California Taking Steps To Outlaw WiFi Piggybacking?
from the pointless dept
The California legislature has passed a law requiring the manufacturers of WiFi products to put warning labels reminding users to password-protect their networks, and the state's governor is expected to sign it. While the bill doesn't outlaw piggybacking -- the practice of simply using an available, open access point -- some are wondering if this is the first step towards making it illegal, since it notes "there is disagreement as to whether it is legal for someone to use another person's WiFi connection to browse the Internet if the owner of the WiFi connection has not put a password on it". Securing on open access point isn't too difficult, and the Wi-Fi Alliance is introducing a new program to make the use of Wireless Protected Access even easier to implement -- so if someone doesn't want people to access their network, it's not too hard to keep them from doing so. There's little ethical concern about using an open access point, and a lack of security is typically understood to represent tacit approval that it's okay. There have been a few cases of people being arrested or prosecuted for using open WiFi, but the legality of it seems somewhat clear, particularly if the network is being accessed from public property or if the radio waves from one person's AP have traveled over to someone else's property. It's unclear, though, why California politicians see the need for a law here -- if people want don't want others accessing their WiFi, they have plenty of options with which to lock down their network, they don't need special legal protection. Furthermore, if piggybacking is outlawed, where would it leave people who actually want to share their WiFi, whether it's just an individual, or a business? Things get awfully messy there. If I want to share a network connection over WiFi, how do I communicate to others that I approve of them using my network? Physical signs aren't a perfect solution by any means. Overblown security fears shouldn't prevent people who want to share their WiFi from doing so; for those who don't plenty of means exist to limit access without inventing another crime, let alone one that would be ridiculously hard to enforce.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Open Payphone
The Telco's today have no liability for activities undertaken on their network, why should the person whom happens to share their pipe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1, you don't want to, i.e. its a deliberate choice not to since its 'easy to do' and 'youve been told how' etc, thus it will make it *much* harder to say using someone elses open wifi is illegal.
2, you *will* be held accountable for what happens via your wifi, since you have had an oppertunity to take control.
as i see it wifi represents a huge 'security hole' for law enforcement, and totally coincidentally monitoring of internet traffic. since it leads to a dead end, you know the comms when to wifi hub 'x', but now have no clue where it went afterwards, which makes tracking peoples access that little bit harder and we all know how people in authority like to be able to monitor things.
i'm actually suprised in a way wifi doesn't require a 'license to operate' effectivly meaning only compaines can use it, and making it easier to sue someone when something you don't like goes through it etc.
I await the uk version of this with baited breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OPen-WIfi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piggybacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is this binding?
So far it seems everyone has glanced over this first line where the keyword "manufacturers" comes into play. They aren't saying that businesses or the home user actualy have to secure their AP's but that whoever makes the router has to warn the customer that they SHOULD. Seeing as everythings made oversees or in Mexico, how can the California legislature enforce anything they put into effect other than refusing business licences to companies operating within their jurisdiction?
Like most California laws they're completely unessecary and just supporting one more lawyers income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is this binding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open-Wifi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open-Wifi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:How is this binding
California can withhold import licenses from those that are non compliant with their state law. It goes on everyday, from California EPA laws to how LCD monitors are disposed of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WEP? Hahaha
Stupid law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good idea... stupid law
I know everybody wants stuff to "just work", but in any given residential section you can find as many as a dozen unsecured wireless networks... and I'm betting that 95% of those users have no idea what they are allowing, especially when their local networks and/or machines are also unsecured (I've seen that before).
However, like most things, this shouldn't be solved by a law because laws are usually poorly thought-out, overly broadly written and invariably have unintended consequences even if they do accomplish what they are created for, and that's not even a given.
I used to use the metaphor or "Is it OK to fill up a bucket if your neighbor leaves his hose running in the street?" A more accurate metaphor would be "Is it OK to fill up a bucket if your neighbor leaves his hose running _in your kitchen sink_?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
obligatory telco conspiracy theory
they're trying to outlaw free wireless with their legislation man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: California Taking Steps To Outlaw WiFi Piggyba
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They already do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wi-fi responsibility
Where is this kiddie-porn freak getting his media? Let's track that IP address - once they find out its your router - you are involved! Can you imagine having the cops show up to drag you away only to find out months later that it was your neighbor who was stealing access to your wi-fi --- and 20 minutes after you were carted off in the paddy wagon - they ditched their NIC and left the state!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wi-fi responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wi-fi responsibility
its not worth it. not saying ultimately the person sharing would be guilty - but they are providing the resource for the law being broken. do i believe they should be guilty? - no - generally because most of the public is ignorant when it comes to the out of the box wireless solution. hook it up...I'm in!!!
