On The Criminality Of WiFi Piggybacking...
from the is-it-really-a-crime? dept
It's been many, many years since we first asked the question of whether or not piggybacking on an open WiFi network was a crime. Since then, we've seen plenty of people arrested, and wide ranging discussions on the ethics of WiFi piggybacking -- with various ethicists noting that simply using an open WiFi network doesn't seem unethical, assuming you don't significantly slow down the connection by uploading or downloading large files. However, we still see people falsely referring to it as "theft".
The latest comes in a short column for Time Magazine, where the author admits that he was a WiFi "thief" for many years in his old apartment. In the article, he claims that it is against the law, noting one of the stories of someone being arrested, while quoting Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47 of the United States Code, which deals with anybody who "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access." Well, that sounds good, but there's a big problem with it. If the owner of the WiFi access point left it open, then they have, by default, authorized access to that device. So it can't possibly be a violation of that law.
Of course, there will be those who say that the owners didn't intend for the network to be open -- but that's really besides the point here. The only information a user has is does the network say: "you're welcome here" or not. If it's open, it sends out an invite that specifically says: this network is open, come use it. That's authorization, and using such a network is not "theft" in any sense.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Exactly.
If I set out a tray of cookies, and put a sign that says, 'You're Welcome To Eat These!' and people eat them, that's not theft... Even if it means that there are less cookies for me, the owner, to eat.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
WTF ?
If I forget to lock my door, I'm not saying to everyone please come in and use my house.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
In the case of wifi, your router IS saying to everyone "hey, come use this AP". Unless of course, you've got it set up to not do that. But by default, they all send out invitations of service.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Did you miss the part in the above analogy about the sign? If you post a SIGN on your door saying, "all and sundry are welcome to get out of the heat and enjoy my air conditioning, oh, and have a beer while you're at it" Is it theft when I come in, crack a cold one, and sit under your AC?
Because if you are broadcasting your SSID from a router with no encryption or authentication, that is the sign. Connecting to a unsecured network != rattling doorknobs, it equals accepting an invitation.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Theft? Since when is sharing a crime?
Considering I, like many other people, intentionally leave my wifi open for others to use, what is a user supposed to think if they see an open network? "Hmm I wonder if this was open on purpose or accidentally?" If I'm traveling and I see an open network I'm going to use it, not worry about wether you meant for me to use it. I think the big ones pushing for laws to make this illegal are the ISP's. With such high bandwith availible now it's feasable for multible people to use one connection without a drop in service especially in apartments. The ISP's don't want people to share, they want to charge everyone.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Change your SSID configuration
I changed my SSID to "NOTPUBLIC" and then turned off SSID Broadcast - voila, no one accesses my router but me any more.
My neighbors, the "Linksys" and "D-Link" families, both leave their systems wide open, so if anyone nearby needs to beg / borrow / steal some free wi-fi it's available from their routers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Sign
"Because if you are broadcasting your SSID from a router with no encryption or authentication, that is the sign. Connecting to a unsecured network != rattling doorknobs, it equals accepting an invitation."
So the question then becomes this. Say I buy a house and the Realitor who sold me my house (as he hands the keys to me) tells me he left the door open to it.
If, in the time I take to travel to the house, someone comes in and steals something from it (Say a stove), is that theft?
I got the house in a default state of open. Before I closed it, someone got in and took something. Sounds like theft to me.
You say this doesn't really apply because it's easy to secure it.. How about we put a lock on the door that can only be opened by a keypad and typing in 2, 16 digit codes into it while typing on a computer next to it to set various settings. Yeah, I know it isn't that hard, but consider people who are older and not as familiar with technology as some of us are. They may not be able to understand you have to lock it even.
I'm on the side of allowing open WiFi. Heck, I keep mine open. But if my parents had WiFi, without me to set it up for them, they wouldn't know they had to secure it (and would be upset if someone was using it without asking them first).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A tough battle
You know, the whole idea that leaving a WiFi connection open is akin to granting permission to use it is a tough suggestion to make, especially when we argue that simply loading a file to a shared drive or ftp server does NOT imply permission to use (reference a story from earlier this year).
I would love to agree with you on both accounts -- that having an open WiFi connection implies permission and that loading a file to a shared drive is not illegal -- but these two views seem contradictory. I am of the opinion that what you do on your computer and network is your responsibility. Therefore, if you leave your WiFi network open, they -are- giving permission for others to use that network, and if you load a file to a shared resource, you -are- giving permission for others to download that file.
That said, implicitly giving others permission to use your WiFi connection by leaving it open should -not- make you liable for their actions, as the average user will not be able to actively monitor their network.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Intention or not, AP IS a welcome sign.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Yes but does your unlocked door enter my house? If so I'm walking in. Locked or not.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I don't see this as theft but as trespassing. You aren't taking anything material from the owner but you are using someone's equipment without the owners express permission.
