3 ms·

> What's wrong with sharing? A few things. Some of these things can be mitigated, but I think then we've moved beyond simple sharing. 1. Your neighbor could u

> What's wrong with sharing? A few things. Some of these things can be mitigated, but I think then we've moved beyond simple sharing. 1. Your neighbor could use too much bandwidth, thereby impacting your usage negatively. 2. Your neighbor could do naughty things on your Internet connection, and you'll be held liable. Practically, this might mean getting a bunch of DMCA notices. For some ISPs, this has a real impact on your account. 3. Many applications by default share their data with whoever is on your network. Maybe this is OK, but maybe it has stuff that you'd rather your neighbors did not see. To clarify, I think sharing is great if you decide to do it. But I also think that the uninformed should be advised to not share by default because of the issues I mentioned above.

marssaxman 14y ago
Of course those things are possible in theory, but I've been doing this for 14 years and nothing bad has ever happened. I don't believe that it's as big a deal as people make it out to be.
- cbhl 14y ago
  The question is whether you trust your neighbors enough. If you live near a post-secondary institution, say, you might not be willing to leave your network that open.
crististm 14y ago
1. This is not necessarily wrong. Maybe I set it up so he can use all the bandwidth that he can get 2. Why is only the penultimate hop responsible for the last hop? Why should he be responsible in the first place? And why shouldn't all the network hops in-between be responsible as well??? 3.Yes, it is OK "Link sharing" is OK regardless of your decision whether to share or not. Don't blame the technology man.
- burntsushi 14y ago
  I think you've blithely missed the point. I will quote my concluding remark for further emphasis: > To clarify, I think sharing is great if you decide to do it. But I also think that the uninformed should be advised to not share by default because of the issues I mentioned above. ... > This is not necessarily wrong. Maybe I set it up so he can use all the bandwidth that he can get Maybe you did. So? > Why is only the penultimate hop responsible for the last hop? Why should he be responsible in the first place. And why shouldn't all the network hops in-between be responsible as well??? Red herring. We're not talking about the appropriate legal perspective of network responsibility, but rather, what is the legal perspective of network responsibility. > Yes, it is OK For you? Great! Not for everyone. Which was my point.
  - crististm 14y ago
    I get your point. I just don't agree with it. If you don't want to share your data that doesn't make sharing bad. Which is _my_ point. And what _is_ the legal perspective for this issue, anyway? Do you equate it with illegal activities in a house? So the owner is responsible for what's going on there? It's not the same thing. If you could be 100% sure that the originator is the true owner maybe you could have a stand in your argument. But you can't be 100% sure that the network is uncrackable.
    - burntsushi 14y ago
      > If you don't want to share your data that doesn't make sharing bad. This has two interpretations. Either you're claiming that: 1) Just because person A doesn't want to share their data doesn't mean that it's bad for person B to share their data. or 2) Person A doesn't want to share their data, but person A having their data shared unwittingly isn't bad. I agree with (1). I don't see how (2) can be true. If I don't want my data shared, then having it shared is bad. Moreover, this isn't even just about sharing data. It's also about sharing bandwidth and legal/ISP ramifications. > And what _is_ the legal perspective for this issue, anyway? Do you equate it with illegal activities in a house? So the owner is responsible for what's going on there? It's not the same thing. I don't equate it with anything. My initial post was very clear about potential ramifications. Perhaps you should re-read it. > If you could be 100% sure that the originator is the true owner maybe you could have a stand in your argument. But you can't be 100% sure that the network is uncrackable. You're still very clearly missing the point. I don't care who the "true" owner is. I don't care about the workings of the network. In this instance, I care about what my ISP will do to me and what the government will do to me. I was very clear about this in my initial post. Please revisit the context of this discussion. The top post in this thread asked, "What is wrong with sharing?" I answered with what I could see as the potential pitfalls of sharing. What argument are you trying to make exactly? That sharing has no pitfalls?

marssaxman 14y ago

Of course those things are possible in theory, but I've been doing this for 14 years and nothing bad has ever happened. I don't believe that it's as big a deal as people make it out to be.

cbhl 14y ago
The question is whether you trust your neighbors enough. If you live near a post-secondary institution, say, you might not be willing to leave your network that open.

crististm 14y ago

1. This is not necessarily wrong. Maybe I set it up so he can use all the bandwidth that he can get 2. Why is only the penultimate hop responsible for the last hop? Why should he be responsible in the first place? And why shouldn't all the network hops in-between be responsible as well??? 3.Yes, it is OK "Link sharing" is OK regardless of your decision whether to share or not. Don't blame the technology man.

burntsushi 14y ago
I think you've blithely missed the point. I will quote my concluding remark for further emphasis: > To clarify, I think sharing is great if you decide to do it. But I also think that the uninformed should be advised to not share by default because of the issues I mentioned above. ... > This is not necessarily wrong. Maybe I set it up so he can use all the bandwidth that he can get Maybe you did. So? > Why is only the penultimate hop responsible for the last hop? Why should he be responsible in the first place. And why shouldn't all the network hops in-between be responsible as well??? Red herring. We're not talking about the appropriate legal perspective of network responsibility, but rather, what is the legal perspective of network responsibility. > Yes, it is OK For you? Great! Not for everyone. Which was my point.
- crististm 14y ago
  I get your point. I just don't agree with it. If you don't want to share your data that doesn't make sharing bad. Which is _my_ point. And what _is_ the legal perspective for this issue, anyway? Do you equate it with illegal activities in a house? So the owner is responsible for what's going on there? It's not the same thing. If you could be 100% sure that the originator is the true owner maybe you could have a stand in your argument. But you can't be 100% sure that the network is uncrackable.
  - burntsushi 14y ago
    > If you don't want to share your data that doesn't make sharing bad. This has two interpretations. Either you're claiming that: 1) Just because person A doesn't want to share their data doesn't mean that it's bad for person B to share their data. or 2) Person A doesn't want to share their data, but person A having their data shared unwittingly isn't bad. I agree with (1). I don't see how (2) can be true. If I don't want my data shared, then having it shared is bad. Moreover, this isn't even just about sharing data. It's also about sharing bandwidth and legal/ISP ramifications. > And what _is_ the legal perspective for this issue, anyway? Do you equate it with illegal activities in a house? So the owner is responsible for what's going on there? It's not the same thing. I don't equate it with anything. My initial post was very clear about potential ramifications. Perhaps you should re-read it. > If you could be 100% sure that the originator is the true owner maybe you could have a stand in your argument. But you can't be 100% sure that the network is uncrackable. You're still very clearly missing the point. I don't care who the "true" owner is. I don't care about the workings of the network. In this instance, I care about what my ISP will do to me and what the government will do to me. I was very clear about this in my initial post. Please revisit the context of this discussion. The top post in this thread asked, "What is wrong with sharing?" I answered with what I could see as the potential pitfalls of sharing. What argument are you trying to make exactly? That sharing has no pitfalls?