Unsecured internet access usually has limited availability depending on
proximity which often means....one of your neighbors is the actual guilty party
because they are near enough to access it.
Find it low for any one to do this upon others.Most impotantly For those
that are on web with NO criminal record of abuseIts as thou some one
has a Jealous rake others in trouble is a as bad as hateful and a scam to place
upon those innocent cyber readers
It was probably Google as they drove by with their Street View car tapping into
While on the subject of porn and obscenity... How much do the lawyers get from
each of the $2,000 settlements, compared to the actual porn producing company?
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
DN Subscriber:Less than they deserve for the social value deterring
pornography/film downloads like this creates. You should send the
lawyers an extra check for this.
Today services can be purchased that will block your wireless router from
inappropriate sites.And its usually not hard to turn it off at
night, when the lurkers usually drive by.Using MAC address access is
pretty solid because you control which computer devices can have access.But the bottom line is that its a jungle out there, and if you aren't
protected you will be a victim.
When you get a router the first thing to do is set up the encryption on it. You
don't need to purchase a service, all wireless routers I have seen within the
past 10-years have encryption (WPA, WEP, etc.) built into it. You just need to
turn it on.
Is it just me or is this slightly odd? The film company is claiming
"illegal" downloading. If I put content on a website in such a way as
to allow downloading and, I do nothing to require some type of payment or
authorization to enable said download then how can I say somebody
"illeglally" downloaded the material?As for the poor folks who
had open wireless...I think providers (comcast in this case) should be
responsible enough to clearly warn the uneducated in these matters about the
dangers of having open wireless. We live in this crazy time and ID theft is
rampant; failing to use proper encryption is about the same as failing to put a
lock on your front door.
Oops, my bad... rereading the article makes it clearer... the real crook here
seems to be the lawyer. One would hope that judges will not render judgements
against those people who were not in their district.the question remains for me
though, why are they going after the individuals who allegedly downloaded the
material instead of going after the enablers of the offense? In this case it
sounds like that would be whoever created the software for the p2p sharing.
Isn't that what all the hoopla was about with Napster?
This is about sleazy lawyers going after low hanging fruit. By offering
settlement at an amount just below what it costs to defend they're hoping the
majority will settle. Liability has nothing to do with it - they're looking for
easy victims. They should be disbarred.
The files are shared through file sharing - this happens with many different
types of movies and with music also.Always know who is using your
computer and your internet service. As ExecutorIoh said, when you buy a
wireless router and are setting it up, take the extra two minutes to turn on the
security and password protect it.We don't buy a phone and then leave
it sitting on our lawn for use by the general public - why would you buy
internet service and then leave it out there for anyone to use?