Hah - and to one of the "anonymous cowards" who announces the big discovery that mac addresses can be spoofed - thanks for your endless wisdom. I would estimate less than 1 % of computer users knows about MAC address spoofing...much less what it is. That is actually an interesting subject - but is for another conversation.
As far as the law - its weak. They just stick a tag on the router/ap like the tag on the hair dryer or tag on the bedroom pillow. the big square that used to be around your "55" on american made cars (check me on that - i know it was on some of them!) - the warning is there - but it is weak. this is just a CYA law. this is to prevent some Joe Schmoe from getting hacked/shared/etc and then trying to sue the manufacturer - unfortunately, another common American trait.
I say lay off the lawmakers on this one - except for the fact that it is keeping their minds off of more important issues. ...and if they can make the companies include software/better instructions on how to secure a wireless network, that takes a bit of a chunk from some of the clients that IT Pros provide services for in their businesses. just a thought. i don't live in CA. Even if they did, I am not sure it would bother me nearly as much as some of these people who have posted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Behind in technology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Bandwidth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Bandwidth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Bandwidth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just posted this
Nazifornia lawmakers have a real issue with thinking it's population needs to be led around, having it's hand held every step of the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so if someone leaves their car parked with the keys in it, it's not stealing? now granted the owner of the car is an idiot, but it is still considerred theft.
I pay for my bandwitdh, and i expcet what i pay for. i dont need some freeloader trying to steal mine. so what do i do? i lock it up. If i wanted to open it up, i would do so, and allow people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The universal SSID for open access
Seriously, it wouldn't be bad if these same stickers instructed people "If you wish to advertise your network for open access, put "OpenAccess" somewhere in your SSID" or something like that.
Currently, anyone taking that view will have to dig up their own ideas for what constitutes a clear marking in the SSID that access is, indeed, allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hacker? *scoff*
I believe you meant to say "Any script kiddie with a bootable linux cd"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More bad analogies!
It is more like if someone's nice big screen TV is viewable from their front yard window and you just sit there watching it through their window. If they really cared about privacy they could close their blinds or relocate the TV.
However this is only 80% accurate since bandwidth is a limited resource.
Here's another half-assed analogy for you:
Using someone's wireless would be like using their hose. Their house might have a water meter or they might pay a flat rate (cost per gb xfer vs unlimited xfer per month), however they only get a certain ammount of water pressure (bandwidth speed) so when you use their hose you are making their faucets and sprinklers etc less powerful, and they don't have full access to their water.
Some people might not mind a random jogger comming up and getting a drink from their hose, just as they might not mind a lost traveler looking up mapquest briefly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law and buddies
Buddies: The buddies of the state are business, this means the ISP's who don't want to see their revenue impacted because some of us are sharing our expensive pipes, everyon shared is one lost. This also means the Telco's who at some point, if not now, will start to feel the pinch of VoIP (Skype et al) so they want to ride the cash cow a bit longer and would love the squash the proliferation of free (in this case) WiFi (that's what Net Neutrality is all about).
At the end of the day politicians will always go where the campaign funds come from won't they??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wi-fi responsibility
I still think you are taking the MAC address spoofing into a conversation it does not belong in right now. After all - if you do not share your wi-fi connection - you won't have to worry about your MAC address being spoofed now will you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
License for Wifi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hacker? LYNKSYS = Free wifi
About the hacker comment...WEP encyption = childsplay. WPA a little tougher but still do able. =/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Hacker? LINKSYS = Free wifi
Also - I am curious about anyone's take on "reverse hacking" - being set up - neighbor opens up a "LINKSYS" SSID and you surf and use the free resource. This, of course, is another discussion about a very small percentage of wifi users and their actual abilities - but it is one reason why I keep my laptop connected only to networks I know.
Sounds like we have a ton of freeloaders here. "Take advantage of your neighbor as long as you can." I guess that is the new American way, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
newest jordan shoes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
beats by dr dre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]