Fined For Using Someone Else's WiFi
from the where's-the-loss? dept
While many, many people still feel there's absolutely nothing wrong with piggybacking on someone's open WiFi, the police don't always agree. We've had a few stories in the past about people getting arrested for using someone else's WiFi, or even threatening to arrest people for simply using a cantenna. The latest such story, sent in by Steve, involves a guy in Illinois who was fined $250 for "theft of services" after a police officer spotted him sitting in a car, using the open WiFi of a non-profit agency in the middle of the night. The police go on about how you could get a year in jail for this. Again, though, it's not clear why this is a crime. If the guy were trespassing, that's one thing. However, if he's sitting on public property, using an open WiFi signal that went beyond the property boundaries... it should have been up to the agency to secure their WiFi. Also, there's no way anyone can claim any real loss in this situation. It was the middle of the night. No one else was using the broadband connection. The police are quoted warning others to beware that they, too, can get arrested and spend a year in jail if spotted using a laptop in a car. Can't wait until someone using an EVDO or HSDPA cellular data card in their car gets arrested by a police officer who doesn't recognize the difference.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
WiFi (not encripted signal use)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrest for piggybacking on open wireless network
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about...
The police officer should be tested on his understanding and level of PC andor networking knowledge.
The user of Wifi should also be asked what are you doing parked in front of a building in the middle of the night? You would get shot in Alabama for that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about...
The police officer should be tested on his understanding and level of PC andor networking knowledge.
The user of Wifi should also be asked what are you doing parked in front of a building in the middle of the night? You would get shot in Alabama for that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Stealing
If I leave my wallet open in a public place (because I am an idiot), does that give someone the right to walk up and take my money. I don't think anyone would be OK with someone who decides they are going to splice in to you cable TV connection without you knowing.
Someone pays for the broadband connection, so that person owns it.
Let's call it what it is. It's stealing.. Plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sort of thing used to be legal
Lisa's Nostalgia Cafe
[BTW Mike: why is the word "false" at the top left of the comment page?]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lame
Or worst, cops should start arresting everyone watching a Baseball game from outside the stadium, like Wrigley Field for example, because that game is property of the MLB and they would be stealing the service MLB is charging for it to everyone inside.
It's a lame world, isn't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lame
"That WAP is sending its signals across the dudes antenna"
WiFi requires bi-directional communication, if he were just intercepting something like streaming there would be no theft of services. He actively went back across their property to get access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lame
Scott put it correctly when he said that using wifi is bi-directional. You are requesting something over the other person's network, not simply picking up information already being sent.
Thus analogies such as listening in to other's radio programming and tv's make no sense, because yes it would be wrong if instead of just listening to that persons tv or radio you reached over and started changing the station
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lame
Agree.
"analogies such as listening in to other's radio programming and tv's make no sense, because yes it would be wrong if instead of just listening to that persons tv or radio you reached over and started changing the station"
Disagree. For broadband connections, there would be little or no effect on others using the WAP.
On open WAPs I have used, the LAN is usually invisible (not always, though). The only way the WAP originator knew I was there was because he could see me with his own eyes.
It is also important to note that some open WAPs are bait to attract clueless interlopers and then gather sensitive or crucial information, such as web passwords and the like. The communication may be bi-directional, but so is the risk.
I have to agree with those who say there are legitimate reasons to leave a WAP open. And for those users, it is important to understand what measures they can take to secure their open network so that it is used within their imposed limits. I have used open WAPs that wouldn't allow me to send data or collect web email, for instance.
WAP owners have a LOT of built-in control over their network, but they have to understand how to implement it, and what constraints they will assume by its implementation.
AFAICT, technical ignorance is utterly irrelevant to this issue. Invoking ignorance to justify prosecuting "theft of services" is like excusing the at-fault driver in an injury accident because he didn't know how to operate his vehicle. Ridiculous.
Perhaps the "risk" (if you can really call it that) of operating a wireless network should be made clear through warnings on the wireless equipment packaging. Otherwise, anyone who wants to prosecute someone for using his WAP ought to have to prove he suffered some kind of tangible damages before action is taken by authorities against anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lame
WAP "Open WiFi here... Open WiFi here... WiFi here..."
Client "Can I join your network?"
WAP "Sure, come on in"
Client "Does anyone have an IP address I can use?"
WAP "You can use x.x.x.x24 for 2400 seconds"
Client "Ok, I will use x.x.x.x24 for 2400 seconds"
WAP "OK"
...
COP "Your Stealing, No one told you you could use that connection"
Client "WTF"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lame
> WAP "Open WiFi here... Open WiFi here... WiFi here..."
> Client "Can I join your network?"
> WAP "Sure, come on in"
> Client "Does anyone have an IP address I can use?"
> WAP "You can use x.x.x.x24 for 2400 seconds"
> Client "Ok, I will use x.x.x.x24 for 2400 seconds"
> WAP "OK"
Yes, it's called DHCP and it's part of the protocol that gives you permission, a gateway address and a lease of time.
I don't know how much more permission you would need. Even Pantera Bread's or Starbucks sign on screen is the same principal, except DHCP is automated.
No one is doing "unauthorized access" here, the damn thing is broadcasting that it's there, it's open and then gives you permission to use it. No INFORMED jury would convict this guy, and he should appeal the whole thing. I think he didn't have a lawyer, but if you know some basics about how things work you really don't need a lawyer in this case.
So you people out there that don't know jack about how this technology works should quit watching TV and learn how things work.
I don't understand how anyone can go through life without knowing how a car engine works, or even how a fridge works. It just shows you how low your IQ is without even having to take a test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lame
Again, try telling the judge that the AP granted you permission and see how far you get. Justify it to yourself all you want, the law is NOT on your side, and, Mike's commentary nothwithstanding, it is not about loss in either economic or bandwidth terms, but about basic property rights - your right to determine who may and may not use your private property.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lame
it's not bi-directional, cause u dont even need the phone line, just fake a valid access card so what, hmmmmmmmm
Key difference in your analogy? One way interaction in watching TV, the signal is sent out and no return is performed.
"That WAP is sending its signals across the dudes antenna"
WiFi requires bi-directional communication, if he were just intercepting something like streaming there would be no theft of services. He actively went back across their property to get access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm...Panera Bread, anyone?
So let me get this right....if I did this in the middle of the night while the store is closed, and presuming they don't shut down their equipment, now I'm stealing bandwith?
Nnnnnnoooooo....don't think soooo....
I would get a good lawyer, the kind that really likes skewering stupid interpretations like this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm...Panera Bread, anyone?
This IS a contract between you and Panera allowing you to use their WIFI. Doesn't matter if you do this at 3am, or 3pm, when the store is open or closed: If you go thru their sign-on screen, they have permitted you to use their net. There cannot be one of these "You used their WIFI illegally" in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm...Panera Bread, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fine the WAP
That WAP is sending its signals across the dudes antenna.
The Wireless Access Provider (the non-profit group in this case) should be fined/arrested/jailed/etc for causing a public disturbance. I mean what if the guy is only 14? They are forcing access to X-rated content on an innocent under-aged computer user!
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about some personal responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about some personal responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about some personal responsibility
Perhaps they are to computer illiterate to secure their network, or perhaps the free loaders or to computer illiterate to connect to the right service, or just to lazy, or are just to cheap to get their own connection ?
You're the one using the computer - you're the one connecting to the internet - how about accepting this as your problem and not the person who didn't secure their network. It's called taking responsibility for your own actions rather then infering your right to access the internet because of the inaction of someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about some personal responsibility
You opened up your network to the public.
Case closed.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How about some personal responsibi
You opened up your network to the public.
Case closed.
-CF
I must say - I have to agree completely. Either that or the business should have posted a sign stating the the open WiFi access they were BROADCASTING isn't free.
Afterall, if he found the network, I'd say there's a 98% chance that WiFi network was broadcasting....
Typcially - when something's broadcasted - such as TV, Radio, etc - it's pretty well considered public domain. Afterall, could a radio station sue you for tuning in if you don't have their express persmission to do so? hmm - again, public airwaves, broadcasting....
If he knew the Network ID, and Security strings and "hacked" in, it would be different.
The business was broadcasting an open, unsecured WiFi connection. In all seriousness, he could simply use the defense that he thought it was WiFi provided by the city (There's a few cities that do this now and even more working on it). Of course - that all depends on what he said to the officer at the time of arrest, of course :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How about some personal responsibi
Yes, this issue raises some strong sentiments, but in legal concerns it's just not clear cut yet. I think their are dual responsibilities. Yeah, that non-for-profit org should have locked down their access. That doesn't make it okay for some jerk to use that internet even though it may cost that org money.
Bottom line... I have solved this... no more comments... The End... Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about some personal respon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How about some personal responsibi
If I fail to lock my network and someone comes and jacks all my bandwidth, is that stealing?
The .net's not exactly Mayberry, but taking something that someone else paid for without their permission is stealing, whether it's bandwidth or that flatscreen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How about some personal responsibi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about some personal responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How about some personal responsibi
No, he is saying that if he takes his cash out in Wal-mart's parking lot, throws it up into the air and it lands on the passenger seat of your car, even through closed windows, you have the obligation to ignore it and never do anything with it.
Also notable: the cash he takes out of his pocket and throws up into the air is replenishable, i.e., he loses nothing by giving it away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about some personal responsibility
You guys have no argument and sound like complete morons who think it's stealing. if someone doesn't secure their network then they are offering it up for use, plain and simple.
Being ignorant of something isn't an excuse. Just like driving laws. Secure your damn network, or if you don't know how then pay the neighborhood kid $15 to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about some personal responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about some personal responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about some personal responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about some personal responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about some personal responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about some personal responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about some personal responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about some personal responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OPEN wifi at MOST McDonald's Locations
Sure, the open wifi in your office was intended for work only - but now since you are using that open wifi on your personal computer, it is a crime... or at least in comparison to what this article quotes.
BTW, there are open wifi hot-spots at just about all McDonalds across the USA. Would it make a difference if I just parked my car infront of the MD's and opened my laptop's wifi... or would I have to purchase a $.99 burger first, for this to be alright.... and then there is the case of doing this at 3am and using the excuse of, "I was just waiting for them to open in a few hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OPEN wifi at MOST McDonald's Locations
Actually, according to the Sarbanes Oxley Law (SOX) it is a crime if the company is a financial company. You could get in trouble, and the company could get sued for failing SOX compliancy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OPEN wifi AT MOST McDonald's Locations
Sure, the open wifi in your office was intended for work only - but now since you are using that open wifi on your personal computer, it is a crime... or at least in comparison to what this article quotes.
BTW, there are open wifi hot-spots at just about all McDonalds across the USA. Would it make a difference if I just parked my car infront of the MD's and opened my laptop's wifi... or would I have to purchase a $.99 burger first, for this to be alright.... and then there is the case of doing this at 3am and using the excuse of, "I was just waiting for them to open in a few hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's theft of space. Someone else could have commented there.
I honestly have to agree 100% with Andy's response here. Theft is theft, pure and simple. Yes, they should secure their wireless network, so that company's IT Department has some explaining to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: by Spike on Mar 23rd, 2006 @ 10:42am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: by Spike on Mar 23rd, 2006 @ 10:42am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it isnt illegal to use something that is offered freely in public..
the TV analogy is very good, if you leave your TV on, and viewable by anyone, you cant go arresting people who watch it! its madness... turn your damn TV off. or face it away from the windows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unsecured Wi-Fi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cant send spam from watching TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's Next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use the correct analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use the correct analogy
Not securing their WiFi connection does not require any effort on the part of the cable subscriber, whether that be by choice or through ignorance - you should not infer that you have permission to use their cable connection.
Now if they went to the effort to walk next door to say 'Please help yourself to my WiFi connection' - now you could infer that it was ok to use their WiFi from that :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Use the correct analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's Next?
What about if I stop by a store window and use the light spilling out from thier front display to read my 's display?
