Wireless Piggybacking Is Still Not A Problem
from the victimless-crime dept
For years, we've been pointing out that there's nothing unethical about borrowing an open wireless connection. Unfortunately, the stories on this subject just keep getting more hysterical. The latest example is a story from the UK that dubs the offense "wi-fi tapping" and reports that more than half of computer users have engaged in the practice, which it claims is illegal in the UK. Now, you might think that the fact that a majority of otherwise law-abiding Brits have engaged in piggybacking would be a reason to re-consider the law against it, but instead the story takes the opposite tack, sternly lecturing readers about the need to abstain from borrowing Internet access. Unfortunately, they never get around to explaining what's supposed to be wrong with it. They point out that people sometimes do illegal things with a borrowed wi-fi connection, but that's like saying you should never allow anyone to borrow your car because they might run someone over with it. And they insist that it's not a victimless crime because "A crime is perpetrated against the person who pays for the internet connection." But that's just circular logic. It's quite possible the owner of the network left it open on purpose, and in any event, if the piggybacker is just checking his email or engaging in light web surfing, the bandwidth being consumed is trivial. The "victim" is unlikely to even notice, and he certainly doesn't suffer any serious harm. Of course, there might be legitimate reasons, either security- or bandwidth-related, why someone would want to lock down his or her network. It's certainly worthwhile to educate users about the pros and cons of leaving your network open, and to provide them with directions for locking down their network if they wish to do so. But the police have much more important things to do than harassing people whose only crime is a compulsive need to check their email.
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, uk, wifi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'd leave mine open
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Borrowing a car
Most people would also let a friend use their net, its still no reason to leave wireless open or your car doors for that matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Borrowing a car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i pay for the service. you did not. the fact that it might be open, and you can tap/access it, is irrelevant. if i've chosen to open it for others, then you're completely right, and it's open for access.
if i haven't meant for anyone to access it, you're taking advantage of something that i've paid without my permission.
now, i know you're going to have a straw argument that deals with music/light/etc coming from my place... not the same. all you can do with music/light is deal with it in a passive manner. with the net, you are accessing "my" equipment.
you either get it, or you don't. and if you don't get it, you surely shouldn;t mind, if i find where you live, and take advantage of some of your services, like tap into your electricity, or your water line, or the gas in your car?
the only way you make this arguement, is to try to have a bait/swicth and claim that digital is different...
peace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if you disagree on that point of etiquette, I hope you'll at least agree that the police have better things to be worrying about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:open networks and etiquette
--Glenn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you tap into my watter or electricity you raise my bill. You tap into my Internet you don't raise anything.
If you really have a problem with someone "stealing" your Internet connection then lock your door, so to speak. It is so simple to add a wep key. If you have a problem with it and still leave your wireless open, it's your problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you want to be unaffected by people using you bandwidth then upgrade your access point and add some QoS rules.
If your using 100% of your bandwidth all the time or can't let others use your connection because of the terms of service from your ISP then add encryption and lock the access point down to only send and receive information from specific MAC addresses.
And if your still having problems 3/4 inch lead plate will effectively block the power levels used by a wireless router
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Software to tell if anyone is using my network??
The only WiFi that I use is from the TIVO to my PC. The wife’s PC and mine are behind a Netgear wire/wireless router and use Ethernet over power wire, with passwords set.
Thanks for any help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Software to tell if anyone is using my network
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i war drive everyday after work, and i find atleast 40-50% of the AP's are unsecured
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raising costs
Lets not forget that not only do they have the ability to view illegal content, they have the ability to view YOUR CONTENT!
Why? Because without password on the router (ie. encryption) your data is passing over radiowaves totally unecrypted! Remember most email services don't mandate HTTPS, you have to do it ... its too much work of the average use who reading this would think he should just leave his wifi open and he'll be safe ... until he ends up in jail on kiddy porn or terrorism charges and with his identity stolen (hmm, would that mean the person who stole his identity would end up in jail?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raising costs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you enter my network without my permission, which was unlocked is that wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flawed thinking
The problem is the determining the intent of the owner of the open wireless connection. Was he careless or simply doesn't care who uses his bandwidth? I don't see how you can conclude a 'theft' occurred unless the owner feels his property was misappropriated.
