On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Levi Bard wrote:
>> The problem with unauthorized access isn't the bandwidth use, it's what
>> might be done with the bandwidth -- spamming or worse. In any case, the
>> owner is in violation of his TOS for subletting (if that's the right
>> word) the connection, and the ISP would be completely justified in
>> cutting him off.
>
> Well, it depends on your TOS, although most of the ones I've seen end
> with, "We reserve the right to change these TOS at will and without
> prior notification." Either way, a lot of TOS call it a violation to
> run more than one 1 machine on a connection, period (e.g. home LANs).
The rr and verizon techs I met didn't have a problem with it. OTOH, many
ISPs distribute wireless routers configured wide open, so...
> (Not to mention running a web or mail server...) If an ISP was going
> to cut off service for this, they'd also have to cut off service to
> everybody's clueless uncle who doesn't know how to secure an AP, or
> cut off service to all the customers their own technicians have set up
> with unsecured APs.
Yes, and I fully support such action, with appropriate warning.
> Besides, the previously mentioned hacks
> (redirecting to kittenwar.com, inverting and/or blurring content) are
> still "subletting" the connection.
Yes. Which is why all connections I have any sort of control over use at
least rudimentary encryption, to keep out electronic joyriders.
-- -eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.no-ip.org:81Q: What kind of modem did Jimi Hendrix use? A: A purple Hayes. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 15:47:07 EDT