From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm
sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?. I would think
not but just want to be sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik. If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

My wifi has been giving me trouble since February, and last night on the upstairs computer, the cable internet would not work either. The Troubleshooter said the cable wasn't in, and indeed, I had sometimes
gotten success by pushing it in further, a millimeter, but that didn't
work last night. Even though the Verizon FIOS fiberoptic phone was
working and the Verizon box has a flashing led for the cable that goes
to my computer.

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Wed, 26 Nov 2025 08:55:57 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a >neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my >laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

The VErizon wifi box is only 3 feet from the laptop. Just before it
switched to my wifi, I had gone over there and lifted an 18" cardboard
box with stuff (if you want to know what, I'll look) in it from between
the wifi and the laptop, then 90 seconds later, I put it back where it
was, but that probably is what caused it to switch, and I guess what
made it use my neighbor's in the first place.

The box has been there for weeks but I don't restart the laptop very
often. Later I'll restart again with the box in place and see if it
connects to my neighbor.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 11/26/2025 8:55 AM, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?. I would think
not but just want to be sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik. If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

My wifi has been giving me trouble since February, and last night on the upstairs computer, the cable internet would not work either. The Troubleshooter said the cable wasn't in, and indeed, I had sometimes
gotten success by pushing it in further, a millimeter, but that didn't
work last night. Even though the Verizon FIOS fiberoptic phone was
working and the Verizon box has a flashing led for the cable that goes
to my computer.

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Once I verified it was not the box, or something similar, I would call
you ISP and request service. I do not see what could be in the box that
would stop the signal from 3 feet away.

When I access my router web site, there is an option to find the best
channel, and one to manually select the channel used by the router.
You may try these options.

Which brings us back to my first comment I would call my ISP and request service.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-11-26 14:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?. I would think
not but just want to be sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik. If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

Depends.

That WiFi signal is probably not encrypted.

Then you have to use encrypted protocols like https to connect on the
web. Similarly for email et all. Usenet is often not encrypted.


...
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Wed, 26 Nov 2025 12:16:20 -0500, knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 11/26/2025 8:55 AM, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm
sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?. I would think
not but just want to be sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik. If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

My wifi has been giving me trouble since February, and last night on the
upstairs computer, the cable internet would not work either. The
Troubleshooter said the cable wasn't in, and indeed, I had sometimes
gotten success by pushing it in further, a millimeter, but that didn't
work last night. Even though the Verizon FIOS fiberoptic phone was
working and the Verizon box has a flashing led for the cable that goes
to my computer.

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my
laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Once I verified it was not the box, or something similar, I would call
you ISP and request service. I do not see what could be in the box that >would stop the signal from 3 feet away.

When I access my router web site, there is an option to find the best >channel, and one to manually select the channel used by the router.
You may try these options.

Which brings us back to my first comment I would call my ISP and request >service.

I'll do that.

I'm glad my neighbor was there when I needed him. It shows one
advantage of living in a townhouse. You can borrow wifi.

And thanks to you and Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Wed, 11/26/2025 9:09 AM, micky wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Wed, 26 Nov 2025 08:55:57 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my
laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

The VErizon wifi box is only 3 feet from the laptop. Just before it
switched to my wifi, I had gone over there and lifted an 18" cardboard
box with stuff (if you want to know what, I'll look) in it from between
the wifi and the laptop, then 90 seconds later, I put it back where it
was, but that probably is what caused it to switch, and I guess what
made it use my neighbor's in the first place.

The box has been there for weeks but I don't restart the laptop very
often. Later I'll restart again with the box in place and see if it
connects to my neighbor.

Your activities are partially hidden via https:// .

That is why your banking password is safe.

To hide the addresses, you could use a VPN. Then all
the packets would have the VPN address as their destination,
before the packets are decapsulated.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?. I would think
not but just want to be sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik. If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

Regardless of your level of technical expertise, you should always
encrypt your messages. This is usually done automatically when you use
HTTPS or a secure server with STARTTLS, TLS or SSL connections. These connections are designed to prevent hackers from intercepting and
reading your messages.

Never underestimate people's capabilities. You will regret it if you do.










--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-11-26 18:44, micky wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Wed, 26 Nov 2025 12:16:20 -0500, knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 11/26/2025 8:55 AM, micky wrote:

...

Which brings us back to my first comment I would call my ISP and request
service.

I'll do that.

I'm glad my neighbor was there when I needed him. It shows one
advantage of living in a townhouse. You can borrow wifi.

Here most people protect their wifi with a password, so you can not
borrow it. Sometimes I am at a flat with dozens of WiFis around, none open.

This is not actually intentional, it is that now the free ISP routers
come already protected.

And thanks to you and Carlos.

Welcome.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
[...]

The VErizon wifi box is only 3 feet from the laptop. Just before it
switched to my wifi, I had gone over there and lifted an 18" cardboard
box with stuff (if you want to know what, I'll look) in it from between
the wifi and the laptop, then 90 seconds later, I put it back where it
was, but that probably is what caused it to switch, and I guess what
made it use my neighbor's in the first place.

The box has been there for weeks but I don't restart the laptop very
often. Later I'll restart again with the box in place and see if it
connects to my neighbor.

You don't clearly say what your problem/concern is, but I think it is
that your laptop connected to your neighbour's WiFi when you did not
want that, i.e. an unexpected/unwanted connection.

If so just set that connection, i.e. the SSID (Wi-Fi name) to not
connect automatically.

You've crossposted this to the Windows 10 and 11 groups and don't say
which version your laptop is using, but for Windows 11, just do:

Settings -> Network & internet -> WiFi -> '>' -> Manage known networks

select your neighbour's nettwork -> untick the 'Connect automatically

when in range' box.

That way, your laptop will never automatically connect to your
neighbour's WiFi, but you still can connect to it manually.

If you do no longer want to use your neighbour's WiFi at all, just do
a 'Forget' in the previous screen.

Hope this helps.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 13:43:36 -0500, Paul wrote:

The box has been there for weeks but I don't restart the laptop very
often. Later I'll restart again with the box in place and see if it
connects to my neighbor.

Your activities are partially hidden via https:// .

That is why your banking password is safe.

To hide the addresses, you could use a VPN. Then all
the packets would have the VPN address as their destination,
before the packets are decapsulated.

I looked it up for the OP, where this command supposedly tells Windows not
to automatically connect to any given SSID, (even if it's open or
previously saved). That alone should solve his connection problems.
netsh wlan add filter permission=block ssid="OPEN_SSID" networktype=infrastructure

If that command doesn't work, given the OP is "connecting" to a neighbor's Wi-Fi "by accident", then it logically most likely is set to open. On
Windows 10, you can forget that access point connection credentials with
Settings > Network & Internet > Wi-Fi > Manage known networks.

The OP can select that open AP SSID and in "Properties" he can toggle the "Connect automatically when in range" setting from on, to off.
Unfortunately, he will always see the neighbor's broadcast access points.

What I'd like to write, if I knew what the commands were, is a script on Windows that ignores all the known neighborly Wi-Fi access point SSIDs.

To prioritize his own access points, the OP can set it to "Connect automatically" when in range, although that setting has adverse privacy ramifications on a laptop (but not on a desktop) if the OP's SSID is not
being broadcast (so as to not be uploaded to Google/Mozilla for their
public databases (with or without _nomap) by every rude uncaring
Apple/Android owner who drives by his house.

In summary, my suggestion for the OP is to
a. Forget the network in Settings, and then
b. Add the block filter so Windows won't reconnect
(even if the OP clicks it accidentally).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 27 Nov 2025 12:49:59 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

If you do no longer want to use your neighbour's WiFi at all, just do
a 'Forget' in the previous screen.

I suggest forget & block. :)

netsh wlan add filter permission=block ssid="Neighbor_SSID" networktype=infrastructure
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 12:45:56 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

[snip]

This is not actually intentional, it is that now the free ISP routers
come already protected.

And thanks to you and Carlos.

Welcome.

I remember years ago when routers came with wiFi enabled, but NO security.
Now it would be unusual to find one without security.

BTW, there is still a network here called "FBI Surveillance".
--
28 days until the winter celebration (Thursday, December 25, 2025 12:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 27 Nov 2025 16:29:19 GMT, Mark Lloyd wrote:

I remember years ago when routers came with wiFi enabled, but NO security. Now it would be unusual to find one without security.

On that train of thought, it used to be that some people considered not broadcasting the SSID in the clear as a form of security.

But with the advent of ignorant & rude Android & iOS phone owners driving
by your house by the hundreds a day, turning off the broadcast became a component of privacy.

Many people on this ng won't understand that statement because they would
claim that appending "_nomap" (and, _optout_ in the olden days) achieves
that privacy goal, but there is an added tangible privacy advantage to not broadcasting the SSID that you do not get by appending the opt out keyword.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?.

What you're effectively doing is the equivalent of transferring all your
phone calls via his phone. If he chose to he could pick up the receiver and listen in to your conversations. Much of internet/web connections are
encrypted so would be gobbledygook to anyone evesdropping. However, many
things aren't - like usenet, some email services - which could easily be observed.

Also even with encrypted connections the neighbour could see *where* you're communicating with so your bank, pension provider, health provider, etc.

I would think
not but just want to be sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik. If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

You're including your neighbour in your computer network. There's a reason
why organisations do everything they can to not allow external people into their networks. It's very risky.

A "tech wiz" could comprise your network and install malware which gave
them full and permanent access.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-11-27 18:13, Chris wrote:

You're including your neighbour in your computer network.

Rather you are including your computer into your neighbour network.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-11-27 17:29, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 12:45:56 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

[snip]

This is not actually intentional, it is that now the free ISP routers
come already protected.

And thanks to you and Carlos.

Welcome.

I remember years ago when routers came with wiFi enabled, but NO security. Now it would be unusual to find one without security.

BTW, there is still a network here called "FBI Surveillance".

Your neighbour has a sense of humour :-)
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025/11/27 19:6:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-11-27 17:29, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 12:45:56 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

[snip]

This is not actually intentional, it is that now the free ISP routers
come already protected.

And thanks to you and Carlos.

Welcome.

I remember years ago when routers came with wiFi enabled, but NO security. >> Now it would be unusual to find one without security.

BTW, there is still a network here called "FBI Surveillance".