In law, trespass can be:
1. the criminal act of entering another person's land or property without permission of the owner or lessee; [1]
2. a civil law tort that may be a valid cause of action to seek judicial relief and possibly damages through a lawsuit - see trespass to land.[2]
You could argue, as many have, that leaving the network unsecured is implicit permission, but I would counter leaving my gate unlocked isn't implicit permission to use my pool. You aren't taking anything nor have you damaged my property or even deprived me of my use (unless I have to fight you for a floatee), but you are trespassing.
"If the owner of the WiFi access point left it open, then they have, by default, authorized access to that device. So it can't possibly be a violation of that law. "
I don't think you draw that conclusion that an unsecured WiFi is an implicit invitation for use. If you have legal precedence supporting this conclusion please link it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
re: Phillip Vector / Sign
Your analogy is inappropriate.
If someone takes a your stove, you're now deprived of a device to cook food.
Someone using your open wifi network does not permanently deprive you of anything.
It's really more akin to someone looking in your window at your TV with a telescope. Of course the analogy breaks down a bit if anything else is visible.
I'm sure many people never notice someone using their network, not even a slowdown, so how is that permanently depriving someone of something (which is what theft is)?
Neither copyright infringement nor connecting to open wifi networks is theft. You'll never convince a rational person that it is.
So what if it's not completely trivial for an inexperienced user to secure their network? It's extremely complex technology. The only way to make it easy is to get all of your tech from a single source that does all the hard stuff for you.
The people that made your computer don't control what the people that made your OS and software and they none of them control the makers of your wireless access point. Even with a Dell router, dell pc, and preloaded operating system you still have to do some customization on both ends to make them talk securely.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
No, it's more like you left the giant picture windows open and walked around naked. According to the law, someone could look at your bits and not be committing a crime. In fact, it's more likely that you would be cited for indecency.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: re: Phillip Vector / Sign
"The people that made your computer don't control what the people that made your OS and software and they none of them control the makers of your wireless access point. Even with a Dell router, dell pc, and preloaded operating system you still have to do some customization on both ends to make them talk securely."
I'm glad you agree with me that just because a WiFi connection is open doesn't mean that the user wants people using it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Me trespassing?? Their stupid signal came right into my house without even knocking!! Seriously, the other day I was alone in the house and walking around, er, privately clad, and then I went to the PC and noticed my neighbor's signal (bearing their last name)was in my house. I know it's completely irrational, but it felt kinda weird.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
There is an answer
I was told about a symbol that can be used by those (like myself) who want to share their connection " ||" was used in the old BBS days as a pipe. Therefor use me as a pipe to the internet.
As for this whole security being breached by allowing folks to pass through your "pipe" even if you have not symbolized it to be open I would liken it more to someone in the west passing by a river during a cattle drive. He is officially on a private ranch using a river owned by another man, but with no signs did he trespass? by taking a resource (data vs. the water in the river) that is constantly replenishing itself, did he steal anything. If he leaves no marks of his visit, no damage or no trash, did he create any damage to which the owner is owed restitution.
My argument... take only bits. leave only log-file entries.. don't touch anything that is not public and there is no reason it should be illegal.
The final issue that is rarely argued is that there are two things that must be found for there to be means for a lawsuit. If there are not both then you have no case.
Must be wronged under the law at the provable culpability of one individual or entity.
And
Must have damages that can be quantified.
Just my 2cents
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RE: trespassing
"I don't think you draw that conclusion that an unsecured WiFi is an implicit invitation for use. If you have legal precedence supporting this conclusion please link it."
This is certainly a lot closer to the truth. But there's a problem. There are laws stating that if you want to enforce a "no trespassing" law on your property you must post highly visible signs all over the place. IIRC, most laws state 20' apart maximum.
How is someone to know that they're not allowed if there are no signs?
A lot of people don't care if you're just passing through, or even if you decide to hunt or camp. If they did care, they can put up the signs and you're in trouble if you ignore them.
Criminalizing open wifi access when you can tell a frelly open network from a stupid user's network would be akin to changing the trespassing laws to remove the necessity for signs. Stupid, ignorant, and wrong.
How are people to know network A (call it "linksys") whose owner doesn't want other people using his bandwidth isn't network B (call it "linksys" too since there's nothing forcing people to change it), from the mom & pop coffee shop 30 feet away that has free & open wifi? You can't.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Some key words I should clarify: "COULD look...and not be committing a crime.
If they were sitting in a car on the curb with a telephoto lens -> Their crime.
If they were sitting in their house, say at their computer just surfing the web and noticed you belly-dancing -> Your crime.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
There is an answer
I was told about a symbol that can be used by those (like myself) who want to share their connection " ||" was used in the old BBS days as a pipe. Therefor use me as a pipe to the internet.