"Excuse me sir, I need to take you in for using thier light, while listening to her XM radio..."
Yikes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold both sides accountable...
There is no excuse for not securing your network, and there is no excuse for using a service if you are unsure of your privledges to it.
In the end though, the techs in the company should have more knowledge about this than your average internet user, therefore, they should have tied up their WAP if they didn't want it wandering off it's territory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold both sides accountable...
ive tried to talk to everyone but its ok cause im shutting down everything and moving away carma will get this loser idk anymore he thinks hes untouchable , its just pathetic , must have a small .....!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wifi is not just used for laptops....
Lets arrest all the people who use their WIFI enabled Pocket-PCs in public - since obviously they are not paying for that WIFI service.
And what about the kids and their NintendoDS or PSP handhelds who just happen to be in a WIFI Hot-Spot and are playing online - can you be absolutely sure that they didnt pre-pay for that service in that exact spot where they are located?
Lets arrest everyone with a WIFI enabled device who is not at home, on their own home network... because they are obviously stealing bandwidth when they are anyplace else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More questions than answers...
Reading the comments always unleashes a tide of questions for me... Maybe those who are much smarter than me can answer some questions.
How is this different from wiring a box that lets one decrypt and use satellite video signals? How is this different (other than the initial trespass) from hooking a long cable to one's neighbor's cable connection and using the video feed? If the host person's WiFi is coming from bandwidth paid for by the host person, why is it not wrong to use that person's bandwidth without permission? Is the host person's WiFi networking security ignorance such a crime that "someone should take advantage of because they should have secured their network?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No difference...
Securing my network is my choice to attempt to block someone who decides to break the law. Just like locking the doors on my car. If I don't lock the doors on my car, it's not legal for you to take something out of it, or take the car.
And yes, if you have WiFi, and your neighbor has WiFi, and he didn't secure it, and his is a better signal, and you access it, I'm sure he could press charges under the exact same law(s).
Somewhere along the line, people decided that it's not breaking the law if no one has gone to great lengths to keep you from doing it, and that is wrong. We go to great lengths because too many people assume that it's fine, as long as it's easy.
Next someone is going to complain because they get arrested for shoplifting, even though the store didn't wire that shirt to the rack...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out of bounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio
Or…
If this is illegal than I plan on buying as much radio equipment as I can to hog the airwaves in my apartment complex. Once I monopolize the airwaves I will rent them back to my neighbors.
Or..
If you turn your blackberry speaker phone on and walk by me and I hear your conversation and you pick up something I say and the person you are talking to hears it have I illegally used your cell minutes? No, you facilitated my voice carrying over your phone because you did not set it up properly.
Or…
If I stop next to your car at a stop light and roll my window down as to hear the loud music you are playing on your car stereo am I a thief? No (RIAA’s hopes aside). Even if you argue that it is a one way signal I can become a thief by interacting with the signal by bobbing my head or playing air guitar with the music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Secure the damn thing
Case in point: One of my Neighbor's in my Apt Complex had an unsecured Wireless Router with an SSID of MIKE... So I changed my SSID to USE_MIKES_ITS_NOT_SECURE..... Was that wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because a moron buys a walmart router and doesnt understand fully about the need for network security doesn't give other people the right to take advantage of him or his equipment for free.
The fact is people in this world are slowly losing their capacity to differ between whats morally right and whats morally wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wha?
Before calling others "morons" learn the difference between "your" and "you're."
Just a hint. Get a friggin clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Walk next door? No. Just broadcast it over RF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Walk next door? No. Just broadcast it over RF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Air waves are not anyone's property. A house is. Next.
A simpler analogy:
A website. Publicly accessed. Right? Did Google say "We allow you to connect to us!" or is it implied that a website is publicly available? Is it possible to block access to something on a website? Yes. Ok, good. Take website and replace with WiFi.
Should you be arrested for connecting to a website at 3 am?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unlocked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 23rd, 2006 @ 11:38am
To adress the coments here about some people just don't know how to secure their network:
1. I'm sure the owners manual walks you through that.
2. If I didn't see the speed limit sign and I get a ticket, does that mean my neglectful driving gets me off the hook. Nope. Because stupidity is no excuse.
If someone allows their wifi to drift outside their property line, then is their property trespassing, or is it not their property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mi Casa es Su casa
I guess the police needed an excuse to tag this guy hanging out in the middle of the night. I wonder if there was a city ordinance the court used to fine him, or if it was state penal code...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mi Casa es Su casa
It seems pretty clear-cut. Using someone else's wireless is theft. It's the same as if you walk into someone's house when the door is unlocked and eat some of their food and take a bath in their bathroom, then leave before they come home.
Since the homeowner didn't secure the home in the example above, if caught you will only be charged with illegally trespassing. If you had broken the lock to get in, it would have been breaking and entering at a minimum. In this case, the law takes into account the owner's responsibility to secure the home by providing a lesser penalty for the offender- but that certainly does not change the fact that an offense did occur.
The same should apply to anyone using an unsecured wireless connection- if you don't know that it is available for free access, then you shouldn't be on it.
And for those who bring up McDonald's and other free access points- around me, those free access points always direct you to a free registration page first, so you know who is giving you that nice free access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mi Casa es Su casa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you leave the beer in the street - who could say a person walking by was stealing it if he opened a can and drank it? After all - you were leaving it open to the public.
He didn't break in and use their information systems - which someone would have to do to get the beer IN your house.
If someone leaves their WiFi open and someone leeches bandwidth - yes, it's their fault. They are telling the digital WiFi world "Here's an open Network".
Again, if they didn't want to WiFi to be used - they shouldn't broadcast a signal.
Just like ignorance of the law is no excuse - the same applies here. If you are stupid enough to leave your beer in the street - expect someone to take it.
I'm not saying the guy leeching the WiFi isn't at fault also (he knew what he was doing) - but the business is the one who opened it up to public use.
Assume - for the sake of arguement.. He was in Covington, KY. Half the city is wired for free WiFi access - so if some half-wit user accidentally uses a business' network - who would be to blame? the business for leaving it open or the person for using it?
Seems like they are both at fault. Perhaps the FCC should look into the business broadcasting outside of their propery lines? Isn't there laws about what business can and cannot transmit over the airwaves?
See the differance between stealing Wifi and stealing a beer is that they have to trespass and/or enter the presmises without consent. This guy never did either - assuming he wasn't sitting the their parking lot.
It boils down to this - if you don't want your WiFi used by whomever - secure it. Personally, I could care less, mine's wide-open. So anyone can use it if they like. All my shares and such on the PC's are firewalled and proper security is applied to the computers, so I'm not worried about it.
So if someone pulls up outside my house and starts using the WiFi does the cop have the right to give him a ticket? I don't care if he uses it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not talking about receiving only, by maintaining a connection to an AP, you have no longer remained outside any property lines, but established and failed to sever emmediately a connection internally of that persons property.
Just as laws for shared wired phone lines made it illegal to remain on the line when another party was using it, (yea going back a while, but I remember them) The law then was based on moral responsible action and trust. You violate such, and your both morally and legally liable. What is the difference? Those days, you picked up the handset, listened, if it was in use you hung up. Maintaining the connection was a violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact is, it is the private resource of someone who set it up for a particular purpose - normally to provide himself (and perhaps his family) with wireless access to HIS network, which just so happens to be connected to the Internet.
Let's assume that this WiFi network does NOT have Internet access. Should an interloper be allowed to peruse the local LAN? After all, it's "coming across his antenna". Should he be allowed to snoop on the homeowner's private information?
A direct correlation to this would be cable service in an apartment building. If my neighbor has cable, and his cable runs inside the common wall between our apartments right next to my phone line, do I have the right to tap into it and get cable service? After all, there's no loss, my neighbor doesn't know the difference, and the cable company doesn't lose money... Well.. They do, since I won't pay for cable. That's why if you are discovered, you'll find out what the legal penalty is for theft of service. Same with hopping a free ride on a train or plane - it's gonna go to it's destination anyway, right? No loss here... But wait.. That's apparently illegal too.
This is the same thing, folks. It's a private network, secured or not. Unless you have been given OVERT permission to use it, you do not have that permission. Any attempt to justify it otherwise is simply ignorance of both the law and probably a desire to just do whatever the hell you want to do 'cause you feel it SHOULD be the way you want it to be. And I see that as no different than file sharing - we all know it's illegal, but yet some persist that it should be made legal - just because they want it to be so.
Get over it. Accessing someone's WiFi, secured or not, without permission is illegal, and that's the end of the arguement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not actually a direct correlation unless the person actually hacked the WiFi network. A more acurate analogy would be finding a cable line in my apartment that for whatever reason happened to be part of my neighbors service, plugging it in and discovering I had cable.
Let's use the car analogy instead. I tend to leave my doors unlocked in most situations. It's far more convenient for me to have certain people have easy access to it most of the time, although there is an increased risk that someone I don't want might access my car and take something.
However, I know from personal experience a true professional can unlock most cars in less than 20 seconds, and those of lesser skill will merely break the window to gain access. My dad did auto glass for 30 years so I know how much those windows cost and if someone really really wants something that bad let them just have it and save me the added expense of repalcing the window.
That being said, when I go someplace, like certain malls, where I know pedators go around testing cars for easy marks like unlocked doors, I DO secure my vehicle to pervent such easy access - the risk outweighs the convenience in such circumstances.
That being said, in over 15 years I've never had my car entered unathorized to the best of my knowledge, because I take what I feel are appropriate steps as needed to secure my vehicle.
Does that mean I condone the person found in the middle of the night using someone else's WiFi connect. No, just as I wouldn't condone someone entering my car without permission and taking something whether it was locked or unlocked. From the details provides it sounds likely he knew he was doing wrong and some measure of penalty should likely be considered depending on the specifics of the case.
However responsibility is a two way street. Just as it is my responsibilty to secure my vehicle if I park it somewhere people are likely to test the handle to see if it's unlocked, its also the responsibilty of people to secure their "property" (in this case WiFi) if they don't want just anyone gaining easy access to it.
I, too, am annoyed by what another poster refered to along the lines of the "AOL metanity" (and as an regular AOL user for about 5 years I came to know this mentality well) of people not knowing anything about their systems because of the ease of accessibilty. If your going to use the technology you're responsible for its proper use, just as you are responsible for the proper maintainance and security of your car (a lesson I've learned a few times in car repair bills).
And yes, whether it is illegal or not, if you leave your bloody front door open 24/7 someone is far, far more likely to walk into your home than if you close and lock the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laptop's illegal?
Even still, WiFi is a free service, unless otherwise set up by the provider and it's not like the guy was circling the place, scoping it out, trying to find the best place to set up a bomb.
If it's illegal to get WiFi on your laptop in that case, than shouldn't cyber cafes be illegal too? Same idea, isn't it? Whatever, Keep the articles like these coming, this is intresting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laptop's illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laptop's illegal?
No, not the same idea! And yes you are an idiot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free TV
Could you claim they stole it because you didn't have a sign saying 'Free'? In this case you've actually had some property taken, but don't expect much sympathy from the police!
In the case of WiFi, your signal is right out on the curbside _and_ you're hardly inconvenienced _and_ even if it's bothering you, you could switch on WEP any time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free TV
WATCHING TV AND LISTENING TO THE RADIO IS A ONE WAY DEAL.
Did you notice that is a one way deal on TV and radio?
Repeat after me TV and radio broadcasting are one way communications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To use the "beer analogy" above - if I leave a keg of beer in the street and you drink it, you HAVE broken the law - you've committed larceny - you've stolen my property. If I leave the keg in the street with a sign saying, "FREE BEER", then you are welcome to it - because you have my PERMISSION.
What do you think would happen if a bag of money fell out of an armored car onto the street where it was left for several hours? Do you honestly think that it suddenly becomes ownerless and that you have a right to take it? Same with a WiFi signal. Just because it leaves my property line does not make it any less "mine". Or do you expect that your cellular calls and cordless phone calls are suddenly up-for-grabs because they leave your property line? Mind if I browse the phone book on your Bluetooth phone? After all, the Bluetooth signal left your cell phone in a public area. Better yet, will you be pissed off when I monitor the call you're making with that cool Bluetooth headset? Hmm, seems that it uses a standard pairing code of "0000" - looks like you didn't bother to secure it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Negligence is no excuse!
