Update on the bad news

[dvandom]

Not friendslocking this one because it turns out not to have been such bad news. :) But I may get spammy, so here's a cut.


To lead off, turns out dad has no signs of a stroke, mini- or otherwise. However, his "cold" turned out to be the flu, and disorientation is one of the symptoms of the strain he got. Whee. So he gets to use up some of his sick days ahead of retiring without feeling guilty about it.

However, the cable situation is now worse. While I still haven't managed to talk to my downstairs neighbor to see if her cable is out, a guy in apartment 11 (which is in the other half of the building...1-6 share a stairwell, 7-12 share another, you have to go outside to get between halves) has had no problems. So the issue can't be farther away than the hub in the parking lot, and may be unique to my apartment. But this morning I pulled out all the cables and tested them with a multimeter, then hooked the TV up directly in case it was a splitter issue, and still no cable. So I'm pretty sure the problem isn't inside my apartment either. Hopefully it's not somewhere requiring that holes be knocked in the walls. Anyway, I'm still without cable (and hence cablemodem) until at least tomorrow afternoon, but at least I dug up instructions on how to switch my defaults to Konsole on the EEE so I can get a bigger font size and slightly better window control.

Good day shopping, though. Saw a lot of Transformers I decided not to get (recolors), and a few (also recolors) that I did decide to get (all three new Real Gear recolors, plus Desert Brawl FAB). Also picked up the Hybrid Rescue Tank from Exo-Force, the new Venom MegaBlok mech, Transformers Devastation #5 (just ahead of #6 coming out) and a few odds and ends. Was tempted by the other three FAB recolors, but ended up deciding to pass. Also passed on Overcast and Jungle Bonecrusher.

Comments

[lord-xiphos.livejournal.com]

Glad to hear your dad is ok.

I cannot stress enough how bad and wrong it is to use someone else's wireless network uninvited. You should not do it! And the command:

ifconfig wi0 ether `nmap --spoof-mac atheros 2>&1 | grep address | awk '{print $4}'`

may be illegal in your area. So do NOT use it, under any circumstances.

[dvandom.livejournal.com]

Okay, since I'm not going to use it, what highly illegal thing would happen? ;) (And if my cable hadn't fried, I'd be using my own WAN now, sigh.)

[lord-xiphos.livejournal.com]

Basically what that command does is set your MAC address to a random yet valid value so that any traffic from your machine does not appear to be from your machine. I forget what east coast state made it illegal to mask/change your computers MAC address, but it's a stupid, unenforceable law because it also outlaws NAT, a basic function of most routers (wireless or otherwise). I'm pretty sure it wasn't your state.

[foomf.livejournal.com]

Cannot be illegal to simply scan for wireless and check IP addresses on open, un-scrambled networks. It may be illegal to then use the networks, but in general... meh.

[lord-xiphos.livejournal.com]

Depends on where you are. Some places have really stupid, neo-Luddite type laws.
Having said that, the above command line does not scan, it sets a temporary, random MAC address that appears to be a valid Atheros MAC to the wireless device (assuming your wireless device is wi0). There was an east coast state a couple of years ago that decided doing such should be illegal. The way it's worded, it also outlaws NATing :D

If I can find the details again, I'll post it up.

[foomf.livejournal.com]

There's nothing intrinsic about a MAC address and no fraud inherent in providing one which isn't hard-wired into your device; only if you are using that address to impersonate or defraud can it be illegal. Otherwise, it's simply suppressing free speech. Yes, speech mediated across a network, using a very contrived dialect.

[foomf.livejournal.com]

Apparently lawyers can quibble over the fact that the laws, written before the existence of telecommunications devices (and frankly, is wi-fi or internet telecommunications under the legal definition?) ... since the laws are careful to specify mail, post, newspaper and other methods, there's no mention of these newfangled telecommunications, so we have to add them.


That, or the various legislayers are trying to justify their jobs.

[lord-xiphos.livejournal.com]

Legislayer! That would make an awesome new class. :D

[lord-xiphos.livejournal.com]

I am no lawyer, just a computer technician, but your argument seems sound enough. Mine was primarily a joke, poking fun at both DVD's unfortunate predicament, and the ever growing tangle of overzealous legislation which us techs must be increasingly aware of.

I was unable to find the Massachusetts bill that initially alerted me to such madness, but I did find a similar entry in the Michigan penal code (Section number 750.540c if anyone wishes to look it up (http://www.legislature.mi.gov); the direct link has been subject to frequent change, which is why I do not link directly to it).

(1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, or use any type of telecommunications access device with the intent to defraud by doing, but not limited to, any of the following:
...
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service
...
(2) A person shall not modify, alter, program, or reprogram a telecommunications access device to commit an act prohibited under subsection (1)

OK, so the language of subsection (1) is critical to this piece, yes? So long as one can show that there was no intent to defraud anyone, we're golden.
The problem comes in when the line between "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty until proven innocent" is crossed. I posted those instructions up as a joke. But, what if someone took my little command line up there and DID use it for the purposes of defrauding another? I might now be held liable by subsection (3):

(3) A person shall nod deliver or advertise plans, written instructions, or materials for the manufacture, assembly, or development of an unlawful telecommunications access device. As used in this subsection, "materials" includes any hardware, cables, tools, data, computer software, or other information or equipment used or intended for use in the manufacture, assembly, or development of any type of a telecommunications access device

Uh oh! I, in a moment of jest, just provided publically available knowledge on how to change one's mac address to any Linux, *BSD, or UNIX user who was too lazy to man ifconfig, nmap, awk, and the Bourn shell. While my intention was purely comical, the information could potentially be used for fraudulent purposes. I could potentially be nabbed under subsection (4) (I'll leave that one for you to look up ;) ), as might DVD for not deleteing the funny (keeping it available for dissemination).

Also check out 750.219a. It's full of more penal code funs!

I will continue to track down the Massachusetts (and Texas) laws on the matter. I want to recall they were even stricter on the matter. My question is, why do tellecommunications devices need to be specifically targetted in this manner? Does the law not already adequately cover fraud? There has to be legislation targetting specific devices, or even the mere distribution of information?

[lord-xiphos.livejournal.com]

*sigh* All typos are mine. Inspection of the original material is crucial. I need to improve proofreading skills. Copy-paste was not used due to limitations of work network access and X interoperability of Links 2.1pre33

[foomf.livejournal.com]

oops, replied to the bogus one. Look above :)