As for this whole security being breached by allowing folks to pass through your "pipe" even if you have not symbolized it to be open I would liken it more to someone in the west passing by a river during a cattle drive. He is officially on a private ranch using a river owned by another man, but with no signs did he trespass? by taking a resource (data vs. the water in the river) that is constantly replenishing itself, did he steal anything. If he leaves no marks of his visit, no damage or no trash, did he create any damage to which the owner is owed restitution.
My argument... take only bits. leave only log-file entries.. don't touch anything that is not public and there is no reason it should be illegal.
The final issue that is rarely argued is that there are two things that must be found for there to be means for a lawsuit. If there are not both then you have no case.
Must be wronged under the law at the provable culpability of one individual or entity.
And
Must have damages that can be quantified.
Just my 2cents
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Sign
"If, in the time I take to travel to the house, someone comes in and steals something from it (Say a stove), is that theft?"
Yes, because neither the previous owner, the Realtor, nor you put a sign on the door saying "Free Stoves."
"But if my parents had WiFi, without me to set it up for them, they wouldn't know they had to secure it (and would be upset if someone was using it without asking them first)."
Again, this not doorknob rattling. Your parents router is BROADCASTING that it is available for access to the internet. Advertising it, announcing it to the limits of its range. I can understand your parents wouldn't want me to use it without their say so, but they DID say so when they broadcast the SSID, and left it unsecured.
Your parents aren't foolish, they have you. And if they didn't, the person at the store where they purchased it would have LOVED to (over)charge them to secure it. In any case, if they assume it is closed by default, the only thing wrong is their assumption. Not me connecting.
I don't connect to routers that don't broadcast, or that have security on them. It is obvious they don't want me to. Open APs though, obviously do.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Theft makes no sense
This whole thing is a little ridiculous because the owner of the WiFi who is paying for it is not harmed by someone else's access (assuming the person who accesses doesn't mess with any of the settings, doesn't go through the computer, doesn't take excessive amounts of bandwidth, etc). If that person isn't harmed than it can't be a crime. Now, you could argue that the ISP is harmed because they have lost potential revenue, so they may have a case.
As to the open door analogy, it is not at all similar to buying a house and having something from inside removed. The WiFi is not lost or taken, a small portion is just occupied that probably wouldn't have been otherwise. It's more similar to my walking into your open house and having a quick drink from the tap and then leaving. Would you ever know it happened? Probably not. Would you care if you did? Absolutely, you'd feel that your privacy was violated because someone was in your house. However, I wouldn't feel the same way about my network. The WiFi signal is not something that needs to feel safe and secure. To complete the analogy: when you buy a house does the realtor give you the keys then walk you through how to lock and unlock the house, how to grant others access, etc. It is just assumed that we are all familiar at this point on how to operate locks and security access panels. Routers should eventually be the same way - but are certainly not there yet. It's not like the realtor upon selling a house says "make sure to change your locks in case the owners had keys made that people still had." Everyone just understands.
Are we at the point where people understand the need for securing their WiFi connection? I'd say not quite, we're getting closer but still have a ways to go. I still don't think it's theft to piggyback on someone's connection. If they tell you to stop and you don't, they have a gripe. Until then, free is free.
Another analogy: if your neighbor plays music loud and you listen, are you "stealing" the music since you haven't paid for it, or is information traveling over the air in an unsecured fashion available for anyone's consumption?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: re: Phillip Vector / Sign
"I'm glad you agree with me that just because a WiFi connection is open doesn't mean that the user wants people using it."
I never said it was.
But how are they supposed to tell a network where the user wants to share access from the user that doesn't even know it's open? One is named "dlink" one is named "netgear".
Which is open and which is ignorance?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: re: Phillip Vector / Sign
Sorry.. When you use AC, I have no idea who it is and I tend to lump all you cowards into the same "person".
How about using the name?? I name mine "FreeWiFi". Pretty obvious. That way, it allows those with very little understanding not be set to "on" by default (Well, they still do, but at least it would be obvious as to what is allowed and what isn't.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
If I want to make my wifi available to other nearby users how do I indicate that it's okay in a way that's different from people who just leave their wifi open through neglect, ignorance, or some other reason?
Is it incumbent upon me to label it free?
Is it incumbent upon others deploying a wireless router to use the protection to keep people out?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Just because
someone is a dumb ass and does not take the time to learn what they are doing does not mean that we need to rush out and write ANOTHER new useless law for it.. How about educating someone instead of wasting our time and money on this crap?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: A tough battle
I see a distinction though: If you are actively broadcasting the location of your share/ftp, and are openly inviting people to connect, and there are no credentials involved, and you put the files there purposely, I say you wanted me to download them. But if all the above isn't true, we're comparing apples and oranges.
