Recommend a USB wifi card that supports Linux and packet i..

rIO · External Since: Aug 14, 2009 Posts: 1

Ignoramus17579 wrote:
> My friend wants to try Linux.
>
> For his desktop, we would like to find a USB based wifi card that
> would
>
> 1) Work great under Linux
> 2) Support packet injection, or "injection mode".
>
> Any suggestions will be gratefully received.

I have a "famous" Eminent usb stick, it works well...

--
rIO.sK

William Black · External Since: Aug 13, 2009 Posts: 5

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>> John Hasler wrote:
>>> William Black writes:
>>>> Theft is illegal.
>>>
>>> Theft: Dishonest appropriation of property without the owner's
>>> consent, with intent to deprive them of its use, either temporarily or
>>> permanently
>>>
>>> No property involved here and so no theft. Might be theft of services
>>> in jurisdictions with theft of services statutes, but I believe that
>>> those usually require that the services be offered for sale and that
>>> deception be involved.
>>
>> I know.
>>
>> That doesn't change the fact that 'piggy backing' on someone's line
>> will get you inside a courtroom in the UK.
>>
>>
> Very unlikely.
>

My understanding is that only one case has so far come to court, and
that the person was convicted.

Some details at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6960304.stm

--
William Black

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing.
If you can fake that, you've got it made.

Nathan Keel · External Since: May 04, 2009 Posts: 12

John Hasler wrote:

> William Black writes:
>> Theft is illegal.
>
> Theft: Dishonest appropriation of property without the owner's
> consent, with intent to deprive them of its use, either temporarily
> or permanently
>
> No property involved here and so no theft. Might be theft of services
> in jurisdictions with theft of services statutes, but I believe that
> those usually require that the services be offered for sale and that
> deception be involved.

Okay, what if I use dialup to log into the owner's account of a local
ISP and start using the services? You think if I'm found that it's not
illegal and I won't be in trouble if they want to pursue it? All of
that without any brute force or breaking in.

John Hasler · External Since: Mar 25, 2004 Posts: 1337

Balwinder S Dheeman writes:
> but are not the packets leaving and, or entering in to a network or a
> network interface a property or something valuable?

They may or may not be valuable (most likely not) but they are not
property which the owner is being deprived of the use of.
--
John Hasler
john DeleteThis @dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Balwinder S Dheeman · External Since: Jun 01, 2007 Posts: 23

On 08/14/2009 08:03 AM, John Hasler wrote:
> William Black writes:
>> Theft is illegal.
>
> Theft: Dishonest appropriation of property without the ownerâ€™s
> consent, with intent to deprive them of its use, either temporarily or
> permanently
>
> No property involved here and so no theft. Might be theft of services
> in jurisdictions with theft of services statutes, but I believe that
> those usually require that the services be offered for sale and that
> deception be involved.

How funny?

INAL, but are not the packets leaving and, or entering in to a network
or a network interface a property or something valuable?

--
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP
Home: http://werc.homelinux.net/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/

John Hasler · External Since: Mar 25, 2004 Posts: 1337

Nathan Keel writes:
> Okay, what if I use dialup to log into the owner's account of a local
> ISP and start using the services? You think if I'm found that it's
> not illegal and I won't be in trouble if they want to pursue it?

I didn't say it wasn't illegal. I said it wasn't theft. What you
describe is probably both theft of services and fraud.

> All of that without any brute force or breaking in.

Yes. So what? Many illegal acts require neither brute force nor
breaking in. Theft is one of them.
--
John Hasler
john DeleteThis @dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Nathan Keel · External Since: May 04, 2009 Posts: 12

John Hasler wrote:

> Nathan Keel writes:
>> Okay, what if I use dialup to log into the owner's account of a local
>> ISP and start using the services? You think if I'm found that it's
>> not illegal and I won't be in trouble if they want to pursue it?
>
> I didn't say it wasn't illegal. I said it wasn't theft. What you
> describe is probably both theft of services and fraud.
>
>> All of that without any brute force or breaking in.
>
> Yes. So what? Many illegal acts require neither brute force nor
> breaking in. Theft is one of them.

Perhaps you should see my folllow up to my own post quoted above. I
misunderstood what you said at first, but then I re-read it and did get
what you were saying (and that you never said it was theft).

dennis · External Since: Jan 26, 2009 Posts: 7

"John Hasler" <john RemoveThis @dhh.gt.org> wrote in message
news:87ab22xtz0.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org...
> Balwinder S Dheeman writes:
>> but are not the packets leaving and, or entering in to a network or a
>> network interface a property or something valuable?
>
> They may or may not be valuable (most likely not) but they are not
> property which the owner is being deprived of the use of.

They take time which could have been used by the person that bought that
time.

Nathan Keel · External Since: May 04, 2009 Posts: 12

dennis@home wrote:

>
>
> "John Hasler" <john.TakeThisOut@dhh.gt.org> wrote in message
> news:87ab22xtz0.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org...
>> Balwinder S Dheeman writes:
>>> but are not the packets leaving and, or entering in to a network or
>>> a network interface a property or something valuable?
>>
>> They may or may not be valuable (most likely not) but they are not
>> property which the owner is being deprived of the use of.
>
> They take time which could have been used by the person that bought
> that time.

I suppose it depends on the plan and any limits they might have, but I
think we all can agree that the legal ramifications of the matter are
the illegal use/entry that the authorities have issues with and
prosecute for (if they can/do in those countries). So, really, what's
the difference, even if they didn't actually name any primary
attribution of why it's deemed and labeled a crime? I think it's best
to not risk it, unless you know it's okay to use or do if it's not
otherwise appropriately considered okay, provided it's not illegal.
Then, just don't abuse it and do anything illegal and try and be aware
of the laws as they change (especially to avoid being made an example
of if it's not yet a law in your area). Doesn't sound like any of us
would want to risk it, or have a reason anyway.