Pretty absurd huh? If arrests are to be made in cases like this for "theft of services" than the person who provided the open network should also be arrested. The onus should be on the person providing the service to prove that he did everything in his power to secure the network. If the provider can prove that the network was hacked, more power to the police. If there was no B&E into the network, no theft!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Responsibility
Yes, the door should have been locked, but the theft is not excused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Responsibility
Yes, the door should have been locked, but the theft is not excused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance is bliss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The police are quoted warning others to beware that they, too, can get arrested and spend a year in jail if spotted using a laptop in a car."
Let's forget about the morality / legality of open WiFi. I can't even use my laptop in a parked car?!!?!??! WTF??
Hello Mr. Orwell, my name is AC#42, I guess you were right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where you miss the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess it becomes illegal if, after a person has been caught, the access point owner tells police he/she did not want others to use the connection. So, if two persons are caught in front of your house, you could say that the young lady certainly has permission to use your connection. But since you don't like the looks of her boyfriend, you tell the police to write him a $350 fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Friggin Pigs
It must have been the end of the month quota type stuff... and people wonder why the police force has not respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look up laws people.
Anyone who has a cordless phone can be listened to using a fairly cheap scanner. The same sort that can pick up police radio. The police have spent thousands o the trunking system so that it's difficult to hear both sides of their conversations. Would they have done so if it were illegal to pick these symbols up? I think not.
Then again, they do love spending that funding they get on other stupid things.
Not to even mention about the recent cases on not being responsible for what other people do while on your WiFi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still....the company should have secured it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still....the company should have secured it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio and XP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Water? Phone?
What if there was a free phonebooth, accessible without trespassing, no security devices and no signs saying employees only.. would someone get arrested for using it to make a call?
If someone is "stealing" someons open WiFi then it is really only the fault of the person who didn't put any security on it.
It takes 2 clicks to enable WEP on an access point..
I would agree, however, that one should get fined or arrested for gaining unauthorised access to a SECURED network, be it from hacking the wep key, guessing it or somehow obtaining it otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops better be schooled...
Bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No crime here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open Connections
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF
They all need to get a life and focus on some real crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
free wi-fi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems like...
Seems like having an open connection is more like leaving a pile of old furniture on your sidewalk; most people will assume it is theirs to take if they so desire unless something (like a sign or an access key) indicates otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to the USA
its not acceptable, and definately inapprop, but hey... if you dont want her giving out free milk put her back in the barn.
I'm thirsty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so if there frequency inturrupts my service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: by Anonymous Coward #42 on Mar 23rd, 2006 @ 1
You got it Anon! This is the basis for the policeman having the ability to fine the person in the first place. The law has nothing to do with WiFi interception/transmission. It deals with safety concerns of someone driving while using her laptop (i don't see how using the GPS display is much different, but anyway).
So, the officer can cite the person for one thing (using a laptop in the car --while in the driver's seat, with the keys probably in the ignition--), while his motivation for citing her is rooted in something unrelated (using someone's wireless access point (presumably, without the AP owner's knowledge).
"Spirit of the law" concerns should be able to get this guy off. But it's ultimately up to the judge.
It's kinda like the racist police officer who pulls over an Indian because he doesn't like Indians, but he can justify pulling the Indian over because her tailight didn't work. Not a perfect analogy but you get the idea.
Was the person with the laptop thinking about driving while using it? Probably not. But it's her word against the cop's. Sucks doesn't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think about it
If I leave my car, unlocked, windows open, even with the door open, and a bag of money on the seat. If you walk by and take it, you are guilty of theft. You could allege that I am an idiot to have done that, you could even be right, doesn't matter... you're guilty of theft...
end of story...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What law did he break???
Most folks wouldn't object to someone cutting a corner through their yard or turning around in their driveway -- if they did then they should put up signs or fences... wifi is exactly the same. I'd not hesitate to cut through someone's backyard who has no fence nor visible message telling me to keep out, just like I'd not hesitate to use someone's open wifi connection.
But there are limits... the few times I've used open wifi it's mainly to check email, get quick map directions, or something simple -- not surfing for an hour or downloading torrents. That's like pitching a tent in someone's back yard.
There are limits to everything, and though technically I guess someone could sue someone for turning around in their driveway or walking through their backyard for a shortcut between point A and B, I've never seen such a case. Why is wifi so different ????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What law did he break???
The guy camped out next to the place to take wifi. A non-profit organization, so you're supposed to be nice to them to begin with. Especially if you're an anti-establisment I-hate-corporations hippie who thinks wifi should be free for everyone. He didn't go suck off of the many many places that offer public access like mcdonalds or starbucks or panera or a library or barnes and noble or somewhere.
Going to an errant website while on wifi at work is different. You have permission to use the network. Likewise they get to filter things or monitor you at their discretion.
My wifi is not secured. My little old lady neighbors would not steal it. if i find a car outside my house stealing wifi, I will call the cops and say he's peeping or something, or hide nails on the road.
Let's not defend this lame-o. He's 32. He's a grown man, who's too lame to buy internet access, so he goes and SNEAKS it late at night from a non-profit agency from his car. That's kind of like climbing a tree with a radio to watch a movie at a drive in because you're too cheap to pay the $3.50 to watch it in a comfortable location. And being 32 years old. He probably couldn't go to a public place because he was probably watching porn. It's late at night, and he doesn't have a date. Losers should be imprisoned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ludicrous overstepping of bounds by the Police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, Tech before the Law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The folks with the other world view believe in the free exchange of information, freedom, moral reasoning that includes shades of grey, sharing, and being guided more by a sense of the golden rule than by any explicitly stated set of rules. This group understands that even if something is illegal, it still might not be wrong, and that something that is wrong might not be illegal.
The thing is - that these groups will NEVER agree. Their world views are mutually exclusive. One wants to clamp down and impose law, the other wants to open up and encourage freedom. One wants to share, and the other wants to charge. Unfortunately everybody starts out, as children, in the first group, and clearly not everyone grows out of it, so there are naturally more folks in the former group than are in the latter. On the plus side, because those in the first group are working on a relatively primitive level of moral reasoning, they CAN grow and become those in the second group - but in America it doesn't happen nearly often enough. And so we see people getting arrested for using open WiFi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: by Anonymous Patriot on Mar 23rd, 2006 @ 2:04p
Amen, & Amen. Thank you for trying to peel back the filter we fail to realize we use when crafting our arguments.
Also, I think if people would read through the previously posted responses they would be less inclined to share the my-front-door-is-open-but-you-can't-come-in analogy for the 37th time.
LISTEN!...then speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: by Anonymous Patriot on Mar 23rd, 2006 @ 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: by Anonymous Patriot on Mar 23rd, 2006 @ 2:04p
Amen, & Amen. Thank you for trying to peel back the filter we fail to realize we use when crafting our arguments.
Also, I think if people would read through the previously posted responses they would be less inclined to share the my-front-door-is-open-but-you-can't-come-in analogy for the 37th time.
LISTEN!...then speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
get over it idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: get over it idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this still going on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
forget unfenced yards and open front doors
Encrypt it, sheild it, or shut the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets look at the other side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you know that. They could have had a client try to upload data to one of there servers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So we all agree
It is no longer that if it belongs to someone else you need to have permission to use it. It is now if I can take it then it is your fault for not having better protective measures.
Just wondering if this also applies to your car? If you aren't driving it, and I have a 'key' that will open and start it, then is it ok for me to take it and blame it on you for not securing it from me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fined For Using Someone Else's WiFi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlawful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile down the block....
I think that this is retarded. It's like if someone's tree is growing over your fence, into your yard, you have the right to trim it back, or pluck the fruit from its limbs. This WiFi tree happened to be sprawled out over onto public property, so he was merely picking up it's WiFi fruit =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You people are crazy
If there is an outlet on the side of a government building, are you saying it would be perfectly legal for me to plugin an extension cord and run it to my house to power my things? I mean, c'mon, they should have turned off the outlet when no one was using it right? Or removed it at night?
I was in the parking lot the other day and noticed a car with its door slightly open and the key in the ignition. So I figured, hey, the owner should have locked this up, so I am free to take it. So I did. Crazily enough, I was arrested within hours. Can you believe it!? The nerve of those cops to arrest ME for using another persons car when THEY left it open!
Do you need more examples? Seriously people. Yeah, I agree people should be responsible and not make their networks accessible. But it does not give others the right to exploit it...if they do, they are criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You people are crazy
No, then something is missing. What's misisng in this case?
If there is an outlet on the side of a government building, are you saying it would be perfectly legal for me to plugin an extension cord and run it to my house to power my things?
That would involve actively plugging in. Not just having access.
I was in the parking lot the other day and noticed a car with its door slightly open and the key in the ignition. So I figured, hey, the owner should have locked this up, so I am free to take it. So I did. Crazily enough, I was arrested within hours. Can you believe it!? The nerve of those cops to arrest ME for using another persons car when THEY left it open!
Again totally different. Something is missing. You stole a tangible product.
Do you need more examples? Seriously people. Yeah, I agree people should be responsible and not make their networks accessible. But it does not give others the right to exploit it...if they do, they are criminals
So, yeah, you do need more examples, because yours don't apply.
We can just as easily use examples going the other way to show you're wrong.
What if you turn on a sprinler, and the water goes over your property and helps water the neighbor's plants. Did they "steal" water from you?
What if you have a light outside of your house and it lights up the street. If I stand in the street and read under that light have I "stolen" your light?
So, it's not quite as clear cut as you like to imply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You people are crazy
If you didn't pay for it, then of course you have!
I getting sick and tired of all the individual theft going these days. And don't even get me started on the plague of intellectual property theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You people are crazy
or
I notice my neighbors door has been left open from time to time...
keeping the money, can't be compared to taking stuff.
how much was the bandwidth worth anyways? if it was stealing, then what about that dime you may have found somewhere.
remember those birds you heard? they sang to each other, and not to you. And since you heard them and didn't pay, you should be jailed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Using Someone Else's WiFi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its not goddam rocket science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Using someone else's WIFI w/o permission is illega
Panera Bread - They allow you do use their wifi. Its advertised and encouraged. So, thats not illegal. Most libraries in PA, for instance, now have free wifi for anyone to use whether your a member or not.
But just because you drive down the road and find and open wifi network, doesn't mean you get to acquire an IP address on that person or business's network and get to use their bandwidth. Its not the person's or company's responsibility to lock their wifi network down, although its a good idea. Saying that its the fault of the person or business because the wifi was open is like saying you were allowed to go inside their house or business because they left the door unlocked.
Its illegal, but people will continue to get away with it for years until the law catches up with technology.
Although my point of view is that its illegal, you have to show intent for theft. If I check into a motel/hotel, pop open my laptop to work on a word document and I realize that I have wifi access, it could be a defense to say that you thought it was the wifi provided by the hotel since most hotel's are beginning to do this. Although, sitting in the middle of a parking lot across from a business, I don't think you could argue that you expected to get wifi legally.
This is what the lawyers will do to drag this out to death until the laws catch up.
And lastly, I have these views because I am a police officer in PA and this is how I view the law. But I will agree that since no one seems to want to prosecute this YET in PA, it seems that the view is that, for now, its not illegal. I actually think it does fit into our theft section, but for now, thats just my view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using someone else's WIFI w/o permission is il
This makes no sense. You're saying that it's illegal even though the laws don't say it's illegal?
Saying that its the fault of the person or business because the wifi was open is like saying you were allowed to go inside their house or business because they left the door unlocked.
No, that's trespassing -- for which there is a clear law. Accessing an open network on public property isn't trespassing.