Your neighbour has a sense of humour :-)

I once came across a network called "show us your tits". (No, I did not
try connecting to it! It was in Heaton, Newcastle, England.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is the civilising influence in this country ... I think it is
the most important institution in this country. - John Humphrys, Radio
Times 7-13/06/2003
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Thu, 27 Nov 2025 12:45:56 +0100, "Carlos
E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-11-26 18:44, micky wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Wed, 26 Nov 2025 12:16:20 -0500, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 11/26/2025 8:55 AM, micky wrote:

...

Which brings us back to my first comment I would call my ISP and request >>> service.

I'll do that.

I'm glad my neighbor was there when I needed him. It shows one
advantage of living in a townhouse. You can borrow wifi.

Here most people protect their wifi with a password, so you can not

Here too but this guy must be an exception, just when I needed one.

On a prior occasion decades ago, when I'd just gotten a laptop and I was
to leave on a translatlantic trip the next day, then too I ended up
using the next door neighbor's wifi, a different person then, and I was
lucky because a lot of stuff had to be put into the laptop before I
left. I don't remember why mine didn't work. Maybe I only had DSL then
and his was faster.

borrow it. Sometimes I am at a flat with dozens of WiFis around, none open.

This is not actually intentional, it is that now the free ISP routers
come already protected.

I think mine had a password. His was Comcast's other name, which
escapes me right now.

I made a mistake not changing the password to something I could
remember. they have to use one that no other subscriber to Verizon has.
I'd only have to use one that no other neighbor had and no one around
could guess, or use software to find. Didn't know how many times I'd
have to enter it, the printer, the cell phone, the next cell phone, a
TV, Alexa maybe, and a couple other things I didn't forexee and don't
rmeember. I should have made it shorter and easier.

And thanks to you and Carlos.

Welcome.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/11/27 19:6:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-11-27 17:29, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 12:45:56 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

[snip]

This is not actually intentional, it is that now the free ISP routers
come already protected.

And thanks to you and Carlos.

Welcome.

I remember years ago when routers came with wiFi enabled, but NO security. >>> Now it would be unusual to find one without security.

BTW, there is still a network here called "FBI Surveillance".

Your neighbour has a sense of humour :-)

I once came across a network called "show us your tits". (No, I did not
try connecting to it! It was in Heaton, Newcastle, England.)

Of course it was in Newcastle!

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-11-27 18:13, Chris wrote:

You're including your neighbour in your computer network.

Rather you are including your computer into your neighbour network.

Fair. The risk is similar however.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?. I would think
not but just want to be sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik. If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

My wifi has been giving me trouble since February, and last night on the upstairs computer, the cable internet would not work either. The Troubleshooter said the cable wasn't in, and indeed, I had sometimes
gotten success by pushing it in further, a millimeter, but that didn't
work last night. Even though the Verizon FIOS fiberoptic phone was
working and the Verizon box has a flashing led for the cable that goes
to my computer.

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.
--
Regards
wasbit
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

wasbit <wasbit@removehotmail.com> wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

[...]

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?. I would think
not but just want to be sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik. If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

[...]

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

Huh? Micky obviously got his neighbour's permission to use his/her
WiFi, otherwise how would he know the password?

A quite different issue is if the neighbour's ISP would condone such a setup/use.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

wasbit wrote:

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

Amazed that any wifi router is set for no authentication ...


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025/11/28 0:31:16, micky wrote:
[]

I made a mistake not changing the password to something I could
remember. they have to use one that no other subscriber to Verizon has.
I'd only have to use one that no other neighbor had and no one around
could guess, or use software to find. Didn't know how many times I'd
have to enter it, the printer, the cell phone, the next cell phone, a
TV, Alexa maybe, and a couple other things I didn't forexee and don't rmeember. I should have made it shorter and easier.

Here (UK), routers usually come with a slide-out bit of plastic, with a
label on it showing the SSID and its password (and an identical label underneath the slide-out in case you lose it). They also mostly have a
button to press that lets anything connect in the next few minutes (I'm
not sure how long), provided the devices trying to connect know about
the protocol involved (three letters, I forget what they are). [It
remembers those devices after the time has expired, and lets them in.]
I've changed my SSID to something I recognise, but I think I've left the password as it was.

And thanks to you and Carlos.

Welcome.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
[...]

I made a mistake not changing the password to something I could
remember. they have to use one that no other subscriber to Verizon has.
I'd only have to use one that no other neighbor had and no one around
could guess, or use software to find. Didn't know how many times I'd
have to enter it, the printer, the cell phone, the next cell phone, a
TV, Alexa maybe, and a couple other things I didn't forexee and don't rmeember. I should have made it shorter and easier.

You're mixing up passwords.

There are two passwords: 1) The one to access the web UI of the
modem/router and 2) the password for your WiFi network.

1) probably should be unique, but must not be unique, because it's
only accessed from your (hardwired or/and wireless) network.

2) is unique as shipped from / installed by the ISP, but as soon as
you change the SSID (your WiFi network name) it can be anything you
like, provided it matches the rules defined by the router and is
sufficiently secure.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 26/11/2025 9:55 pm, micky wrote:

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Your neighbor's internet belongs not to you. Stop using it. :)

Contact your cable service provider to fix the modem problem. Does it
have LAN ports? Are they still working?
--
@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 20:16:12 +0000, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

[snip]

I once came across a network called "show us your tits". (No, I did not
try connecting to it! It was in Heaton, Newcastle, England.)

I remember years ago, when I could find several networks called "Linksys"
and with no security. It appeared that people just left it at the default. Sometimes the SSID got changed to "I'm so insecure" or "I want my WPA!".
The owner may not have noticed (at that time, there weren't that many smartphones).
--
27 days until the winter celebration (Thursday, December 25, 2025 12:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Christ rode on an ass, but now asses ride on Christ." -- Heine
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 28 Nov 2025 15:12:22 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

There are two passwords: 1) The one to access the web UI of the modem/router and 2) the password for your WiFi network.

1) probably should be unique, but must not be unique, because it's
only accessed from your (hardwired or/and wireless) network.

2) is unique as shipped from / installed by the ISP, but as soon as
you change the SSID (your WiFi network name) it can be anything you
like, provided it matches the rules defined by the router and is
sufficiently secure.

I'm sure almost everyone knows the two credentials, but I'm not sure if the
OP is aware of the differences between them...

1. The admin "password" to the router is sometimes (often?) limited
to 8 characters (at least it is on some of my older Netgear routers)
and it may require uppercase,lowercase & funky characters (as my
Netgear routers require), so you're limited in your choices.

2. The SSID "passphrase" to the access point, can be 8?63 characters
for WPA2/WPA3, which can be resistant to brute-force attacks.

I suspect most people aren't aware of oublic rainblow hash tables, which
take advantage of the fact that WPA2 uses PBKDF2 (Password-Based Key
Derivation Function 2) with HMAC-SHA1 to stretch the passphrase into a
256-bit key. Butterfly hash tables also exist, which are a specialized structure that optimizes lookup and reduces memory usage compared to traditional rainbow tables.

They're only effective if the attacker can guess the SSID, because the SSID
is part of the salt in WPA2 key derivation. That's why you want your SSID
not to show up in a dictionary lookup, as then you have no AP security.

WPA3's SAE (Simultaneous Authentication of Equals) protocol makes those
tables obsolete, but for most of us, what all this means is we should
simply choose an SSID that isn't found in typical dictionary lookup tables.

Something like "gibberis_plus_more_gibberish_optout_nomap" for example.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?. I would think
not but just want to be sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik. If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

Hi Micky,

YES, and if not him, then anyone else that is also using his network (authorised or not). And then, everytime he switches on his machines
with unknown malware (who knows?), those same machines are looking at
you, you being on the same network.

Please fix this. If you have a large or difficult property, consider
wiring access more points and sticking them on 5GHz. Your router
password needs to be quite long, looks like complete randomness, you'll
hardly ever type it. Change it from the one the manufacturer set as a
matter of course.

BTW There is no point any more in hiding SSIDs that used to be
fashionable security advice. In fact if you do that then your portable
device is forced to maintain a local list of recent contacted SSIDs and repeatedly calls out "Are You There?", which anyone can use for tracking
you when you are out and about.
--
Adrian C
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@removehotmail.com> wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

[...]

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm
sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?. I would think
not but just want to be sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik. If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

[...]

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my >>> laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

Huh? Micky obviously got his neighbour's permission to use his/her
WiFi, otherwise how would he know the password?

Why "obviously"? It's not that unusual to see open wifi networks.

A quite different issue is if the neighbour's ISP would condone such a setup/use.

They don't care.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 10:54:26 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

wasbit wrote:

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

Amazed that any wifi router is set for no authentication ...

To that point, while I get my Internet for free from a WISP, I live on a mountain where I can see a city below of almost a million inhabitants, so
with any one of my many powerful Ubiquiti Rocket dishes, I can "see"
perhaps hundreds of access points, some of which are not secured.

Of course, the rooftop radio needs to have a very good sensitivity with low noise in my local environment (for a good SNR) to reliably receive weak
signals and of course the radio needs to be set to a very high power output with a narrow beamwidth (and channel width), but all that "can" be
accomplished if you felt like stealing someone else's bandwidth.

I don't do it, of course, for the obvious reasons, but my only point to
other is that a surprising amount of those appear to be unsecured.
--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 17:56:28 +0000, Adrian Caspersz wrote:

BTW There is no point any more in hiding SSIDs that used to be
fashionable security advice. In fact if you do that then your portable device is forced to maintain a local list of recent contacted SSIDs and repeatedly calls out "Are You There?", which anyone can use for tracking
you when you are out and about.

Be careful.

This advice is perfectly correct for security.
But it's dead wrong for privacy.

See my previous post on how to set up your SSID & devices for privacy,
where not broadcasting the SSID has distinct and immediate privacy
advantages unknown to most people.

For security, most modern devices can set a random MAC address per SSID,
and almost all Android phones can optionally set that random MAC address to
be per connection. On iOS 14 and above, you can only set the random MAC
address per SSID, but not per connection (so yet again, security and
privacy on iOS is always less than that on Android).

Note: However, Adrian Caspersz is correct that if you set up your SSID to
not broadcast, which IMHO everyone should do, then if the device connecting
to it is a mobile device, then it's more private to set that mobile device
to not automatically connect (for reasons spelled out in my prior posts and which Adrian was well aware of).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:47:26 +0000, wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com>
wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm
sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?. I would think
not but just want to be sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik. If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

I might have missed it, but did anyone in this overdone thread even
begin to mention that what this user is doing is wrong? Or is this no
longer pertinent in this day and age?

