How to connect to DSL for free?

[belvdr]

That doesn't excuse the fact that it is their responsibility.

Yes it does. You expect all the average users out there to read up technical articles on how and why they should do this? And how are they supposed to locate these articles when they don't even know it is insecure?

On top of that, since you know it should be secured, you should be avoiding it. You're just looking for excuses as to why you are taking advantage of someone else. Should someone take advantage of your cell phone signal and do unauthorized things to it? Take the higher ground.

 

[GroovyLinuxGuy]

If my house is open and on your property, then yes, you may.

Okay well then since the router is on my property, open and you are accessing it I guess that would be...well...umm...theft or trespassing at the least. Neither of which are very nice.

 

[QuarterSwede]

It is possible to get DSL without having an active phone line.

I think the FCC requires telcos to offer DSL without phone service. You just have to ask for it.

Yes it does. You expect all the average users out there to read up technical articles on how and why they should do this? And how are they supposed to locate these articles when they don't even know it is insecure?

On top of that, since you know it should be secured, you should be avoiding it. You're just looking for excuses as to why you are taking advantage of someone else. Should someone take advantage of your cell phone signal and do unauthorized things to it? Take the higher ground.

I completely agree. It's all about ethics. We know who has none.

 

[belvdr]

I think the FCC requires telcos to offer DSL without phone service. You just have to ask for it.

Actually, I couldn't do this where I used to live. Phone service came from an RBOC, not something like AT&T, Verizon, etc. I complained about it constantly, but they wouldn't budge. It's not a problem now that I moved.

 

[kryptonianjorel]

Yes it does. You expect all the average users out there to read up technical articles on how and why they should do this? And how are they supposed to locate these articles when they don't even know it is insecure?

On top of that, since you know it should be secured, you should be avoiding it. You're just looking for excuses as to why you are taking advantage of someone else. Should someone take advantage of your cell phone signal and do unauthorized things to it? Take the higher ground.

So its the manufacturers responsibility to make sure the oil in Joe Shmoe's car gets changed, because he may not know that's required? Get real.

Okay well then since the router is on my property, open and you are accessing it I guess that would be...well...umm...theft or trespassing at the least. Neither of which are very nice.

Well Okay since your data is on my property, I guess that would be tresspassing or littering.

 

[belvdr]

So its the manufacturers responsibility to make sure the oil in Joe Shmoe's car gets changed, because he may not know that's required? Get real.

Nobody said manufacturer. I said _vendor_ as in installer, such as Geek Squad, telephone company, cable company, etc. Those are the people that should secure it.

As for the car analogy, it doesn't work. Nobody is leaching off Joe Shmoe and driving up the mileage and potentially costing him time and/or money. The other thing is cars have been around for decades. I don't know of anyone that fails to realize that an oil change is necessary. Wireless gear is still new to average users in the sense of security.

Again, you are looking to blame someone else for your failure to do what is right.

 

[kryptonianjorel]

Nobody said manufacturer. I said _vendor_ as in installer, such as Geek Squad, telephone company, cable company, etc. Those are the people that should secure it.

As for the car analogy, it doesn't work. Nobody is leaching off Joe Shmoe and driving up the mileage and potentially costing him time and/or money. The other thing is cars have been around for decades. I don't know of anyone that fails to realize that an oil change is necessary. Wireless gear is still new to average users in the sense of security.

Again, you are looking to blame someone else for your failure to do what is right.

Geek Squad "will" (are supposed to, that is, its part of the installation package) secure the access point. That is a paid service. The DSL or Cable tech is only responsible for getting you connectivity to the home; they are not computer technicians and shouldn't have to be.


The car analogy does work. It's the owner's responsibly to take care of their crap! If you don't know how to take care of your stuff either have someone teach you, have someone do it for you, or don't use it

I'm not doing anything wrong, btw, so please, cut the self-righteous stuff out

 

[belvdr]

Geek Squad "will" (are supposed to, that is, its part of the installation package) secure the access point. That is a paid service. The DSL or Cable tech is only responsible for getting you connectivity to the home; they are not computer technicians and shouldn't have to be.

Okay, "supposed" to means you know (and I know) they don't always do it. Also phone and cable companies sell wireless equipment to their consumer and they will install it. It's a matter of revenue, which means they should secure it.

The car analogy does work. It's the owner's responsibly to take care of their crap! If you don't know how to take care of your stuff either have someone teach you, have someone do it for you, or don't use it

You are assuming everyone knows that a wireless signal is inherently insecure. That's not the case; you know it and I know it. Now what if someone shares (I've seen it) sensitive data. Are you allowed to just take it and do anything with it? What if you have the same cordless phones, and yours connects to their system? Are you allowed to make calls whenever because they failed to realize you were using it? Where do you draw the line?

Most people don't understand the need to apply OS patches either. Does that mean you can just break into their computers because they failed to do so? Absolutely not.

The fact is someone is paying for a service for their use, not yours. This is third time I've said it, but I'll say it again, because you choose to ignore it. You know it's not there for you to use, so you should either help them out or stay off the network.

EDIT:

You added this:

I'm not doing anything wrong, btw, so please, cut the self-righteous stuff out

No I won't cut it out. These services cost money, and you're not paying for it, so you are in the wrong. I work hard to buy things for my family, and petty thieves such as this need to be called out. I'm not working to pay for someone else to have Internet access.

 

[Apollo21]

Awesome!...so if you forget to lock your house I can come in use your tv, eat your food and S$$$T in your toilet?

If my house is open and on your property, then yes, you may.

Well played


I don't think it takes that much intelligence to realize that if you can open your laptop and it goes online, through the air, that just MAYBE other people could do the same! And for that spark of intelligence, they will be rewarded with a secure network. Without that spark... free internet for neighbors

Though honestly I've been considering telling my neighbors they should secure theirs, after I logged into their router and checked out the computers on their network. Is that illegal?

