4 ms·

I hope you're not still talking cruise ships here! Those folks are often paying high prices by the minute or by the megabyte for access: you'd be pretty literal

by Steuard 12y ago

I hope you're not still talking cruise ships here! Those folks are often paying high prices by the minute or by the megabyte for access: you'd be pretty literally stealing from your neighbors in that situation. (The moral issue for pay-by-the-day systems is one step further removed, but I think it's still real.)

jrockway 12y ago
802.1x covers access control to networks. MAC addresses are not for access control. Not that a court would agree with my logic, of course.
- WiseWeasel 12y ago
  Yeah, you might have a tough time explaining to the judge that Media Access Control addresses are not for access control.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    In this context "access control" doesn't mean what you think it does. It refers to multiplexing the communications of multiple devices over a single shared communications medium, as in "controlling" (arbitrating) shared access to the radio spectrum. It has no relationship to network authorization or authentication and provides no security whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_access_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_access_method Calling it "access control" has always been confusing which is why people started calling it Machine Address Code or Ethernet Hardware Address instead.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      > In this context "access control" doesn't mean what you think it does. Good luck explaining that to the judge.
    - growupkids 12y ago
      Regardless, the judge is going to look at intent and knowledge. You knew this was a paid service, and your intent was to not pay. You understood this was a way to avoid payment, and you understood that someone else had paid for access.
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        None of which has anything to do with "media access control" which still has nothing to do with authorization or authentication.
- annnnd 12y ago
  Doesn't really matter - it might (!) be legal, but it is immoral (if they really are paying by MB).

by Steuard 12y ago

jrockway 12y ago

802.1x covers access control to networks. MAC addresses are not for access control. Not that a court would agree with my logic, of course.

WiseWeasel 12y ago
Yeah, you might have a tough time explaining to the judge that Media Access Control addresses are not for access control.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  In this context "access control" doesn't mean what you think it does. It refers to multiplexing the communications of multiple devices over a single shared communications medium, as in "controlling" (arbitrating) shared access to the radio spectrum. It has no relationship to network authorization or authentication and provides no security whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_access_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_access_method Calling it "access control" has always been confusing which is why people started calling it Machine Address Code or Ethernet Hardware Address instead.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    > In this context "access control" doesn't mean what you think it does. Good luck explaining that to the judge.
  - growupkids 12y ago
    Regardless, the judge is going to look at intent and knowledge. You knew this was a paid service, and your intent was to not pay. You understood this was a way to avoid payment, and you understood that someone else had paid for access.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      None of which has anything to do with "media access control" which still has nothing to do with authorization or authentication.
annnnd 12y ago
Doesn't really matter - it might (!) be legal, but it is immoral (if they really are paying by MB).