Such a potential problem is why I do not use Wi-Fi for our home
computers.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 18:40:35 -0000 (UTC), Marian wrote:

For security, most modern devices can set a random MAC address per SSID,
and almost all Android phones can optionally set that random MAC address to be per connection. On iOS 14 and above, you can only set the random MAC address per SSID, but not per connection (so yet again, security and
privacy on iOS is always less than that on Android).

Thinko...

For "privacy" (not security) you want to set a random MAC per SSID.

MAC randomization is primarily a privacy feature, not a security feature.

Implications?
1. Android is more private (as usual) than iOS because you have the
option of setting MAC randomizaton per SSID & per connection.
2. iOS is less private (as usual) than Android as you can only set
MAC randomization per SSID.
3. For Windows 10, it's like iOS in that it's only per SSID.
Settings > Network & Internet > Wi-Fi > Manage known networks
[Network] > Random hardware addresses.
4. For Windows 11, it's more like Android in that it can be per diem.
5. Also Windows can set randomization for all access points en masse.

In all cases, the MAC randomization feature is about privacy (reducing tracking), not security (preventing attacks).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm
sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?.   I would think
not but just want to be sure.    He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik.  If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

My wifi has been giving me trouble since February, and last night on the
upstairs computer, the cable internet would not work either.  The
Troubleshooter said the cable wasn't in, and indeed, I had sometimes
gotten success by pushing it in further, a millimeter, but that didn't
work last night.   Even though the Verizon FIOS fiberoptic phone was
working and the Verizon box has a flashing led for the cable that goes
to my computer.

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi   Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi.  But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my
laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit.
Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

Paul


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@removehotmail.com> wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

[...]

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm >>> sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the >>> web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?. I would think >>> not but just want to be sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik. If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

[...]

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his, >>> it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my >>> laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

Huh? Micky obviously got his neighbour's permission to use his/her
WiFi, otherwise how would he know the password?

Why "obviously"? It's not that unusual to see open wifi networks.

Yes, there used to be some open networks, but not so much these days.

I just checked the networks I can see. There are 23 networks (we live
in an appartment building). All but 2 are closed. One 'open' one is a
nearby hotel, but that gives 'Can't connect to the network'. The other
open one says 'Hidden network', so no visible SSID. I don't want to try
to connect to that network.

So yes, there possibly is an open network, but the large majority are
closed.

Anyway, I've told Micky how he can prevent an auto-connect or do a
Forget.

A quite different issue is if the neighbour's ISP would condone such a setup/use.

They don't care.

Well, there was a time when some/mine did. I don't know if that's
still the case.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 12:41:13 -0600, Marcus90@guess.com wrote:

I might have missed it, but did anyone in this overdone thread even
begin to mention that what this user is doing is wrong? Or is this no
longer pertinent in this day and age?

I don't think he needs a morality re-education.

Everyone who knows nothing about the technical issues always seems to harp
on their personal "moral" aspect, where some people mentioned what you say,
but as others have already noted, there's no reason to suspect illegal purposeful intent so I, for one, kept all my responses purely technical.

However, since I'm on Apple newsgroups, I'm very familiar with people
claiming the moral high ground solely as a substitute for knowledge about
the situation. An example is iOS owners always claim that the reason they
can't do things everyone else can do (even macOS owners can do them) is
that Apple is "more moral" than Google or Microsoft (e.g., iOS can't do
TOR, and iOS can't spoof GPS, and iOS can't randomize MAC addresses per connection, and iOS can't run system-wide firewalls, and iOS can't torrent,
and the list goes on and on and on for whatg iOS can't do that the iOS
owners falsely claim is a "moral" issue).

Back to morals...

In this thread, plenty of people explained to the OP how to "forget" and "block" connections to nearby unsecured SSIDs, which is all he needs.

netsh wlan add filter permission=block ssid="Neighbor_SSID" networktype=infrastructure


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-11-28 09:16, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-11-27 18:13, Chris wrote:

You're including your neighbour in your computer network.

Rather you are including your computer into your neighbour network.

Fair. The risk is similar however.

Yes, but it is only your computer that is involved, not all your
machines. And all of your neighbour machines could be affected.

Depends who is the bad guy. Maybe no one is a bad guy. Oh, unless some
machine involved has some type of malware.

That's one reason why all my computers have a firewall.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Marian wrote on 11/28/2025 1:18 PM:

On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 12:41:13 -0600, Marcus90@guess.com wrote:

I might have missed it, but did anyone in this overdone thread even
begin to mention that what this user is doing is wrong? Or is this no
longer pertinent in this day and age?

I don't think he needs a morality re-education.

Everyone who knows nothing about the technical issues always seems to harp
on their personal "moral" aspect, where some people mentioned what you say, but as others have already noted, there's no reason to suspect illegal purposeful intent so I, for one, kept all my responses purely technical.

However, since I'm on Apple newsgroups, I'm very familiar with people claiming the moral high ground solely as a substitute for knowledge about
the situation. An example is iOS owners always claim that the reason they can't do things everyone else can do (even macOS owners can do them) is
that Apple is "more moral" than Google or Microsoft (e.g., iOS can't do
TOR, and iOS can't spoof GPS, and iOS can't randomize MAC addresses per connection, and iOS can't run system-wide firewalls, and iOS can't torrent, and the list goes on and on and on for whatg iOS can't do that the iOS
owners falsely claim is a "moral" issue).

Back to morals...

In this thread, plenty of people explained to the OP how to "forget" and "block" connections to nearby unsecured SSIDs, which is all he needs.

netsh wlan add filter permission=block ssid="Neighbor_SSID" networktype=infrastructure

Indeed! But I think it's time for a detailed, comprehensive, adult
tutorial.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-11-28 09:16, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-11-27 18:13, Chris wrote:

You're including your neighbour in your computer network.

Rather you are including your computer into your neighbour network.

Fair. The risk is similar however.

Yes, but it is only your computer that is involved, not all your
machines.

If the computer is on the LAN - micky mentioned an ethernet connection -
then everything is exposed.

And all of your neighbour machines could be affected.

Depends who is the bad guy. Maybe no one is a bad guy. Oh, unless some machine involved has some type of malware.

Most likely there is no bad guy.

That's one reason why all my computers have a firewall.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025/11/28 19:5:12, Frank Slootweg wrote:

[]

Yes, there used to be some open networks, but not so much these days.

I just checked the networks I can see. There are 23 networks (we live
in an appartment building). All but 2 are closed. One 'open' one is a
nearby hotel, but that gives 'Can't connect to the network'. The other
open one says 'Hidden network', so no visible SSID. I don't want to try
to connect to that network.

So yes, there possibly is an open network, but the large majority are closed.

There's a third wrinkle, in UK and other countries: networks that appear
to be open, but only show you one page, which is a login one. (At least
I think that's what they show - I haven't tried one for years.) These
are where the router belongs to a customer of one of those providers who
claim millions of hotspots, by making all their routers have an open connection, but further authentication is required further down the line
for anyone who does connect to them. (I presume they limit such
connections to some fraction of the available speed/capacity, so the
"owner" isn't inconvenienced if someone uses them.) The first such
network I heard of was FON, which I think originated in Spain.

Anyway, I've told Micky how he can prevent an auto-connect or do a
Forget.

A quite different issue is if the neighbour's ISP would condone such a >>> setup/use.

They don't care.

Well, there was a time when some/mine did. I don't know if that's
still the case.

I think, in theory, they do care, and it's your responsibility to
prevent unauthorised connections. In practice, I think the only time
they'd make any fuss is if the piggyback user was downloading (or
uploading - that's probably worse) naughty things (such as the two usual bogeymen).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Know what happens when you don't pay your exorcist?
You get repossessed!
- Randle Brashear, 2015-8-9
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025/11/28 22:47:53, Hank Rogers wrote:

[]

Indeed! But I think it's time for a detailed, comprehensive, adult tutorial.

Aargh, don't prod you-know-who - we seem to have been excused his
"tutorials" (usually starting with a question to which the "tutorial" is
an answer) for a while.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Know what happens when you don't pay your exorcist?
You get repossessed!
- Randle Brashear, 2015-8-9
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Fri, 11/28/2025 5:47 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:

Marian wrote on 11/28/2025 1:18 PM:

On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 12:41:13 -0600, Marcus90@guess.com wrote:

I might have missed it, but did anyone in this overdone thread even
begin to mention that what this user is doing is wrong?  Or is this no
longer pertinent in this day and age?

I don't think he needs a morality re-education.

Everyone who knows nothing about the technical issues always seems to harp >> on their personal "moral" aspect, where some people mentioned what you say, >> but as others have already noted, there's no reason to suspect illegal
purposeful intent so I, for one, kept all my responses purely technical.

However, since I'm on Apple newsgroups, I'm very familiar with people
claiming the moral high ground solely as a substitute for knowledge about
the situation. An example is iOS owners always claim that the reason they
can't do things everyone else can do (even macOS owners can do them) is
that Apple is "more moral" than Google or Microsoft (e.g., iOS can't do
TOR, and iOS can't spoof GPS, and iOS can't randomize MAC addresses per
connection, and iOS can't run system-wide firewalls, and iOS can't torrent, >> and the list goes on and on and on for whatg iOS can't do that the iOS
owners falsely claim is a "moral" issue).

Back to morals...

In this thread, plenty of people explained to the OP how to "forget" and
"block" connections to nearby unsecured SSIDs, which is all he needs.

  netsh wlan add filter permission=block ssid="Neighbor_SSID" networktype=infrastructure

Indeed!  But I think it's time for a detailed, comprehensive, adult tutorial.

That's one of the reasons I get this group, for the subtle humour.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 29/11/2025 6:05 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@removehotmail.com> wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

[...]

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in
email I'm sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending
or receiving on the web, or what I'm sending or receiving
here on Usenet?. I would think not but just want to be
sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius afaik. If he
were a tech wiz, could he do it?

[...]

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the
wifi of a neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30
minutes of using his, it just switched to my wifi. But still
not to the cable, which I thought would take priority, plusd
last night the Troubleshooter said my laptop's wifi was bad
too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

Huh? Micky obviously got his neighbour's permission to use
his/her WiFi, otherwise how would he know the password?