Although, sitting in the middle of a parking lot across from a business, I don't think you could argue that you expected to get wifi legally.
Why not? The network was open, and so it's reasonable to assume it's there to be used. There are no losses from someone using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using someone else's WIFI w/o permission is illega
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But some people are talking about this in a general sense, coming up with hypothetical situations and analogies that really don't have much to do with the specific case---such as what if the owner of the service is too computer illiterate to know to secure the wireless network? How about this situation: Joe Blow is too computer illiterate to know that his brand new Windows XP machine has just jumped onto an open network? What if he's paying for his own service but for some reason he's not even connected to his open 'linksys' router, he found Sue's open 'linksys' router. Is he now a criminal because he's just using "The Internet" like half of the Americans who get a wireless router for their house (this statistic was made up, but probably pretty close).
I'm just saying it can't be as cut and dry as either he's using someone else's WiFi so he's a thief and should be arrested, or the provider is at fault and should have known because... she bought a wireless router. These are probably going to have to be determined on a case by case basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh? Why does that imply he was in the wrong? The network was open, he needed connectivity, he wasn't clogging up anyone's network.
Maybe he simply needed to connect for some reason. Why would that imply he *knew* he was in the wrong. He saw the network was open and it made sense to use it. Plenty of people would do the same thing -- and if the NY Times ethicist even says that doing so is perfectly ethical, why should we think it's "wrong"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrested for using a laptop on your car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police State is right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, let's think a second, folks...
1. Legally, it is not the responsibility of the non-profit to secure the network at this time. It's a good idea, in fact a great idea, but it's not _legally_ responsible to do it, unless it can be proven that it is interfering with another signal, and even then, it's probably a civil case, not criminal.
2. Keep in mind that he was _in the parking lot of the non-profit_, which is not technically public property, just like malls are not public property--they are publicly accessable, but private property. So the fruit over the fence analogy doesn't work--he was in the yard getting the fruit. If he parked on the street, the analogy would be more accurate. Then it would be a muddier issue.
3. This can't be compared to TV and Radio for one reason: licensing. Wireless network equipment is not licenced, just like CB radio or FRS radio. But a TV or radio broadcaster must purchase a public license to broadcast. Wi-Fi may be airwaves in the public, but it is _not_ public airwaves.
In the end, this case is almost certainly a victimless crime, but it _is_ a crime, legally speaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, let's think a second, folks...
How so?
You point to him potentially not being on public property (which isn't clear), but then he should have been charged with trespassing.
Instead he was charged with theft of services, and I'm still asking what's *missing*. If something was stolen, something needs to be missing.
If there's no loss it's hard to see how a crime was committed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Man
Man Alone
Man Alone at night
Man alone at night in remote area
man alone at night in remote area on internet
man alone at night in remote area on internet...is probably not checking the stock tickers....
Who wants to bet the car was a rockin'? $10 says this guy is married and can't get his porn fix at home. Why else would a guy go park in front a building and jack (yes, pun intended) WiFi? In that case, the police probably do have some sort of indencency law to cite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a crime
Illegal, no. Unethical, depends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C'Mon its a case of active VS passive
Yes people should secure their WiFi (if they know how - that's another argument), but we shouldn't just assume that because something is available that it's okay to just use it without thinking of the responsiblity involved. The futility of saying that "but its unsecured" and in their heads thinking "it's free" is just absurd. Take care and use open networks you want, just don't think that it's free because it's unsecured.
--Praetorian_TMOTC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Learn some basic networking
Open access points broadcast ALL the time, "Here I am!!" Your network card says "Can I use you?" The reply, "Sure! Here is an IP address!" And away you go.
As the OWNER set up the network to automatically INVITE people to use it, he should not be suprised when people do.
This is more akin to asking a child if you can come in and take a bath. If Mom and Dad allow the kid to answer the door, and talk to strangers, they should expect strange things to occur. Mom and Dad might not like it, but no one can argue about permission. Kid gave it, so no crime.
In this case, owner set up network to invite usage, someone did, no crime.
If he sat there and decrypted their WEP key, that would be a whole nother story...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not "THEFT OF SERVICE"
The creation of "Theft of Service" statutes were targeted at people stealing cable, running out on a dining check, etc -- people who used a vendor's services and had an obligation to pay, but didn't.
The guy in the car was using an open AP, which isn't a "service" in this case -- the company wasn't running a non-profit T-Mobile Hotspot-like service in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And again
By setting up an open access point, you are doing the electronic equivelent of putting a sign on your front lawn saying free internet. IF you put that sign up but you don't read english, is that the fault of the person that reads it?
I am sure that if I put a sign on my lawn that said, "Free tv,come inside and take it!" (in Japanese and I thought it just looked cool cuz of the letters) Would someone who understood Japanese that took your TV be guilty of theft? Nope. You invited em in. For whatever stupid reason, you did, and there is no crime... (cept stupidity)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do idiots know what DHCP is? This idiot paid $250 because he and the cops don't know how things work.
You better know how things work people, get a clue.
So when you get DHCP, you knock on the door and then you are invited in, including a lease of time to use the service (renewable too).
And lately a district court ruled that in a suit against google that when you automatically pass packets like a ISP does, you also have no liability because you are then just like a ISP, so there's no reason to lock down your wireless, and that's another reason to assume someone has left their wireless open for free access.
READ: THERE IS NO REASON TO LOCK DOWN YOUR WIRELESS!
DHCP gives you a IP address and gateway address so you CAN access the internet. Without it you couldn't use the router anyway, so it invited you to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does anyone read the linked articles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ridiculous
Moreover I'm not sure if there is any cyber law in the US that states explicitly that using an unsecured wireless network is illegal. Then how would you justify places like Starbucks, who provide free wireless internet?
~kaustav ghoshal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nothing to do with sending or receiving either
Wow, how misguided.
So, By requesting a page you are stealing? How so when the access point already GRANTED permission?
We have devices grant permission and access all the time. If you were in my house and had a key and the alarm code, the cops would not arrest you. They might ask you to leave, but at some point in time PERMISSION was granted by me to you because of the key and the code. Now if you copied the key, or stole the code that is different, but remember, we are talking about OPEN access points that automatically GRANT access.
And additionally, computer tresspass specifically requires that you are accessing a network that you do not have permission to use. As the WIFI router has granted permission for the owner to the user of the network AUTOMATICALLY, it is no longer computer tresspass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something You're Forgetting
All wireless hardware comes with instructions to physically install the hardware. Included in these same instructions lay the 'securing your wireless network' walk-thru.
One can't reasonably expect a person to be able to physically install wireless hardware then believe that same person is unable to secure the network with the same instructions.
Furthermore, if the individual setting up this wireless network does not want others on the wireless network then they should secure it.
People, the instructions and manual say that the wireless network will be open to the public and if you don't want people on your network then you need to configure security.
How difficult is this? And yes, the FCC is the one in charge of the matter not the cops. Cops can't do everything you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me tell you why its different :-)
-------------------------------
Ok analogy time.
I put up a satellite antennae and I decrypt the signal I have not paid for ?
Is this wrong ? YES off course
NOW change the analogy. I plug an antennae into my TV and it picks up 200 unencrypted wide open transmissions ?
Is this wrong ? No Off Course not
Get the point yet ? the other user left it WIDE OPEN not only that but its BROADCASTING a "Here I am please connect to me signal" (the broadcast of the SSID)
SO not only are they leaving it open but they are Broadcasting a WELCOME that says here I am connect to me.
Now you tell me why it is wrong to connect to this.
If I leave my House Door wide open does this mean you can just walk into my house ? Off Course not.
NOW if I leave my door wide open and put up a flashing neon sign above it that says Please come on in.
Am I wrong to enter ?
Chris Taylor
http://www.nery.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry But....
If a company or the company's hired people that have installed insecure Wifi access doesn't have the brains to secure their broadcast, it's free for the taking. Now, If it were someone stealing bandwidth from another person in an apartment building, I'd say, yeah, the people are jerks; but if I don't have the intelligence to notice it or secure my own Wi-Fi that's my problem.
We're not talking about someone stealing a bike off someone elses porch here, and saying "you left it out, so Its free for the taking."
We're saying that if you so choose to broadcast your EMF somewhere where it can be recieved, you can't cry "foul."
Common sense is set aside already, so now it comes down to the grit (and not because the "thief" used the service.)
Downstream or Upstream arguements are IRRELEVANT. Potentially, the alleged offernder could have used some other service for his packet requests.
This arguement boils down to inept companies trying to claim that someone stole something nearly intangable from them because they don't even bother to secure their own network. These are RADIO WAVES, for fuck's sake. Not some little kid's bike or an automobile.
Anyhow, all of us nerds that even bother to comment on these articles are only increasing our own MARKETABILITY, aren't we???
--Prof. HiBrow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The story said Illinois so I find it very plausible, especially if it happened anywhere near the Chicagoland metroplex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio Wave theft vs Light wave theft
Sure, lights are everywhere and noone would ever question the legality of using the neighbors light to read by. But if I had to enter the neighbors property to turn on the light (crack encryption or passwords) then sure, fine and jail them. But if it's freely splashing out into public space? No law broken here. Move along.
In the case of the light, if your neighbor were to complain to you and say, "Hey, use your own light." You could simply refuse and he would either have to turn his off or shield it from your view.
Now the use of the light does not appear to diminish the bandwidth or usability of the light by the neighbor. But in a way, their sending the light all around does effect the efficiency of it. So by comparison, sending your wifi all over the place could effect its efficiency. Direct the WIFI only where you want it used and it will be more efficient for you since noone else will be on it and likewise, shield the light so that it reflects only within your property lines and it will be more efficient for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wi fi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sensitive electronics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've had enough of the lunacy.
That "It was unsecured" argument holds no water. If you leave your house unlocked, and someone walked in and snagged your TV, would you call the cops?
The cops would show up and probably say, "Well, you should have locked your doors." That doesn't make the person who stole your TV any less guilty. Does it?
The fact of the matter is, the guy was stealing. A person driving around and stealing wifi isn't a WarDriver. I am a Wardriver and I NEVER connect to someone's network without permission. It's not possible because I turn off the settings that allow a connection to happen.
In the case where your computer "jumps" to another router because it's a stronger signal, sorry, you are still responsible. The first time, yes, I can see it happening. But set up your computer to connect to your network only.
Quite frankly, if your computer is jumping from network to network without your control, you are horrible at networking. The last thing you want is for your computer to jump on random networks because they are stronger. It opens you up to all sorts of different problems including viruses.
Common criminal in a new age. That is all he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've had enough of the lunacy.
You say this, but you don't explain why... that's because there is no correct explanation. What is *lost*? For something to be stolen, something needs to be lost. There is nothing lost here.
That "It was unsecured" argument holds no water. If you leave your house unlocked, and someone walked in and snagged your TV, would you call the cops?
In that case, something was lost. Something tangible was taken and there was trespassing. Both are crimes. Where is the "crime" in using WiFi from a public place?
The fact of the matter is, the guy was stealing. A person driving around and stealing wifi isn't a WarDriver. I am a Wardriver and I NEVER connect to someone's network without permission. It's not possible because I turn off the settings that allow a connection to happen.
Again, nothing is missing, so I don't see how anything was "stolen"
The last thing you want is for your computer to jump on random networks because they are stronger. It opens you up to all sorts of different problems including viruses.
How does it open you up to viruses. This is amusing to me. You go on and on about how people should know enough about networking to stop their computers from jumping from network to network, but then assume those same people have no responsibility to put in even the most basic security protection on their computers?
Common criminal in a new age. That is all he is.
And yet you fail to show why. Where is the *loss*? Who is the "victim" of this crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've had enough of the lunacy.
You say this, but you don't explain why... that's because there is no correct explanation. What is *lost*? For something to be stolen, something needs to be lost. There is nothing lost here.
