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.
Filed Under: freeloaders, open access, wifi
Comments on “Can We Please Stop Arresting WiFi Users Using Open Networks?”
So what if I want to share?
I leave my AP open for whoever wants to use it. My PCs are behind firewalls and I’m not too concerned. Can my neighbors be arrested for leeching? What a waste of time and energy.
Re: So what if I want to share?
This effort to make an analogy to stealing cars, falling apples is foolish.
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
two sides to every story
perhaps the chap was browsing a site that did not paint the queen in a favorable light.
Doesn’t really matter if the owner leaves it open. I can leave my car unlocked with the keys in it, but you can’t go driving off with it.
Course, it shouldn’t be against the law to use someone’s unsecured wireless network, but thats a different matter.
Re: 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.
Re: Re: Re:
Um, who said anything about privacy? It’s about taking and using something that’s not yours. And the analogy is perfect. Just because a car may be sitting running with the doors open does NOT mean anybody can just get in and drive off. Somebody owns that car, and unless you have permission from them to do so, you are stealing it. The same goes for an open garage door, a dropped wallet, and so on. Just because it’s there and available doesn’t mean it’s right for you to use it. Forget laws, this is about ethics and morals.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope, sorry. In the States if a signal isn’t encrypted and it’s in a band that is legal for you to be using then it’s free for anyone to use unless EXPLICITLY told otherwise. (Ways to explicitly declare it off limits would be to call the SSID “Private, keep off”, use a portal page, or…encrypt the signal.)
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is nothing like someone taking your car just cause you left the keys in it and the door was open, and it is nothing like coming home and finding someone in your living room watching tv just cause you left the door unlocked.
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.
Re: Re:
Even with your permission? Why not? Same thing. Likewise, if you leave your front door open with a yard sign that reads “OPEN HOUSE – PLEASE COME IN” don’t be surprised if people do.
RandomThoughts is a Shill
Re: Re:
You can, but it is also illegal to do so in most states.
Re: Re:
“Doesn’t really matter if the owner leaves it open. I can leave my car unlocked with the keys in it, but you can’t go driving off with it.”
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.
Re: Re:
Actually RandomThoughts in many counties in several different countries/provinces you can get slapped with a ‘reckless behavior’ or similar charge just for your own stupidity.
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.
Re: Re:
Lets get the analogy a bit closer to home.
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.
Re: leaveing keys in car
Actually where i am from the person leaving there keys in the car would be arrested it is very much illegal in many metropolitan citys here in florida to leave your keys in the car or leave the car running for that matter
Re: Re:
I think these car analogies don’t really capture the nature of the issue. You could just as well argue that it’s like the neighbour parking his car, unlocked, with the keys in ignition ON YOUR DRIVEWAY. In which case you’d be allowed to move it.
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.
Borrow or steal
Actually it is not the same as using a light as I can’t recall any bandwidth limitations on light usage. Given that the majority of UK users are on limited bandwidth he could have cost the innocent (naive /dim/ challenged) owner real money. That is usually called theft or fraud.
Re: Borrow or steal
But it is like using a light. Having the light on costs the owner money. So if the light is on, and someone is using that light, then they are using the owners electricity. And just like the access point, the owner doesn’t have to leave it on for everyone to use. And if they do leave it on, it isn’t stealing to use it.
Re: Borrow or steal
It’s nice that someone else pays your electric bill but most of us have to pay for our usage.
how long until
I wonder how long until somebody sues apple for their iphone enticing them into this clearly ‘criminal act’, that is almost and horrendous as the crime of stealing drinking water from a fountain that appears to be placed for public access but terns out that it wasn’t it only was placed in the middle of park with no fence and and sign saying open by accident…
Has anyone asked the Wi-Fi owner?
Did the police at least check with the owner of the access point about it? If the owner is leaving it open intentionally, then there’s no crime surely?
Open AP's are nice.
I would never run an open AP simply because of crimes that can be committed using my rented IP. Kiddie Porn would be a great example, the Feds can bust in your door thinking you are the pervert when actually it was some stranger. I think it would be tough for anyone to convince them otherwise.
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.
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.
Re: 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.
Log files and MAC addresses are so easily faked I can’t imagine them having any defensive value.
Re: Re: Open AP's are nice.
Sure, then I just use a MAC masking program. Then where does the liability lay?
Re: Open AP's are nice.
That’s the only reason why I decided to make my wi-fi network secure. I live in a poor neighborhood, and really had no issues about sharing my network with anyone, but then I realized how much trouble I could get into if someone was using my network to download kiddie porn, warez or pirated music.