However, should the owner cry 'thief' I don't see how you can defend using someone's paid services without permission. Theft is theft no matter how trivial the cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flawed thinking
If you enter my home without my permission that is wrong no matter what the circumstances are.
If you enter my home network without my permission that is wrong. Even if it doesn't cost my any extra money you are using my resources, which I am paying for, without my permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flawed thinking
Your first case example of physical breaking is ethically correct.
Your extension of the physical ingress and physical theft analogy to an open wi-fi access point is logically flawed because you are broadcasting "information" beyond your property lines.
A more accurate example/analogy is that your house is equipped with flood lights that illuminate my yard as well as yours. When you have a night-time party in your back yard and you turn on the electricty to those lights, it illuminates my back yard too, or maybe the alley way in between. Yes, you paid or are paying for the light, BUT, you have done NOTHING to make sure that the light does not propagate beyond your property. Your inaction to restrict propagation and therefore use of the light is implied consent to use. So, Yes, I may party in my back yard at night using your flood lights without ethical remorse.
If you do not want others basking in your wi-fi network access, errect the shades by securing your access point transciever.
Damn logic rookies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Flawed thinking
While using my network you are using part of my bandwidth. Therefor potentially impeding my use of the services that I am paying for. Not to mention what if you are doing something illegal like downloading music or movies? It is my public ip address that will be found, it will be my house they will come to first, it will be me that will be put through unnecessary B.S. because you want to use something for nothing.
Using the extra light from my party will not do any of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digital is different, providers are not
That's reason #1 to be on an encrypted network. Reason #2 is so that crackers can't snoop your traffic as it flies between your machine and the wireless access point. Lots of information flying through the air. Even encrypted packets can be cracked, given enough time and interest (also helps to have a zombie swarm dedicated to this type of thing).
Car analogy: if you leave your car with the windows rolled down, keys in the ignition, and a big, hand-painted sign saying "Free Car" on the windshield, then don't expect to see your car again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Digital is different, providers are not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Digital is different, providers are not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Digital is different, providers are not
--Glenn
8]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is fairly easy to control access
and you find free apps that can limit bandwidth access limit time, even make them go through your home business' website before they browse.
I understand the difference if there is a bandwidth cap in GB, but fairly rare here in the states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm.
In the UK, at least, they're not just paying for access to the pipes, but have limits on their usage. Here in the US, even the $5-$10/month dial-up is "unlimited." We're not paying for the water we're using, we're paying for an open faucet. If somebody dips into the puddle you leave, no biggie. But if somebody starts emptying your "barrel"(UK), that's theft, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are no relevant metaphors
Right now, using someone's unlocked car without permission is considered immoral, and society as a whole has, through the legislative process, made it illegal as well. So society as a whole has determined it's wrong and put protections in place.
This is not the case with Wi-Fi yet, so whether or not you use an unsecured wireless network is up to your own moral code. Some think it's okay, and some don't. Those who don't should think about securing it so others can't engage in the behavior they find offensive. At some point along the way, society will either side with the "don't use it" camp, or it won't, and based on that, the legality question will be answered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopefully,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open means Open
Same is true of finding an "Open" WiFi access point. I come in and browse around.
If the owner doesn't want any unwanted "patrons"...turn the sign around, turn out the lights, and lock the doors.
Simple...quit whining about being a victim of "stolen" bandwidth. It's not stolen. You're just being patronized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More flawed thinking, I see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More flawed thinking, I see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More flawed thinking, I see...
btw...I have my home WiFi locked down like Alcatraz. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More flawed thinking, I see...
Your wi-fi coverage area is not your home, its not your property. these "free apples" are Not on your porch, they are in the middle of the street and they do indeed have a "free" sign on them.
If you set up a home network with wi-fi and dont even bother to "put a lid on the barrel", much less get it out of the street, you are giving them away, free, gratis, and for nothing.
This, of course, ignores many of the monitoring, limiting and restricting options built into your system that You are not taking advantage of or even looking into.
The continuation of the free apple theme would be putting up a sign "please take only one" all the way through a nice little fruitstand, "apples $1 each".
If you cant be bothered to make what is Literally the minimum effort, you will receive the minimum protection, IE, none.
Of course, if you secure your wifi and someone rolls up, breaks in through the front window of your home, cracks your encryption and eats all your apples, despite all your strong locks, we are indeed in a different situation, not to mention horribly mixed and overextended metaphors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More flawed thinking, I see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More flawed thinking, I see...
> > screen door propped open too, doesn't
> > mean somebody can walk into your house
> > uninvited.
> Try it sometime. Leave your doors all open
> and if someone wanders in just try to call
> the police and report a crime. The only one
> to be arrested will be you.
As a cop myself, let me be the first to tell you that you're wrong. Homeowners can indeed leave their windows and doors open/unlocked and still validly report any unauthorized entry into their home as a crime-- specifically breaking and entering. The "breaking" part is commonly misunderstood as breaking a physical lock or window but that's not what it is. Under the law, it's illegal to break the close (or threshold) of someone's home without their permission. So even if the door is wide open, an intruder still breaks the close when they enter contrary to the homeowner's wishes.
Bottom line, it's no defense to a breaking and entering charge to say, "Well, the windows were already open." And the police certainly aren't going to turn around and arrest the homeowner for calling the cops when she finds some strange man climbing through her window just because it was a nice day and she left it open to catch a breeze.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More flawed thinking, I see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More flawed thinking, I see...
> (i.e. just innocently wandered through an open
> door) and they reported it as a break-in then
> I'll consider it case of false reporting.
And you won't stand a chance of getting a conviction because it's *not* false reporting. Under a technical reading of the law, it's still breaking and entering (at least in my state it is). And if you knowingly arrest/charge someone for an offense they didn't commit just because you think they're being too sensitive or whatever, you've opened yourself up to legal liability-- civil at a minimum, criminal depending on your state's laws.
As for not doing anything threatening, just entering a private residence uninvited, with no legal right to be there, is threatening enough in this day and age that no D.A. worth his degree would disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More flawed thinking, I see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More flawed thinking, I se
> perfectly legal to help terrorists blow
> things up as long as all you're doing is
> giving them directions on how to do it and
> get around security (due to the first
> amendment).
I never said any such thing. Directing the operation (as Bin Laden did) would be easily prosecutable under long-standing conspiracy laws. Being a material participant in a plot and taking overt action to see it to fruition is very different than just talking about something in the abstract.
> Some how, I don't think I'll be trusting you
> for legal advice.
I don't doubt it. You strike me as someone who only hears what he wants to hear and is dismissive of anyone who says otherwise, no matter how accurate they may be, as evidenced by the way you'd rather change the subject to something where you think you're right (terrorism), rather an address the point under discussion (breaking and entering).
Classic tactic of someone whose argument is weak and who knows it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stupid anaogies
It's like broadcasting the availability of an internet connection on a public radio frequency specially designed for that purpose, listening for any replies and or requests to make use of that connection on the same public radio frequency, then answering with the exact details required to make a connection.
A better comparison might be CB radio. If someone calls up over the CB to ask the weather report, and you look it up and answer them because out of habit you just answer any question anyone asks on CB, have they stolen anything from you? Have they done anything illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all these analogies are bogus
Using your electricity or cable TV, No again. I don't have to trespass and plug into your outlet or your cable to use your wireless.
Passive use of light, music, etc? I'm passively receiving your broadcasted radio signals. Keep your damn radio waves away from my tinfoil hat!
Unlocked car with keys? Not. I'm not sitting in your car, or turning on the engine, or driving away. Again, I'm nowhere near your car. I'm down the block and I'll not even get out of mine.
I don't snoop around your home systems, I'm just passin' thru.
My grandpa taught me a relevant saying: "Life's tough when you're a dumbass."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piggybacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? Well then I guess your fortuante to not live in an Area where the majority of police activity is spent on harassing the public over trival "crimes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not your Wirelesss
I will repeat it for the even slower of you; wireless signals use PUBLIC SPACE!
Also the obtuse analogies of cars, houses, etc are inappropriate, and no car use of roads doesn't count. A better analogy would be considering it illegal to hear a conversation the was being broadcast thru a PA (public address heh) system.
Ignorance of the law isn't an effective defense but ironically the laws ignorance of reality, common sense, and the technology seem to be hypocritically unacknowledged.
The same feeble little chuckleheaded logic that goes into email disclaimers is being recycled here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
power switch
if your network is not reliable i dare say the baddies will go somewhere else.
either that or have a router with QOS software, leave it opne, but limited in bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Flawed thinking
If you want a light-in-the-backyard analogy, listen to this one. I put up a number of lights that are controlled remotely. You buy a remote that works just like mine and tell one of the lights to turn around and shine into your yard. Oh look, now the light you wanted is suddenly coming into your yard, but you can't help it, it's just shining of its own accord. Dumbass.
I welcome anyone who wants to use my open wifi, although anyone who can't authenticate is not going to enjoy their browsing experience...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Flawed thinking
WiFi signals don't "turn around" remotely...they simply exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Flawed thinking
Ah but you ARE sending signals to them to receive information.
For the light-in-the-backyard analogy. This simply dosn't work. Because the person using the light DID NOT have to buy a remote to make the light turn to his yard. The person using the light simply left the light shining on your yard. The owner receiving the light didn't have to do anything to receive it. This works the SAME way with wireless networks. Many operating systems make it so simple to connect to wireless networks that if they are not secured properly you don't even have to try to connect to them. The computer will do it by itself if the connection is present. So I go to wal-mart. Buy a computer and put it in my house. This computer happens to have built in wireless capabilities. I turn my computer on and find that there is an internet connection present. I decide to use it. I made no special attempt to steal your internet. It was offered up to me, for all I know you did it on purpose. As a matter of fact your radio waves tresspassed onto my property. If you don't want me using it, then keep them in your walls, or make them unusable. It CAN be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh? How does that make any kind of sense? How do you think the wifi router knows to ask the modem for the webpage you want to look at? Through the magical aether or by your computer sending it a signal?
The router sends out a signal, your computer sends out a signal. When your computer asks the router for a page, the router sends the page. That is your computer sending a signal into my house, to my equipment, telling it what to do. It doesn't "simply exist".
"Using my light in your backyard will absolutely not impede the light I am receiving in my backyard."
Well, if there are three lights shining, and one of them turns away to shine somewhere else, that's 33% of the light. In wifi terms, that's 33% of the bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: atomatom
I would agree that piggybacking WiFi from a neighbor is wrong if one is using it for illegal purposes. My whole "argument" is whether using it for email and simple browsing is so wrong. IMHO...it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What people are ignoring is that Wifi is not just there. If people treated Wifi like shade from a tree, all they could do is recieve it. All they could do is look at the signals being broadcast, and that's all they would get. And it'd be useless to them, it would be my traffic, not theirs. However, once they begin using the connection to make their own requests (web browsing, email, etc.), they are no longer just recieving it. It's not "just there" anymore. They're talking to my router and giving it commands. Instead of just recieving the signal coming out of my house, they're sending one into my house. I don't get how people fail to understand that an internet connection is a conversation, it's two-way, you don't just get the signal but you send one of your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Receiving it... to atomatom :)
So sitting under the tree is "stealing" their shade? That's receiving and using.
I know there is talk to and from your router. If you don't want your signal stolen, don't broadcast your signal.
I don't fail to understand the internet connection is a conversation...you fail (the broadcaster of the signal not you specifically) to understand your irresponsibility in not securing that which spills outside of your property boundaries.
And to the person that mentioned he uses his neighbor's pool and BBQ...that's entirely different. If you do, you must physically cross into your neighbor's property. You've violated their boundaries. If they've built their pool in such a way that it extends onto your property...then by building it that way they've essentially said you can swim in it too...at the very least swimming on only your side.
It all boils down to security. If you're the type that feels the signal spilling past your property boundaries is YOUR signal...secure it so it remains YOUR signal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, let's try to get a handle on this
The problem is, there's no clear etiquette that allows you, as the AP owner, to signal to the world "Go Ahead, Use My Bandwidth." We've taken the presence of the open AP itself as a "Free-for-All" sign.
Considering the huge number of wireless AP's already out in the wild, perhaps education is the only answer. The horses have already bolted from the stable, and it'll take a while to corral them again. Selling wireless equipment with encryption enabled by default ought to help, but will probably result in more calls to tech support.
Maybe a nice propaganda campaign: "If you don't secure your wireless, you're promoting terrorism and pedophilia." That ought to lock a few doors. Either way, we should be looking for ways to prevent problems, rather than go after offenders after the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free wifi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free wifi
I have problems when somebody uses a service that I am paying for for my personal use without my permmision. My signal my be leaving my property into the public domain but you are sending a signal into my property and then getting onto my network. I have the right to decide who is on and who is not. Just because a person does not know how to secure a network does not give a person the right to use it. Just because I leave my bike in the park unsecured does not give you the right to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free wifi
I have problems when somebody uses a service that I am paying for for my personal use without my permmision. My signal my be leaving my property into the public domain but you are sending a signal into my property and then getting onto my network. I have the right to decide who is on and who is not. Just because a person does not know how to secure a network does not give a person the right to use it. Just because I leave my bike in the park unsecured does not give you the right to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition of steal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition of steal
surreptitious-done secretly or furtively
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missed point:
BUT
In the UK, at least according to someone who lives/claims to live there, there are bandwidth caps. Therefore, the internet is no longer just there. It's a utility. If there are usage limits, it IS the same as stealing electricity, water, cable, what ever. An open AP (or however the term is used) is no longer an excuse. The only issue at this point is, was there implied permission beyond "It was open!"? If not, it IS the same as "taking the apples out of the barrel next to my porch". You can see the apples from the sidewalk, but that doesn't mean you can have one. Even if you can reach them from where you're standing and not go into my yard, they aren't yours. But if there's an SSID like David's up there, it's fair game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missed point:
But if I can prove that a specific individual were using my wifi connection without my permision I could sue you in civial court, for not getting my permmission first. Just like if my bike were left in the park and someone used it without my permmission I could sue them too.
There might not be a "crime" in the scence of going to prison, but there is certainly civil liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missed point:
And yes, you CAN sue about anything, but you A: shouldn't unless you can prove REAL damages (lost data, etc.) B: most likely would lose because, face it, an open WiFi connection is at the least perceived to have permission tacked onto it. The issue is, is there or isn't there? Until there is an established etiquette (such as the free_courtesy thing), it has to be established on a case by case basis, which is a really, really bad idea. Way too much room for miscommunication and misunderstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahem
However: It's one thing to have an internet connection, which you are paying for, then to go elsewhere, and take advantage of someone's wireless to browse the internet while you are in the elsewhere area. I'm sure almost everyone agrees that there is little wrong with this. It's like being at a friend's and getting a drink from their tap.
It's an entirely different matter to not purchases an internet connection, and to only use your neighbor's. This is more like tapping their pipes for free water.
And it's a third thing to p2p or width hog over someone else's wireless. This is like tapping their pipes for the amount of water needed to run a waterpark
And its a fourth thing to kiddy-porn over someone else's wireless. This is like tapping their water, and then using said water to dump toxic waste, letting them get blamed for the waste emissions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple Analogy
I think a good question to ask now is:
Are there multiple, competing ISPs, or just one (like the way it's BBC1, BBC2, etc)? If there's one standard ISP, then there may actually be one standard bandwidth cap. But, and it makes more sense this way, do SOME of the ISPs have caps, like in the US? (and are they in the majority?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about other open services?
Simply sitting there passively listening (like listening to cellphone calls with a scanner) is legally doubtfull to begin with. Actually issuing orders to someone else's hardware without explicit permission is unauthorized access or theft of service. And I assume you wouldn't mind explaining to authorities why several gigs of kiddy porn were downloaded via your account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about other open services?
Did you have a sign in the yard that said "Open House. Free Beer in the Fridge" left from a block party you had a week ago but "forgot" to take down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wireless Piggybacking Is Still Not A Problem
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Property
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wireless Piggybacking Is Still Not A Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wireless Piggybacking Is Still Not A Problem
Hardly the same thing. You've physically crossed into their property.
A WiFi signal has crossed INTO YOUR property.
It's like (to add another analogy...ahahah) their unleashed dog roaming and coming into your yard and you petting the dog and playing with it then the owners getting upset that you played and pet their dog when it's THEIR DOG! Yet the dog was out, unleashed, and unsecured.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]