I will explain that point. There is a number of federal laws that cover this exactly. They all relate to illegal computer/network access. Very simply, just because it is there screaming out it's name doesn't give you permission to access that system. Permission must be explicit, not implied. You can and if caught, will be, arrested. It isn't the Theft of Services charges you have to worry about. It is the federal hacking charges that will cost you several years of your life, and a substantial amount of money. Simple enough?
That "It was unsecured" argument holds no water. If you leave your house unlocked, and someone walked in and snagged your TV, would you call the cops?
In that case, something was lost. Something tangible was taken and there was trespassing. Both are crimes. Where is the "crime" in using WiFi from a public place?
It is a very similar thing, actually. How often do you think some of us hear that an end-user's speed is not what it should be? I hear it all the time. Most of them are running a wireless router of some kind that isn't secured. If they had taken the time to at least WEP the unit, it would have kept the typical leech off their network. They are stealing the customer's service. They are also violating federal electronic intrusion laws. Wi-Fi, while a free radio wave, is not a right. You may scan for the signal, you may not use anything that that signal carries. Anything on a digital carrier wave is illegal to intercept. Again, that would be federal law.
Regarding the second part. If there is some kind of sign that it is permitted to connect to the wireless, go right ahead. That would not be illegal. No sign, ask. They say no, you connect anyways? Guess what, you just broke the law. That makes you a common criminal.
The fact of the matter is, the guy was stealing. A person driving around and stealing wifi isn't a WarDriver. I am a Wardriver and I NEVER connect to someone's network without permission. It's not possible because I turn off the settings that allow a connection to happen.
Again, nothing is missing, so I don't see how anything was "stolen"
Ahh, but something was indeed stolen. His digital carrier wave, which if you remember, is illegal to intercept. You had no rights to the contents of that carrier. Why do you think it is illegal to scan for cellular calls? Digital carriers. Again, you would be a thief or worse, an extortionist.
The last thing you want is for your computer to jump on random networks because they are stronger. It opens you up to all sorts of different problems including viruses.
How does it open you up to viruses. This is amusing to me. You go on and on about how people should know enough about networking to stop their computers from jumping from network to network, but then assume those same people have no responsibility to put in even the most basic security protection on their computers?
This one is simple. Do you have any understanding of just how computer literate the average person is? Most will tell you that they don't know the first thing about how the computer/Internet works. Care to guess how much they actually know about how that wireless AP works? If you prevent your computer from connecting to a foreign network, you won't be breaking federal interception and inrtusion laws.
Common criminal in a new age. That is all he is.
And yet you fail to show why. Where is the *loss*? Who is the "victim" of this crime?
Does this explain FunkBomb's point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've had enough of the lunacy.
Can you please point out the federal law that says this? Thanks.
Permission must be explicit, not implied. You can and if caught, will be, arrested. It isn't the Theft of Services charges you have to worry about. It is the federal hacking charges that will cost you several years of your life, and a substantial amount of money. Simple enough?
Again, please point out the law. I've never seen anything like that.
Anything on a digital carrier wave is illegal to intercept. Again, that would be federal law.
Again, please point out the law.
Why do you think it is illegal to scan for cellular calls? Digital carriers. Again, you would be a thief or worse, an extortionist.
That's different. Those are encrypted signals. These are open. There's a big difference.
This one is simple. Do you have any understanding of just how computer literate the average person is?
You completely missed my point on this one. First he implied that everyone was perfectly computer literate by saying there's no excuse for not knowing how to configure your system not to jump from network to network, but then in the very next breath assumes that everyone is computer illiterate by suggesting if you do jump from network to network, you'll get viruses (something that is actually extremely unlikely).
I was simply pointing out the internal inconsistency. Not suggesting that either view was right.
Does this explain FunkBomb's point?
Nope. So far all you explained was that there was some unknown law that makes using WiFi illegal -- even though that's not what this guy was charged with (he was charged with theft of service, which you say is not what you're discussing).
So, basically, you're saying that what happened here is fine because the guy was charged with a different law, but he was breaking some other law that you don't explain.
Yeah, clear as mud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I've had enough of the lunacy.
I would heartily suggest you try something called research before opening your gob again.
Here is the pertainent law regarding Digital Communications.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sup_01_47_10_9_20_I.html
Here is the pertainent law regarding Electronic Trespass.
http://www.panix.com/~eck/computer-fraud-act.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I've had enough of the lunacy.
Have you ever looked at your ISP's Terms of Service? A lot of them say you can't run a server (Ftp, HTTP, DNS, IRC etc) because if you get a lot of views, you'll hog too much bandwidth.
Yes, bandwidth is a real item. And that is what is being stolen!
As for the viruses, if you hooked up to my router (I run a closed network but still monitor it because I have the fastest line in my neighborhood), I have no problems sending an array of different files into your system. I keep them lined up and ready to go. Goatse, Tubgirl, some harmless but not so nice executables.
Also remember, if you are on MY NETWORK, I have pretty good access to your computer and will screw you over in the hardest of ways. Why? Because I'm a jerk.
There are folks out there, hardcore wardrivers, who know the systems better than me, who can set up all sorts of routers that will direct you to wherever they want.
You know jack about computers. Pack it up and send it back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've had enough of the lunacy.
Let me ask you this. Your car is parked on the street. Some hoodlum steals it for a joyride. On his way back, he replaces the gasoline. Then parks it in front of your house, right where you left it. Would you mind if he did this?
I would.
Suppose you wanted to use your car? But you couldn't because some knucklehead has it?
Just because you have another car (additional bandwidth), doesn't mean it was right for someone to take the other one, without permission!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've had enough of the lun
Again, you're describing an analogy that doesn't match. The car is a tangible thing that only one person can use at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: I've had enough of the lunacy
Again, you're describing an analogy that doesn't match. The car is a tangible thing that only one person can use at a time.
How does this one work...
I use BitTorrent, and saturate your upload. There is your car. Suddenly, you can no longer use your connection because some leech decided to be an ever-loving jerk and use you to pirate the latest new release. Congratulations, you no longer have your connection. And quite possibly, you no longer have your freedom either. Contributory Infringement. There are hundreds of reasons to secure your wireless, and to not use someone elses without their permission. You do not have explicit permission? Stay out of what isn't yours. Remember, the Computer Fraud act will catch up with you in the end. All it takes is one jerk, and a number of logs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: I've had enough of the lunacy
Yup, and that's a specific case. We've discussed that in the past. Overloading someone's bandwidth is a different issue.
But that's NOT what happened here.
So why trot out the hypotheticals. Look at what actually happened, and explain what this guy did wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've had enough of the lun
I would.
Hmmm I dunno. Most likely (unless they also vacuumed it out for me, could sure use it right now lol), but then it depends on circumstances and my mood. Not everyone is always so hellfire bent about "protecting" their property at all times, although admittedly some random person borrowing your car is a little outside most people's acceptablility range including mine.
On the other hand, to use a different example, we can't have "open" radiios at work, so most of us have cds players with headphones. We all bring cds collections (although mine is by far the largest) and most of us have an open policy about free borrowing from each other (although as a common courtesy most of still ask, or at least let the owner know they have a particular cd so we know where it is if we come looking for it) as long as we return them when we are done.
The big assumption here is that the WiFi owner would necessarily have objected to the use of his "property". Who's to say they don't leave the connection open, at least at night when nobody is likely using it, intentionally, like some posters say they do. If the owner doesn't consider it theft then is it really theft? I say, no.
Of course the big corps are likely to say yes, but I consider them to be some of the biggest crooks of all whose only concept of morality is how big a profit margin they can squeeze.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've had enough of the lunacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I've had enough of the lunacy.
If you don't believe in implied permissions, then I hope you got TechDirt's explicit permission before you accessed their web site. If not, then I suggest you try to turn yourself in to the FBI for "hacking" as you put it.
Techdirt happens to have a Terms of Service. Part of that, happens to be explicit permission to access the site.
I suggest you look into Contract law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've had enough of the lunacy.
Actually, we don't. We put the website up and it's implied that you are free to view it.
I suggest you look into Contract law.
Ditto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've had enough of the lunacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All wifi here are legally required to be encrypted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All wifi here are legally required to be encry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
It IS the responsibility of the business/owner to secure its network. The individual should not be fined simply for using an OPEN network. It would be different if he airsnorted and broke into a protected area. Its just like saying that plugging in a laptop in Starbucks (for simple typing not internet usage) is theft of electricity.
iTech @ http://itech.webwarp.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
feedback from a "cheap", "common criminal"
-uc, in guilt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You little pricks should all go directly to jail f
Who the hell am I? I am an ISP who is sick of having my bandwidth sucked up by you f..ing freeloaders. Bandwidth is expensive.
A broadband connection only works because it is not used most of the time. That is business. You think you have to right to take a 3 meg pipe and saturate it 24/7? Grow up.
That much dedicated bandwidth cost hundreds per month. You think you can pay 30 or 40 per month and you have the right to file share and overload the pipe. Think again children. When you some day have to pay your own bills you will get it. That is those of you who have more then 2 brain cells.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You little pricks should all go directly to ja
That sounds like a really whiney excuse for bad infrastructure.
"You think you can pay 30 or 40 per month and you have the right to file share and overload the pipe."
You should try to offer things that consumers want, not try to vilify paying customers
Thats the very epitomy of what business I would avoid in the industry. You should get a new attitude or get therapy to cope with this unwanted reality.
Or get a job at AT&T, they'd like youre ideals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You little pricks should all go directly to ja
Then why do you sell "unlimited bandwdith?" If you can't live up to what you sell, don't sell it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: do not pass go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My EVDO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could do that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Urban Legend?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its Stealing
The guy parked in a parking lot new what he was doing. he had no authorization to access that signal even if it is unsecured.
At the very least he was loittering which is a crime in 95% of America.
I am all for securing Wi-Fi I do it. But I do not access private open Wi-Fi spots because its praying on the ignorance of people.
90% of people buy Wi-Fi linksys boxes and have no clue how to secure and they manage to even setup by a miracle of god. Does that mean your free to surf and download porn or anything else over their Wi-Fi connection. NOO.
Grow up and get a job. if you need mobile wireless, get a blackberry or treo, or a EVDO Card from Verizon or sprint. If you cant afford it tough nuts but stop leaching other people stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if you do not secure your wireless and people stumble across and use it why are you not required to inform them you do not wish them to use it ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking this to court?
--
Derek Hampton
SouthBeachCasa
http://www.southbeachcasa.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next.. stings?
Scary...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is perfectly acceptable
The open wifi transmitted a signal out to public space. Why is it doing that?
WiFi requires bi-directional communication, if he were just intercepting something like streaming there would be no theft of services. He actively went back across their property to get access.
He transmitted a signal in public space. The other end was not obliged to do anything with it.
Another point, don't charges have to be pressed. If I use my own home wifi from my car, there's no crime. My friends wifi, no crime.
amazing how what would have been considered completely unacceptable six years ago is almost embraced now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb shits
Cops love doing a sting operation, they buy a bike over $5000, then leave it in front of a shitty market. Someone comes along and steals it, guess what, it cost just over the felony amount so it is a felony even though it was out in the open in a public place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Using a connection w/o permission is Stealing
I can't believe you IDIOTS who say "Oh, I only check my email quickly, it really doesn't hurt anything." ARE YOU REALLY -THAT- stupid?! You can get your email address HIJACKED and it could be used to send threatening letters to the President or something. You want to see how FAST the Secret Service could be knocking on your door?
"Oh, I'm safe, I use a secured connection when I steal bandwith for my email." You gotta be kidding. It is 'script kiddie easily do-able' to setup a bunch of APs with some software to capture and break your so called 'secure' connection -on the fly- when you think you're so cool connecting to that open AP.
"Oh, I leave mine open so anybody can use it, and that makes me feel all fuzzy and warm! That way, when I'm stealing somebody elses connection, I can try to justify it."
This is another case of idots run amok. You really WANT the cops kicking in your door looking for the source of the stream of kiddy porn that has been steadily being fed to the internet through your connection?
