Thieves tap WiFi.  Is BPL Next?

Yep. Coincidentally, "Calvin & Hobbes" and "Farside" were taken out of circulation at the same time. Jane Pauley was relegated to cable about then too.

 

This is priceless!!!  Quality reproduction and suitable for framing (in more than one way).

LOL

Lee
W6EM

 

This might answer your question:


Article: 213210 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna

From: Gilbert Mouget Subject: Re: ton of wire to apply at 90 Mhz Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 06:22:48 +0200 References: <87ad1sivb0.fsf@jidanni.org Message-ID: <406f8d8c$0$14544$626a14ce@news.free.fr

In article <87ad1sivb0.fsf@jidanni.org, dated Sun, 04 Apr 2004 05:52:03 +0800, Dan Jacobson, says...

Assume you have tons of wire, string, and hilly treed land, and want to listen to FM 90 Mhz. Impressed with the 1/2 wave dipole nulling out competing stations, you think, "I am the owner of tons of wire, I will put my wire to work to pull it in even better." What design will utilize my ton of wire at such a short wavelength?

Go fractal to the Nth iteration and your ton of wire is gone*.

Then built an opaque radome to hide your antenna from Doktor Nathan Cohen, PhD and licensed wire bender or he will sue you for pending patent infringement.

*Notice that gain over dipole will be negative and directivity diagram awfull.

-- "You cannot move mountains if you believe them to be mountains. You must think of them as collections of small stones, Which can be moved one at a time, and then reassembled." -- The Tao of Meow


Reprinted with permission......

Lee
W6EM

 

What keeps happening to Chip's posts?
One minute they are there, the next, they are gone.

 

I know of only two ways for posts to "go away". One is removal by the censors, and the other is deletion by the author of the post. Seems a certain person is removing his own posts, for some reason... Incidentally, if you quote a post, and that post is subsequently deleted, it remains in your post as long as yours is not deleted.

73,

Omer, AD7DY

 

Here's an example of what was clearly a defamatory post by Chip (that he can't erase) and is material as an example.

BTW, I understand that he has sent someone on this thread an updated version of his 'cordial correspondence.'


Lee
W6EM

 

Need to quote this one quick before it goes into the bit-bucket

 

Nothing manipulated, nothing gained ...

I've encountered some twisted people in my time, but THIS ...

WIERD.

'Not too crazy to leave all of this alone.

Ivan

 

'wired'?

No OM; it's 'wireless'.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

To whom it may concern:

"Never pass up a good chance to shut up"

Cordially,
Steve N4SL

 

It is, indeed, an unusual topic, Ivan, if that is your point.

Remember W6EM's comment here on BPL and 'tapping':

-----------------------

"If the FBI, Secret Service, and other agencies are concerned about WiFi being tapped by these types, it would seem that they also should be worried about the plethora of BPL signals beginning to be deployed. With BPL's nature of being 'everywhere', even beyond where WiFi is, it will be so much simpler for such thieves and terrorists to establish unauthorized connections, do their dastardly deeds, and slip away unaprehended. Sure, says the FCC, its illegal for someone 'unauthorized' to possess a BPL modem. So, they demand that it won't be possible. Ah, but the same goes for felons owning a gun, right? Or, guns or other weapons in the hands of the wrong types, terrorists, etc"

----------------

It does not make sense that some individuals, under the banner of 'ham radio', should choose to make statements and imputations about the alleged danger(s) of BPL. Said statements, in a public forum, accomplish nothing but an attempt to scare off potential users, investors, and customers, of BPL, IMO. That sure sounds like interference of business to me, IMO.

Especially after the R&O from the FCC in October 2004, it has been thoroughly reviewed and decided that BPL does not require any special restrictions vis a vis the amateur radio service, in the US.

Part 15 already provides for the protection of amateur radio, and others, against 'harmful interference' from Part 15 devices. If and when that occurs, it becomes the sole responsibility of the Part 15 parties. Radio amateurs have nothing to do with the decision. Being 'preemptive' does not appear to be part of the system, should certification be granted. Hams' only responsibility is to make sure that , if harmful interference occurs in a 'ham' case, that it is accurately and honestly reported, as a complaint to the FCC.

BPL poses no opportunity for 'tapping'--that is eavesdropping; identity theft; invasion of privacy--because it is an encoded means of media. Such fears have no basis in fact.

With this now pithily said, perhaps it is indeed time to retire the topic.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

As I have said before.......

When WEP was introduced, the industry said it was strong.

 

Many of your statements are obvious and, of course, true.

However--
That was then; this is now.

The fact is that no one has provided, nor appears capable of providing, an example where 'theives' tapped a BPL line. Certainly to state, as W6EM did, that it is EASIER to tap a BPL line than WiFi is false. There is no evidence for that.

I imagine BPL people could choose an easily broken cipher. There is no evidence they have done so. Ergo, this entire topic is without merit.

If you have info that's relevant, then please present it.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

You are misunderstanding W6EM's statement. The BPL medium allows anyone on the segment to intercept the traffic of that segment as opposed to WiFi, where you must be in close proximity to the device that is transmitting traffic to intercept it. That makes it "easier". Please note that has nothing to do with encryption technique used.

As I stated before, a secure cipher does not ensure a secure system.

 

Your comment is interesting but has no relation to W6EM's statement. Go read it again carefully, please.

Your statement that I have misintepreted it is 'asserted but not shown'. Kindly quote relevant phrases from W6EM's statement and my own, so that we may see the accuracy of your assertion--or the lack of applicability.

73,
Chip N1IR