Why "obviously"? It's not that unusual to see open wifi networks.

Yes, there used to be some open networks, but not so much these
days.

I just checked the networks I can see. There are 23 networks (we
live in an appartment building). All but 2 are closed. One 'open' one
is a nearby hotel, but that gives 'Can't connect to the network'.

If you take a wander down to that Hotel, might you be able to find out
what the "Password for Today" is.

I've seen that sort of thing in some Government offices, here in
Australia, so the 'Customers' can make use of the Wi-Fi whilst waiting
for their appointment.
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 29/11/2025 5:41 am, Marcus90@guess.com wrote:

On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:47:26 +0000, wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com>
wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm
sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?. I would think
not but just want to be sure. He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik. If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

I might have missed it, but did anyone in this overdone thread even
begin to mention that what this user is doing is wrong? Or is this no
longer pertinent in this day and age?

Yes, it has been mentioned.

Such a potential problem is why I do not use Wi-Fi for our home
computers.

Hmm!! Marcus, you wouldn't be a Forensic Inspector-type person, would
you?? (As I sit here typing, I'm 'watching' 'Vera', and the
Forensics-type person is named 'Marcus'!! ;-P)
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/11/28 19:5:12, Frank Slootweg wrote:

[]

Yes, there used to be some open networks, but not so much these days.

I just checked the networks I can see. There are 23 networks (we live
in an appartment building). All but 2 are closed. One 'open' one is a nearby hotel, but that gives 'Can't connect to the network'. The other
open one says 'Hidden network', so no visible SSID. I don't want to try
to connect to that network.

So yes, there possibly is an open network, but the large majority are closed.

There's a third wrinkle, in UK and other countries: networks that appear
to be open, but only show you one page, which is a login one. (At least
I think that's what they show - I haven't tried one for years.) These
are where the router belongs to a customer of one of those providers who claim millions of hotspots, by making all their routers have an open connection, but further authentication is required further down the line
for anyone who does connect to them. (I presume they limit such
connections to some fraction of the available speed/capacity, so the
"owner" isn't inconvenienced if someone uses them.) The first such
network I heard of was FON, which I think originated in Spain.

Yes, we (in The Netherlands) used to have such ISP WiFi hotspots,
including my ISP. But these days most of them have gone, because there
are many more 'normal' WiFi hotspots and 'everyone' has a smartphone.

For the ISP WiFi hotspots, bandwidth taken from it's 'owner' was not a problem, because the modems provided a seperate hotspot with its own
channel for the public hotspot function.

I think for FON, the public hotspot did (does?) use some of the
owner's bandwidth.

[...]
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

On 29/11/2025 6:05 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:

[...]

Yes, there used to be some open networks, but not so much these
days.

I just checked the networks I can see. There are 23 networks (we
live in an appartment building). All but 2 are closed. One 'open' one
is a nearby hotel, but that gives 'Can't connect to the network'.

If you take a wander down to that Hotel, might you be able to find out
what the "Password for Today" is.

No, this one was different, because it didn't ask for a password, but
failed to connect.

I've seen that sort of thing in some Government offices, here in
Australia, so the 'Customers' can make use of the Wi-Fi whilst waiting
for their appointment.

Yes, we've used that in Australia in caravan parks, motels/hotels,
etc.. But in caravan parks the WiFi often was bad because of the
distances involved, so we used my smartphone as a hotspot (and in the
early days (from early 2009) my dumb/feature phone as a modem).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-11-29 01:07, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-11-28 09:16, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-11-27 18:13, Chris wrote:

You're including your neighbour in your computer network.

Rather you are including your computer into your neighbour network.

Fair. The risk is similar however.

Yes, but it is only your computer that is involved, not all your
machines.

If the computer is on the LAN - micky mentioned an ethernet connection -
then everything is exposed.

Your computer is not on the LAN. The network hardware has connected to
your neighbour, not to your LAN.

Unless you have two network interfaces, like one WiFi and one cable. But
in that case *you* have to configure routing for incoming network on the
WiFi to go into the cable, intentionally (and the reverse). Windows
doesn't do this by default. OR, the bad guy at the other side of the
WiFi has to hack into your computer first, which is different matter
from reading the network packets.

And all of your neighbour machines could be affected.

Depends who is the bad guy. Maybe no one is a bad guy. Oh, unless some
machine involved has some type of malware.

Most likely there is no bad guy.

Good :-)

That's one reason why all my computers have a firewall.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-11-29 12:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/11/28 19:5:12, Frank Slootweg wrote:

I think for FON, the public hotspot did (does?) use some of the
owner's bandwidth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fon_Wireless

[...]

--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-11-28 17:00, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

On 26/11/2025 9:55 pm, micky wrote:

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi   Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi.  But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my
laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Your neighbor's internet belongs not to you. Stop using it. :)

It is that neighbour responsibility to close the door, ie, put a
password on his WiFi.

There are computers and phones that will connect automatically (by
default) to any open WiFi without asking.

Contact your cable service provider to fix the modem problem. Does it
have LAN ports? Are they still working?

--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025/11/29 11:22:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
[]

Yes, we (in The Netherlands) used to have such ISP WiFi hotspots,
including my ISP. But these days most of them have gone, because there
are many more 'normal' WiFi hotspots and 'everyone' has a smartphone.

(Not quite - I don't currently, for example!) Having a smartphone
doesn't give your laptop access, though, unless you configure the 'phone
as a hotspot, which (a) many users wouldn't know how to do, (b) maybe
some smartphones can't be [I don't know], (c) the service provider may
prohibit it, (d) the speed might not be as good as a home broadband one.
(Might be better, of course.)>

For the ISP WiFi hotspots, bandwidth taken from it's 'owner' was not a problem, because the modems provided a seperate hotspot with its own
channel for the public hotspot function.

Well, I presume the two - though entirely separate - shared the
"bandwidth" available from a home broadband connection; I don't imagine
the provider paid for a higher-speed connection. The maximum speed they promised their home customer might be a little lower?>

I think for FON, the public hotspot did (does?) use some of the
owner's bandwidth.

[...]

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/11/29 11:22:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:

[]

Yes, we (in The Netherlands) used to have such ISP WiFi hotspots, including my ISP. But these days most of them have gone, because there
are many more 'normal' WiFi hotspots and 'everyone' has a smartphone.

(Not quite - I don't currently, for example!)

I know, hence the scare quotes, i.e. not literally everyone.

Having a smartphone
doesn't give your laptop access, though, unless you configure the 'phone
as a hotspot, which (a) many users wouldn't know how to do, (b) maybe
some smartphones can't be [I don't know], (c) the service provider may prohibit it, (d) the speed might not be as good as a home broadband one. (Might be better, of course.)>

I meant that these roaming users will just use their smartphones to do whatever they want to do, i.e. as they probably would be mostly outside
and 'walking', they wouldn't be using a laptop, tablet, etc..

For the ISP WiFi hotspots, bandwidth taken from it's 'owner' was not a problem, because the modems provided a seperate hotspot with its own channel for the public hotspot function.

Well, I presume the two - though entirely separate - shared the
"bandwidth" available from a home broadband connection; I don't imagine
the provider paid for a higher-speed connection. The maximum speed they promised their home customer might be a little lower?>

No, it was a totally seperate communication channel, at least for our
(coax) cable modems, so the 'local' network could run at its maximum
speed. But you might be right for *DSL modems, if they ever provided
such a service ( I don't know).

(Humorous bit: I type "I fon't know")

I think for FON, the public hotspot did (does?) use some of the
owner's bandwidth.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 29/11/2025 9:36 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-11-28 17:00, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

On 26/11/2025 9:55 pm, micky wrote:

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi   Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his, >>> it just switched to my wifi.  But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my >>> laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Your neighbor's internet belongs not to you. Stop using it. :)

It is that neighbour responsibility to close the door, ie, put a
password on his WiFi.

There are computers and phones that will connect automatically (by
default) to any open WiFi without asking.

You do NOT take advantage of others' mistakes. :)
--
@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025/11/30 4:52:29, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

On 29/11/2025 9:36 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-11-28 17:00, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

On 26/11/2025 9:55 pm, micky wrote:

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi   Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his, >>>> it just switched to my wifi.  But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my >>>> laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Your neighbor's internet belongs not to you. Stop using it. :)

It is that neighbour responsibility to close the door, ie, put a
password on his WiFi.

There are computers and phones that will connect automatically (by
default) to any open WiFi without asking.

You do NOT take advantage of others' mistakes. :)

Carlos was pointing out that some things will connect to any open wifi, _without the user knowing_. That is not "taking advantage" - or if it
is, your opprobrium needs to be addressed to the makers of such
equipment, not the users.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 30/11/2025 9:48 pm, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Carlos was pointing out that some things will connect to any open wifi, _without the user knowing_. That is not "taking advantage" - or if it
is, your opprobrium needs to be addressed to the makers of such
equipment, not the users.

Well, I don't use automatic wifi connect. I always look for my own
router's SSID. :)
--
@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-11-30 15:28, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

On 30/11/2025 9:48 pm, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Carlos was pointing out that some things will connect to any open wifi,
_without the user knowing_. That is not "taking advantage" - or if it
is, your opprobrium needs to be addressed to the makers of such
equipment, not the users.

Well, I don't use automatic wifi connect. I always look for my own
router's SSID. :)

I use automatic wifi connect, to known wifis. I have disabled connect to
open wifis.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm
sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?.   I would think >>> not but just want to be sure.    He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik.  If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

My wifi has been giving me trouble since February, and last night on the >>> upstairs computer, the cable internet would not work either.  The
Troubleshooter said the cable wasn't in, and indeed, I had sometimes
gotten success by pushing it in further, a millimeter, but that didn't
work last night.   Even though the Verizon FIOS fiberoptic phone was
working and the Verizon box has a flashing led for the cable that goes
to my computer.

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi   Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his, >>> it just switched to my wifi.  But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my >>> laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit.
Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing
about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.
--
Regards
wasbit
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

wasbit <wasbit@removehotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

[...]

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit. Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing
about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

micky's *computer* *accidentily* connected to his neighbour's WiFi:

<micky>
This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.
</micky>

So *instead of* connecting to his "cable" (wired LAN?) or WiFi, his *computer* (*not* micky) connected to his neighbour's WiFi.

Could he have disconnected the neighbour's WiFi in those 30 minutes?
Yes. Did he know how to do that? I don't know.

