When In Singapore Make Sure To Turn Off WiFi Network Autodiscovery
from the otherwise,-jailtime-it-is dept
For many years, we've put up posts questioning whether or not using unsecured WiFi was a crime or if it even should be a crime. It appears that officials in Singapore decided that it absolutely is a crime and John writes in to point out that a teenager now faces three years in jail for using his neighbor's WiFi. There aren't too many details here, and perhaps there's more to this story. However, from the summary, it sounds like this kid used his neighbor's open WiFi network. There's nothing saying that he got past any security or anything like that -- just that he had "unauthorized access." As many of you probably know, most computers these days have WiFi network auto-discovery, meaning that if you're walking around with an ordinary laptop in Singapore, you could accidentally open yourself up to the potential of 3 years in jail just by waking it up in the wrong spot. The other oddity here is that the article claims the complaint was filed by the neighbor, though it's unclear how he knew that his WiFi was being used by the teen, or how anyone can prove that it actually was the teen. Perhaps there really is more to the story, and perhaps the neighbor did properly lock up his WiFi -- but if it really was open, wouldn't locking it up be a more reasonable response than tossing your teenaged neighbor in jail for three years?
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perhaps...
was the person being persued actually being malicious to other users online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unauthorized Use of Neighbor's Wifi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Note to self...
There HAS to be more, it's probably up to 3 years depending on the specific case.
Hm.. I wonder what their take is on music downloading...
Note to self...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Note to self...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
= = = = = = =
Secure by The Obvious on Nov 14th, 2006 @ 4:14am
There is an issue if the neighbor secured his network, but if he leaves it open, it is an invitation to share.
= = = = = = =
Although a good theory, leaving something unsecured does not give anyone the right to use it. If you left your car open and someone took it for a ride or left your home open and someone came in and watched some tv I doubt you'd have the same perspective.
With that said if the kid wasn't being malicious 3 years isnt a bit much its ludicrous. If jails in Singapore are anything close to jails in the U.S. that kid will be a hardened criminal with a sore *^*(& by the time he gets out. He should at most get a warning and if he continous he can be fined the cost of the neighbors ISP charges plus a stiff penalty. That would probably disuade him/her from using "free" bandwidth :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have to disagree with #8
The proper comparison is the usage model of the Internet, because a WiFi access point is simply an extension of the Internet. Subsequently the model used for ALL Internet surfing, commerce, etc is a form of electronic handshake. Essentially your computer sends a signal to another computer asking if you can access a file on a certain port. If the receiving computer decides you don't have permission then it will refuse your request. All of this takes place in seconds and not once have you obtained oral or written permission to access those resources. That permission is implicitly made by the fact that you can access a resource without circumventing security measures. And, in addition, you just crossed a dozen other privately owned networks, routers, etc to get that information request, all without asking.
My question to you is this, how would you respond if a website you frequently visit, suddenly called the police and had you charged with illegal usage of resources. Most would call this absurd, but based on the same principles many want to implement regarding open WiFi you could be convicted for this simple action millions of us perform every day.
Just because consumers are sometimes ignorant as to how to secure their WiFi does not exclude them from the responsibilities that any administrator would have to secure his/her network, servers, computers, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have to disagree with #8
if someone were to watch your TV (an extension of the global brocast networks) with out you giving them express permission, it would be the same thing.
you pay for cable TV, you pay for cable internet (or dsl...) you pay for gas, it would be unfair for someone else to use those resources you buy just because you left the door unlocked.
and i have said it a million times and i will say it again. the companies that are selling these out of the box wifi kits/routers need to have the wifi diabled, and have security enabled so that during the initial setup you do not have the option of turning off WEP/SSA whatever. i understand the want for consumers to have ease of use, but it would not be that much more time consuming to have it enable during the wizard setup.
it is one thing when your computer stumbles across an open wifi and "handshakes" its is another when you concenciously select "Mrs Hubers Wifi Connection".
akin to checking out the make and model of a car, and looking in the window vs. getting in the car and driving it just cuz the keys are there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I have to disagree with #8
Open WiFi is more analogous to having someone watch your TV through the window from the house next door. The kid never got up and went next door to use the WiFi whereas in your example someone has not only come on your property without your consent, but has invaded your home to use your resources.
If you don't want the neighbor's watching your TV from their window, what do you do? You turn it off, close the drapes, or ask them to stop. Similarly for the wireless you turn it off, lock it, or ask them to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, provided that they filled the car up and returned it before I needed it or if they left my TV and everything else where it was, and maybe left some money to cover the extra electricity, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Using WI-FI In SINGAPORE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How
pretty easy to track down at that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We don't know it all...
We need more details before we can complain about this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comment 11
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comment 11
And.. in response to someone elses car comment...