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.
PBS
If you watch PBS or listen to NPR and don’t dontate, it is like stealing.
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.
Re: PBS
bad example do the fact that PBS is funded by tax dollars the fund drives are just for more money to buy better programing for the local owners of each station.
Damn.
Not great reasoning
Maybe your example is a logical extent to which suhc an action might be taken, but I think there are some other considerations that need to be made.
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.
Re: Not great reasoning
If they don’t know what they’re doing (even after reading the manual) then they shouldn’t be setting it up. There are plenty of qualified people who will set it up for them for the appropriate fee so there is really no excuse.
Then he shouldn’t have been setting it himself.
Even in the 21st Century willful negligence is no excuse. That’s nothing new.
Random Thoughts
No If you’re right about the car, but if I have a fruit tree that crosses over my property line, any fruit outside of that line is fair game, and I can’t have you arrested for taking it.
So what if I want to share?
Same here. I have my PCs pretty well secured, and I leave my Wireless Network open for anyone who needs to use it. It doesn’t have a very far reach, (the house next door that is closest to the router can just barely pick it up), but for anyone with a laptop that is over at my house (or near my house) is welcome to use it. It makes it much easier for when there are meetings over.
this is the local law covering this:
Theft by unlawful taking or disposition.
(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.
Re: this is the local law covering this:
“If you don’t pay for it, or have a license to it, you are wrong.”
That’s just not true. If you have the owner’s permission, that’s enough.
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.
Re: Re: this is the local law covering this:
It is your right to leave a conection open for those who wish to use it and it is the right for anyone to leave there conection open and not want them to use it. Just because I want a police radio does not mean I have the right to brodcast over there signal just because I buy one. If you do it with out permission it is STEALLING THEFT OR WHAT EVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. Get real.
Re: this is the local law covering this:
If you don’t pay for it, or have a license to it, you are wrong.
But these networks are openly broadcasting an invitation to connect to them. It’s reasonable to assume they’re open for everyone.
The rapper Bow Wow steals his neighbors wifi (he admitted it on MTV Cribs). What cheapskate!
Perhaps it’s time to complain about my neighbors broadcasting their wi-fi into my yard.
Re: Re:
Kind of like second hand smoke. LOL
How can it be trespass?
His computer asked the WAP for an IP address, and the WAP gave him one. Sounds like the open WAP access was very authorized. If the person running the WAP didn’t want strangers to use it, he would instruct it to not let strangers use it (lock it down).
Well, that’s my argument…
No…
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? 🙂
Re: Re:
Wrong. The owner was broadcasting permission. Nice try.
Re: Re: Re:
assumption of permission is not permission. Stray into a military zone that is not marked and see what happens…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“assumption of permission is not permission. Stray into a military zone that is not marked and see what happens…”
Question: Who gave you permission to post here?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Leave a Comment…
(reply to this comment)
All of these are implicit permission to post…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
That’s an assumption, and kind of like the implicit permission granted by open wifi.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Not hardly…’Leave a comment’ is not ambiguous in any way.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
That’s only instruction for authorized users.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
so your car doors being unlocked when it is raining out is implicit permission to get out of the rain, so long as you are not using it?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
So the mere presence of a function that allows open posting is implicit permission to post?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Like open wi-fi. Hypocrite.
That’s the only reason why I decided to make my wi-fi network secure. I live in a poor neighborhood, and really had no issues about sharing my network with anyone, but then I realized how much trouble I could get into if someone was using my network to download kiddie porn, warez or pirated music.
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.
OpenDNS
Thanks for the tip about the OpenDNS.
The fruit over the property line is the best analogy. Like, what if my neighbor has PPV on his TV and I can watch it from my backyard, or he/she is blasting the stereo and I’m dancing, or my apartment has a clear view of a MLB ballpark field and I and my firends can watch the world series games..from a distance. The argument may be that the trepass to my property and quiet enjoyment, even if invisible or by images, gives me some legal right of use. However, even this argument gets twisted when a trespass hasn’t occured.
Since all the networks are named LinkSys anyway, how can you tell which one is yours?
Re: Since all the networks are named LinkSys anywa
It’s even worse than that. The same neighbor I mentioned who has an unsecured wireless router on her cable internet has a different model and brand of router than I do. When I logged into my router to check something out, I was puzzled as to why a different brand was mentioned. It turns out that the default passwords for wireless routers are more or less the same from one router mfg. to the next. Obviously, my next step was to secure my router with something other than the default logon and password. By the way, I tried to find out who this neighbor was, since I now know her first name, what company she has her cable internet through, so that I could tell her that she needed to call Roadrunner and have them talk her through the process of securing her router. Nobody knows anyone with her name, and I inquired of every neighbor that I know, as well as with the property management company.