As to "bandwidth theft": I'm sure his accidental use, doesn't deserve
your harsh condemnation.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-12-01 14:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@removehotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

[...]

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit.
Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing
about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

micky's *computer* *accidentily* connected to his neighbour's WiFi:

<micky>
This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February. </micky>

So *instead of* connecting to his "cable" (wired LAN?) or WiFi, his *computer* (*not* micky) connected to his neighbour's WiFi.

Could he have disconnected the neighbour's WiFi in those 30 minutes?
Yes. Did he know how to do that? I don't know.

As to "bandwidth theft": I'm sure his accidental use, doesn't deserve
your harsh condemnation.

In my view, using an open WiFi is permitted.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Frank Slootweg wrote:

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit.
Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing
about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

micky's *computer* *accidentily* connected to his neighbour's WiFi:

<micky>
This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February. </micky>

So *instead of* connecting to his "cable" (wired LAN?) or WiFi, his *computer* (*not* micky) connected to his neighbour's WiFi.

Could he have disconnected the neighbour's WiFi in those 30 minutes?
Yes. Did he know how to do that? I don't know.

As to "bandwidth theft": I'm sure his accidental use, doesn't deserve
your harsh condemnation.

I'm surprised nobody but me mentioned the solution to the OP's problem set.

Only the router owner can disable SSID broadcast to make it invisible to all devices.
However, what the OP can do is put an "X" on the SSID icon by blocking connections.

You can't hide your neighbors' AP SSID from showing up, but you can block
the chance of accidental connection by running the "block" netsh command.
netsh wlan add filter permission=block ssid="NeighborSSID" networktype=infrastructure

I'm surprised I'm the only one on this newsgroup who seems to be aware of
this feature since it's the best solution possible to the OP's problem set.
@echo off
netsh wlan show filters
echo Blocking unwanted Wi-Fi networks...
REM Replace these with the SSIDs you want to hide
netsh wlan add filter permission=block ssid="NeighborSSID1" networktype=infrastructure
netsh wlan add filter permission=block ssid="NeighborSSID2" networktype=infrastructure
netsh wlan add filter permission=block ssid="NeighborSSID3" networktype=infrastructure
echo Done! The specified SSIDs are now blocked.
netsh wlan show filters
pause

I wish there was a way to hide from view your neighbors' AP's altogether.

What I do, for privacy (not for security), is I hide the broadcast of my home SSIDs.
That way, they're not uploaded to public servers by every mobile device passing by.

In addition, by hiding my SSID broadcast, my neighbors won't passively see them.

REFERENCES: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/1329103/block-and-hide-wifi-network
https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/3562-add-remove-wireless-network-filter-windows-10-a.html
https://www.techbout.com/hide-block-wifi-networks-in-windows-10-38797/ https://www.howtogeek.com/331816/how-to-block-your-neighbors-wi-fi-network-from-appearing-on-windows/
https://www.thewindowsclub.com/allow-or-block-wifi-network-in-windows
--
The solution to every problem is easy when you're intelligent enough to seek the answer.


























--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Carlos E.R. wrote:

As to "bandwidth theft": I'm sure his accidental use, doesn't deserve
your harsh condemnation.

In my view, using an open WiFi is permitted.

I agree with both Carlos & Frank since I agree with anyone, no matter who
they are, if they post a reasonably sensibly logically stated view.

However... I just looked up US case law on this topic for the first time,
and while case law may well differ in Frank's & Carlos' location across the pond, I'm assuming the OP is in the United States whose law I looked up.

Below is a copied-and-pasted response from the references...

In the United States, using a neighbor's open Wi-Fi without permission is generally considered unauthorized access under federal and state law. Even
if the network is unsecured, courts have treated this as potentially
illegal. Case law and statutes (like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act)
support that "piggybacking" on someone else's Wi-Fi can be prosecuted,
though enforcement is rare unless other crimes are involved.

Federal Law - Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA): The CFAA (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030) makes it a crime to intentionally access a "protected computer"
without authorization. Courts have interpreted Wi-Fi routers and networks
as "protected computers." Thus, connecting to a neighbor's Wi-Fi without consent can fall under this statute.

Many states have their own computer crime statutes that prohibit
unauthorized access to networks. For example, Florida and Michigan have prosecuted individuals for unauthorized Wi-Fi use under state computer
crime laws.

Michigan (2007 - Compuware Building case): A man was arrested for
repeatedly using an open cafe Wi-Fi from his car. He was charged under Michigan's "Fraudulent Access to Computers, Computer Systems, and Computer Networks" law. The network had no password or permission screen, but prosecutors argued that "authorization" still requires the owner's consent.

Florida (2005 - Lakeland case): A man was fined for accessing a private
home's open Wi-Fi without permission. He was prosecuted under Florida's computer crime statute. Again, the network was unsecured - no password or login screen - but the court treated it as unauthorized use.

Illinois (2006 - Aurora case): A man was charged with "unauthorized use of
a computer network" for connecting to a resident's open Wi-Fi. The SSID was broadcast and unprotected, but the court found that lack of technical
barriers did not equal consent.

In California, using a neighbor's open Wi-Fi without permission is illegal under California Penal Code Sec. 502 (Unauthorized Computer Access and
Fraud). Even if the network is unsecured and has no permission screen,
courts treat this as "unauthorized access." Convictions can carry fines and
up to three years in prison.

California Penal Code Sec. 502 PC: Makes it a crime to "knowingly access
and without permission use, alter, or damage any computer, computer system,
or computer network." This statute explicitly covers Wi-Fi networks. Courts
in California have clarified that the absence of a password or permission screen does not imply authorization. Unauthorized use of an open Wi-Fi is still considered "stealing" internet service.

People v. Hawkins (California, 2009): A man was charged under Penal Code
Sec. 502 for accessing a neighbor's open Wi-Fi without permission. The
court held that "open" does not equal "public," and unauthorized use still counts as unlawful access.

San Jose Police Reports (2005-2007): Several arrests were made for
individuals "piggybacking" on open residential Wi-Fi. These were prosecuted under Sec. 502 PC, even though the networks had no passwords or permission screens.

If you own the router, then the best way to prevent this (and gain some privacy from mobile device uploads to public databases at the same time) is simply to hide AP broadcasts.

If you're the next-door neighbor, the best way on Windows to prevent connections to the neighbors' open access points is to "block them.

@echo off
netsh wlan show filters
echo Blocking unwanted Wi-Fi networks...
REM Replace these with the SSIDs you want to hide
netsh wlan add filter permission=block ssid="NeighborSSID1" networktype=infrastructure
netsh wlan add filter permission=block ssid="NeighborSSID2" networktype=infrastructure
netsh wlan add filter permission=block ssid="NeighborSSID3" networktype=infrastructure
echo Done! The specified SSIDs are now blocked.
netsh wlan show filters
pause


REFERENCES:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/stealing-wi-fi-your-neighbor-a-victimless-crime.html
https://www.findlaw.com/realestate/neighbors/neighbor-stealing-your-wi-fi-here-are-your-legal-options.html
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/502/ https://www.egattorneys.com/stealing-wifi https://legalclarity.org/is-stealing-wi-fi-a-crime-the-laws-and-penalties/ https://hamiltonpawprint.com/is-it-illegal-to-use-someones-wi-fi-without-permission-the-legal-consequences-in-san-jose-ca/
--
Most people are intuitive so they make guesses without checking them;
but when they check their intuitive assumptions, they are often wrong.




















--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-12-01 14:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@removehotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

[...]

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit. >>> Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing
about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

micky's *computer* *accidentily* connected to his neighbour's WiFi:

<micky>
This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February. </micky>

So *instead of* connecting to his "cable" (wired LAN?) or WiFi, his *computer* (*not* micky) connected to his neighbour's WiFi.

Could he have disconnected the neighbour's WiFi in those 30 minutes? Yes. Did he know how to do that? I don't know.

As to "bandwidth theft": I'm sure his accidental use, doesn't deserve your harsh condemnation.

In my view, using an open WiFi is permitted.

But there is no information on whether or not micky's neighbour's WiFi
*is* open. Neither is there information on whether or not micky has
permission to use his neighbour's WiFi. But both do apperently not
prevent some (not you) to accuse him of wrongdoing. Sigh! :-(
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on 28 Nov 2025 15:12:22 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
[...]

I made a mistake not changing the password to something I could
remember. they have to use one that no other subscriber to Verizon has.
I'd only have to use one that no other neighbor had and no one around
could guess, or use software to find. Didn't know how many times I'd
have to enter it, the printer, the cell phone, the next cell phone, a
TV, Alexa maybe, and a couple other things I didn't forexee and don't
rmeember. I should have made it shorter and easier.

You're mixing up passwords.

Darn. I'm n ot too surprised.

There are two passwords: 1) The one to access the web UI of the
modem/router and 2) the password for your WiFi network.

WRT 1, when I first got a router, I spent time looking at the settings,
and even had a bookmark to get into them. I tried to copy everything
over to the new computer, but I think that was in the browser. I'm
useing the old computer now. I should look for that stuff.

1) probably should be unique, but must not be unique, because it's
only accessed from your (hardwired or/and wireless) network.

2) is unique as shipped from / installed by the ISP, but as soon as
you change the SSID (your WiFi network name) it can be anything you
like, provided it matches the rules defined by the router and is
sufficiently secure.

It's this one I should have made shorter, but it's too late now because
I'd have to change it in several devices. And even though it's 16 or so characters long, I've almost memorized it.

Thanks, and if I don't have time to anwer the others, thanks to you guys
too.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm >>>> sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the >>>> web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?.   I would think >>>> not but just want to be sure.    He's a smart guy but no tech genius >>>> afaik.  If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

My wifi has been giving me trouble since February, and last night on the >>>> upstairs computer, the cable internet would not work either.  The
Troubleshooter said the cable wasn't in, and indeed, I had sometimes
gotten success by pushing it in further, a millimeter, but that didn't >>>> work last night.   Even though the Verizon FIOS fiberoptic phone was >>>> working and the Verizon box has a flashing led for the cable that goes >>>> to my computer.

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi   Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his, >>>> it just switched to my wifi.  But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my >>>> laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit.
Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing
about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

Theft requires that someone is deprived of something. Given every broadband connection is unlimited there is no "deprivation".

