Wireless theft caught
-
hmmz is that 17 year old person a local?
from the picture looks chinaese.
anyway i would say if the network wasn't secured( okz at elast something done to precent tapping, we can't expect every one to be good at it stuff), then while what the guy did was wrong the neighbour should bear part of the blame tooo.
but i guess the guy was prbably tapping into and doing major d/ling etc -
If the network is secured, he would be facing a heavier charge, worse than piggy backing.
-
The Law is not fully protecting the user interest but the service provider,as gahmen starting the island wide wireless soon. If everybody start to cancel their line then they will be losing business soon. Dun think is a striaght forward case due to the heavy fine, but if like all of us have said here the losses by the victim is minimum, the boy can fight the case.
-
yah quite true they are jus looking after the a$$es of the ISP companies onliOriginally posted by T.Ryousuke:The Law is not fully protecting the user interest but the service provider,as gahmen starting the island wide wireless soon. If everybody start to cancel their line then they will be losing business soon. Dun think is a striaght forward case due to the heavy fine, but if like all of us have said here the losses by the victim is minimum, the boy can fight the case.
-
sillypoor is famous in the world again for the wrong reasons!
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/12/1535227 -
do wrong thing and kenna caught.. that's it.
dunno why so many put focus on the owner of the wireless network.. he secure or don't secure is his problem. i leave my house open or locked also my problem but you come and steal that means it's your fault. i may be negligent/careless/stupid but it's still your fault.. as simple as this. -
To totally eradicate petty crimes, the penalty for such should be death!
-
u wun say tat if its felicia chinOriginally posted by ditzy:To totally eradicate petty crimes, the penalty for such should be death! -
my SSID is KEWL and UNIQUE ok!!Originally posted by o0Nite0o:It will occur if any of your neighbour happen to use the same SSID as you.
The SSID "home" and "linksys" is quite common.
btw... There were times when windows automatically add the strongest signal to my preferred networks. Many people had encounted this before. -
ya lor.. really dun understand.Originally posted by weeie:do wrong thing and kenna caught.. that's it.
dunno why so many put focus on the owner of the wireless network.. he secure or don't secure is his problem. i leave my house open or locked also my problem but you come and steal that means it's your fault. i may be negligent/careless/stupid but it's still your fault.. as simple as this.
maybe they themselves often piggyback on unsecured networks so gets defensive over this issue.
if someone comes hack my secured network, i sure will get very pissed. and i have evidence, jail for him/her!
-
Who the fuck is felicia chin?Originally posted by kaobeikaobu:u wun say tat if its felicia chin -
even if he doesn't encrpyt the network, the neighbour can limit the channels or use a filter to only allow a certain connection
and my house here got 3 free connections, excluding my own -
Yah, but we didn't say that it was ok for the guy to tap into his connection. We focused on the owner because it was stupid to leave it unsecured.Originally posted by weeie:do wrong thing and kenna caught.. that's it.
dunno why so many put focus on the owner of the wireless network.. he secure or don't secure is his problem. i leave my house open or locked also my problem but you come and steal that means it's your fault. i may be negligent/careless/stupid but it's still your fault.. as simple as this.
The punishment should also depend on what the kid did while tapping into the connection. It depends on whether anything is 'stolen'. If he's just surfing the web, then nothing important is actually 'stolen' only the bandwith. He is just then trespassing which means he sees ur house open and used the toilet. He didn't really steal anything except the water he used to flush. U want to prevent him from using ur toilet, then lock ur door. No harm is done.You don't need to call the police when there's nothing to 'recover' unless you really wanna recover the flushed water, then I really dunno what to say. Jail for using toilet suckslah.
If he looked through private information or did something malicious then you can consider that something has been 'stolen' or 'vandalised'. Anyway, the report suckslah...it's lacking in detail. -
yeah...trespassing is gd enough to convict him even if he has nothing in hand. trespassing in a way is no difference from stealing.. stealing = taking things without permission. trespassing = going in without permission.Originally posted by kheldorin:Yah, but we didn't say that it was ok for the guy to tap into his connection. We focused on the owner because it was stupid to leave it unsecured.
The punishment should also depend on what the kid did while tapping into the connection. It depends on whether anything is 'stolen'. If he's just surfing the web, then nothing important is actually 'stolen' only the bandwith. He is just then trespassing which means he sees ur house open and used the toilet. He didn't really steal anything except the water he used to flush. U want to prevent him from using ur toilet, then lock ur door. No harm is done.You don't need to call the police when there's nothing to 'recover' unless you really wanna recover the flushed water, then I really dunno what to say. Jail for using toilet suckslah.
If he looked through private information or did something malicious then you can consider that something has been 'stolen' or 'vandalised'. Anyway, the report suckslah...it's lacking in detail. -
oh yeah.. even you can set a SSID/most sophisticated wep key...it's also quite easy to get access.
so the point here is not about how secure the network is....it's the tapping intention that counts. -
I feel that the guy shouldn't be charged in the first place. The neighbour tempted him to enter his network.
If the neighbour can take some time to read the instruction guide and use a simple MAC adress filter, then nobody would be able to tap in the first place.
Its like dangling a carrot in front of a rabbit...
Somemore the guy is only 17 years old. Does his neighbour want to destroy his future? -
forget it, in the land of extremists, it's hard for the middle ground to get a voice in...Originally posted by kheldorin:Yah, but we didn't say that it was ok for the guy to tap into his connection. We focused on the owner because it was stupid to leave it unsecured.