If the guy is dumb enough to leave a key to his car, on everyone nearby's doormat, and not use "the club" on his steering wheel, i'd sure as heck take it for a spin, at least to the grocery store!
lighten up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comment 11
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something isn't right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now I will agree that if the person with the wifi warned the kid, maybe a fine would be reasonable, but maybe if he would just encrypt his network and solve the problem all together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't expect sane laws in Singapore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If convicted, Tan faces up to three years in jail and fines of up to S$10,000 (US$6,425; euro5,000) under the Computer Misuse Act.
Sounds like a lot of you don't read the actual articles before making posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Singapore ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whose at fault...?
...and if I leave my front door unlocked and someone comes in and robs me blind, then it's my own fault...
...but, if someone busts my front door down and takes everything I own...then, and only then, can I blame someone other than myself !
We have to take some responsibility and quit blaming someone else for our own stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bandwidth
...but again, maybe someone who knows about Singaporian (is that a word?) ISPs could shed some light?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Invasion of privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#9 & #18
I'm too stupid to appropriately configure the technology I’m using.
I'm to dumb to understand the technology I’m using.
Therefore when someone uses my WIDE OPEN access point I’m going to call them a criminal because that’s not what I intended to happen!
Poster 14 had it right. If you do not setup security on your access point then your access point will invite people to use it. They did not break-in or steal.
YOUR access point announced itself to the world VIA a "SID" = "Hello world my name is xxx...Connect to me".
My computer is merely accepting the invitation that your access point put out.
If you want to play big boy games and have a network it's your responsibility to "LEARN" about how to do that responsibly.
If your walking down the street and suddenly someone runs and yells that your trespassing yet there where no fences- no gates- no signs or any other indicator that you had stepped onto this persons property... what would you tell them???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The law used here is the Computer Misuse Act. Unlike what has been previously mentioned in other comments about analogies in property law, the Act states clearly that unauthorized access to computer systems or networks (wired or wireless), whether they were secured in the first place, is illegal. The law is somewhat sweeping, as most Singapore laws are, and discretion is left to the judge. A point to note is that the kid hasn't been sentenced yet. What is stated is the maximum possible charges. His trial is scheduled for tomorrow.
I must say that's is not a trivial task to locate the kid (or anyone using a home wireless network without authorization). The low-tech way would be to find the (easily faked) MAC address logged by the AP and then determine which computer it is either by going through manufacturer records (not easy), or knocking on every door within range and checking all equipment (also not easy). The kid must have been pretty blatant about it ("Nya, nya, thanks for the bandwidth sucker!").The victim was probably not tech savvy enough to secure his network, so without prompting, wouldn't have figured out the reason for the performance drop in his DotA game or why his BitTorrent rates were reduced.
ISPs in Singapore generally don't charge per byte transfered. With widespread broadband, the consumer rates are monthly and dependent on the desired speed. There's also a trend to give out wireless routers with the service subscription, which is to say the least, annoying in high-rise, high-density Singapore. I have huge problems with interference when I try to get online during my visits back there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's been used to take people to task for dumping their trash in someone else's dumpster (is it fair that someone else pay for the collection of someone else's garbage? The open door on the dumpster is not a welcome mat either)
A recent case in Seattle a man drove up next to a cafe with a wifi hotspot. That hotspot was there for the cafe's customers. The man using it, however, was not a customer.
He was, actually, asked not to use their system but did so anyway and was subsequently arrested for Theft of Services.
As far as determining whether the Singapore kid in question was using the other man's WiFi... Unless he changed the MAC address it is directly traceable to the kid's hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In meantime...
The telco sale and doesn't give you the services.
They all time put the eyes inside your data, voice, making trafic shapping, whatever.
The big (your) brother are with the Big ear up and semsible about you phone lines...
Gime a break, 3 years in jail for teens, it sucks !!
Who doesn't did some kind of forbiden thing wen teen??
Maybe they just born with 30 y.o. or more there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In meantime... again
"...Open WiFi is more analogous to having someone watch your TV through the window from the house next door. The kid never got up and went next door to use the WiFi whereas in your example someone has not only come on your property without your consent, but has invaded your home to use your resources. ..."
Or, else, it's about some one reading your newspaper over your shouder, at a train. You'll sue him? As a bandit?? A theft??
U M B E L I V E B L E !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I leave mine open - is that a crime??!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If someone took my car, I couldn't use it. If someone used my bandwidth, it doesn't have quite the same effect - certainly it's not worth three years of this kid's life.