Reading the preceding messages on here makes me realize how low the common denominator really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Case Law
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=692881
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
d against all the girls sea shells collections... nerd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, it does. It would be a violation of most ISPs Terms of Service (ToS). The way ISPs work, is that they assume you are only going to use an average of ten to twenty percent of your total allocated bandwidth. This is called Shared Bandwidth. Most cable companies, such as Charter and Comcast, use this type of planning. What this means for you is simple, lets say that a leech hooked onto your network. This person/being/whatever-you-want-to-call-it decides to download some program. I will use something I had to deal with at work, Windows Vista Beta Build 3375. They start the torrent for this program, it gets noticed by someone at MediaSentry. They inform the BSA, and they subpeona your identity from the ISP. You are now responsible for the actions of some jerk in one of the adjancent houses. Why? Because you decided to be a nice guy and let them. For this, you got your tail sued by Microsoft, through the BSA.
If you allow someone onto your network without knowing who they are, you are opening yourself up to people using your connection to break into secured sites on the 'Net or worse...
There are a lot of reasons why you should secure your APs and keep the leeches off your network. As was mentioned before, once they are on your network it doesn't take long for your computer to be compromised.
Answer your question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Assume all they want, if they sell me X amount of bandwidth, it's mine to use; otherwise THEY are stealing from ME (regardless of how they've spun this around to convince everyone to believe otherwise).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
by your logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have cable TV at your house. It's crystal clear, no problems. You pay 30 bucks a month for this service.
I move in next door. I jump up on the phone poll and I splice into it.
You are still paying 30 bucks a month but now the picture is degraded because I am hijacking your line.
In your eyes, I'm not doing anything wrong! I'm not physically stealing anything.
My defense could be, "Hey, if you didn't want me stealing your cable, you should have coated your cable line in diamonds so I couldn't cut it."
Please don't procreate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, let's start with the obvious... you've broken the law by going on the poll and opening the box.
The situation with WiFi is completely different. That's a case where you are *broadcasting* the signal out off of your property. There's no trespassing. There's no splicing.
Second, degradation of service is a different issue and not applicable here.
Please don't procreate.
Yup, thanks for debating this on a civil level and not resorting to personal insults. It really helps your credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's say my house has a window that borders a sidewalk (public property). I leave the window open, you come by and notice it's open (like a network). It's my fault it's open, but hey, my screen won't stay in and I really wanted to air out the place. I'm stupid that way. You reach in the window, grab my mouse and start using my puter. Even though you are on public property, you are reaching into my house and using my equipment. It is trespassing.
A router is owned by someone, as well as the rent for the service. You are using it without permission, by way of trespassing.
Back to the original case - he was using his computer to reach into the business and use their equipment and rented service without their permission. That is trespassing and stealing. The only way it wouldn't be if it were advertised that they have purposely set up their equipment and sevice for free public use.
Ok, now I'll let the wolves rip this apart...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I move in next door. I jump up on the phone poll and I splice into it.
As was pointed out before with a similiar example, this alanogy only if your talking about a "closed system".
An open system is more analogous to moving in and hooking up your cable line to your tv and discovering you already have cable access (like I did - turns out free basic cable was part of the rent, but the landlady forget to mention it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Blahhhh, or to say that in English: this analogy only works.....
so much for my proofreading skills tonight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He knowingly, and intentionally, connected to a network that was not his. He could have been charged under federal statutes.
From the synopsis at the top, he was charged with 'Theft of Service.' What that means, is that he intercepted and used a service he was not paying for. That is theft. Simple enough so far? He seriously lucked out in that the prosecutor in charge of the case didn't refer him for federal charges.
Answer this, what is more important? The twenty-five to fifty dollars for a DSL or cable connection, or your freedom. Google Wi-Fi hacking, you will see a number of people who did exactly what he did. They got caught, and were arrested. They were charged under the same federal laws I have already mentioned. This is literally access the router, go to jail. Otherwise known as Electronic Trespass. Using something that isn't yours. More commonly known as theft. Modifying the code for the Point of Sale equipment to capture and hold credit card numbers. Commonly called Computer Fraud/Hacking.
Notice the trend?
Bandwidth is not free. Just because you can't tell the difference between right and wrong isn't an excuse for breaking the law. If you want proof of this, go get a leased line(T-1) and see how much it will cost you to keep that kind of bandwidth.
Might I recommend you go to Google and do research. I will even give you a couple of things to look for, Electronic Trespass, Wi-Fi Hacking, Theft of Service.
Unless you want to see what some of the people who have been blasting this forum, are capable of with cattleprods and flamethrowers. Don't go spouting off nonsense.
It is Theft. Read the laws, understand the laws. Find the ones that apply to you, and abide by them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Personal insults really help your credibility. I take you that much more seriously now for calling me simple minded...
You know, it is possible for intelligent people to disagree. Calling them stupid doesn't help your argument.
He knowingly, and intentionally, connected to a network that was not his. He could have been charged under federal statutes.
The network was open, and invited his computer to connect. Show me the federal statute that makes that a crime.
From the synopsis at the top, he was charged with 'Theft of Service.' What that means, is that he intercepted and used a service he was not paying for. That is theft. Simple enough so far?
Nope. Not simple enough. Theft involves loss. Show me the loss.
If it's a different crime, that's a different issue. But show me the loss here. Show me why it's theft, becaues just saying it is over and over again doesn't actually make it theft.
Answer this, what is more important? The twenty-five to fifty dollars for a DSL or cable connection, or your freedom.
That's got nothing to do with the question at hand. It's not about the punishment, but whether or not there's a crime. And there are plenty of reasons why someone may want to use an open WiFi connection even if they do pay their money for a connection at home. What if he was travelling?
They were charged under the same federal laws I have already mentioned.
You haven't actually mentioned any.
This is literally access the router, go to jail. Otherwise known as Electronic Trespass.
It's not trespass, because the router is open, available and inviting. If people went to jail for it, it's only becaue they had a bad lawyer.
Using something that isn't yours. More commonly known as theft.
Again, theft involves something being taken and missing. Not so in this case.
Modifying the code for the Point of Sale equipment to capture and hold credit card numbers. Commonly called Computer Fraud/Hacking.
Yup. That's computer fraud and hacking. The case above is quite different.
Notice the trend?
The trend being... a bunch of incorrect analogies?
Bandwidth is not free. Just because you can't tell the difference between right and wrong isn't an excuse for breaking the law. If you want proof of this, go get a leased line(T-1) and see how much it will cost you to keep that kind of bandwidth.
Again, totally missing the point. Bandwidth is not free indeed... but how much more is it costing the non-profit for this guy to use the network in the middle of the night? Turns out... zero. So in this case, the guy isn't costing anyone anything. So, the rest of your argument is (once again) wrong.
Might I recommend you go to Google and do research. I will even give you a couple of things to look for, Electronic Trespass, Wi-Fi Hacking, Theft of Service.
I've done my research. I'm still waiting for you to prove something.
Unless you want to see what some of the people who have been blasting this forum, are capable of with cattleprods and flamethrowers. Don't go spouting off nonsense.
Yup. Keeping it civil. Thanks.
It is Theft. Read the laws, understand the laws. Find the ones that apply to you, and abide by them.
Again, it's not theft. Keep trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.panix.com/~eck/computer-fraud-act.html
You want the loss?
How about the $200 dollars in packets that the ISP was charged for his traffic? Sufficient for you? If they are using a residential level service for the Non-Profit, he increased the traffic on the connecting. Costing them part of the cap on thier service for the month. Does that work?
Example:
Person A has Internet. Person B does not. They live in a duplex. 2 computers. 1 router, wireless. Person A sets up his router. Person B notices the AP is active. Person B starts using person A's connection. Assume ISP is Comcast. Person B uses 100% of person a's allocated transfer. Person A is rate limited to 128/128 service until next transfer period.
Person B, when caught, is guilty of Theft of Service, and Computer Fraud. Simply by connecting to that AP.
Specifc Federal statute: 18 U.S.C. 1030.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.panix.com/~eck/computer-fraud-act.html
Doesn't apply in a case where the network is broadcasting into public spaces and open.
At *best* you can say it's not clear. It's definitely not certain.
You want the loss?
How about the $200 dollars in packets that the ISP was charged for his traffic? Sufficient for you? If they are using a residential level service for the Non-Profit, he increased the traffic on the connecting. Costing them part of the cap on thier service for the month. Does that work?
You have evidence that there was an actual loss here? Did they have a cap? Did they go over the cap? If they had a cap then it's their responsibility to make sure the network isn't used to go over the cap, or if they leave it open, to pay for that usage.
Person A has Internet. Person B does not. They live in a duplex. 2 computers. 1 router, wireless. Person A sets up his router. Person B notices the AP is active. Person B starts using person A's connection. Assume ISP is Comcast. Person B uses 100% of person a's allocated transfer. Person A is rate limited to 128/128 service until next transfer period.
Person B, when caught, is guilty of Theft of Service, and Computer Fraud. Simply by connecting to that AP.
Hmm. You again make assumptions about the amount of usage, none of which are necessarily true. You're setting up very specific cases -- most of which are unlikely to actually be the case.
If I similarly set up cases, what if person B uses just a tiny bit of bandwidth when person A is not online, causing absolutely no disruption of service or increased cost?
You see the problem with your argument? You are talking about specific situations. Deal with those specific situations, don't generalize them to every connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because the network is a wireless connection, and your not physically inside their house, still doesn't give you the right to use their network without explicit permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Again, that's trespassing. If they're broadcasting the signal onto your property or onto public property... there's no trespassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You connected to private property. By using the free radio waves that are being broadcast onto your property, you connected to something that isn't yours. You are routing traffic through an infrstructure that you did not invest in. You are doing this under the assumption it is allowed.
Get a clue. It is called Theft of Services. It is also Electronic Trespass. Connecting to a computer you do not own without permission is illegal. 18 U.S.C. 1030 is pretty clear on that point. A router is a very specialized type of computer. If you don't have permission to connect to it, you are in violation of this law. Simple enough so far.
The loss? Again, simple enough. How do you know what kind of service they have? Are you paying for it? No? Hmm.... This would be Theft of Services. Like it or not, what you are describing is nothing less then theft. I work for an ISP that uses Wi-Fi for wireless internet. We find you on one of our towers without an account open with us, we will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. ISPs are able to track the usage, and notify the end user when they notice unusual activity on a connection.
You want a specific situation? Easy enough. This kid in Rockford, by using something that he did not pay for is guilty of Theft of Service. That law has been made to apply to everything from Party line phones to Satellite TV services. You use it without permission, you are guilty of theft of service. Read up on this law and others, as they vary from state to state. However, the federal level laws will take priority, due to the supremecy clause in the Constitution.
I hope I kept this AOL enough for everyone here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
*****************
Does that include web servers?
Did you get permission to post here?
Did you get permission to to connect to every router and switch between your location and this server?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did the not-for-profit want people to use the signal?
Not whether or not it's unencrypted or what time of day it is or where you are.
Well, you don't know. But most would assume that since this isn't an internet cafe or such that has a sign that says "Free wifi" then the owner didn't want the signal to be used by the public.
So, now you're gonna argue that because it's unencrypted that it their fault for not securing it if they didn't want people to use it.
That's where the problem lies you assume to your advantage and think that it's free for the taking.
Now the analogies begin. I haven't found a valid analogy yet. You can't compare stealing a wireless signal to open doors, water hoses or reading lights. Its not the same.
So, what's wrong with using the unencrypted connection? Well, the owner is paying for the electricity to run it and he's paying the internet bill. How do you know he's not on per byte payment plan. You assume he's got unlimited usage. So, you argue it's in the middle of the night the I'm using bandwidth that would otherwise go unused.
How do you know the bandwidth is wasted? You're on the wireless side. How do you know this office isn't running a system backup to remote server? How do yo know they aren't running file servers and an office on teh other side of the world is doing something?
You don't.
The way I see it if you're using the connection you're the type of person that keep a $100.00 bill if it blew out of your neighbor's hand and into your yard. You have a completely different set of morals and ethics that make you feel you deserve it.
