Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet - Firewalls

This is a discussion on Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet - Firewalls ; chilly8@hotmail.com wrote: > X_ > > On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote: > >>In article , >> >> chil...@hotmail.com wrote: >> >>>I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin >>>boards, where people do "live blogging" ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 56

Thread: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

  1. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet

    chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

    > X_
    >
    > On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
    >
    >>In article <1191537468.980076.55...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.c om>,
    >>
    >> chil...@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >>>I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
    >>>boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
    >>>many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
    >>>wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
    >>>Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
    >>>post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
    >>>Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
    >>>GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
    >>>arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
    >>>someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
    >>>bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
    >>>Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
    >>>security system to do it.

    >>
    >> Well I am certainly going to take the word and actions of a live
    >>figure skating blogger when it comes to the law.

    >
    >
    > Well, the admins at GoldenSkate and Figure Skating Universe that I
    > have talked to about this have TOLD me that it is LEGAL for live-
    > bloggers to hiijack nearby wireless access points, for sending back
    > reports, as long as they do not crack any password or other security
    > scheme to connect, and as long as they are not in Canada or England.
    > They ALLOW users to do this, becuase as far as admins at BOTH sites
    > are concerned, what the live bloggers are doing is LEGAL. I have been
    > TOLD that it is LEGAL in most places to do this
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>>So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
    >>>then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
    >>>and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
    >>>are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
    >>>states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
    >>>break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
    >>>to gain access to her wirelsss router.

    >>
    >> So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
    >>were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
    >>secede?

    >
    >
    > I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
    > U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
    > Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces.


    14 Canadian Provinces ?? LMAO ..
    Your a fool son.

    > So America has 49 states,
    > Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.
    >


  2. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

    >> In Germany a woman recently tried that defense. Got charged for aiding
    >> and abetting then, as the judge ruled that everybody who runs a
    >> wireless router can be expected to either learn about the risks or pay
    >> for somebody to configure it properly.

    >
    >
    > As I had said already, its the computer crime laws of most
    > jurisdictions. Outside of Canada, England, and a handful of U.S.
    > states, if you have an unsecured WAP, this it is considered PUBLIC in
    > the eyes of the law. Its so simple, if there is NO password,
    > encryption, or other security scheme saying "keep out", then you
    > CANNOT prosecute somoene who finds it and uses it, just for using your
    > access point. While they COULD be prosecuted for downloading pirated
    > music, if caught, they CANNOT be prosecuted JUST for using your
    > unsecured wireless access point. Why do you think all those lists of
    > open proxy servers exist on the Net? Because in most jursidctions it
    > is LEGAL to find one of the list and use it, until such time as the
    > put up the afforementioned security barriers.


    You misunderstood. It's not about punishing people who USE open Wifi
    networks.

    It's about a woman who downloaded pirated music, claimed "Oh, somebody
    must have used my open Wifi", and got told by the judge that she gets
    at least part of the blame for the pirating.

    USING open proxies etc. is legal in Germany, too - but if somebody does
    something illegal using such a proxy, the owner of the proxy can get
    serious trouble... hardly news for proxy operators, of course, but the
    new twist here was that the judge ruled that neglecting standard
    security precautions (encrypting the Wifi) is not a viable excuse
    anymore, as EVERY Internet user can be expected to learn how to use his
    equipment or to pay somebody to properly install it.

    Logical next step would be to punish all the people who run zombies :-)


    Juergen Nieveler
    --
    Error #152 - Windows not found: (C)heer (P)arty (D)ance.

  3. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    chilly8@hotmail.com wrote in
    news:1191537468.980076.55230@k79g2000hse.googlegro ups.com:

    [snip]

    > I use encryption when going to Australian Customs, becuase one pieve
    > of software that I use on my station, for making station IDs, and
    > arching my talk show could be considred a "tool" for breaking copy
    > protection under far more stricter DMCA-like laws in Australia. Alive
    > WMAMP3Recorder could, sooner or later, be declared illegal the new
    > Australian laws, becuase it can also be used to cirumvent DRM, which
    > has recently become illegal in Australia. To prevent problems with
    > Australian authorities, whenever I return to Australia from abroad, I
    > keep that softwware encrypted and locked, so Australian Customs will
    > not be able to open it or read it. As the saying goes "they cannot
    > prosecute what they cannot read".


    Carrying a chunk of encrypted data through national borders in todays
    paranoid culture - a world where we have to take our shoes off before we
    get on a plane - seems to me to be a sub-optimal solution.