 

[Apollo21]

No I won't cut it out. These services cost money, and you're not paying for it, so you are in the wrong. I work hard to buy things for my family, and petty thieves such as this need to be called out. I'm not working to pay for someone else to have Internet access.

Why are you so upset for other people over such a small thing? Don't you think if someone is taking all their bandwidth, they'll think "wow, my internet is really slow, I'm calling the company", and then the ISP will say, "maybe someone else is using your internet, you should secure your router"?

 

[kryptonianjorel]

Okay, "supposed" to means you know (and I know) they don't always do it. Also phone and cable companies sell wireless equipment to their consumer and they will install it. It's a matter of revenue, which means they should secure it.



You are assuming everyone knows that a wireless signal is inherently insecure. That's not the case; you know it and I know it. Now what if someone shares (I've seen it) sensitive data. Are you allowed to just take it and do anything with it? What if you have the same cordless phones, and yours connects to their system? Are you allowed to make calls whenever because they failed to realize you were using it? Where do you draw the line?

Most people don't understand the need to apply OS patches either. Does that mean you can just break into their computers because they failed to do so? Absolutely not.

The fact is someone is paying for a service for their use, not yours. This is third time I've said it, but I'll say it again, because you choose to ignore it. You know it's not there for you to use, so you should either help them out or stay off the network.

EDIT:

You added this:



No I won't cut it out. These services cost money, and you're not paying for it, so you are in the wrong. I work hard to buy things for my family, and petty thieves such as this need to be called out. I'm not working to pay for someone else to have Internet access.

If you don't know how to use a tool, don't use it. A computer (and the parts that go with it, in this case, an AP) is a tool, and if you don't know how to operate it safely, you shouldn't be allowed. Ironically you said you're not working to pay for someone else to use your connection, but there are people out there who are too cheap to protect their investment. Either spend $20 and have the neighborhood computer wiz set you up (and knows more than Geek Squad) or call a tech to do it. Ignorance is no excuse.

Please let me remind you that more often than not, broadband connections (and definitely in the case of my neighbors) are "unlimited". It's like calling me a thief because I'm breathing my neighbor's air.

Well played


I don't think it takes that much intelligence to realize that if you can open your laptop and it goes online, through the air, that just MAYBE other people could do the same! And for that spark of intelligence, they will be rewarded with a secure network. Without that spark... free internet for neighbors

Though honestly I've been considering telling my neighbors they should secure theirs, after I logged into their router and checked out the computers on their network. Is that illegal?

Technically, you have to have malicious intent for it to be considered against the law. If you poke around, but don't change anything to negatively affect their data or services, then you can't be charged

 

[Apollo21]

Technically, you have to have malicious intent for it to be considered against the law. If you poke around, but don't change anything to negatively affect their data or services, then you can't be charged

Thanks. But are you sure about this?? That would mean you could try to hack into the government's servers "just for fun" or to "test their security" and not get in trouble. Unless there's a different law for the government, which wouldn't surprise me.

And I was thinking about the other side of this issue. What about this analogy for them: if you take your car to a mechanic, he's allowed to fix more than necessary because you're ignorant of how your car works.

 

[kryptonianjorel]

Thanks. But are you sure about this?? That would mean you could try to hack into the government's servers "just for fun" or to "test their security" and not get in trouble. Unless there's a different law for the government, which wouldn't surprise me.

And I was thinking about the other side of this issue. What about this analogy for them: if you take your car to a mechanic, he's allowed to fix more than necessary because you're ignorant of how your car works.

There is a different set of laws for the government and corporations. They were made because one of the earliest hackers changed the billing system in Ma Bell's computers (changed am to pm basically) so that long distance was cheapest during peak times, and vice versa

Don't understand what you mean about the the other side of the issue, please explain. Mechanics have to (at least) have additional verbal permission from the owner (with a quoted price) before additional work can be done to their vehicle. However unless you specifically asked for an inspection of the vehicle, the mechanic probably wouldn't spend his/her time looking over your car for free

 

[Apollo21]

One of your arguments was that people shouldn't own things that they don't completely understand; if they do own them, others are allowed to take advantage of it. The mechanic example was in response to that.

 

[kryptonianjorel]

One of your arguments was that people shouldn't own things that they don't completely understand; if they do own them, others are allowed to take advantage of it. The mechanic example was in response to that.

Except that they are taking responsibility for their property by having it serviced. He/She may not know how to fix his/her car, but he/she know to take it to someone who does.

The mechanic is the equivalent to the Geek (Is that what you call a Geek Squad employee?) that repairs your computer. The mechanic could overcharge you as easily as the Geek could steal your homemade porn. That all has to do with doing business with reputable companies.

EDIT: and thank you for clarifying, I didn't know what you were talking about at first

 

[designgeek]

Seeing how this thread is now completely derailed, I'll go ahead and say that my neighbors networks are causing a lot of noise on the 2.4 GHz band and it's interfering with my network. It's like having every dog in your neighborhood barking at once and trying to listen to your music on low from across the house. Shame...




/sarcasm.

 

[kryptonianjorel]

Seeing how this thread is now completely derailed, I'll go ahead and say that my neighbors networks are causing a lot of noise on the 2.4 GHz band and it's interfering with my network. It's like having every dog in your neighborhood barking at once and trying to listen to your music on low from across the house. Shame...




/sarcasm.

Putting your sarcasm aside, did you try asking them to collaborate but using the 3 non-overlapping frequencies (channel 1, 6, 11) alternately? I have 4 neighbors with wifi, using (11, 11, 9, 6) so I use 1 to prevent interference. unfortunately the person using 9 is causing interference for everyone except me