You think that because there isn't a physical connection that's it's harmless and it's free.
Maybe there is or isn't a law that says exactly "Using an unsecured wifi connection, in a parking lot, in the middle of the night is a crime." It doesn't matter, current laws can be interpretated by the courts to say it is.
It's just plain wrong that you people feel that unsecured = free for the taking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DHCP !
DHCP !
For those of you with a IQ less than 100: Wifi says "I am here!", you say "can I use you?", Wifi says "Yes, here's an IP and gateway address so you can access the internet, and here's a lease of time for you to use the connection".
DONE! There's your permission and even an electronic contract for time (renewable).
And starbucks and/or mcdonalds little permission screens are exactly the same (you go to screen, ask for permission, then it's granted). Same, same.
D H C P ! !
For the other stupid posts against free open access and the original article, it's got to be scare tactics and FUD from all these telco companies because right now TODAY they are all trying to buy out all the small wifi companies and offer wifi service (via 802.11b) in many towns.
It won't go over well if they can't lock down all those open wifi routers out there. These are greedy bastards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next thing your gonna tell me that the welcome mat on my porch means someone can walk into my house or if I leave my car running and the door open in my driveway I did that so you could hop in and take it to do errands?
All of the people they are trying to say it's ok only take the arguement, analogy, logic to the point where it's agrees with their point of view. However, this is very short point. If you keep extending the logic you quickly find that it's not black and white. There's a helluva lota grey area and the grey is what everyone's arguing about. The grey area is what gets you in trouble.
Getting permission from the owner eliminates the grey area for you. Of course the owner may not know that his TOS agreement forbids sharing the connection. So, there's a new slightly lighter grey area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are You Dense?
DHCP? WTF?
Are you COMPLETELY dense? DHCP was developed to ease network management in a WIRED WORLD before wireless. Just because it has been implemented on a wireless network does NOT imply permission to use said network. Just because it happens to hand out a 'gateway address' that allows the connected device to talk to a device that eventually leads to the internet doesn't mean squat.
Your wife goes to the beauty parlor for a shampoo. They don't really 'change' or take away anything, (except some body oils and dirt,) they just wash her hair. Let her try and walk out without paying for it. Theft of services.
Bottom line. I pay the bill to bring the connection into my house. You don't. You use the connection without permission. Theft of services. If I were using one of the ISPs in my area, they have a 40Gbit/month limit. You sneak on my net and download a movie. I, thinking I have enough room to get a big download of my own. Wrongo! I get a bill for overage charges! So the meter IS running, and I'm paying for it. You aren't.
Is that simple enough for you?
"I didn't have sex with that women, Monica Lewinsky."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are You Dense?
DHCP? WTF?
Are you COMPLETELY dense? DHCP was developed to ease network management in a WIRED WORLD before wireless. Just because it has been implemented on a wireless network does NOT imply permission to use said network. Just because it happens to hand out a 'gateway address' that allows the connected device to talk to a device that eventually leads to the internet doesn't mean squat.
Your wife goes to the beauty parlor for a shampoo. They don't really 'change' or take away anything, (except some body oils and dirt,) they just wash her hair. Let her try and walk out without paying for it. Theft of services.
Bottom line. I pay the bill to bring the connection into my house. You don't. You use the connection without permission. Theft of services. If I were using one of the ISPs in my area, they have a 40Gbit/month limit. You sneak on my net and download a movie. I, thinking I have enough room to get a big download of my own. Wrongo! I get a bill for overage charges! So the meter IS running, and I'm paying for it. You aren't.
Is that simple enough for you?
"I didn't have sex with that women, Monica Lewinsky."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Said in Star Trek Computer Voice:
"Godwin's law has been attained. Thread approaching irrelevancy..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP ADDRESS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better Example
As with the WiFi - there is no locked cover over at least one of these jacks. Assuming they allowed internet access from this port, I could drive up at any hour and run a cable out of my car to the port and do the same thing as this guy was doing.
Could I make the argument that they should have secure the physical port? (ie WAP / WEP / Non Broadcased SSID etc)
I would get slaped with tresspassing at least, and theft of services as well most likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to remove 'internet' from the defintion of Public Communications.
Sorry- too much information out there for the masses. cant have em figure everything out.
please insert 5 dollars for the next 2 minutes.
google
H.R 1606.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a case by case basis.
I've worked on some odd cases where a neighboring siginal overpowered the local one (both happened to be set on the same channel and band) and since they both had the same hardware, the default name of the devices were the same. you couldnt easily tell which device you were connected to until I set up some security and changed the default name and MAC of the base station.
So simply using another wifi connection isint grounds for jailtime alone-- sometimes it's stupidity, sometimes it's lack of planning and implementation but yeah, i gotta admit, sometimes it's theft. jail-worthy? no, i dont think so.
but consider this: lets say he used that connection to brodcast the next great melissailoveuetc virus that turns your NTFS partitions to liquid shit. It's the company's fault for not securing the connection, but he still used SOMEONE ELSES PAID FOR network to do his evil bidding.
I say he should have to pay for the companies costs of hiring a good tech and setting up some security. that'd be fair, yeah?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An argument from comics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it OK to tap cable, then?
Wow. Thanks. I saved me $60/month and it won't cost my neighbor a thing!
Does this line of logic really help anyone sleep at night?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it OK to tap cable, then?
Wow. Thanks. I saved me $60/month and it won't cost my neighbor a thing!
Does this line of logic really help anyone sleep at night?"
****************
Cable does not use the public radio spectrum, so it is different. But Satellite TV is the same. As long as the signal is un-encrypted, is is perfectly legal to view TV from a satellite signal. There are several satellites that broadcast foreign language programming that are free to receive.
The same is true of Wi-Fi.
If it's encrypted, it falls under the DMCA, and it's illegal to decode without authorization. If it's unencrypted, it's not protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys are idiots
On the same token -- YOU SHOULD LOCK YOUR DOORS BEFORE YOU LEAVE YOUR HOUSE. Otherwise I should be able to walk in freely and use your facilities. But don't charge me with trespassing -- you should have locked your doors. Otherwise I wouldn't have been tempted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dumb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mayhem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminds me of the FUD being launched about vontage and 911 calls being delayed.
These companies will go to any length to make a profit and keep their share of the market.
See this: http://www.vonage-forum.com/ftopic11631.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would appear that the same standard is being applied to wi-fi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
free broadband
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
free broadband
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police authority using an excuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Access Points that are free by intention (some coffee shops, hetc) are one topic and ones that were not intented to be free (someones home or bussiness for use by employees) are quite another.
Also is seems the debate is about the law is vs what everyone thinks should be the law or their opinion of what is ethical or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wireless and the airwaves.
Please allow me to make a more appropriate anology. Say you go to walmart and buy a couple of FRS radios (Family Radio Service, FYI) and run around town with a friend talking to each other. If you choose one of the public channels, and someone else starts using that channel at the same time, is it illegal? They're using YOUR radio equipment to reproduce THEIR voice! That must be missappropriation of equipment, right? Guess what, it's not, because you could have, and still can at any time choose a private sub-channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wireless and the airwaves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common Sence is not to common in the digital world
One that only has a nondefault SSID? One that has a custom SSID and MAC filtering, but nothing else? How about nondefault SSID wwith broadcasting off, no DHCP, and MAC filtering.
Wait lets turn on WEP, thats unbreakable!!!! Now is they access point only free for use to those that know how to crack WEP, but not for everyone else that is not as knowledgable?
Stealing a car with the windows down and the keys in it is no different that having to smash the window and hotwire the care in the eyes of the law. The level of effort in securing the resource has little to do with if it is legal or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Common Sence is not to common in the digital w
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where do you draw the line?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where do you draw the line?
It's just like fishing, a little bit of bait can bring in a whole lot of fish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where do you draw the line?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
House analogy
There are a row of houses in a street.
a:)Some of them have their front doors closed.
b:)Some of the houses have the front door open and pinned to it are full details of all facilities that you can use.
c:)Some of the houses have the front door open and pinned to it are full details of all facilities that you can use.
By checking the doors of (a) type houses you could be seen as committing a crime.
By walking into (b) type houses you are availing yourselves of the philanthropic nature of the owners who have decided to share their good fortune.
By walking into (c) type houses you are the lowest kind of human being, willing to subjugate your fellow man and steal the shirt off his back.
See - simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where do you draw the line? by Anonymous Cowar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason cops are cracking down on WiFi
The police assumption if someone is using a laptop in a public parking lot late at night is that the person is downloading and/or uploading kiddie porn or terrorist instructions. The assumption is that using an open wifi connection will keep you totally anonymous and the police can't trace you.
Thus, the probable cause is the "furtive use of a computer connection" impllying "an illicit purpose."
Where the real suprize for the unprotected home network will come in is when the police raid your home and seize your computers because you have been connecting to off-shore kiddie porn sites.
As the number of open WiFi nodes increases, the police will eventually become technically competent and able to access the connection information before approaching the "suspect." It isn't that hard to figure out who is connected to where if you have the right software and hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real reason cops are cracking down on WiFi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real reason cops are cracking down on WiFi
It's your DUTY to educate them, get off your lazy ass and do your duty as a citizen.
When someone uses your wifi you have become the same as an ISP and have no liability, so when the cops find out they should be checking if you have a open wireless router, or you can tell them when they ask.
A district court judge ruled in a recent google case that passing packets automatically like a router does makes you just like a ISP, no liability.
For the brain dead, I have to say this again. When you open up your wireless you are not liable for what ever use people put it to, no liability.
This principal also applies to assuming that everyone has their wireless open for a reason, to let everyone have access. Why not open it? If there's no liability and you aren't using all the bandwidth all the time, why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had no idea!
The shop next door to my house has a connection that my computer picks up so I just use it.
I've never thought anything of it. Are they being charged for this? It's just an open port, isn't it?
What exactly am I stealing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HOW TO GET FREE WI-FI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For some reason you're disassociating a wireless connection from the network it's connected to.
You wouldn't plug an ethernet cable into an outlet and automatically assume it's ok. So, why is using a radio transmitter any different? Why is someone's lack of security automatically granting you permission? It doesn't work in any other circumstance why this one?
But I got an IP it must be ok. What kind of logic is that? I got a brainstem and working foot does that mean I can kick you in the ass?
My old cordless phone would connect to my neighbor's phone. Does that mean I can make calls on his line? I get a dial tone so it must be OK.
Hell, I'll just cancel my phone service and use his! He's not getting charged for the call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to Post #270
What I was implying was that just because you find an open Wi-Fi connection, you shouldn't assume that it was left unsecure because of stupidity or laziness. I have seen cases where people have set up unsecure Wi-Fi connections on which they sniff traffic of those who connect to them. It an easy way to ease drop.
Now do you understand or should I draw you a picture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: to Post #270
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: to Post #270
"The same thing can also happen at many points on the internet. Virtually every internet router has the ability to sniff traffic, no WiFi required. You really don't understand that, do you?"
Absolutely, I understand that. But I also understand that many of these "script kiddies" don't have access to routers along major backbones. And the major providers do a lot to ensure that they don't. Imagine the lawsuit if someone found out that there was someone sniffing on a major backbone. Plus, think of the traffic you would have to decipher coming off of an OC-192 or Gig-E handoff. It is not impossible, but not the everyday script kiddie at work.
Even in the apartment building scenario, how would you sniff someone's traffic on their wired network? Would you sneek in to their house and install a network tap, or mirror a port to sniff on. It is a lot harder than setting up a Wi-Fi AP and seeing who connects to it.
With that said, this conversation is over. You can reply if you want to, but I have read enough to understand that you really have no idea what you are talking about. I was making a simple observation, and you had to blow it up to "Big Brother is Watching" proportions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had no idea!
Unless they're still paying "by the minute" which is unlikely.
Most of us non-tech people (I linked here from FARK.com) think- assume!- that any Wifi connection their computer picks up is free to be used.
I don;t see a crime here, at all, and hardly anyone else does either.
