Can We Please Stop Arresting WiFi Users Using Open Networks?
from the thanks dept
We've had a bunch of stories over the last few years of people getting arrested for using open WiFi access and we still can't understand what crime has actually been committed. Unfortunately, yet another person in the UK has now been arrested for using an open WiFi network, after police saw him sitting on a wall with a laptop and asked him what he was doing. Apparently, in the UK, they consider it a violation of a communications law and a computer misuse law, but neither makes much sense. If the guy isn't physically trespassing and the owner of the WiFi has it open, then what's the problem? You can't assume that the owner wanted it closed. If they did, they would have closed it. It's the access point owner's own fault if they're not securing the WiFi. Since all it is is radio waves, we're again left wondering if police will start arresting people who use the light shining from inside a house to read something out on the street. After all, that's basically the same thing: making use of either light or radio waves that were emitted from within the house, but are reaching public areas.
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
Filed Under: freeloaders, open access, wifi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So what if I want to share?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what if I want to share?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what if I want to share?
The fact is that using a open wireless link - should not be a crime. People do leave them open for public use.
This is a waste of police time and public money.
If one wants a closed access point, close it!
While this gives great employment for police,justice and parole staff it is not useful either to the individual or society.
It simply wastes resources that could be used to create wealth. Societies that waste resources become poor - and
the speed of this process is much faster then most
people imagine. This is how prosperous countries become poor. Why not focus on real crime, and real justice
and truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
two sides to every story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Course, it shouldn't be against the law to use someone's unsecured wireless network, but thats a different matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That really isn't a very good analogy. They are not actually entering a private area and they are not in fact subverting your privacy. They are using an open connection to the internet. If they are not browsing with protocols other then HTTP, they are not violating anyones private property. Now if they connect to your network and start trying to look in your PCs or trying to access the router interface, that's another matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's an analogy for you. How would you like it if you came home and found somebody sitting in your living room watching your TV, just because you forgot to lock the front door when you left? It's no different than somebody using your wireless network just because you failed to secure it.
Now, if an access point is labeled something like "free wireless" then it's pretty obvious that somebody is freely sharing it, and it's okay to use it. The same goes for internet cafes and the like that offer free wireless access. But home networks are off limits, period, unless you have direct consent from the owner of said network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is why you can watch free-to-air satellite but it's illegal to hack encrypted satellite.
Also, the wifi router actually initiates the session when associating with a remote system, so technically the owner of the router is guilty of illegally accessing the remote computer, not the other way around as you seem to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Unless your living room and front door and tv protrudes onto public property.
It is what it is. There are locked and unlocked. Obviously, the locked ones are on purpose. Some of the unlocked ones are, as well.(airports, some businesses, coffee shops, bookstores, etc) Perhaps they should be suing the idiots that have no clue what they are doing, for impersonating a business.
And the communications law doesnt work either, because a laptop is not an unlawful communications device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
RandomThoughts is a Shill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is such a tired old arguement. Nobody's STEALING your freakin' Wifi router dipshnitz, they're using some of your bandwidth and that's it.
I don't know about in your country but over here in the States it's perfectly legit for you to use a radio signal that is 1)unencrypted[so satellite hacking and WEP cracking are obviously illegal] and 2)in a frequency band that you have rights to use[which wifi happens to exist in].
If the owner of the AP's radio signal doesn't want someone peeking in or using that signal, they have to encrypt it, move it to a privately licensed band, or else they'll have very, very shaky ground to stand on.
There are exceptions but for every technicality that a prosecutor could attempt, I could counter with one even more devious. For instance, in wifi it is actually the *router* that initiates sending packets to the remote computer so technically the person operating the router could be charged with this for not properly securing it to protect me from connecting to it. I say protecting ME because I've got a guy who uses the default "linksys" SSID that turns his on once every 2 weeks or so and my laptop associates with it(leaving my secured one as though it had leprosy for some odd reason) and I inadvertently end up attempting to check my email, etc. while connected to his network; if he ran tcpdump, he could snag some of my login info pretty easily.
I would sooner charge *him* with hacking since his routine resembles a MITM attack that uses a fake AP to snag login info. That's done all the time in dorm rooms and the like so I'm not as easy to convince that he's not doing it on purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Same kind of thing here really.
I'm noticing a trend in the last few years (more so than before) with laws being made about technology because people don't want to learn about the tech. For those of us that understand the tech, we find them outrageous.
If only there was a law stating you have to be knowledgeable, and verified by say three different sources, to pass a law that effects a specific area.
