A disaster for Canada's Human Rights Commission
Sat, 2008-03-29 06:47
#1
remind
A disaster for Canada's Human Rights Commission
Sat, 2008-03-29 06:47
#2
remind
Interesting actions by the CHRC, that really portrays them in a worse light, even though the media outlet detailing it is the National Post.
quote:
The most scandalous disclosure to emerge on Tuesday involved the manner by which investigators logged on to Lemire's Web site. In what appears to be a ham-fisted attempt to avoid revealing the commission's IP address, they tapped into the unsecured wi-firouter of a 26-year-old Ottawa woman who lived near the commission's 344 Slater St. headquarters. At Tuesday's hearing, a Bell Canada employee read out the woman's name, address and phone number to shocked audience members. A National Post reporter contacted the woman and found that she'd never heard of Lemire, Steacy, or his investigations. Unless she is secretly working undercover for Steacy, it appears that the commission cynically invaded the privacy of an innocent citizen in order to pursue an obscure Web-trawling vendetta; and then caused her name to be read out to the Canadian public, thereby identifying her as an unwitting conduit to neo-Nazi Web sites. One likes to imagine that the privacy commissioner will be having a chat with Dean et al. in coming days.
Seriously, using someone else's IP address was considered "Okay" by them?
[url=http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=405744&p=2]...
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:03
#3
Cueball
Pretty goofie.
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:07
#4
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
What a pathetic charge by this right-wing nutbag!
Anyone who has wireless internet knows that when you look at the server screen, there are all kinds of servers that pop up - your neighbours - anyone within a few dozen metres of your computer, sometimes more, depending on signal strength.
Some people are foolish enough not to password-protect their wireless network. The result is simple and common. When your own home network signal is weak (temporarily or for longer), your computer [b]automatically[/b] cycles through the list of servers within range and [b][i]logs onto the strongest available signal that is not password-protected!!![/i][/b]
Unless you monitor your network list, you will generally not even know which network you are connected to at any given moment.
Especially in a downtown office area, there will be a multiplicity of networks within range. Only a few people fail to protect their networks, but that's all it takes.
Mystery resolved.
But for the likes of Jonathan Kay, this becomes a vehicle to attack the Human Rights Commission!
What a friggin dinosaur. And the National Post publishes this as if it's a "Gotcha!" against all us idiots who appreciate human rights.
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:12
#5
Cueball
Floating IP's on wireless internet are not the same those located on land lines, which can be user specific.
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:12
#6
N.Beltov
Yabbut it gives the barking dogs of the Conservative party something to do on a weekend. You know how dogs love to bark at anything that's pointed out to them. Woof woof.
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:12
#7
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]...and then caused her name to be read out to the Canadian public, thereby identifying her as an unwitting conduit to neo-Nazi Web sites[/b]
[url=http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2008/03/national-post-reporting-warman-.... Dawg[/url] was at the hearing:
quote:
Here is the truth of it: the Bell Canada official had been subpoenaed by Marc Lemire's lawyer, Barbara Kulaszka. He required the official request of the Tribunal to divulge the confidential details of his findings. This is [i]pro forma[/i], and the Chair gave his OK. The testimony followed. Then Margot Blight, from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, rose to suggest that such information should be protected, due to privacy considerations.The Chair agreed, and, if memory serves, ordered that this information not be promulgated. Of course it immediately appeared on Marc Lemire's blogsite*. When that became known in the afternoon, the Chair ordered that the information (identity, street address) be removed. It remains posted as of this writing.
Might want to ask the [i]National Post[/i] why they continue to give the bad guys a pass for this.
*Edited to add footnote for clarity: Lemire had a laptop with him and was live-blogging the proceedings. I wonder whose IP he was using?
[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:17
#8
remind
I do not get it, it was her IP address, or they just used it and publicized it???
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:24
#9
The IP would be assigned to her by Bell. There may be any number of reasons why a log would show that this IP was used in conjunction with an account (the user name "JadeWarr") created by someone at the CHRC. The woman's personal information was revealed at the hearing at the request of Lemire's lawyer following which someone from the CHRC immediately pointed out the potential violation of her privacy. It was Lemire who ignored that and posted the information on the 'net.
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:26
#10
remind
So why did her name come up at all then?
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:28
#11
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]I do not get it, it was her IP address, or they just used it and publicized it???[/b]
Remind, there's no such thing as "her" ip address. An internet provider (Rogers, Telus, Sympatico, etc.) typically assigns your computer a dynamic ip address as soon as you fire it up.
Let me give you an example. Sometimes, my own provider's signal drops out. If I glance down at my system tray, I may see a pop-up bubble telling me my wireless network has now changed. One of the ones I often see is called "Mikey". It's obviously some guy in the neighbourhood, and s/he hasn't password-protected their wireless network.
If Bell (or whoever) then comes along a month later and checks the logs of "Mikey"'s web surfing, guess what: They will find some of the sites I was visiting while logged into "Mikey"'s server inadvertently.
That's what happened here, and the National Post are scummy and ignorant.
By the way, that doesn't mean Section 13 ought not to be repealed - I still think it needs radical overhaul or just plain repeal to protect freedom of expression.
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:31
#12
Cueball
No. Land lines do not necessarily have dynamic IP addressess, though they are often grouped. It is possible even for a user to have a very specific IP.
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:31
#13
quote:
So why did her name come up at all then?
JadeWarr was a user created by someone at the CHRC at a site that was being investigated. The log at that site showed this woman's IP address associated with a particular post at a particular time and date. Since that block of addresses is assigned to Bell Canada, the Bell was asked to check their own logs and see which of their customers was assigned this IP address on this particular day and time.
[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:35
#14
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]It is possible even for a user to have a very specific IP.[/b]
Any number of things are possible. I see users on Sympatico, Bell's DSL service, whose IP addresses change every day. My own Rogers IP may remain static for months at a time but then suddenly it'll change completely.
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:36
#15
Cueball
There seems to be some confusion about static and dynamic IP's.
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:36
#16
So, what was a HRC investigator doing posting Lemire's odious website under the alias Jadewarr in the first place?
My concern is that Lemire has successfully undermined the HRC by exposing overzealous bungling on the part of the investigators. Lemire has successfully sown doubt about his own actions and cast the HRC in a negative light.
But,in the vein of this thread,I'm certain it can all be disparaged ,laughed off and swept under the carpet rather than examined in a serious manner.
Carry on
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:40
#17
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]No. Land lines do not necessarily have dynamic IP addressess, though they are often grouped. It is possible even for a user to have a very specific IP.[/b]
Yes, that is absolutely correct. That is possible. You can have a static ip address. What we don't know from this story is whether the CHRC computer was connected via wifi or not. If it was, then no matter how many landlines they had, the CHRC investigator might still have landed accidentally on a neighbour's unprotected network. Don't you agree?
But what are you saying here? That the CHRC may actually have spoofed a neighbour's ip address!? It's obvious that what happened here was inadvertent, and I'm just trying to explain to remind how it could have happened from a technological viewpoint.
ETA: Whoops, sorry - I just re-read the article and it does indeed say "they tapped into the unsecured wi-firouter". That means that the human rights person was indeed using wireless, and my original explanation is correct.
[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:45
#18
Remind, given that it was a wifi (wireless) router, all the above talk about static vs. dynamic is irrelevant. The human rights computer was not even on the CHRC internet service when this happened - it was on the neighbour's service, just as I explained in my "Mikey" situation. It happens to everyone.
Oh, and if someone really wanted to spoof an ip, they wouldn't choose one from next door - they'd create one from anywhere in the world, and preferably one that didn't correspond to any real computer.
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:45
#19
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
[b]But,in the vein of this thread,I'm certain it can all be disparaged ,laughed off and swept under the carpet rather than examined in a serious manner.Carry on[/b]
What's being disparaged and laughed off is the [i]National Post[/i]'s coverage. I've already told you in another thread that if it turned out the CHRC was [i]intentionally [/i] hiding behind this woman that I would hope someone got nailed for it. But that can be difficult to prove.
Unfortunately we have to wade through all the crap being thrown around by Lemire, his fans and the [i]National Post[/i] in order to figure out what really happened.
[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]
Sat, 2008-03-29 07:49
#20
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
[b]So, what was a HRC investigator doing posting Lemire's odious website under the alias Jadewarr in the first place?[/b]
Investigating violation of a law (a law I don't happen to agree with, but that's a separate issue).
I think we should be far more concerned with CSIS paid agents provocateur offering to supply weapons, ammonium nitrate, and "training camp" facilities to impressionable angry young people, than to someone logging on with a nickname to a publicly accessible web forum - [b][i]like you and I do every day, jester[/i][/b].
Sat, 2008-03-29 08:00
#21
remind
Okay, thanks pogge and unionist, for the explanations, I am sure more people out there were/are not getting this situation, and it is useful to have such a fleshout occuring.
So, what we are seeing is the right trying to manage the message, and discredit the CHRC.
Sat, 2008-03-29 08:02
#22
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:
[b]What's being disparaged and laughed off is the [i]National Post[/i]'s coverage. I've already told you in another thread that if it turned out the CHRC was [i]intentionally [/i] hiding behind this woman that I would hope someone got nailed for it. But that can be difficult to prove.
Unfortunately we have to wade through all the crap being thrown around by Lemire, his fans and the [i]National Post[/i] in order to figure out what really happened.
[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: pogge ][/b]
I heard you the first time and,I agree that the National Post is sensationalist and full of crap but that is how newspapers make money. Reporting Hansard vebatim won't make a dime - its titilation and sensation that attracts the great unwashed to cough up a loonie.
I also agree that there is a lot of crap to wade through but pronouncing the HRC not guilty (unionist, not you) before the trial is held is just as biased as the NP spin.
In the Feiglin thread, I learned how my blind trust in Canada's HRC and anti-hate legislation to protect Canadians from the fascists and haters is mired in political meddling and long-running controversy over the intent of the original legislation the HRC is founded on.
If Lemire is successful in dragging the HRC deeper into disrepute than previous (neo-con)attempts to discredit it have,it will allow freedom of expression by ever more odious types to be legitimised.
Sat, 2008-03-29 08:07
#23
I really think we need to separate the issues here.
I strongly oppose any role for the CHRC in regulating speech, except for the clear prohibitions against discrimination in employment, lodging, and public services. I oppose Section 13 and have opened threads and made many posts saying so.
But the very narrow issue here is the ability of a national newspaper to create a lynch-mob frenzy falsely accusing someone of having impersonated a private individual to carry out some nefarious deed.
It's hard for us lowly folk to get the national ear. I can only hope some other MSM prints the same kind of refutation of Jonathan Kay's frenzied propaganda that we have done in this thread.
Sat, 2008-03-29 08:18
#24
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Investigating violation of a law (a law I don't happen to agree with, but that's a separate issue).
I think we should be far more concerned with CSIS paid agents provocateur offering to supply weapons, ammonium nitrate, and "training camp" facilities to impressionable angry young people, than to someone logging on with a nickname to a publicly accessible web forum - [b][i]like you and I do every day, jester[/i][/b].[/b]
Agreed but you and I,my friend do not visit odious sites, do we? There is a huge difference between babble and sites dedicated to division and supremacy.
There is also a huge difference in law between admissable evidence and entrapment even in quasi-judicial proceedings. My concern is that Lemire,if he is successful, is opening the door to greater [i]generous interpretation[/i] by casting the HRC's actions in disrepute.
Sat, 2008-03-29 08:26
#25
quote:
But the very narrow issue here is the ability of a national newspaper to create a lynch-mob frenzy falsely accusing someone of having impersonated a private individual to carry out some nefarious deed.
I don't know about the frenzy. As far as I can tell, no-one other than us is paying any attention. I doubt if 90% of Canadians have either the capacity or desire to give a damn about pivotal issues such as this.
The individual is not "falsely accused", he is "alleged". While any gambit is fair dinkum in the hunt for neo-nazis etc, getting caught isn't.
Sat, 2008-03-29 08:32
#26
I am more concerned about some methods they disclosed during the hearing; which in my opinion was completely against normal police work: such as
the investigators complete free hand in rejecting or accepting complaints as they come in (thus explaining why the majority of Section 13 complaints were filed by a single person), and that favourite complainant was working too closely with the investigators, thus violating the concept of independent investigation.
Not to mention the fact that they were able to get the content of one hard disk without a court order, and that the investigators appear to have been posting on hate sites to entrap those guys.
I can accept these were all done in good faith, but I believe there is a reason for all restriction put on police procedures. I'd rather have the regular police investigating human right issues instead of a civilian commission. We don't need a Human Right Commission in order to enforce human rights law.
Sat, 2008-03-29 08:42
#27
quote:
Originally posted by sanizadeh:
[b]I'd rather have the regular police investigating human right issues instead of a civilian commission. We don't need a Human Right Commission in order to enforce human rights law.[/b]
Section 13 - yes, as long as it exists, it should not be enforced by an HRC.
But you're ignoring a huge purpose of human rights legislation, which is not just to investigate, charge and punish, but to solve real-life problems of discrimination, monitor and propose accommodation of disability, religious beliefs, etc., promote policy changes among employers to more fully respect the letter and spirit of the prohibited grounds, etc.
The HRC plays an important role in mediating resolves to issues which don't require "punishment" to be resolved. That role far outweighs its adjudicative role, in terms of time and effort. This is a role that the police can't and mustn't play.
Having said that, the question of how effective it is even in its dispute-resolution role is a separate one.
I just happen to think Section 13 is a brazen anomaly in what is otherwise an extremely positive and necessary piece of legislation. Besides expanding the criminal concept of hate speech and the civil concept of defamation beyond legitimate bounds, it does indeed involve the HRC in matters totally foreign to its mandate - and yes, it helps discredit human rights legislation as a whole. It should be repealed.
Sat, 2008-03-29 19:47
#28
Human rights commissions in general have too much power without any oversight.
They enjoy a quasi-judicial status, which gives them the leeway to wear two hats: an administrative hat (i.e, a bureaucracy) which entails sluggishness and abusive, deceptive and arrogant behaviour and a judicial hat which requires trust and demands the respectability, independence and non interference bestowed upon courts of law.
People, especially progressives, romanticize human rights commissions. But the reality is that HR commissions are governmental agencies, they do not report to the Legislature, but to the government of the day. They are a political tool and the exercice of their mandate depends on government directives. The notion that they are "independent" is merely promoted for public consumption.
DELETED
[ 31 March 2008: Message edited by: sangie ]
Sat, 2008-03-29 19:52
#29
Welcome to babble. I don't agree with anything you said in that post.
Sat, 2008-03-29 20:14
#30
quote:
Welcome to babble. I don't agree with anything you said in that post.
Thank you. First time and I hit a total disagreement. Bodes well because many happy events in my life started with disagreements [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 31 March 2008: Message edited by: sangie ]
Sat, 2008-03-29 20:47
#31
quote:
Originally posted by sangie:
[b]Doesn't the selective spying by the CHRC surprise you? [/b]
You'll actually have to direct me to what "spying" you're talking about. If you mean logging on to a publicly accessible website to have a look around, I think the word "spying" qualifies as a trifle histrionic.
quote:
[b]Wouldn't such tools have helped in cases of sexism, homophobia and xenophobia and other illicit grounds of discrimination?[/b]
Complaints are filed and the Commission investigates them, as well as (if appropriate) tries to mediate a resolution. You want them to hire agents, police or CSIS or RCMP style, to go entrap respondents? Or spy on respondents? Well, maybe if you have an example of a complaint where that would have been vital... Otherwise, it sounds just plain silly to me. I don't like such spying when cops do it, let alone a commission whose role is to find solutions to discrimination in the workplace, lodging, public services, etc.
quote:
[b]Do you think that the CHRC should be a sacred cow?[/b]
Nope. Not sure what you mean.
Sat, 2008-03-29 21:15
#32
DELETED
[ 31 March 2008: Message edited by: sangie ]
Sat, 2008-03-29 21:18
#33
1992? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
ETA: You're linking to Marc Lemire's crap, approvingly?
Look, just because I'm against Section 13 doesn't mean I approve of white supremacist neo-nazi filth. It's a fairly important distinction.
[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sat, 2008-03-29 21:44
#34
DELETED>
[ 31 March 2008: Message edited by: sangie ]
Sun, 2008-03-30 05:50
#35
quote:
Originally posted by sangie:
[b]ETA: I do not want to leave the impression that I am a right winger. I am simply saying that human rights commissions are not the institutions we, progressives, think they are.
[/b]
You seem to be following the good advice of this U.S. poster on the page you linked to:
quote:
But again, trying to take Warman down is the wrong strategy. Warman and the CHRC need to be wedded so that they cannot be separated in the minds of Canadians. The worst case scenario is that Warman goes away while the CHRC lives to see another day.
Anyway, consider deleting the disgusting and defamatory racist filth that you've treated us to.
Sun, 2008-03-30 06:38
#36
DELETED
[ 31 March 2008: Message edited by: sangie ]
Sun, 2008-03-30 06:57
#37
I happen to agree that Section 13 of the CHRC needs some revamping. However the National Post and Kay in particular have gone absolutely bonkers. Here for example is a column in which Kay makes love to Marc Lemire the neo-Nazi calling him courageous blah blah blah:
[url=http://tinyurl.com/2svapf]National Post[/url]
Here is a response from a Holocaust survivor:
[url=http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/Story.html?id=402263]Holocaust survivor response[/url]
And that's just a taste of who these right-wingers are getting into bed with. All you need to do is read some of the crazy rightwing bloggers like Ezra Levant (who in my view is a completely bizarre) who have found new careers writing and flailing away at this new "menace".
Interestingly here in this article in the Canadian jewish News way back in January the Canadian jewish Congress takes a turn at trying to expalin the issue:
[url=http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13911&It... human rights complaints are frivilous[/url]
Then the National Post went to town on the CJC, and many others who didnt want to toss the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Search around the Post sight (if you have the stomach for it) and you will see that Kay and company have made this an almost feteshistic preoccupation. In fact it has taken a page out of the babble playbook and has fingered CJC as the main culprit (heavens cjc wants a reworking of the CHRC act but defends the need to have anti-hate regs)with 6 or 7 articles written by Kay and hard right nutter Colby Cosh attacking CJC sometimes personally going after its leadership.
Either way someone here noted that Canadians don't really seem to care about this and for the most part that is true all that is but the Kay's and Lerants of the world.
[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: ohara ]
Sun, 2008-03-30 06:58
#38
quote:
Originally posted by sangie:
[b]I have deleted the quotation not because it is defamatory but because it is filthy. (There is no defamation since the facts prove the claim. [/b]
Thank you. As for "facts", I'd like to see those from a less disreputable source before accusing Richard Warman, or anyone, of hate speech. If these are proven allegations, show the proof.
quote:
[b]With due respect, I think that you not only kept moving the goalposts, you also attempted to associate me with the motives of the U.S. poster you referred to. This is in addition to your earlier "You're linking to Marc Lemire's crap, approvingly?" When I am only citing facts to support my suggestion that HR commissions are not the institutions we progressives think they are.[/b]
I'm concerned about [b]your[/b] goalposts. First you justify your views by reference to freedomsite.com. Then you do so by reference to freedominion. I am not making this up.
Do you have any non-extreme-right-wing non-bigoted sources for your concerns about the HR commissions?
quote:
[b]But it seems to me that your theory is that facts must cease to be facts when delivered by someone we do not like. Odd way of debating.[/b]
What "facts"? That the CHRC has free access to the "home address, vehicle information, dental records, identifying marks/scars, firearms ownership, criminal records, fingerprints, current surveillance information, known aliases, medical conditions and much more" of every Canadian?
You call that a "fact"!?
Or, that Richard Warman launched vicious racist attacks under an assumed name - maybe he did - got some proof? Has he admitted it? Has it been established before a tribunal? If not, it is defamation and character assassination. And your "sources" are from the Nazi edge of the spectrum.
So to answer your question: If my worst enemy provides me with a fact that I was unaware of and that challenges my preconceived notions, I will definitely consider it, once its accuracy is established.
When some who says s/he is progressive cites "facts" without evidence beyond the speculative ravings of the fanatical white supremacist bigotted right, I am distinctly unimpressed.
Sun, 2008-03-30 07:01
#39
quote:
Or, that Richard Warman launched vicious racist attacks under an assumed name - maybe he did - got some proof? Has he admitted it? Has it been established before a tribunal? If not, it is defamation and character assassination. And your "sources" are from the Nazi edge of the spectrum.
Unionist, nice to be on the same side for once (though we may disagree on the need for section 13). It is my understanding (cannot recall where I read it but will try to find it) that Warman has a sworn affidavit that he did not in fact write the "Anne Cools" post. In fact there is absolutely no proof that he did.
Sun, 2008-03-30 07:03
#40
Ohara, if you really want us to be on the same side, please fix the sidescroll resulting from your dysfunctional National Post link in the previous post.
ETA:
[i]Disclaimer:[/i] The above is without prejudice or precedent and is not to be construed as an admission, waiver, or offer of any kind.
[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sun, 2008-03-30 07:09
#41
If anyone's interested, here's [url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/02/20/... retraction[/url] the [i]National Post[/i] published after Jonathan Kay repeated the allegation that Warman was responsible for the Cools post. Obviously they didn't feel there was enough proof to let the allegation stand.
Sun, 2008-03-30 07:11
#42
Thank you, pogge.
Hopefully sangie will be a little more cautious in the future before posting defamatory lies concocted by Nazis in order to attack human rights commissions?
Sun, 2008-03-30 07:17
#43
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Let me give you an example. Sometimes, my own provider's signal drops out. If I glance down at my system tray, I may see a pop-up bubble telling me my wireless network has now changed. One of the ones I often see is called "Mikey". It's obviously some guy in the neighbourhood, and s/he hasn't password-protected their wireless network.[/b]
You may want to look into changing this in your computer's configuration -- it is not normal, and somewhat dangerous. Normal behaviour for most operating systems is to automatically connect to an access point that you have previously connected to manually. It should never automatically connect you to an unknown AP without user consent. One reason is that it makes a ridiculously easy attack vector against your computer -- if I stand up an open access point and use a directional antenna to become the strongest signal, and your computer automatically connects it to me, then I can do some nasty thing to you while you surf. Another problem is that it is illegal to connect to someone else's AP unless you have a reason to think they don't mind you doing so. Of course if you didn't do it on purpose then there wouldn't be a case against you, but it's a lot better to not be in a position where you have to argue that, as the CHRC would now be discovering if this is in fact the case.
What operating system does this, anyway? No Linux does this, and for me Windows XP pops up 'Wireless connections available' if it can't find one it already knows about.
[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]
Sun, 2008-03-30 07:19
#44
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]What operating system does this, anyway?[/b]
Windows XP. I have no idea how to stop it doing so - can you help?
Sorry for the drift.