You guys just know tech stuff... non-tech people don;t see any problem with this, everyone thinks it's OK... just asked around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops have no jurisdiction in the matter!
How would the cops discriminate between me using a regular cellular phone user and a wireless VOIP phone? Are they going to give me a ticket for using a SIP phone *Like they would even know what it was! :P *
I would ask ANY 'Officer' if they are a federal agent as they are the ones that lay down the law with wireless telecommunications. If the 'Officer' answers "No", then I would tell them that they have no jurisdiction in the matter.
I have been told by a 'Officer' in my home town that I couldn't use my Amateur radio in a public building. I asked him that exact question, and then told him that since the local agency is not a federal one, he had no say in what I did with my radio and my FCC licensed right to use it. I then told him that if he had a problem with me using the radio further, to contact the FCC in Washington D.C. He just said "Have a nice day" and turned and left me alone. Moron!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is like fining a person for using a drinking
If you don't want people using you WiFi transceiver, try RADIUS, or some equivalent security protocol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
police suck anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also...
You have a reasonable expectation of privacy with a network. Of course that's getting into another grey area like satellites taking photos of you in your back yard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IDIOTS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IDIOTS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IDIOTS!
"He pleaded guilty Tuesday to the charge and was fined $250 and sentenced to one year of court supervision."
“Likewise, our residents need to know that it is a crime, punishable by up to a year in jail, to access someone else’s computer, wireless system or Internet connection without that person’s approval.”
This discussion is really just people giving opinions as to if they think it should be legal or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was his lawyer a jobsworth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:IDIOTS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah....
BTW, my parents didn't name me Phishin either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft of Services
BULLY FOR THE POLICE IN THIS CASE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New education for police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logic
Just because you don't secure your wireless doesn't give you the right to hop on it.
Done and Done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough with the doors already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I GOT IT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't be the only one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naw dont believe it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wireless for the masses
the morality of it being illegal is left to the person doing it. personally, i dont mind. but i think that if you run a business you should take care to have it secured.
now here's an idea, how about the people who MAKE the wireless routers and access points build in a nodule that acts as a gatekeeper. it could be any method. just that it doesnt 'just work' out of the box.
that would put an end to all this whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now is it actually legal to use unsecured wireless? That's the debate at hand. While I have opinions, this thread has included most of my reasoning already. I'm simply refuting this particular analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, this doesn't take into account that having unsecured wifi is a pretty stupid thing to do - which it is, since not everyone will get caught and opens up the possibility that you'll get blamed for what someone accessing your wifi might do. However, imprudence does not equal permission in the eyes of the law, as those arrested and charged are now finding out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, most STATE law prohibits unauthorized access to a computer system or network.
Here's a page where you can look up your State's statue:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/CIP/hacklaw.htm
And here's a copy of the relevent part of Florida's law (where I live - unrelevant portions removed):
815.06 Offenses against computer users.--
(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:
(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network;
commits an offense against computer users.
(2)(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), whoever violates subsection (1) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
...So, in other words, accessing a computer network (which in FL includes a wireless network) without permission is a felony.
Incidentally, there's no reason why two schools of thought cannot coexist here. You can choose to offer your WiFi or not, and accessing it is either prohibited or permitted. The point that everyone seems to miss is that private property is private unless you are overtly granted permission to enter upon/use it. So, legally, WiFi networks are private unless you have overt permission to use it. The question that will be pondered in court is - did you believe you had permission, and why? If you don't have a good faith answer to that question that the court believes... Then you'll pay the price. I highly doubt that "he didn't secure it" will get you very far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you are at starbucks, the ROUTER gives you the permission, automatically, just because you went to the web page contained in the ROUTER. Same as DHCP.
Get a clue, get a life, and get a better job where you aren't sticking to people just to pay your rent.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second, there is nothing wrong with free wireless. If you want to share your WiFi, that's your business. If your ISP has an issue with it, then get an ISP that doesn't. But don't go thinking that you have the right to make that decision for someone else - they have a right to keep their Wifi PRIVATE if they wish - and are not legally required to secure it to have that legal protection. While it is crazy to not secure it (and I expend a great deal of energy lectuing on just how stupid this is), the law does not require protection to demonstrate a lack of consent for use.
Starbucks (in reality, T-Mobile) offers a PUBLIC hotspot that they both advertise as public access and encourage you to use through that splash page. John Jones down the block with the Linksys he bought at Wal-Mart yesterday does not.
To say that I can freely use anyone's WiFi is to say that I can freely plug into their LAN. Legally, it's the same thing. After all, you've got DHCP on your LAN, right?
As to your suggestion that I get a clue: I actually have one that I share with the current case law. You, my friend, are barking up the wrong tree. I neither have a stake in this (as my home wifi is secured with my company's product - and you won't be getting in), nor any particular passion about it one way or the other. I personally have a Verizon aircard, and get Internet access that way when I travel. What I DO care about is when people post bogus information that is more born out of desire for it to be the truth than is is based in reality. Telling people that it's OK to access anyone's WiFi is telling them to violate (most/all) State laws and is irresponsibility at it's lowest. The whole point of this article is that people ARE getting arrested for this (especially now that the awareness is being raised amongst the general public), and so your days of sneaking onto people's LANs uninvited are beginning to dwindle down slowly. Call me what you want (and look like a fool in doing so), but I know the market, I know the industry, and I know the case law - and it does not agree with you and your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only people who don't know their rights and won't fight for them. I wouldn't call that an american either.
You need to post the case law because out of all the posts here and on digg no one has posted any, AND a number of people have shown how there is no law for this anywhere, but proof that there are many, many reasons for people to leave their wifi open since there is no liability and all that.
Did the guy even contact the non profit to see if they left it open for free use? I guess not. You can see this guy just pays any ticket he is given. One of those government always knows best sort of people.
And please stop spreading your FUD to the "law enforcement groups", you and people like you are the cause of a lot of our loss of freedoms and corporate takeover of this country.
Thanks for supporting the telcos on this issue. You are my hero.
BTW: You are biased, and you don't even know it. You are one of those people who can fool himself easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
slow speeds anyway so what's the worry?
So it's most likely that the user left his wireless open for others to use, there's really no good reason not to share your connection anymore (no liability either).
It's also up to the cops to find out who's wireless access point the guy was using (no logs are generally kept so good luck) and see if it was open or not before charging him or arresting him, so there's a false arrest charge in this thing the guy could bring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: slow speeds anyway so what's the worry?
Three words: "24dbi yagi antenna".
Or, more likely: "5dbi magmount omni".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secure your wi-fi
Its not correct to arrest anyone coz hes using a public and open network. In coffee shops in india we are beginning to get open networks. So why not? And at places they dont want public to use the bandwidth they secure it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#1. I buy a gun, and I dont lock it up, in fact, I brodcast the model number of the gun with a light outside my house. Someone takes my gun and kills a kid in the street. Is it my fault that I left the gun un-attended and accessiable? Or is it just the killer's fault? I think that I would have some responsibility just as this company does
#2. This is the more important thing... THIS IS NOT THE JOB FOR YOUR LOCAL PIGGY POO TO BE DOING?!?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People here are saying that Joe Blow shouldnt HAVE to secure his internet, maybe he doesnt know how, or isnt technical enough.
So, what if i am too dumb to know that i automatically connected to someone else router. I mean, i have a netgear at home, 300 miles away and so does someone here, where i am on vacation. "Wow, that little cordless internets thing works all the way down here. It was worth the $50"
!!!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who's going to pay for the extra download use on his contract with the isp?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ummm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ummm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WARSPYING IS LEGAL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
purchase order
Someone from PA ordered a dell computer for 699.00 and are using my e-mail address.
Any comments as what to do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is bullshit and i want people to know why...
Secondly, i would like to state that if someone is concerned with someone else using their WiFi, then do something about, but don't be a baby and call the police. Simply, state to the person, i don't like you using my wireless internet or WiFi, could you please stop or if you don't stop further actions will be inforced, and that's ALL you should have to say. I can't believe this! I want to go shoot myself because every thing we, as American's, do now-in-day's is going to be either wrong or they'll (the police) try to piss us off so they can say we either resisted arrest or something false. FUKC THE POLICE!! THEY HELP NO ONE. THEY CAN'T DO THEIR JOB
Finally, i would also like to state something: Say i owned a desktop and moved into a new house. I got internet and bought a lab-top when i got a wireless internet modem for my Verizon/Comcast modem (this makes the desktop's internet wireless so it can picked up from another computer/desktop or a lap-top). So i use my lap-top out near my pool, in my car infront of my house (for whatever reason), etc. and i can go to jail for using my own internet connection??? I don't think so. The police have nothing better to do, like i said before, but try to trick the freedom we as American's have earned. I'VE GOT ONE THING TO SAY TO YOU POLICE OFFICER'S, YOU CAN KISS MY CAUCAJUN ASS... (i don't care if a cop see's this. They can bithc and complain all they want. I don't care anymore. They minus well throw me in jail, because it's going to be tomorrow that you can look at someone w/o going to jail or the next day you'll be hearing that you can't walk outside with your face visible. I hear-by state that the U.S. police are corrupt. Now i know that a bad apple can spoil a bunch but this is true in many cases.)
I would also, like to apologize for cursing. I was just very upset that they did this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrested for using wifi
is considered by most courts and states has public wifi. Most laptops even automatically connect to these services. This is BS since they have the ability to encript it and they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, got a problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
free internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i dont care
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Important Issue
I don't even know how I got to this site; Bored, messing around. Disclaimer: every website I visit does not necessarily reflect this humans opinions or values. lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
okay
I thought you were compassionate, nice, friendly. I guess I'm just crazzzzzy. Confrontation is not really my thing either, so I FORGIVE you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This makes no sense!
that said many laptops will connect to the internet after it auto connects to an unsecured wifi network to DOWNLOAD UPDATES FOR YOUR COMPUTER! again, not your responsibility to turn off your wifi while driving slowly down the road.
My ipod touch will auto connect to wifi while im walking around town, accasionally to personal networks that are not secured. when it connects it will send ping a site to make sure it has internet. again, not my problem to shut off my wifi, and i could say they are interfering with my ipod because as i pass by their router will use the services of my ipods micro processor to ask for a mac id and it sends MY ipod an ip address (dhcp) but it is not illegal!
can i be arrested for my ipod accessing the music store to refresh its data while im walking by a house listening to music? or even using its built in safari browser to view myspace? absolutely not! just as i cannot arrest them because their wireless lan asked my ipod for a mac id and assigned it an ip address!
this is all simple computing tech, and theres nothing the cops can do about it, its not stealing, even if they had a secure network its still going to ask my ipod for a mac id using "valuable" processor services. the point is its not stealing, because its a continuously renewable item, once i go out of range im no longer using bandwidth and they still have it. and as for the "download quota before they have to pay for usage" comment, that doesnt exist, only on cell phone plans, and last time i checked, you dont send your cell phones data services over wifi...
case closed, it wasnt illegal unless he hacked it or was specifically told he could not use the wifi connection.
dont believe me? open up the terms of service for your wireless router, it says to encrypt your network or someone could use your internet connection 'and' by not encrypting your network you are thereby tied to the FFA regulations for wifi hot spots that state "anyone around an unsecured wireless network (aka. hot spot) is legally allowed to use any services provided by the wireless connection."
services means INTERNET! or if you go to MacDonalds and they have a computer connected to the wireless router through LAN, and that computer has a shared printer and network drive, and an internet connection on the WAP port, you can print anything you please, delete and upload anything you want to the shared drive, AND use the internet with no legal issues unless stated otherwise.
this case is closed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
like file sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business or Home -- should be the question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is balogne
This is setting up for a crime to happen. It's ridicules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or worst, cops should start arresting everyone watching a Baseball game from outside the stadium, like Wrigley Field for example, because that game is property of the MLB and they would be stealing the service MLB is charging for it to everyone inside.
It's a lame world, isn't it.
Payday Loans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]