if i might interject here - i believe that there are mechanisms which might be useful for folks that want to host access points for a co-op but are concerned about violation of their AUP. a discussion of tunneling mechanisms might be in order for our next meeting. they definitely violate the intent (and quite likely the explicit wording) of an AUP but may provide a mechanism for working around some thorny issues. when last we saw our hero (Tuesday, Jul 23, 2002), Daniel Taylor was madly tapping out: > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 09:01:19AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: > > > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > > > > > Any implication otherwise could be taken as a personal > > > affront, but given the medium I will not take offense. > > > This time. > > > > Get thicker skin. > > > > Really. > > Try to avoid assuming that everyone is a thief. > > Really. > > > > > > > > 2: I am reluctant to share positively identifying information > > > > > with people that have a demonstrated tendency to abuse it. > > > > > > > > Then you are part of the wrong group. > > > > > > Excuse me, but I have noticed noone in this group who > > > has a demonstrated tendency to abuse such information. > > > Collect it uninvited, yes, but not abuse it. > > > > You are assuming that the people here are going to abuse it. > > > > I do not assume such, my address is below, I do not try to hide. > > I am assuming that the people _here_ are _not_ going to > abuse it. I provided the information for the people _here_. > > > > > > If you _know_ of such people in this group, with _certainty_, > > > it would be irresponsible to withold such information. > > > > Why? > > > > I am not your father trying to protect you from someone who will bully > > you. > > If you know of wrongdoing it is nearly as bad keeping your > mouth shut as it would be actively participating. > > > > > > > > I would rather trust the entire student body of the highschool near > > > > > my house than a single Cable exec with access to my network. > > > > > > > > Then you live in a world shaded blue. > > > > > > Um, Mike, I know you have been around this business a long > > > time, but I didn't think that prolonged exposure to computers > > > caused brainrot. > > > > It doesn't. > > > > Do you really think a cable exec cares about you at all? I don't. > > Neither do I. I believe that they care about their profits, > and if I fall into a bin that they have marked "unprofitable" > they will drop my service without so much as a howdy-do. > > > > > While a HS kid might, you have valuables, you have a hot daughter, you > > have a car that is sweet. > > > I lock my doors. I make an effort at network security. > I recognize that not all people are honest, but there > are areas where I can protect myself, and areas where I can't. > > > Why do you think you rate so highly with cable execs anyway? > > I know that I don't, yet I am dependent on them for > -get this- HIGH SPEED access. > > > > > > I can take measures to keep my AP from external abuse, > > > like not running it when I'm not around to use it. Running > > > on low power so my access footprint is not much (any?) > > > larger than my lot. I'll only run a public AP when I have > > > means and method to do so practically. > > > > Since WEP is a farce (yes, I use it as well), any AP is an open issue, > > just like running any type of server on the 'net in general. > > > > Don't think that turning the power down protects you. > > Don't think that locking your doors protects you, after > all, professional thieves have lockpicks and can > walk right through that door. But the kid down the > street who wants your stereo isn't a professional > thief, is he? > > Keeping the power down is a bit like keeping > your car in the garage. It doesn't prevent anyone > from stealing it, but it makes it harder to see. > > > > > Kind of like saying: > > > > I am on DSL, why would anyone want to steal bandwidth from me? > > > > Answer: Because they can. > > Yep. But not everyone is a thief. > > > > > I can NOT protect myself from people who can cut off my > > > upstream connectivity based on suppositions of my possible > > > activities based on my membership in one group or another. > > > Except by not participating in such groups. > > > > Okay, and? > > > And cable execs in New York have been doing exactly that. > Extrapolate. > > > > I live in a broadband-limited area. The last round of DSL > > > provisioning changes might have me eligible for 256K ADSL. > > > Maybe. If I'm lucky. > > > > That would be wonderful. > > It probably would, but the only supplier that claims > it is Qwest, and I have had bad luck with their access > quotes before (what put me on cable to begin with...). > > Like I said, it is more than a bit iffy. > > Every quote I've attempted from anyone else comes up null. > > > > > DSL kicks booty, it is the best thing I have seen for home and small > > business use ever. Sure, cable is faster, but you have no choice in > > ISP or extra services. DSL may not have the speed...but it has > > everything else you would want in a beer, and less! > > > Of course since I'm likely to be falling back to dialup > you might have a point. > > > > So I'm stuck on cable. > > > > You aren't stuck on cable...you just said otherwise above. > > > > -- > Daniel Taylor > dante at plethora.net > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list at tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > -- steve ulrich sulrich at botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC