Hacker News Reader

Comment by foxfluff | Hacker News Reader

> if they aren't maxing out their bandwidth, then it makes similarly no difference that you use it

That is a big assumption right there. The neighborhood streaming 4k cat videos from youtube could make a massive dent, and I can easily use all the bandwidth I have for my own needs.

That's before we consider the potential consequences of them "borrowing" my IP address and all. Of course it's on me to keep my network secure so I don't let that happen, but in theory they could find the next vulnerability that lets them in.

View on HN

>if they aren't maxing out their bandwidth

The analogy is only in the contextually relevant case of a limited resource and the consumption.

The juxtaposition of individual vs collectivism, and the inevitable tragedy of the commons, was the relevance.

Of course, any technical analogy on HN gets pedantically deconstructed into atomic trivialness.

Anywho - if you don't broadcast your SSID, or, even less dismissively, don't Faraday cage your house, then anyone interacting with the electromagnetic field that you haphazardly allow to escape the privacy of your residence is within their rights to do so.

> Anywho - if you don't broadcast your SSID, or, even less dismissively, don't Faraday cage your house, then anyone interacting with the electromagnetic field that you haphazardly allow to escape the privacy of your residence is within their rights to do so.

Are you seriously arguing that anyone is allowed to tamper with your mobile phone signal as long as you're at home and they're outside the walls?

Yes, and it is legal, and commonly done.

You are allowed to broadcast a cell phone tower signal and MiTM the connection.

You are not forcing others to connect to your signal.

The spirit of this freedom is even emblazoned on every compliant device, look for the FCC warning.

As for jamming, that is entirely unrelated, not comparable, and illegal. It would be akin to blaring loud music and lights.

> anyone interacting with the electromagnetic field that you haphazardly allow to escape the privacy of your residence is within their rights to do so

You seem to have an insufficient understanding of how wireless communication protocols work, in particular the 'communication' aspect. Simply detecting the signal would not allow you to use the WiFi network. You would have to establish a connection with the access point and actively and continuously exchange information with it, thereby directly using its resources.

This is not the same as coming across a fallen coin in the street, or reading by ambient light emitted by someone else's candle

Reading by the ambient light emitted is constantly exchanging photons, which is information communication. Picking up a fallen coin is displacing localized complexity.

If it wasn't, you wouldn't be given any extra photons to bounce off the book and into your eyes, and wouldn't know of the candle across the street, since the photons were "insufficient" to make themselves known to you.

Again, pedantically deconstructing a technical analogy to dismiss it on its merits is going to be hard when faced with a more pedantic pissant.

The point of the entire exercise is to acknowledge the collective vs individual contributions to the emergent tragedy of the commons.

> Reading by the ambient light emitted is constantly exchanging photons, which is information communication.

Wrong. You don't emit photons

> Picking up a fallen coin is displacing localized complexity.

That's a meaningless statement

> Again, pedantically deconstructing a technical analogy to dismiss it on its merits is going to be hard when faced with a more pedantic pissant.

It's an analogy that doesn't work, picking apart the differences is revealing

> The point of the entire exercise is to acknowledge the collective vs individual contributions to the emergent tragedy of the commons.

Another meaningless statement

Reply on news.ycombinator.com