The punishment should also depend on what the kid did while tapping into the connection. It depends on whether anything is 'stolen'. If he's just surfing the web, then nothing important is actually 'stolen' only the bandwith. He is just then trespassing which means he sees ur house open and used the toilet. He didn't really steal anything except the water he used to flush. U want to prevent him from using ur toilet, then lock ur door. No harm is done.You don't need to call the police when there's nothing to 'recover' unless you really wanna recover the flushed water, then I really dunno what to say. Jail for using toilet suckslah.
If he looked through private information or did something malicious then you can consider that something has been 'stolen' or 'vandalised'. Anyway, the report suckslah...it's lacking in detail.
it's all or nothing here..what a lousy mentality to have taken root in this land.. -
Do you reckon his neighbour cares?Originally posted by abao:I feel that the guy shouldn't be charged in the first place. The neighbour tempted him to enter his network.
If the neighbour can take some time to read the instruction guide and use a simple MAC adress filter, then nobody would be able to tap in the first place.
Its like dangling a carrot in front of a rabbit...
Somemore the guy is only 17 years old. Does his neighbour want to destroy his future? Do you care what colour underwear your neighbour wears on wednesdays? -
Originally posted by ditzy:Do you reckon his neighbour cares? Do you care what colour underwear your neighbour wears on wednesdays?
-
you are too naive...you should be thankful that Singapore govt isn't thinking the same way. Or else everybody who committed a crime will say they are tempted to do so LOL. Just like a lady skimpily dressed, walking in a dark alley, tempting 'someone' to drag her behind to bush and do something to her. get it? So the 'someone' happened to be a 17 year old boy. should he be charged or not? He has a good future...Originally posted by abao:I feel that the guy shouldn't be charged in the first place. The neighbour tempted him to enter his network.
If the neighbour can take some time to read the instruction guide and use a simple MAC adress filter, then nobody would be able to tap in the first place.
Its like dangling a carrot in front of a rabbit...
Somemore the guy is only 17 years old. Does his neighbour want to destroy his future?
don't say he should be charged just because it's more serious because there are already different punishment based on the severity of each and every offence.
a mac address filter helps a LITTLE but to many people, it's useless especially when mac address can be easily spoofed. and to one who has the knowledge and intention to wardrive, this is only a small obstacle to overcome. your network is still vulnerable.
it's not the neighbour who destroyed his future... it's himself.
-
if u use halfway and u found out that it became laggy//Originally posted by Mariner:so how do u check whose tapping your network? through 'MY NETWORK PLACES' or you can view it through the linksys connection thing only? -
I know what you are referring to. Better don't play too much.Originally posted by weeie:oh yeah.. even you can set a SSID/most sophisticated wep key...it's also quite easy to get access.
so the point here is not about how secure the network is....it's the tapping intention that counts. -
As said, nothing in the report states whether the owner secured it. If it's secured and the kid went in, he would still be charged under Computer Misuse Act Section 6.Originally posted by kheldorin:Yah, but we didn't say that it was ok for the guy to tap into his connection. We focused on the owner because it was stupid to leave it unsecured.
The punishment should also depend on what the kid did while tapping into the connection. It depends on whether anything is 'stolen'. If he's just surfing the web, then nothing important is actually 'stolen' only the bandwith. He is just then trespassing which means he sees ur house open and used the toilet. He didn't really steal anything except the water he used to flush. U want to prevent him from using ur toilet, then lock ur door. No harm is done.You don't need to call the police when there's nothing to 'recover' unless you really wanna recover the flushed water, then I really dunno what to say. Jail for using toilet suckslah.
If he looked through private information or did something malicious then you can consider that something has been 'stolen' or 'vandalised'. Anyway, the report suckslah...it's lacking in detail. -
What happens in a virtual world is not the same as real world.Originally posted by weeie:you are too naive...you should be thankful that Singapore govt isn't thinking the same way. Or else everybody who committed a crime will say they are tempted to do so LOL. Just like a lady skimpily dressed, walking in a dark alley, tempting 'someone' to drag her behind to bush and do something to her. get it? So the 'someone' happened to be a 17 year old boy. should he be charged or not? He has a good future...
don't say he should be charged just because it's more serious because there are already different punishment based on the severity of each and every offence.
a mac address filter helps a LITTLE but to many people, it's useless especially when mac address can be easily spoofed. and to one who has the knowledge and intention to wardrive, this is only a small obstacle to overcome. your network is still vulnerable.
it's not the neighbour who destroyed his future... it's himself.
If your ID and passwords are stolen, you can change them from another computer. If your files are stolen, at the most you make modifications to it. If your files are corrupted, you pray hard that there's backups.
In a real world, using the woman's example, it doesn't work this way. Physically, she's harmed. Mentally as well. There's no way to recover both. -
yeah it was just an example to emphasize that temptation is not an excuse to commit crime.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:What happens in a virtual world is not the same as real world.
If your ID and passwords are stolen, you can change them from another computer. If your files are stolen, at the most you make modifications to it. If your files are corrupted, you pray hard that there's backups.
In a real world, using the woman's example, it doesn't work this way. Physically, she's harmed. Mentally as well. There's no way to recover both.
don't say he should be charged just because it's more serious because there are alreadydifferent punishment based on the severity of each and every offence
.
that's why molester/rapist gets heavier sentence..
and regarding the emotional/physical damage issue. you assumed that in such incident, only simple damages might be inflicted. But you will never know that it may cause serious indirect physical/emotional damages as well? There might be million dollars worth of data on the network, privacy videos/pics, important projects, and other important data ..that once leaked...no one will know the consequences.
[/quote]