Does anybody else notice?
Does anybody else notice that almost any analogy used to represent wifi usage fails basic points of similarity?
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.
Re: Does anybody else notice?
The nature of analogies is that they are never exactly the same in all respects. Good analogies though will be based on the same principle being illustrated. Deceptive analogies are ones that are presented as being based on the same principle when in reality they are not.
Router Companies
The fact that there are many technological retards that don’t understand the fact of securing Wi-Fi or even know what Wi-Fi is, is a major factor.
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.
Very poor analogies and understanding of Tech
Accessing a wifi network is Not the same as reading a book by the light from a lamp. The light from a lamp is on a one way journey while wifi access is always two way. The same holds true for other radio wave transmission analogies; receiving a one way broadcast is not the same as two way communication.
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.
Re: Very poor analogies and understanding of Tech
Not exactly, but then again practically nothing is exactly the same as anything else. There is, however, a similar principle involved.
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.
“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.”
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.
Music is in the form of waves too
I think people should stop thinking of it as any sort of crime. What if you are walking down the street, and you hear music play from one of the houses. You are not trespassing, but you sit on the curb to listen to the music for a while. Is that not the same as utilizing open networks?
Re: Music is in the form of waves too
No you did not traverse back onto the property and access the medium. Nothing of yours at that point interacts with anything of theirs.
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.
Re: Re: Music is in the form of waves too
I can’t speak for Mike, but personally I have always found it difficult to accept something I know to be a lie as the truth.
Re: Re: Re: Music is in the form of waves too
“I can’t speak for Mike, but personally I have always found it difficult to accept something I know to be a lie as the truth.” What you believe is irrelevant, Charles Manson believed that murder was not really a problem. Sony believes that customers are their pawns. None of this changes reality.
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.
Re: Re: Re:2 Music is in the form of waves too
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
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.
it could be call trespassing
Mike, I totally agree with you 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.
Re: it could be call trespassing
“Mike, I totally agree with you…”
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?
i think it is trespassing
if i leave my house door open, it doesnt mean youre invited!
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!
That is like saying its your own fault for being mugged. If you really didn’t want to be mugged you should have been packing and had a posse protecting you.
Assume private networks are meant to be private regardless of poor security.
Re: Re:
“That is like saying its your own fault for being mugged.” No, not any more than giving a donation to someone is the same as being robbed.
“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.
Re: Re:
Assume private networks are meant to be private regardless of poor security.
Except it’s not a private network. It’s a public one with an open invitation to connect.
Re: Re: Re:
Really, show me the welcome sign….Giving an IP address is hardly an open invitation to connect.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure it is. An address, netmask, gateway address, dns address, lease time, a network name, etc. all offered for the sole purpose of providing access.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Nope, nice try though. That is so that authorized users can have access.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Nope, that is granting authorization, unless it is obtained fraudulently such as by cracking.
Hello
This situation reminds me of the fellow who walks up to people, says “Hello!” and extends his hand for an apparent handshake. Then, as soon as the other person reciprocates and shakes his hand he starts screaming that he’s been assaulted. Try to make that fly in court. Maybe that’s why these cases usually seem to get dismissed before they get to court. Of course that doesn’t stop the police from arresting people for it anyway.
using a service you did not pay for without consen
the point people seem to be ignoring when they make the light from a lamp analogy is that the light is a one way thing.
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.
Re: using a service you did not pay for without co
So many as in none.
Re: using a service you did not pay for without co
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).
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.
Re: Re: using a service you did not pay for withou
“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.”
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.
Re: Re: Re: using a service you did not pay for wi
> No computer jumps automatically
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.
Re: Re: Re: using a service you did not pay for wi
In which country?
Re: using a service you did not pay for without co
Your analogy is terrible enough as it is, so I won’t comment any further on it.
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.
WISP trolls
Every time Techdirt writes about this subject the wireless ISP industry turf-trolls seem to flood the place. They really, really hate the idea of open wireless, for obvious reasons.
Mark doesn't understand...
Based on your obvious confusion, Mark you apparently are unaware of the new official government edict stating that all behavior that is not mandatory is now absolutely forbidden.
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
Your ID is not a tangable item. Me using your ID does not deprive you of its use.