Using something without paying for it is potentially fraud, however.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Carlos E.R. wrote:

Carlos was pointing out that some things will connect to any open wifi,
_without the user knowing_. That is not "taking advantage" - or if it
is, your opprobrium needs to be addressed to the makers of such
equipment, not the users.

Well, I don't use automatic wifi connect. I always look for my own
router's SSID. :)

I use automatic wifi connect, to known wifis. I have disabled connect to open wifis.

To add further technical value to this sub topic...

For those wishing to know more about this topic, most people have their
router Wi-Fi AP set to broadcast the SSID, which means it's uploaded to world-wide publicly accessible databases whether they like it or not.
a. The (unique) GPS location (of the phone uploading it) is uploaded
b. The signal strength (of the signal to the phone) is uploaded
c. The (unique) BSSID (MAC address) is uploaded - which is essentially you
d. The (normally non-unique) SSID is uploaded (with or without _nomap)

Every mobile device owned by ignorant/rude people is uploading that privacy
to the world-wide publicly accessible databases (which have been abused).

That means my mobile devices don't ever upload your privacy.
But your mobile device almost certainly tries to upload mine.

What I do to prevent the upload is I set my SSID to not broadcast.
a. This prevents a passive upload by rude/ignorant people.
I also opt out by adding _optout_ & _nomap to the SSID.
b. This (supposedly) removes my privacy information from the servers
In addition, I set the mobile device to not connect automatically.
c. This stops the mobile device from shouting out "are you there?"

In addition, due to the ubiquitous existence of WPA2 SSID-salted rainbow
hash tables (& reusable butterfly WPA2-handshake hashcat tables), I use a (hopefully) unique SSID (since it's the WPA2 encryption salt) in addition
to a (hopefully) non-dictionary passphrase (both of which are required to
stay out of those pre-computed and re-used cryptographic hash tables).
1. Rainbow tables: Precomputed WPA2 hash databases based on SSID
2. Butterfly hash tables: Optimization structures used in WPA2 cracking

Furthermore, iOS mobile devices can be set to randomize the MAC per SSID,
while Android mobile devices can be set to randomize the MAC per instance.

If you own a new'ish router, you can upgrade to WPA3, which replaces WPA2's vulnerable handshake with SAE (so it's resistant to dictionary attacks).

Of course, you should always disable Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS). Duh.
And, keep your firmware updated (duh), & isolate the guest network (duh). Disable remote adminstration to your router (duh) & use HTTPS for login.

You "can" restrict connections by MAC, but if you're randomizing the MAC address, it's going to be impossible (as is static IP addresses set at the router level - they now have to be set at the mobile device level instead).

Also enable and check the router log (duh) for intrusions, but if you've
ever done that, you'll know already you're being attacked constantly.

Disable UPnP (duh), and firewall inbound traffic (duh) and enable DNS encryption (DoH/DoT), which seems easy, but I've found it to be a PITA.
A. DoH (DNS over HTTPS) wraps DNS queries inside HTTPS traffic
B. DoT (DNS over TLS) sends DNS queries over a TLS-encrypted channel

You enable iOS 14 & up DoH using Settings > Wi-Fi > DNS & you enable
Android 9+ DoT with Settings > Network & Internet > Advanced > Private DNS.

You enable DoH on Windows in Settings > Network & Internet > Change adapter options > DNS settings where Windows 11 is still DoH but the GUI is better.

On Android devices, you can add a system-wide firewall such as NetGuard.
It can block Wi-Fi/CellularData access per app. Not available on iOS.

I don't have much experience with RethinkDNS, but it's a FOSS Android app
that combines encrypted DNS (DoH/DoT/DNSCrypt) with a system-wide firewall.
i. RethinkDNS = firewall + encrypted DNS (DoH/DoT/DNSCrypt) + blocklists
ii. NetGuard = firewall + per-app blocking + ad/tracker blocklists

You'll never have any privacy/security on iOS, which sucks at both (and
anyone thinking it doesn't suck, clearly doesn't know anything about iOS).

While we're at it, it's probably a good idea to put smart TVs, cameras, and
IoT gadgets on a separate VLAN or guest SSID, and it goes without saying further that you should change the rude/ignorant default iOS/Android setup.

What did I miss?
--
I invest energy in responding to Usenet posts because I care about people getting full & complete information so we move tribal knowledge forward.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 01/12/2025 18:04, Chris wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm >>>>> sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the >>>>> web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?.   I would think >>>>> not but just want to be sure.    He's a smart guy but no tech genius >>>>> afaik.  If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

My wifi has been giving me trouble since February, and last night on the >>>>> upstairs computer, the cable internet would not work either.  The
Troubleshooter said the cable wasn't in, and indeed, I had sometimes >>>>> gotten success by pushing it in further, a millimeter, but that didn't >>>>> work last night.   Even though the Verizon FIOS fiberoptic phone was >>>>> working and the Verizon box has a flashing led for the cable that goes >>>>> to my computer.

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a >>>>> neighbor, but not to my own wifi   Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his, >>>>> it just switched to my wifi.  But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my >>>>> laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February. >>>>>

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit.
Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing
about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

Theft requires that someone is deprived of something. Given every broadband connection is unlimited there is no "deprivation".

Using something without paying for it is potentially fraud, however.

Every broadband connection is NOT unlimited.
Mine is currently 200GB per calendar month, which was 60GB then 100GB.
--
Regards
wasbit
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 01/12/2025 13:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@removehotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

[...]

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit.
Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing
about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

micky's *computer* *accidentily* connected to his neighbour's WiFi:

Whether it was accidental or not he connected to his neighbour's wifi.
Once he realised, without permission it was theft.

In the UK it is an offence under the Communications Act 2003 & possibly
the Computer Misuse Act.

It is up to the OP to clarify.

<micky>
This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February. </micky>

So *instead of* connecting to his "cable" (wired LAN?) or WiFi, his *computer* (*not* micky) connected to his neighbour's WiFi.

Could he have disconnected the neighbour's WiFi in those 30 minutes?
Yes. Did he know how to do that? I don't know.

As to "bandwidth theft": I'm sure his accidental use, doesn't deserve
your harsh condemnation.

--
Regards
wasbit
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2/12/2025 8:33 pm, wasbit wrote:

On 01/12/2025 13:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@removehotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

[...]

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit. >>>> Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing
about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

   micky's *computer* *accidentily* connected to his neighbour's WiFi:

Whether it was accidental or not he connected to his neighbour's wifi.
Once he realised,

... *and knowingly continued* ...

without permission it was theft.

In the UK it is an offence under the Communications Act 2003 & possibly
the Computer Misuse Act.

It is up to the OP to clarify.

<micky>
This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi   Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi.  But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my
laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.
</micky>

   So *instead of* connecting to his "cable" (wired LAN?) or WiFi, his
*computer* (*not* micky) connected to his neighbour's WiFi.

   Could he have disconnected the neighbour's WiFi in those 30 minutes?
Yes. Did he know how to do that? I don't know.

   As to "bandwidth theft": I'm sure his accidental use, doesn't deserve >> your harsh condemnation.

--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-12-01 15:50, Marian wrote:

Carlos E.R. wrote:

As to "bandwidth theft": I'm sure his accidental use, doesn't deserve >>> your harsh condemnation.

In my view, using an open WiFi is permitted.

I agree with both Carlos & Frank since I agree with anyone, no matter who they are, if they post a reasonably sensibly logically stated view.

However... I just looked up US case law on this topic for the first time,
and while case law may well differ in Frank's & Carlos' location across the pond, I'm assuming the OP is in the United States whose law I looked up.

Below is a copied-and-pasted response from the references...

In the United States, using a neighbor's open Wi-Fi without permission is generally considered unauthorized access under federal and state law. Even
if the network is unsecured, courts have treated this as potentially
illegal. Case law and statutes (like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) support that "piggybacking" on someone else's Wi-Fi can be prosecuted,
though enforcement is rare unless other crimes are involved.

Federal Law - Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA): The CFAA (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030) makes it a crime to intentionally access a "protected computer"
without authorization. Courts have interpreted Wi-Fi routers and networks
as "protected computers." Thus, connecting to a neighbor's Wi-Fi without consent can fall under this statute.

Many states have their own computer crime statutes that prohibit
unauthorized access to networks. For example, Florida and Michigan have prosecuted individuals for unauthorized Wi-Fi use under state computer
crime laws.

But how do you know it is not authorized?

By default, a phone will connect to an open WiFi without asking. At
least, it was so several years ago, I don't know currently because the configuration is cloned from one phone to the next.

And Windows I think does the same, which is, I understand, what happened
to the OP.

I take that "looking" inside the network is not legal. But using a WiFi
that is open? I know some people that intentionally left their WiFi open
to any one that wanted. That was the view.

But then, USA people are quite paranoid about private property, and can
shoot an intruder without asking.


(several examples trimmed)


Here, some people were taken to court for "illegally downloading
movies". In their defence, they said that it was not them, but somebody
else using their WiFi, and the reverse could not be proven. They kept
their WiFi open. They won. :-D
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025/12/2 11:21:33, Daniel70 wrote:

On 2/12/2025 8:33 pm, wasbit wrote:

[]

Whether it was accidental or not he connected to his neighbour's wifi.
Once he realised,

... *and knowingly continued* ...

without permission it was theft.

In the UK it is an offence under the Communications Act 2003 & possibly
the Computer Misuse Act.

[]

I'm not even sure he had to realise, let alone knowingly continue, for
it to be an offence _in theory_; _in practice_, I very much doubt if
action would be taken unless either he used it so much that it impacted
his neighbour's service, or he used it to download or upload something
dodgy (such as the usual two bogeymen), or possibly to download
something for which payment would otherwise be required. Or perhaps if
he poked around his neighbour's computer/network, rather than just
(ab)using the internet connection.

Unless, of course, the authorities were after him for some other reason,
in which case they could use the "offence" as an "in". But that applies
to all sorts of "offences" - I've always assumed they'd use, for
example, copyright infringement as such an "in" in almost any case (how
many of us have _no_ copied material, be it audio, video, or even just documents).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Who came first? Adam or Eve?" "Adam of course; men always do."
Victoria Wood (via Peter Hesketh)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

On 01/12/2025 18:04, Chris wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm >>>>>> sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the >>>>>> web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?.   I would think >>>>>> not but just want to be sure.    He's a smart guy but no tech genius >>>>>> afaik.  If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

My wifi has been giving me trouble since February, and last night on the >>>>>> upstairs computer, the cable internet would not work either.  The >>>>>> Troubleshooter said the cable wasn't in, and indeed, I had sometimes >>>>>> gotten success by pushing it in further, a millimeter, but that didn't >>>>>> work last night.   Even though the Verizon FIOS fiberoptic phone was >>>>>> working and the Verizon box has a flashing led for the cable that goes >>>>>> to my computer.