ETA: By the way, there is no doubt that this is the default. I have seen the same thing on other computers - one network drops out, another kicks in, seamlessly.
[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sun, 2008-03-30 07:22
#45
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]What operating system does this, anyway? No Linux does this, and for me Windows XP pops up 'Wireless connections available' if it can't find one it already knows about.[/b]
Yeah, but when most wireless connections are secured by their users. If one of them is unsecured, are you saying for sure that XP doesn't try to connect you?
On your point about using someone's connection "without permission", I do think there's an onus on users to password-protect their systems.
Sun, 2008-03-30 07:25
#46
Okay, I've found it. Control Panel -> Network Connections. Double-click on your wireless NIC, then click Properties. In the Properties dialog there is a tab labeled 'Wireless Networks', click Advanced. Uncheck the box labeled 'Automatically connect to non-preferred networks'. That should do it.
I actually didn't know about that box until right now. Lousy default configuration if it defaults to checked.
Sun, 2008-03-30 07:29
#47
Actually, it is already unchecked. Maybe the problem is in the three choices above it:
- Any available network (access point preferred)
- Access point (infrastructure) networks only
- Computer-to-computer (ad hoce) networks only
In my case, the first of the three is checked.
Do I dare check the second one instead? I have no clue what "infrastructure" means.
Sun, 2008-03-30 07:31
#48
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Yeah, but when most wireless connections are secured by their users. If one of them is unsecured, are you saying for sure that XP doesn't try to connect you?[/b]
You're probably right about the default. They may have changed that in recent updates to the OS, though.
quote:
[b]On your point about using someone's connection "without permission", I do think there's an onus on users to password-protect their systems.[/b]
The question whether it is okay to connect to an unsecured network is still open, but it comes down to whether the person connecting has reasonable expectation of being permitted to do so. I don't think this has been tested in court, but I think it is hard to argue that not securing your network is tantamount to granting permission, because wireless APs default to insecure, and most people don't understand the implications of that.
Sun, 2008-03-30 07:40
#49
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Actually, it is already unchecked. Maybe the problem is in the three choices above it:- Any available network (access point preferred)
- Access point (infrastructure) networks only
- Computer-to-computer (ad hoce) networks onlyIn my case, the first of the three is checked.
Do I dare check the second one instead? I have no clue what "infrastructure" means.[/b]
The second one is better, but it shouldn't matter for the question at hand. That's just whether you want to be able to connect directly to other computers, or just wireless APs (routers).
I'm baffled, if that box is unchecked and your computer will still connect automatically to 'non-preferred networks'. Did you look at the preferred network list to see if your neighbours' networks might have gotten on there somehow?
Sun, 2008-03-30 07:44
#50
With Bell's SpeedStream wireless DSL modem-router, you're able to mask IP addresses for connecting to your home network by the NAT or network address translation feature.
And you can also apply a hardware address filter and only allow specific PC's to connect based on "MAC" addressing schemes ie. every PC, laptop, Sony PS3 etc has a unique 48 bit physical hardware address. Combined with a 32 bit IP address you have a very unique 80 bit MAC-IP addressing scheme to use as a combination filter.
Firewalls should be turned on at all times. And firewalls have other unique filtering capabilities for added security.
There's also Bell's encryption feature. You can turn on 64 or 128 bit encryption which requires an encoded key to connect. 128 bit encryption is what most credit card transactions use on the internet for security.
[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sun, 2008-03-30 07:45
#51
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]Did you look at the preferred network list to see if your neighbours' networks might have gotten on there somehow?[/b]
Yes - I just looked. It is there. Along with 15 other networks! Only one of which is mine. The others must be ones my laptop connected to over the years? Interestingly, they all had little red marks on them except for mine and "Mikey"'s. I clicked "remove" to get rid of Mikey - but what stops that entry from coming back on its own (the way it got there obviously in the first place)?
I think I'll have to wait until some Nazi subpoenas my records after Mikey makes a naughty posting somewhere...