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?
service provisioning
There are several companies like FON and Amazingports that provide the tools to control access to networks and even help people earn revenue from their bandwidth if they so choose.
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.
Linksys
Best comment in the whole thread :
“Since all the networks are named LinkSys anyway, how can you tell which one is yours?”
My point wasn’t that using someone elses wifi is wrong or should be against the law, its that because the network wasn’t secured isn’t an excuse.
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.)
Re: Re:
No “excuse” is needed as no offense has occurred in that case.
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.
“Since all the networks are named LinkSys anyway, how can you tell which one is yours?”
I feel special, mine is named “Netgear”
given the fact that if you, as a member of the public, noticed someone leaching your wifi, and you didn’t want them to, and you decided to report this…
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?
Re: Re:
Are you kidding me? That’s like saying I wouldn’t want someone to give me a hundred bucks because I wouldn’t want to have to take my wallet out. Ridiculous. And it doesn’t take much reason for a cop to want to arrest someone either. I know several and they ALL get their kicks out of it. They just basically go around looking for a reason to arrest someone.
Buying a router
No one has brought up an obvious point. Anyone can set up a wireless router/switch if you have a basic understanding of how to read (maybe a similar understanding of Windows as well, as Linux users and Mac users probably aren’t even reading this). When you open the box to your brand new device, there are stickers and warnings to the fact that you should read ALL of the directions and precautions before you begin setup. I know that my router, as annoying as it was, came with all kinds of stickers covering ports and sealing the installation disk(does anyone really use that anyway?) “forbidding” me to install before doing so. It clearly lays out the pros and cons of leaving your wireless AP unsecured…over…and over….and over. There is no attempt in any of the documentation to disway otherwise, and is no way misleading on how to encrypt your connnection.
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.
Re: Buying a router
That’s not true at all. There are many people who can read but do not understand how to setup such a thing. But that is still no excuse as in that case they should simply get someone competent to set it up for them.
Leech, I bought my router from Tiger Direct. It came with no manual, no instructions.
Everyone knows it isn’t smart to leave your keys in your car. Doing so does not give others permission to drive it.
Re: Re:
It’s not just “not smart”, it’s illegal.
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.
Careful, Mike...
“You can’t assume that the owner wanted it closed.”
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!
Re: Careful, Mike...
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.
No, it doesn’t. Some British PCs apparently do. Not the same.
Re: Re: Careful, Mike...
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.
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.
Pay attention
I will say this very slowly:
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.
Re: Pay attention
I will say this very slowly:
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.
Re: Re: Pay attention
“Most electricity is metered. So reading by the electrically generated light of someone else’s window is stealing.”
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.
Bottom line is, if you don’t want people connecting to your wifi, put a friking wep key on it. It doesn’t take an IT expert to do. It only takes 5 minutes of reading the friking manual and finding the setting on the router’s interface.
Are you surprised - Televison Police
This is a country that in 1987 had “television police” that drove around looking for antenna’s & ticketing you if you had not paid a license. Instead of jsut putting a few commercials on the BBC to break up that dry B***S*** they were broadcasting.
IP assigned, permission granted...
As soon the router assigns an ip to the computer, the permission is granted. Like a club owner, the bouncer has the instructions, he follows it. If he let the bad guys in, well, lets have a chat with the owner…
Leaching
there is a reason for it being against the law. no 1. a light bulb puts out light one way. and no 2. a radio transmition is 2 way’s in and out. Suppose you are paying for an internet conection and have access for your employees that is open for various resons. YOU are the owner of that radio wave and it is for YOUR purposes not anyone elses. Now when a person leaches off of that conection they slow the signal down to all the other units using it. only so much can be transmited. A single user on a radio wave is very fast, add in all the people who are leaching and you figure how much it will slow down the signal by breacking it into multiple signals and then add in the leaches and well now your system is not as efficiant as it was designed to be. WHY the people who want to steal the radio signal instead of paying for it them selves. As for the light very por example. I get light from the son but if someone is stupid enough to sit out side my window to read a book after dark and I do not know them, well then they are going to jail for tresspassing. If they are on a puplic street and not bothering anyone that is another story. But remember someone is paying that electric bill so they don’t have to. Myself I do not like theifs no matter what they steal.
Confession
I use open AP’s all the time, i dont have any hastle. I just click, and connect. All my mates with wireless also do the same, I honestly feel that what we are doing is wrong, however, i also know i cannot be blamed for my actions, I’m 15, and my mum never lets me on the internet, i need internet for coursework and etc..
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?”