And if only that was in every country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you leave your car unlocked with they keys in it parked in a lot with 100 other identical cars unlocked with their keys in them and you (not knowing which car is yours) get in and drive off did you steal the car?
My wireless card in my notebook (as a factory default) will automatically connect to the stongest signal and doesn't care about who owns that signal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
leaveing keys in car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, I know there's holes in that analogy too, but my point is that trying discuss wireless signals in the same manner as a piece of physical property doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Borrow or steal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Borrow or steal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Borrow or steal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how long until
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has anyone asked the Wi-Fi owner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open AP's are nice.
I have read some neat tricks using an open AP and squid. With the aid of image tools, all images requested from the open AP IP area would be flipped vertically, so they all appear upside down within the web page. That's pretty slick if you are trying to let folks know that while it's an open AP it's certainly being monitored.
I definitely feel like the onus is on the AP owner here, the random wifi user would never even be able to ask permission unless more identifying information is given out with a SSID. What are the chances of that happening? pffft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open AP's are nice.
Unless you are keeping records. You could always setup your network so that everyone connecting to your AP are logged by MAC address, as well as logging their activities. That way if they ask who downloaded the illegal material, you can show it wasn't you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Open AP's are nice.
Log files and MAC addresses are so easily faked I can't imagine them having any defensive value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Open AP's are nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open AP's are nice.
When my DSL network occasionally goes down, I have no issues about borrowing my neighbor's unsecured cable internet connection. Another neighbor, who I know isn't all that computer savvy, has their network secure. I can see the name of his network on my wi-fi list of available connections, but I can't access it, since I don't have his password.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PBS
But then again, no one watches PBS or listens to NPR, so this is a bad analogy. I probably shouldn't post this, in fact I don't think I will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PBS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not great reasoning
I think their needs to be an assumption of a closed door on wifi networks, the simple fact is that there are far too many people using them who don't understand how to secure them. It's also common that those who fail to secure their networks often don't understand the ramifications of leaving it open.
Automatically saying that somebody who leaves a network open should be assumed to want everyone using it also has a tendency of rubbing people the wrong way. My neighbor's a good example. He's got no clue what he's doing with his wireless, I had to go secure it for him.
I asked him about the idea of somebody using his connection. He admitted it proabably wouldn't harm him at all, and it made some sense. But he still didn't wnat anybody doing it without at least asking him.
New technology is pushing a lot of what we previously considered private outside barriers we once consider opaque. Obviously we need to make considerations for this by not jumping all over those who tread on our newly bloated presence. But perhaps we also ought to consider making some common sense assumptiuns about those people who've recently joined the 21st century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not great reasoning
Then he shouldn't have been setting it himself.
Even in the 21st Century willful negligence is no excuse. That's nothing new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Random Thoughts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is the local law covering this:
(a) Movable property.--A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof.
(b) Immovable property.--A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully transfers, or exercises unlawful control over, immovable property of another or any interest therein with intent to benefit himself or another not entitled thereto.
End of part b covers it:
exercises unlawful control over, immovable property of another or any interest therein with intent to benefit himself or another not entitled thereto.
I had a wireless router and had it down tight. I also turned off broadcasting and went wired.
If you don't pay for it, or have a license to it, you are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this is the local law covering this:
That's just not true. If you have the owner's permission, that's enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this is the local law covering this:
That all depends on peoples definition of entitlement. Does the purchasing of a device that connects a person to an open wifi AP entitle them to the use of open APs? What is the definition of entitlement for a situation like this.
Get real, this is in no way a legal issue that has been dealt with. We have no laws handling this kind of issue. The only way someone should be able to prosecute people for using an open AP is if there are clearly signs that indicate it is not for public use, or they have to violate another law to do so. Otherwise, even with my permission, people using my open AP can be arrested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: this is the local law covering this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this is the local law covering this:
But these networks are openly broadcasting an invitation to connect to them. It's reasonable to assume they're open for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can it be trespass?
Well, that's my argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's another subsection of the law - I'm guessing this is PA law, right?
(a) Acquisition of services.--
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains services for himself or for another which he knows are available only for compensation, by deception or threat, by altering or tampering with the public utility meter or measuring device by which such services are delivered or by causing or permitting such altering or tampering, by making or maintaining any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically or inductively, to a distribution or transmission line, by attaching or maintaining the attachment of any unauthorized device to any cable, wire or other component of an electric, telephone or cable television system or to a television receiving set connected to a cable television system, by making or maintaining any unauthorized modification or alteration to any device installed by a cable television system, or by false token or other trick or artifice to avoid payment for the service.
(1.1) A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains or attempts to obtain telecommunication service by the use of an unlawful telecommunication device or without the consent of the telecommunication service provider.
(3) A person is not guilty of theft of cable television service under this section who subscribes to and receives service through an authorized connection of a television receiving set at his dwelling and, within his dwelling, makes an unauthorized connection of an additional television receiving set or sets or audio system which receives only basic cable television service obtained through such authorized connection.
(4) Where compensation for service is ordinarily paid immediately upon the rendering of such service, as in the case of hotels and restaurants, refusal to pay or absconding without payment or offer to pay gives rise to a presumption that the service was obtained by deception as to intention to pay.
So actually, it falls under theft of service. Since it's not an 'object'.
So technically...
(1.1) A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains or attempts to obtain telecommunication service by the use of an unlawful telecommunication device or without the consent of the telecommunication service provider.
He didn't have consent - the home owner could be considered the 'service provider'. So yea, I guess by this law - he's stealing. Since he didn't have consent.
While I tend to agree - people need to secure their wireless and I don't think the guy should be jailed for it. Well, it's the law, afterall.
I can't really see a reason why it wouldn't be considered 'telecommunication' - since it is a communication device, however.
Now in all honesty, I was going to defend the guy - and I do think there should still be some question - as he's broadcasting out of his property lines, but the law's not really clear on this. The right lawyer could probably get him out of that since it doesn't specifically state a 'computer' or 'internet' anywhere in there. Some question could be brought up that it's not specifically a 'telecommunication' device - it's really a 'digital' communication device. But guess it depends on the wording used in court there.
But since there's a section of that particular law dealing with theft of service, I can't see the sections on 'property' being correct. I mean - it's not really property, it's a service.
BUT, if he did in fact have permission - then they have no legal right to arrest him - but also... one of the BIG problems is - did they have probable cause to believe he did not have permission? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Question: Who gave you permission to post here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
(reply to this comment)
All of these are implicit permission to post...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like open wi-fi. Hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, it depends... on how much work you want to do to be nice.
You could use OpenDNS to restrict and Track internet usage. Or just give out the security to certain people you think won't abuse it..
If you're curious OpenDNS is a fantastic service. Check it out sometime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OpenDNS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Since all the networks are named LinkSys anywa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does anybody else notice?
I always seem to see several common analogies (theft of physical property, trespassing, RF broadcasting, etc) but they all have major holes that breakdown when examined in-depth.
Perhaps this is why there is such misunderstanding of this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does anybody else notice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Router Companies
People have been exploiting other people for many years in fact its a way of life. No different than many corporations we surround our selves by.
If it was meant to be secure the router companies should only sell Pre-Secured Wi-fI equipment, with a little sticker with the Encryption key. That would be the only true way to make everone aware when they purchase the equipment.
Lets relate it to a kid watching an R rated movie on a TV without the infamous V-Chip activated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very poor analogies and understanding of Tech
In addition, while the radio waves pass from private property to public property and back again, the privately owned device issuing and receiving those radio waves does not. In this particular case, the wifi access was going through a privately owned device without the owners permission and is considered by most courts to be trespass of one form or another.
There is no magic here. He did not use radio waves and magically bypass one or more privately owned devices to reach the internet. It was his computer and he had the onus to verify which network he was signing onto and whether or not that network was being privately operated. Something privately owned that appears to be available for use does not mean you can actually use it.
Lastly, most wifi equipment is still shipped with open access as default. This makes it easier for novice users to hook their network together and lowers initial support calls. They also broadcast a hello who is out there signal, not a free access for all signal. This hello broadcast is the start of an attempt to allow access and, as I recall, happens even when the wifi network is secured. In the same vein, putting a wifi access card in you computer is not an open invitation for access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Very poor analogies and understanding of Tech
Wrong. If you're trying to get technical then you should know that electro-magnetic radiation often reflects back to its source to some degree. Believe me, I'm an electrical engineer and I deal with this stuff all the time.
What does that mean? That the device itself is not out running around between private and public property? While I doubt that the device in question has never been on public property, I fail to see where that makes any difference.
Wrong again. In this case the owner was broadcasting permission.
Wrong yet again. If the owner appears to give their permission, then you may use it.
And with instructions on how to change that. You left that part out.
Not true. If so configured, they will issue invitations and respond to connection requests with information to facilitate such connections. I don't know if you are just technically ignorant, duplicitous or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First point: agreed. The AP owner needs to take control of his service.
Problem 1: ignorance on how to secure your own service.
Second point: disagreed. Mike, what a terrible analogy for someone who, judging from your tech knowledge of RF, wireless, internet, etc., should know better than to compare a simple one-way "broadcast" to something that is very much two-way. The one-way broadcast analogy would be great if we were talking about the passive interception of signals. Wi-fi is very much a two-way "active" relationship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music is in the form of waves too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music is in the form of waves too
However if you use WiFi, you packets traverse hardware you may or may not have access to.
Mike, here is the point try to understand it...it is illegal, why can't you accept that? If people in the UK gave a rat's, they would push for it to be changed. Your idea on the point is totally irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Music is in the form of waves too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Music is in the form of waves too
Section 1
A person is guilty of an offence if
a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure
access to any program or data held in a computer
b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised
The Computer Misuse Act was created to prevent unauthorised access to computer systems.
Right from the law itself. Now I suppose you are going to say a router is not a computer and he was not securing access to it. This is a weak argument at best. He was securing access to a computer network that he was not authorised on. Seems simple.
The real argument is whether he was authorised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music is in the form of waves too
And I would not trust any of them any more than I do you.
The access was not unauthorized.
I glad you at least realize that much anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it could be call trespassing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it could be call trespassing
And then you go on to explain how you really don't.
"and I use open Wi-Fi every chance I can get, but technically you are sending data through their wires in their house, so that could be trespassing"
So you believe that you are doing wrong but you do it anyway? If you are that dishonest then why should anyone believe anything you write?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i think it is trespassing
finally you would be using a service that you didnt pay for, the sad story is that, with a poorly configured network, many computers will connect automatically, so, maybe, they should bring up a law asking people to choose if they close their networks, because if you leave it open..... it is for everyone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assume private networks are meant to be private regardless of poor security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If you really didn't want to be mugged you should have been packing and had a posse protecting you."
Again, giving a homeless person a buck is not the same as being mugged.
"Assume private networks are meant to be private regardless of poor security."
Or open invitations? I don't think so. Cracking weak security is one thing, accepting an invitation is another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except it's not a private network. It's a public one with an open invitation to connect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
using a service you did not pay for without consen
yes it broadcasts, but it also requires your input. You are recieveing a service that you did not pay for without the permission of the owner (and for those saying the router said they could have access, that is a very slippery slope, that could also be used to justify hacking).
Stop with the analogies, they are not necessary.
I've never heard so many people argue that they are entitled to the use of a service that they didn't pay for and acces to a device that they also did not pay for simply because the owner is not a security expert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: using a service you did not pay for without co
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: using a service you did not pay for without co
What?!? No way. Most computers will automatically jump on any open WiFi network. So it does not require your input. You HAVE received permission of the owner. The access point is issuing a welcome message when it lets you connect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: using a service you did not pay for withou
That's a bunch of bull.. No computer jumps automatically. Go back and check. If it is an unsecured connection, and even if you force your computer to connect, it warns you first. Blaming your computer / your router for your own stupidity is the limit.
My take : It should be upto the owner of the connection to decide whether to press charges or not. Of course, it is illegal. But then, I think my neighbor's Wi-Fi percolating into my house is illegal too (not by law, but by common sense). If I can call the cops on loud music, why can't I call the cops for a loud signal on channel 11 which makes me have to vacate that unlicensed channel, which by rights, should belong to me within my property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: using a service you did not pay for wi
Yes they do. Recently I was installing a new wireless card in my XP Home laptop. Before I could configure it to use my secured wireless connection, AVG started downloading a signature update using a neighbors unsecured connection. It all happened automatically; I was not prompted in any way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: using a service you did not pay for wi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: using a service you did not pay for without co
Let's not assume anything. If you can connect to a wireless network, without cracking the security, then that's not exactly private, now is it?
Because it takes a security expert to read the manual for the router, and set a simple wep key.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WISP trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark doesn't understand...
It's true. Any and all infractions or violations will result in your immediate arrest, persecution and/or execution. This new policy will radically reduce the size of the undesirable criminal and terrorist element that now threatens our way of life. After all the President of the US was the one who said if you aren't with us, you are against us.
How else can we control the heinous crimes like unmarried sex, using illicit drugs, and stealing bandwidth from Wifi routers. ( How can you people do these things?!
You do realize, Mark, that by not being aware of the government's new policy you have already committed a serious violation. Bummer, dude. Only thing you can do now is to turn yourself in at one of the many local interment camps run by the newly created brain police. They'll render the cerebral cortex portion of your brain to eliminate all of your many obvious anti social tendencies.
Ya know it's in the best interest of the state that you do this, right, Mark? I know you will do right thing...
buck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me using your ID doe however damage/cost you.
Where do we draw the distinction between poor security on the owners part and unauthorised access on the users part?
Owner was using WEP (and a poor key) so it was OK for user to access it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
service provisioning
We will see increasing adoption of such tools as people realize the simple truth that whether or not it is illegal, controlling access to your network is in the same realm as locking the door to your house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Linksys
"Since all the networks are named LinkSys anyway, how can you tell which one is yours?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not knowing that you were connecting to the specific network would be a mitigating factor, but just claiming "hey, it was unsecured, so it must be for my use" doesn't quite cut it.
My wifi network isn't secured but if neighbors wanted to hurt me, they would take my grill (which I leave outside also unsecured.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If by that you mean you leave it out in the public street with a sign on it that says "free grill", then I wouldn't blame them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel special, mine is named "Netgear"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what exactly do you think the police response would be?
its *that* which makes this sort of thing silly.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out the guy in question had something of a chip on his shoulder or was somewhat evasive when the police asked him what he was doing.
they are unlikely to want the paperwork without a reason.
besides if I'm sat in a public place using a laptop is *that* an offence? if not why exactly would a copper care what your doing unless he has reasons to suspect something funny.
leaching open wifi may or may not be an offence but given both times I've tried to report attempted hacking (once) and a break of what little privacy laws we have left I got total disinterest from the boys in blue, who claimed to have more important things to deal with.. (they probably did)
all routers I've had in the uk have shipped with passwords set, As I see it if you take action to *remove* this thats a sign of leaving your wifi open to anyone. if you have to enter a default password to access a wifi network, thats a no-no without specific permission as I see it.
but in this case did the police have access to the wifi owners logs at the time of arrest? if not how did they know a crime was being committed exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buying a router
That being said, I was always told that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". So, not reading the documentation is not a good excuse for saying, "I didn't know you could do that", because if you read the instructions like you were suppose to do when setting up a device(for which you are aware of its purpose when you bought it), then you would have known you could do such a thing.
There is no way it should be considered stealing, because the AP was intentionally left Open for whatever the reason, (i.e. laziness) and therefore, "free" for others to use.
There is no analogy capable of scoping this issue, because it is like no other.
However, if you really had to use one, I would use the "fruit tree overhanging into my yard" one. I have read about some cases a long time ago, where there was a radio station in the vicinity of a lady's house. She really believed that the radio waves were harming her, so, she made the radio company use "bypass satellites" to redirect the signal around her property. Extremely ridiculous I know, but I think it proves a point....maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buying a router
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone knows it isn't smart to leave your keys in your car. Doing so does not give others permission to drive it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you leave your car parked on someone else's property without their permission, don't surprised if it gets towed. If you then further fail to pay the towing and storage fees and retrieve it, don't be surprised if the next time you see it someone else is driving it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careful, Mike...
Yes, you can. You can assume pretty much anything, it's really not difficult. Whether it's correct to do so is entirely another question. This assumption is also a slight red herring - you don't have to assume that the owner wanted it closed, only that they did not want other people to use it. That's quite an easy assumption to make, and British law appears to do just that.
"If they did, they would have closed it."
Not necessarily. They might not have known it was open. They might not have known how to close it. They might not even have understood that there is a concept of openness or closedness in wireless networking. They might know very well that the law in Britain is clear on this, so there is no need for them to close it. You are making a lot of assumptions here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careful, Mike...
No, it doesn't. Some British PCs apparently do. Not the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Careful, Mike...
No, it doesn't. Some British PCs apparently do. Not the same.
Interesting. Are you now claiming that the PC who arrested the guy was not applying the law? I thought your point was that the law was wrong, rather than that the law is okay but enforced incorrectly.
Interesting. And wrong.
What the guy was (allegedly?) doing is illegal in Britain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay attention
For a great many people in the UK, bandwidth is a scarce good.
Most broadband contracts have a download limit included in the price. Above that limit, the marginal cost of data is quite high. The limit is not very high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay attention
For a great many people in the US, electricity is a scarce good.
Most electricity is metered. So reading by the electrically generated light of someone else's window is stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pay attention
Poor. They aren't stealing electricity from someone else's window, they're "stealing" light, which the owner has already paid for and which would otherwise be wasted.
I suppose your analogy might stand up if the homeowner was trying to use the light from his window to help some plants grow, and you were casting a shadow over them, but that's really pretty tenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you surprised - Televison Police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP assigned, permission granted...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leaching
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confession
the only way i can access the internet is through an open AP, as kurt cobain said ''I know its wrong, but what can I do?''
[ link to this | view in chronology ]