Wireless

[TheWorstPlayer]

A more interesting question, IMO, is if you put up some sort of technology which blocked his wireless and nothing else. Could he force you to remove it? If he has a right for his waves to be in your house, why not? If he doesn't, why can he do it without asking you in the first place?

For those wondering why I asked this question. I was going to respond in the other thread concerning wireless signals and then I just thought of this question and decided to make a poll.

As far as my position on wireless is if I am sitting in my living room and detect somebody else's unsecured network ...it is fair game. My network is secure.

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
A more interesting question, IMO, is if you put up some sort of technology which blocked his wireless and nothing else. Could he force you to remove it? If he has a right for his waves to be in your house, why not? If he doesn't, why can he do it without asking you in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

OP has suffered no injury that is cognizable at law, nor has his neighbor violated any law. The same is true if OP were to erect some sort of barrier around his property that prevented the wi-fi network from propagating through OP's property.

I think the reason why this is legal is for the same reason that we don't require that EMFs be contained - there may be some minute adverse effects from allowing them to "roam free", but it would be horribly inefficient to require that they be contained.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A more interesting question, IMO, is if you put up some sort of technology which blocked his wireless and nothing else. Could he force you to remove it? If he has a right for his waves to be in your house, why not? If he doesn't, why can he do it without asking you in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

OP has suffered no injury that is cognizable at law, nor has his neighbor violated any law. The same is true if OP were to erect some sort of barrier around his property that prevented the wi-fi network from propagating through OP's property.

I think the reason why this is legal is for the same reason that we don't require that EMFs be contained - there may be some minute adverse effects from allowing them to "roam free", but it would be horribly inefficient to require that they be contained.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll pose the same question to you as I posed in the my other post:

Suppose for some reason I am allergic to modern wireless router frequencies does my neighbors wireless signal have a right to invade my living room and possibly injure my well being? This could also interfere with my property in other possible ways that are detrimental to me.

[rollingdirty]

[MagicMan08]

I know one dude who downloaded some Pron off an unsecured wifi connection by jus driving around and searching on peoples computers for cool philes. ha ha ha

[ QUOTE ]
In case you were wondering you do not own airspace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I own the airspace contained within the walls of my property. Agreed?

[rollingdirty]

[The Truth]

I like the question. It could have a potentially unexpected answer. It could also influence our daily lives based on government intervention, lawsuits etc.
You can control the distance to witch your signal will go.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In case you were wondering you do not own airspace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I own the airspace contained within the walls of my property. Agreed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but no you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I guess thats the problem isn't it? And if I don't who does?