    Also, it's of doubtful use for the UK where RIPA means they could have
    powers to force you to provide decryption keys or face a two year sentence.


  4. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    In article , Brody
    wrote:

    > 14 Canadian Provinces ?? LMAO ..
    > Your a fool son.


    I think the OP just looked at the colo(u)rs on the map. Ten provinces,
    plus the Yukon, NWT, Nunavit, and hmm ... well, it does say Newfoundland
    _and_ Labrador, doesn't it?
    --
    W. Oates

  5. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    In article <47061b45$0$14926$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    Warren Oates wrote:

    > In article , Brody
    > wrote:
    >
    > > 14 Canadian Provinces ?? LMAO ..
    > > Your a fool son.

    >
    > I think the OP just looked at the colo(u)rs on the map. Ten provinces,
    > plus the Yukon, NWT, Nunavit, and hmm ... well, it does say Newfoundland
    > _and_ Labrador, doesn't it?


    But you gotta remember that this was the person talking about "all 49
    states".. geography (or counting) doesn't appear to be a strong suit.

  6. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    On Oct 4, 5:59 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
    > In article <1191537468.980076.55...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.c om>,
    > > under Federal law, and the laws of 45
    > > states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
    > > break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
    > > to gain access to her wirelsss router.

    >
    > So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
    > were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
    > secede?


    No, it was Texas...we seceded and formed our own planet.



  7. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    The only way to do it is to go to a pubic wi-fi place to download. You
    will be safe then.



  8. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    In article <1191649546.662002.247720@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.c om>,
    zcarenow@yahoo.com says...
    > The only way to do it is to go to a pubic wi-fi place to download. You
    > will be safe then.


    Only if they don't keep logs. Since a MAC is unique, if the public WI-FI
    spot was to register your MAC before giving you the key, you would be no
    safer.

    To allow anonymous access is stupid.

    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

  9. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    Leythos wrote:

    > Only if they don't keep logs. Since a MAC is unique, if the public WI-FI
    > spot was to register your MAC before giving you the key, you would be no
    > safer.


    The MAC usually can be changed ;-)

    Juergen Nieveler
    --
    I was going to procrastinate, but I put it off

  10. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    On Oct 4, 6:31 pm, chil...@hotmail.com wrote:
    > I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
    > U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
    > Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
    > Got it? Good.


    Your original post was "49 states in the Union", whereas the Union is
    the United Sates of America...there are 50 states in the Union

    Your road map simply does not show off the states in the Union, only
    those on the North American land mass.

    Got it? Good.



  11. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    In article <1191540694.623285.301310@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
    chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

    >
    > I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
    > U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
    > Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
    > Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.


    You are an idiot. Got it? Good.

    PS: Can you list those Canadian provinces for us? And what is that
    elusive 49th state that you've found on "the landmass of North America?"

    You truly are n idiot. Got it? Good. Bloody foreigners.
    --
    W. Oates

  12. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    In article <4708cd81$0$14945$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    Warren Oates wrote:

    > In article <1191540694.623285.301310@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
    > chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
    > > U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
    > > Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
    > > Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.

    >
    > You are an idiot. Got it? Good.
    >
    > PS: Can you list those Canadian provinces for us? And what is that
    > elusive 49th state that you've found on "the landmass of North America?"


    The landmass of NA would include Alaska, which is my guess. I thought
    it was a rather inelegant backpedal, but there it is.

    >
    > You truly are n idiot. Got it? Good. Bloody foreigners.

    And they say the US struggles with reading maps.

  13. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    On 6 Oct 2007 18:55:21 GMT, Juergen Nieveler wrote:

    > The MAC usually can be changed ;-)


    Is this the recommended procecedure for "anonymous" public hot spot?

    1. Find public hot spot (using http://www.wififreespot.com)
    2. Turn off your wireless transmitter & go to that public hotspot
    3. Change your MAC address to DEADBEEFCAFE (using MacMakeUp freeware)
    4. Change your PC name (My Computer, Properties, Computer Name)
    5. Change your login ID (create one for this session only)
    6. Set up your (encrypted?) sandbox (sandboxie or truecrypt freeware)
    7. ??? anything else ???
    8. Start your browser sandboxed or on an encrypted disk
    9. When done, turn off your wireless transmitter again.
    10. Return all settings back to normal (non hotspot settings)

    Are we safe if we follow these ten easy hotspot steps?