Similarly, if I sat in your house watching tv, I'm invading your privacy, that's not the issue here either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, i would imagine the teenager did something malicious with the open wifi, probably porn or downloaded free mp3's... something which is illegal but not monitored unless if you get caught on another charge which allows the state to go through your computer etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: medmad
If by 'totally wrong' you mean right, then I agree.
Chewing gum is now legal, although monitored and expensive thanks to taxes, getting the death sentence for drugs is pretty rare unless if you bring kilos of the malicious substance, and the caning.. well its still around.
Chewing gum was made legal for medical purposes only in 2004. "Recreational" chewing is still illegal. Getting the death sentence for drugs is rare, but most countries that still have a death sentence reserve it for only the most serious of crimes like first degree murder. For disputing my well-researched post I sentence you to 5 lashes of the cane. :-p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
intent?
It is difficult to prove intent, but if the convicted person had been personally warned by the plaintiff, then non-intent to cease the behavior should qualify as intent. Beyond that or the convict actually saying "I am using your WiFi network", I don't see how he is any more responsible than the plaintiff who didn't secure his network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To assail #9 a with a bit more predjudice:
Rolling with your car analogy, it would be more accurately described if your neighbor parked his car on YOUR property (say in your driveway) not only with it unlocked, but the keys in the ignition and the engine running.
It's just not the same to look at it like an invasive action such as trespassing. The fact of the matter is that in trespassing you are entering in anothers property. The wireless signal is being broadcast into other's airspace. Depending on how you look at things, this could be construed as an invasion of your airspace.
It reminds me of the early days of satellite. If somebody is beaming a signal into your home that you did not pay for, authorize, or otherwise ask to have beamed into your home, are you still responsible for paying for it?
Unfortunately, all of that idea is negated by our laws designed to unevenly favor the mediacorps and provide little or no consumer rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More antics
Regarding computer misuse, many states do have laws, rather archaic ones at that, that define what computer trespass and misuse are. While some have clauses describing circumvention of security measures others do not, and broadly proclaim it a crime to trespass on any network. And my response to this is bollocks! By these archaic definitions you are committing a crime just by reading this article, website, etc. So while yes, using open WiFi would be a crime in that case, then everyone else in the state is also breaking the law on a daily basis by opening a web browser, email client, or any other program which pulls data from the Internet.
The theft of service issue only applies to the person with the open WiFi connection. By sharing their bandwidth, intentionally or not, they may be violating their terms of service. The burden of compliance in this case lies solely with the owner. Not to mention that "services" is a loose definition at best. The fact that you took bandwidth from this website to display a page is considered a service, of tangible value that costs the owner money or can be assigned a monetary value. However, you don't see anyone trying to arrest you for surfing the web, thereby using resources that are not yours and for which you were never given explicit permission to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NY has a law like this.
I wonder if anyone thought of hitting MS up for some charges. Since XP by default scans for connections on wireless.
God forbid MS and other software companies stop pandering to the lowest common denominator, and force the end users to RTFM rather turn it on by default. in order to avoid support issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Analogies for WiFi
The way unsecured WiFi handshaking works, you have to connect to a network to find out if you are allowed to connect to it. Once you've connected to it, unless you are directed to a service telling you that you are not supposed to use it without paying a fee, you assume that using it is allowed.
I know that my TV outside the house analogy isn't the greatest, but the point is that you are broadcasting your signal beyond the limits of what you control. Does someone have a good analogy that can be distributed to try to educate people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's not sentenced yet..
Take note guys: HE'S NOT SENTENCED YET.
3 years is the maximum punishment he would get, that doesn't mean that he definitely will get 3 years. I'll expect him to get off lightly this time only because he's a teen, probably with a probational sentence (yes, we DO have probation, we're not a catch-all-jail-all community) or perhaps a stiff fine.
Tan going to jail? Most probably not. 1 month tops even if he is. And please, all these seemingly "authoritarian" measures are the main reasons as to why Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. A little harsh perhaps, but if it makes sure I'm living in a safe country, I don't mind, I just make sure I don't get into trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's not sentenced yet...
Moreover, the 'authoritarian' government narrows the minds of its citizens, i have talked to many a singaporean and have found a general single-mindedness and limited general knowledge about culture. And dnt get me started about singlish. (for those who dont know, its a mixture of english with aspects of chinese and malay, its increadibly hard to understand to the untrained ear)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's not sentenced yet...
Moreover, the 'authoritarian' government narrows the minds of its citizens, i have talked to many a singaporean and have found a general single-mindedness and limited general knowledge about culture. And dnt get me started about singlish. (for those who dont know, its a mixture of english with aspects of chinese and malay, its increadibly hard to understand to the untrained ear)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boy uses neighbous Wiifi
If the boy is in the wrong (as it sems he is), then cane his buttocks, and send him to school
[ link to this | view in chronology ]