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a >>>>>> neighbor, but not to my own wifi   Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his, >>>>>> it just switched to my wifi.  But still not to the cable, which I >>>>>> thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my >>>>>> laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February. >>>>>>

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit. >>>> Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing
about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

Theft requires that someone is deprived of something. Given every broadband >> connection is unlimited there is no "deprivation".

Using something without paying for it is potentially fraud, however.

Every broadband connection is NOT unlimited.
Mine is currently 200GB per calendar month, which was 60GB then 100GB.

You're the exception rather than the rule.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

On 01/12/2025 13:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@removehotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

[...]

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit. >>>> Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing
about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

micky's *computer* *accidentily* connected to his neighbour's WiFi:

Whether it was accidental or not he connected to his neighbour's wifi.
Once he realised, without permission it was theft.

It may be an offence. It is not theft.

In the UK it is an offence under the Communications Act 2003 & possibly
the Computer Misuse Act.

It is up to the OP to clarify.

Even so it'll be so far down the list of priorities that the police will be unlikely to even log it.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-12-02 15:11, Chris wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

On 01/12/2025 18:04, Chris wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm >>>>>>> sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the >>>>>>> web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?.   I would think
not but just want to be sure.    He's a smart guy but no tech genius >>>>>>> afaik.  If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

My wifi has been giving me trouble since February, and last night on the
upstairs computer, the cable internet would not work either.  The >>>>>>> Troubleshooter said the cable wasn't in, and indeed, I had sometimes >>>>>>> gotten success by pushing it in further, a millimeter, but that didn't >>>>>>> work last night.   Even though the Verizon FIOS fiberoptic phone was >>>>>>> working and the Verizon box has a flashing led for the cable that goes >>>>>>> to my computer.

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a >>>>>>> neighbor, but not to my own wifi   Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi.  But still not to the cable, which I >>>>>>> thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my
laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February. >>>>>>>

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit. >>>>> Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing >>>> about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

Theft requires that someone is deprived of something. Given every broadband >>> connection is unlimited there is no "deprivation".

Using something without paying for it is potentially fraud, however.

Every broadband connection is NOT unlimited.
Mine is currently 200GB per calendar month, which was 60GB then 100GB.

You're the exception rather than the rule.

Depends. Spain has a very deep fibre coverage, but there are rural areas without. If you have to depend on a router with a SIM card, many
providers limit the downloads per month. Even if you contract a
limitless connection, in actual practice they have limits, and may
severe your connection if you download movies every day.

I had a beach residence with such a connection. Land line copper
connection had been available, till the entire copper network was decommissioned, and they did not deploy fibre to every place that had
copper previously. Just 200 meters away.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

wasbit <wasbit@removehotmail.com> wrote:

On 01/12/2025 13:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@removehotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

[...]

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit. >>> Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing
about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

micky's *computer* *accidentily* connected to his neighbour's WiFi:

Whether it was accidental or not he connected to his neighbour's wifi.
Once he realised, without permission it was theft.

You keep harping on that, but, as I said, we and hence you don't *know*
if it was without permission (and we don't know if it was open or not).

In the UK it is an offence under the Communications Act 2003 & possibly
the Computer Misuse Act.

It is up to the OP to clarify.

Nope it isn't. You apparently do, but probably most of this audience
doesn't do "Guilty until proven innocent!".

<micky>
This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a neighbor, but not to my own wifi Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi. But still not to the cable, which I
thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February. </micky>

So *instead of* connecting to his "cable" (wired LAN?) or WiFi, his *computer* (*not* micky) connected to his neighbour's WiFi.

Could he have disconnected the neighbour's WiFi in those 30 minutes? Yes. Did he know how to do that? I don't know.

As to "bandwidth theft": I'm sure his accidental use, doesn't deserve your harsh condemnation.

Non response duly noted.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Carlos E.R. wrote:

Many states have their own computer crime statutes that prohibit
unauthorized access to networks. For example, Florida and Michigan have
prosecuted individuals for unauthorized Wi-Fi use under state computer
crime laws.

But how do you know it is not authorized?

Hi Carlos,

I understand your point of view, where I also would have considered an
"open" Wi-Fi (which we must assume the OP is using as he'd need a
passphrase otherwise) to be considered de-facto authorized for use.

Especially if that open Wi-Fi didn't have a subsequent authorization screen like those I see in my doctor's office or at the local Starbucks or hotel.

Of course, a neighbor's open Wi-Fi access point wouldn't likely have an authorization screen, but I was surprised when I looked at case law in they
USA (see prior post) that NONE of the references I cited had subsequent authorization screens, and all were prosecuted by the police successfully.

Having said that, Windows sure does make it easy to accidentally connect to open Wi-Fi access points, which is why I had suggested the BLOCK command,
which will instantly solve the problem of accidental connection (once the
OP is aware of the access point being accidentally connected to of course).

By default, a phone will connect to an open WiFi without asking. At
least, it was so several years ago, I don't know currently because the configuration is cloned from one phone to the next.
And Windows I think does the same, which is, I understand, what happened
to the OP.

As far as I'm aware, by default, iOS and Android devices do not
automatically connect to random open Wi-Fi networks unless the user has previously joined them. However, once the user manually connects to an open access point, the device may attempt to reconnect automatically in the
future. To stop this, we can adjust Wi-Fi settings on both iOS and Android
to disable auto-join or auto-connect for specific open networks.

Windows also does not automatically connect to unknown open Wi-Fi networks
by default. It only auto-connects to networks we've previously joined if
the 'Connect automatically' option was enabled. To stop this, we can
disable auto-connect for specific networks or delete their saved profiles.

For Windows, I would suggest the BLOCK command that I previously posted.
netsh wlan add filter permission=block ssid="SSID" networktype=infrastructure

I take that "looking" inside the network is not legal. But using a WiFi
that is open? I know some people that intentionally left their WiFi open
to any one that wanted. That was the view.

I agree with you, but the law (in they USA) doesn't seem to agree (AFAIK).

Personally, I know a neighbor who advocates everyone having an open Wi-Fi
so that anyone anywhere can have Internet access, but I live in a hilltop
rural area where there is no cable or fiber so we all get our Internet over
the air.

As a side note, I keep advising that neighbor that someone could do
nefarious things on his IP address but he's not worried about that.

But then, USA people are quite paranoid about private property, and can shoot an intruder without asking.

In my town, that's never happened to my knowledge, but in a country of 350 million people, murders occur daily, but doorstep murder is rather rare.
<https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/reports-and-publications/2024-active-shooter-report>

Here, some people were taken to court for "illegally downloading
movies". In their defence, they said that it was not them, but somebody
else using their WiFi, and the reverse could not be proven. They kept
their WiFi open. They won. :-D

Yes. In the USA, the prosecution must prove YOU did it, as it's not
sufficient that "anyone" could have done it based on our Constitution.

As for movies, they're generally torrented, which is a special legal
situation since US copyright law requires tenets that torrenting avoids.

In fact, we've had this legal-torrenting discussion on the Apple newsgroups
for years (since iOS is so brain dead that it can't torrent even as macOS
can torrent), where there's never been a single successful USA case (see caveat) where ANYONE in the USA has been found guilty of torrenting
mainstream movies if they decided to fight the case in court.

Plenty of people paid the fees asked of them by the copyright owners'
lawyers, but NOBODY in the USA has ever been convicted of torrenting
mainstream movies in the history of the USA who fought the charges.

Caveat: The Maple Media Porn Cases were an egregious example where the
lawyers themselves were serving the torrents & they were disbarred.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

In regard to the original subject ("Can my neiighbor, whose wifi I'm
using, see what I'm doing?"), I can't speak to what your particular
neighbor could or is doing, but from a theoretical standpoint, the
answer is Yes: some routers have the ability to do selective packet
tracing, allowing forwarding to somewhere else a copy of all packets
to and/or from a particular host, and they can then be recorded.

The packet headers (containing the IP addresses of the hosts you
connect to) will certainly be readable.

If the data portion is encrypted, then, to first order, it won't be
readable (which is why https, TLS, and other encryption is generally encouraged).

If you're using a VPN, and if your DNS queries use the VPN, so that the
only connections your host makes are to the VPN, the IP addresses in the
packet headers will only be that of the VPN, not the hosts you're
ultimately connecting to, making those IP addresses less informative.

On to the next topic ...

As a small part of an otherwise interesting article,
Marian <marianjones@helpfulpeople.com> wrote:

In the United States, using a neighbor's open Wi-Fi without permission is generally considered unauthorized access under federal and state law. Even if the network is unsecured, courts have treated this as potentially illegal. Case law and statutes (like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) support that "piggybacking" on someone else's Wi-Fi can be prosecuted, though enforcement is rare unless other crimes are involved.

[and much more]

It'll be interesting to see if/how that means Amazon Sidewalk design
and devices constitute widespread unauthorized access.

Sidewalk devices use Ring doorbell and Amazon Echo devices as routers
and are allowed to use up to 500MB worth of data from each such router.
The owners of these devices are not allowed to see who their devices
connect to (either direction). Furthermore, Sidewalk device connections
are enabled and allowed by default ("opt out", not "opt in"), so this
will, in many cases, happen without the Ring/Echo owner's knowledge, understanding, or explicit consent.

-WBE
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Winston wrote:

It'll be interesting to see if/how that means Amazon Sidewalk design
and devices constitute widespread unauthorized access.

Sidewalk devices use Ring doorbell and Amazon Echo devices as routers
and are allowed to use up to 500MB worth of data from each such router.
The owners of these devices are not allowed to see who their devices
connect to (either direction). Furthermore, Sidewalk device connections
are enabled and allowed by default ("opt out", not "opt in"), so this
will, in many cases, happen without the Ring/Echo owner's knowledge, understanding, or explicit consent.

Hi Winston,
I was unaware of this. I'm on Amazon Vine so I get all sorts of cameras for free but I noticed all of the cameras on Vine went to the Internet instead
of ONLY to your router or only to the sd card on the camera itself.