  14. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    In article ,
    juergen.nieveler.nospam@arcor.de says...
    > Leythos wrote:
    >
    > > Only if they don't keep logs. Since a MAC is unique, if the public WI-FI
    > > spot was to register your MAC before giving you the key, you would be no
    > > safer.

    >
    > The MAC usually can be changed ;-)


    Yes, it can, but most people don't have a clue.

    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

  15. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 08:31:22 -0400, Kurt Ullman
    wrote:

    >In article <4708cd81$0$14945$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    > Warren Oates wrote:
    >
    >> In article <1191540694.623285.301310@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
    >> chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> > I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
    >> > U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
    >> > Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
    >> > Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.

    >>
    >> You are an idiot. Got it? Good.
    >>
    >> PS: Can you list those Canadian provinces for us? And what is that
    >> elusive 49th state that you've found on "the landmass of North America?"

    >
    > The landmass of NA would include Alaska, which is my guess. I thought
    >it was a rather inelegant backpedal, but there it is.
    >
    >>
    >> You truly are n idiot. Got it? Good. Bloody foreigners.

    > And they say the US struggles with reading maps.


    The US struggles with spelling (and most likely reading and writing).

    --

    Cheemag.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  16. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:45:41 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , Slacker
    wrote:

    >
    >Are we safe if we follow these ten easy hotspot steps?


    Isn't the best way to be safe simply not to do illegal stuff with a
    wireless hotspot connection?

    --
    Mark McIntyre

  17. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    Slacker wrote:

    > 7. ??? anything else ???


    Launch a VPN client.

    Even if it's only some free service like SecureIX, it will help
    preventing people in the direct vicinity to snoop your traffic.

    Juergen Nieveler
    --
    Why is it called "rush hour" if it's so damn slow?

  18. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet

    Cheemag wrote:
    > Kurt Ullman wrote:
    >
    >> And they say the US struggles with reading maps.

    >
    > The US struggles with spelling ...


    anthropomorphically speaking

    -Craig

  19. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    Mark McIntyre wrote:

    >>Are we safe if we follow these ten easy hotspot steps?

    >
    > Isn't the best way to be safe simply not to do illegal stuff with a
    > wireless hotspot connection?


    Yep. But you also want to stop other people from doing illegal stuff
    with the data they stole from your legal connection...

    If you use a public hotspot in a Starbucks or something like that, the
    connection is either unencrypted, or everybody knows the key (otherwise
    it wouldn't be public, after all).

    Hence, everything you send over Wifi can be sniffed by people - if you
    access your POP3-mailbox using the normal protocol instead of POP3-SSL,
    everybody within radio range can read your username and password, and
    the contents of your mail. Same for non-HTTPS-webtraffic...

    Juergen Nieveler
    --
    The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be
    when you kill them.

  20. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    X-No-Archive: Yes


    On Oct 4, 5:07 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
    > In article <1191540694.623285.301...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
    >
    > chil...@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > They ALLOW users to do this, becuase as far as admins at BOTH sites
    > > are concerned, what the live bloggers are doing is LEGAL. I have been
    > > TOLD that it is LEGAL in most places to do this

    >
    > That isn't settled yet either way. Some places in the US have
    > specific laws. I read a rather interesting paper a couple days that
    > suggests it is illegal under the laws that regulate interception of
    > radio communications (which this is in essence). You may (heck probably
    > are) right, but it isn't all that settled.



    Well, with the ability to run a newspaper or radio station on the
    Internet, it is not uncommon for these "citizen journalists", working
    for these smaller outlets to hijack nearby wireless access points. And
    one way to avoid being identified through your MAC number is to
    purchase your equiipment with cash. That way there is no credit card
    or bank account data that can be traced to you. As a small webcaster,
    our radio station does do this quite often. We purchase all equipment
    with petty cash, so there is NOTHING that can be traced to our radio
    station, if they should ever try and trace any MAC numbers back to
    their owners. This allows us to even hijack wireless connections in
    Britain or Canada, despite it being illegal in both countries, and
    being that the equipment was paid for out of petty cash, there is no
    credit card or bank account trail that can be traced back to our radio
    station. Although the British laws on this are the most strict, there
    are no major figure skating events likely to be in Britain now unitil
    at least 2010, and that is only if Sheffield succeeds in its bid to
    get the World Championships.

    That is the one weakness with relying on MAC addresses to indentify
    people who connect to your wireless access points. If the equipment
    was purchased with cash, there there is no credit card or bank account
    trail that will trace back to the equipment's owner(s).


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast