wande00 wrote:
LOL Simmer down we were just troubleshooting.
I am not advocating anyone to leave their network open.
I am.
If one pays attention to the court cases (though admittedly few at this point, but enough to establish a trend), one sees the juries using a disturbing logic involving crimes committed with wireless networks. That logic is simply : if you have ANY security on your wireless network, you did it no matter what 'it' is.
Sample scenario : someone who knows a lot more about wireless security cracks your network security, spoofs your IP and MAC addresses and sends whatever President a nice little love note. The Secret Service has all the evidence necessary to convict YOU, and juries are all-too-willing to go along.
More likely sample scenario : the tech-savvy sexual predator on your block doesn't want to get caught, and compromises your wireless network to access kiddie ****. It appears like your IP and MAC address are doing the downloading. Guess what? Get used to the Graybar hotel.
The odds of you pulling a technologically sophisticated jury capable of seeing that you DIDN'T do it are - for all practical purposes - nil. The only court cases I could find that delivered acquittals ONLY acquitted when there was NO wireless security enabled. To reduce to the absurd, enabled security = guilt almost 100% of the time.
So you can be bulletproof - in your mind - and still end up in jail for something you didn't do. Do try and take comfort in the fact the average person who sits on jury is just too stupid to see the realities and limitations of wireless 'security'.
It's a simple decision : Do you want to stop mythical, mostly non-existent 'hackers' or do you want to create reasonable doubt? Choose wisely.