While I'm using them, I put them in places that don't show me personally
(e.g., I put them in the driveway instead of pointing at the house), but it always dismayed me that the signal for these inexpensive cameras went to
the Internet BEFORE it went back to your router and then to your phone.

But I was completely unaware that "some" of these brands allow others to
share up to 500 MB/month of its internet connection with nearby Sidewalk-enabled devices.

Looking it up, you're 100% correct. Sidewalk is enabled by default on compatible devices. Owners must manually opt out in settings. Worse, device owners cannot see which devices are connecting through their Sidewalk
bridge, nor the traffic details.

With Sidewalk, Amazon has pre-authorized this access by design, and the
device owner agreed to Amazon's terms of service when setting up the
device.

The catch is many users may not realize they consented, since it's opt-out.

I think the situation is similar to the Wi-Fi router access point unique
BSSID & GPS location of your home uploading which is also opt out.

People can't opt out until/unless they know that they can opt out.

Luckily, for Wi-Fi access points, opting out is as easy as not broadcasting your SSID (which prevents casual upload to the public datbases) or adding "_nomap" to the end of the SSID (which doesn't prevent upload but
well-behaved database owners "say" they'll scrub those from the database).

I'm still unsure of the status of the Microsoft _optout_ mechanism though.
<https://superuser.com/questions/1005235/wi-fi-opt-out-microsoft-google>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-12-02 18:56, Marian wrote:

Winston wrote:

It'll be interesting to see if/how that means Amazon Sidewalk design
and devices constitute widespread unauthorized access.

Sidewalk devices use Ring doorbell and Amazon Echo devices as routers
and are allowed to use up to 500MB worth of data from each such router.
The owners of these devices are not allowed to see who their devices
connect to (either direction). Furthermore, Sidewalk device connections
are enabled and allowed by default ("opt out", not "opt in"), so this
will, in many cases, happen without the Ring/Echo owner's knowledge,
understanding, or explicit consent.

Hi Winston,
I was unaware of this. I'm on Amazon Vine so I get all sorts of cameras for free but I noticed all of the cameras on Vine went to the Internet instead
of ONLY to your router or only to the sd card on the camera itself.

Well, it is the only way to do it (commercially), meaning watching the
camera while not at home.

You could use safe cameras that do not connect to internet on their own,
but instead need a local server inside the same LAN. And to connect from outside you would have to create a setup that includes either an
external server, or a dyndns address pointing to your home.

Possibly these cameras are more expensive. They do exist, it is what any entity in Europe would have to create for security cameras within the
privacy laws. I don't know how to find them on Amazon, what search text.
Maybe USB cameras.

And by the way, it would be possibly to do this commercially if IPv6 is deployed, without using their external server.


Only to the SD card might be possible if you do not hire their external storage and disable mobile phone use. But many cameras do their initial configuration via an Android App. If there is registration, bad.

...
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-12-02 15:11, Chris wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

On 01/12/2025 18:04, Chris wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm >>>>>>>> sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the >>>>>>>> web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?.   I would think
not but just want to be sure.    He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik.  If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

My wifi has been giving me trouble since February, and last night on the
upstairs computer, the cable internet would not work either.  The >>>>>>>> Troubleshooter said the cable wasn't in, and indeed, I had sometimes >>>>>>>> gotten success by pushing it in further, a millimeter, but that didn't >>>>>>>> work last night.   Even though the Verizon FIOS fiberoptic phone was >>>>>>>> working and the Verizon box has a flashing led for the cable that goes >>>>>>>> to my computer.

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a >>>>>>>> neighbor, but not to my own wifi   Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi.  But still not to the cable, which I >>>>>>>> thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my
laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February. >>>>>>>>

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit. >>>>>> Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing >>>>> about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

Theft requires that someone is deprived of something. Given every broadband
connection is unlimited there is no "deprivation".

Using something without paying for it is potentially fraud, however.

Every broadband connection is NOT unlimited.
Mine is currently 200GB per calendar month, which was 60GB then 100GB.

You're the exception rather than the rule.

Depends. Spain has a very deep fibre coverage, but there are rural areas without. If you have to depend on a router with a SIM card,

That's not broadband in my book. It's mobile data.

many
providers limit the downloads per month. Even if you contract a
limitless connection, in actual practice they have limits, and may
severe your connection if you download movies every day.

None of this is relevant to a neighbour accidentally connecting to your
wifi. My point is there is no theft as there's no deprivation of internet access.

I had a beach residence with such a connection. Land line copper
connection had been available, till the entire copper network was decommissioned, and they did not deploy fibre to every place that had
copper previously. Just 200 meters away.

Like I said. That's an exception.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2025-12-02 23:23, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-12-02 15:11, Chris wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

On 01/12/2025 18:04, Chris wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm
sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?.   I would think
not but just want to be sure.    He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik.  If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

My wifi has been giving me trouble since February, and last night on the
upstairs computer, the cable internet would not work either.  The >>>>>>>>> Troubleshooter said the cable wasn't in, and indeed, I had sometimes >>>>>>>>> gotten success by pushing it in further, a millimeter, but that didn't
work last night.   Even though the Verizon FIOS fiberoptic phone was
working and the Verizon box has a flashing led for the cable that goes
to my computer.

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a >>>>>>>>> neighbor, but not to my own wifi   Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi.  But still not to the cable, which I >>>>>>>>> thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my
laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February. >>>>>>>>>

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit. >>>>>>> Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing >>>>>> about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

Theft requires that someone is deprived of something. Given every broadband
connection is unlimited there is no "deprivation".

Using something without paying for it is potentially fraud, however. >>>>>

Every broadband connection is NOT unlimited.
Mine is currently 200GB per calendar month, which was 60GB then 100GB.

You're the exception rather than the rule.

Depends. Spain has a very deep fibre coverage, but there are rural areas
without. If you have to depend on a router with a SIM card,

That's not broadband in my book. It's mobile data.

It is the mobile network, but used with fixed hardware. A router with a SIM.

many
providers limit the downloads per month. Even if you contract a
limitless connection, in actual practice they have limits, and may
severe your connection if you download movies every day.

None of this is relevant to a neighbour accidentally connecting to your
wifi. My point is there is no theft as there's no deprivation of internet access.

They use the limited bandwidth per month of the connection. The user
might find that his connection ends early and doesn't have internet on
day 20.

I had a beach residence with such a connection. Land line copper
connection had been available, till the entire copper network was
decommissioned, and they did not deploy fibre to every place that had
copper previously. Just 200 meters away.

Like I said. That's an exception.

Not an exception, there are many thousand people that have to use that
service because there is no fibre or copper at their homes.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-12-02 23:23, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-12-02 15:11, Chris wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

On 01/12/2025 18:04, Chris wrote:

wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

On 28/11/2025 19:03, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 11/28/2025 3:47 AM, wasbit wrote:

On 26/11/2025 13:55, micky wrote:

OT?? if I'm using someone else's wifi, can he tell what's in email I'm
sending or receiving, can he tell what I'm sending or receiving on the
web, or what I'm sending or receiving here on Usenet?.   I would think
not but just want to be sure.    He's a smart guy but no tech genius
afaik.  If he were a tech wiz, could he do it?

My wifi has been giving me trouble since February, and last night on the
upstairs computer, the cable internet would not work either.  The >>>>>>>>>> Troubleshooter said the cable wasn't in, and indeed, I had sometimes >>>>>>>>>> gotten success by pushing it in further, a millimeter, but that didn't
work last night.   Even though the Verizon FIOS fiberoptic phone was
working and the Verizon box has a flashing led for the cable that goes
to my computer.

This morning I rebooted and on its own, it connected to the wifi of a
neighbor, but not to my own wifi   Hmmm after 30 minutes of using his,
it just switched to my wifi.  But still not to the cable, which I >>>>>>>>>> thought would take priority, plusd last night the Troubleshooter said my
laptop's wifi was bad too, the one that hasn't worked since February.

Hmmm! 19 replies & not a mention of bandwidth theft.

It seems to be mostly a tale about semi-broken or half-functional kit. >>>>>>>> Since the OP has his own paid Internet service, there is no
evidence of "100% leeching" going on, particularly. I bet the
OP could tighten up his settings a bit.

The OP knows he has connected to the neighbour's wifi but said nothing >>>>>>> about having permission.
Until clarified it is bandwidth theft.

Theft requires that someone is deprived of something. Given every broadband
connection is unlimited there is no "deprivation".

Using something without paying for it is potentially fraud, however. >>>>>>

Every broadband connection is NOT unlimited.
Mine is currently 200GB per calendar month, which was 60GB then 100GB. >>>>

You're the exception rather than the rule.

Depends. Spain has a very deep fibre coverage, but there are rural areas >>> without. If you have to depend on a router with a SIM card,

That's not broadband in my book. It's mobile data.

It is the mobile network, but used with fixed hardware. A router with a SIM.

many
providers limit the downloads per month. Even if you contract a
limitless connection, in actual practice they have limits, and may
severe your connection if you download movies every day.

None of this is relevant to a neighbour accidentally connecting to your
wifi. My point is there is no theft as there's no deprivation of internet
access.

They use the limited bandwidth per month of the connection. The user
might find that his connection ends early and doesn't have internet on
day 20.

I had a beach residence with such a connection. Land line copper
connection had been available, till the entire copper network was
decommissioned, and they did not deploy fibre to every place that had
copper previously. Just 200 meters away.

Like I said. That's an exception.

Not an exception, there are many thousand people that have to use that service because there is no fibre or copper at their homes.

Compared to the 10s of millions who don't have to resort to mobile data, it
is the exception.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Chris wrote:

Compared to the 10s of millions who don't have to resort to mobile data, it is the exception.

WiMax is (was?) another type of exception used in Spain.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 18:36:35 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Compared to the 10s of millions who don't have to resort to mobile data,
it is the exception.

Speaking as an exception, it's either Verizon wireless or StarLink. You
know that 'last mile' they talk about? I live on that road.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 5/12/2025 5:36 am, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-12-02 23:23, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

<Snip>

I had a beach residence with such a connection. Land line copper
connection had been available, till the entire copper network was
decommissioned, and they did not deploy fibre to every place that had
copper previously. Just 200 meters away.

Like I said. That's an exception.

Not an exception, there are many thousand people that have to use that
service because there is no fibre or copper at their homes.

Compared to the 10s of millions who don't have to resort to mobile data, it is the exception.

I thought 'exception' meant it didn't exist AT ALL!!
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2