stealing? You’re putting yourself in a strange position. Are you willing to philosophically defend the person unwilling to pay for wifi simply because they weren’t warned that it was stealing?

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:21 PM

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Further, as far as copyright laws go, my understanding is that certain companies couldn’t (I think the copyright has expired now) use the happy birthday song… Every one knows the lyrics so they wouldn’t see any copyright warning. It was still illegal though if a restaurant used it.

People do have a responsibility to figure out what the laws are when it comes to using other peoples property.

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM

it looks like ‘CORN’!

HornetSting on February 28, 2010 at 2:19 PM

A tootsie roll with corn?

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Also, is a rapists allowed to have intercourse with someone if they don’t say, “I don’t want to be raped” ?

No.

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Are you willing to philosophically defend the person unwilling to pay for wifi simply because they weren’t warned that it was stealing?

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:21 PM

No one has the “right” to continued use of an open wi-fi. THat is a totally untenable position and I don’t defend anyone who claims that. What I am saying is that if you decide to broadcast access to your internet connection, it is your responsibility to secure it if you don’t want others to access it.

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM

There are people who have been caught and fined for it, along with court supervision or community service . . .

Ingenue on February 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

I don’t want to pay for her mortgage or insurance either.

yoda on February 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

No one has the “right” to continued use of an open wi-fi. THat is a totally untenable position and I don’t defend anyone who claims that. What I am saying is that if you decide to broadcast access to your internet connection, it is your responsibility to secure it if you don’t want others to access it.

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Of the course the owner has a responsibility to him/herself to secure their connection.

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:29 PM

yoda on February 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Gas money?

Ingenue on February 28, 2010 at 2:29 PM

But if you drive cattle across a guy’s land for 18 months you may have an easement.

Chris_Balsz on February 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Maybe, and given that with modern Junk Justice, damn near every thing or politician buy able is “legal.” Yet she doesn’t seem the type to claim she’s herding cattle or inspecting the water lines. She would be wise to have the paperwork in billboard size print when playing a frontier game. One which even a seedy shyster sent out on commission to harass might not be willing to risk.

viking01 on February 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

There are people who have been caught and fined for it, along with court supervision or community service . . .

Ingenue on February 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

So taking someone elses wifi is considered stealing – in a legal sense?

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

She lost her access…

… I was wondering where Grow Fins has been lately.

Seven Percent Solution on February 28, 2010 at 2:31 PM

fivefeetoffury on February 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM

AsianGirlInTights on February 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Ingenue on February 28, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Nice. How about if you substitute “women” for “blacks?” All of three of you are cretins.

entropent on February 28, 2010 at 2:32 PM

So taking someone elses wifi is considered stealing – in a legal sense?

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Yes it is. I remeber a few years ago some guy in NYC got busted for parking out in front of a coffee shop that offered wifi to it’s customers. Somebody in the store thought he was acting creepy and called the cops. He was charged and convicted for stealing their wifi even though it was offered inside the store to customers for free.

boomer on February 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM

MeatHeadinCA on February 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Yep, pretty much. There were cases in Illinois, Michigan, and Florida of people illegally accessing wifi.

Ingenue on February 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5