[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

RE: OT: unathorized network user.

> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:57:28 -0500
> From: jjrboucher gmail com
> To: fedora-list redhat com
> Subject: Re: OT: unathorized network user.
> On Jan 24, 2008 4:15 PM, Bazooka Joe  wrote:
>> ahh, all true. But if we all ran open wireless networks then the cops
>> would know that this could be an open network and would handle it
>> differently.  Right now they assume one ip one person because people
>> like you keep it that way.
> Not to belabor the point (again my apologies - last posting).  But
> even if everybody opens up their wireless point the police would still
> have to start by eliminating the registered owner of the IP.  They'd
> have no choice, they have to start somewhere.  The home where the
> network connection came from would be the most logical starting point
> in an investigation.  They might not arrest the person in the home if
> your scenario were to become common and known to police.  But they'd
> still seize the equipment for 6-12 months in order to do a forensic
> analysis to determine if the malicious/illegal activity originated
> from within the house or not.  And if found to not have come from you
> then they'd be hoping to find evidence in your router logs.  Most
> people don't want the hassle of being without their computers for 6-12
> months (never mind the social stigma that comes with the police coming
> to your home and hauling out all your computer equipment) so opt to
> secure it instead.
> If someone runs a secure AP that gets compromised, yes the police
> would start at the source in that scenario for the same reasons I
> noted above, to see if the malicious activity came from a system in
> the house.  If no evidence was found to confirm that fact no charge
> would ensue and they'd look at the logs for evidence of others who
> connected to your AP.  So you would not end up being convicted of
> something you didn't do as there would be no evidence on your system
> to take you to court on seeing you didn't do it.
> Jacques B.
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list redhat com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

I do believe that this point has become well over done here. However, I'd like to you here - in the the above scenarios what is the difference you're describing? It would seem to most that the police would take the same stance in either case. Sorry, but I'd support the open point of view as well- and I'm very security concious. Steps can be taken to protect your own interests on the network, and the rest can be left for open use. Your own interests would have to extremely secure in this scenario though. All a matter of choice, with not much difference in consequences.

Go community spirit, indeed!

I think that none here will ever agree with another on this subject, even among those discussing the security measures to take. I move that this subject be closed and we all move on to more important things, especially seeing as the original poster has left this discussion as his problem was solved. Anyone second that? :)

Overpaid or Underpaid? Check our comprehensive Salary Centre

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]