If you did any of the above by mistake, your intentions and the result don't match. But I still say you gave me permission to have that file.
In both cases, the ftp/router owner made a mistake that led to my access. But the mistake was inviting me in when you didn't want me in. The invitation is still fact, and is why I committed no foul (assuming no third party has an interest in the file I downloaded).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
iPhone and wifi
With millions of iPhones (and other wifi enabled phones) hitting the streets, the enforceability of these laws seems to be approaching zero.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Der, well what if it's open by default?
Well, what if my laptop is set to auto-access the nearest open signal by default? Sorry I had to start it up to change it.
Who's culpable, you or me?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Phillip Vector / Sign
That works fine for people who know what they're doing, but they're not the problem in the first place.
People looking for free wifi, often have no way to differentiate between networks owned by ignorant users and networks that are intentionally left open.
Sure some that intentionally share name their networks, but I know at least two examples of people that do not change anything and don't care if someone else uses it.
You cannot in good conscience criminalize people for the ignorance of others. Unless you want to live somewhere where you're guilty until proven innocent. I sure don't.
FYI: I'm the stove example refuting poster and the trespassing clarification poster.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"If I want to make my wifi available to other nearby users how do I indicate that it's okay in a way that's different from people who just leave their wifi open through neglect, ignorance, or some other reason"
Put the word open or free in the SSID. Easy enough.
"Is it incumbent upon me to label it free?"
No. It would automatically answer the "does alan want me to connect?" question. But you don't have to.
"Is it incumbent upon others deploying a wireless router to use the protection to keep people out?"
Yes. If you don't want cold air in your house in the winter, you close the windows. If you didn't want the cold air in, and had no windows, it would be incumbent upon you to purchase some, or board up the holes in the wall.
If you broadcast your SSID, and don't secure your router, you are TELLING people it is ok to connect. Any analogy that doesn't include you openly inviting people to use a resource simply does not apply.
I would like to hear an opinion on someone who turns off SSID broadcasting, but doesn't turn on encryption. Is connecting to that network "doorknob rattling?" Is it theft?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Using an open access point to connect to the internet = okay. Connecting to another computer on that same WiFi network, through conventional or unconventional means, without getting prior consent = NOT okay. Using somebody's internet connection shouldn't be a problem, unless you're using all the available bandwidth or doing something illegal using that network. Just checking your email should not be a problem. Accessing the network itself is not criminal activity, but criminal activity can take place through that network, and any such criminal activity should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What's reasonable to assume?
Did I go to any additional effort to fine your router's invitation that I would to find one intended to be free? No. In fact, I may have to go to additional effort to determine your router was not intentionally made free.
If you live in an apartment with one neighbor sharing his d-link router intentionally, and the other neighbor unintentionally sharing his d-link router it's not readily apparent which is which.
To connect to either is equally as easy. In this scenario, I there's no effort (like hacking past a password) for either choice.
If it's illegal to use one, and not the other, the law is putting significant additional burden on the end user, and none on the owner of the router.
There are some rights that we must protect in order to retain them: trademarks, property lines, etc. Wifi feels like one.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Stolen stove analogy is false. It's more akin to someone coming in and cooking a meal on your stove. If they steal your router, that's different.
Piggybackers don't enter your premises.
It's more like someone taking a drink from your garden hose. (for those of us who have gardens)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Leaving an open wifi network is more like putting all your stuff on the street curb and wondering why people took it with out you telling them they could...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Der, well what if it's open by default?
My router told that laptop to feel free to connect. That laptop didn't know my router existed until my router advertised its presence. Then my router assigned it an IP address and started carrying its traffic. I'm culpable for your connecting, but not for what you do with said connection.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Yes it is illegal!
This is called "theft of service". It's like riding public transport for free.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you're allow to.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Didn't your parents ever teach you that simple lesson... "It's not yours, so leave it alone".
You don't have to be a brain surgeon to know that it's not yours.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Der, well what if it's open by default?
I agree, you've really only given me safe harbor. If I choose to engage in piracy or indecency - not your fault.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
up...if you put your pool in my living room then you bet ill use it too...but only if the gate was unlocked.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I'd take this a step further: It is a sunny day, and you've got a huge maple tree on your lawn. I'm hot, so I stand in the shade of said tree, which reaches the sidewalk in front of your house.
Have I deprived you of shade, or infringed on you? No. If you had no tree, so I picked the lock on your fence to get access to your gazebo, then obviously I have infringed on you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The DHCP request your computer sends is the question: "Can I connect to your network?" The DHCP reply is the answer: "Yes. Here's your name to use, and if you want to go further, here the door out too."
Explicit request for and granting of permission.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Idiots.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
your wifi is in my house
If there is any trespass here, it is my neighbor's wifi signal entering my private property that is the trespass. I am just exacting a toll. Otherwise, perhaps I should demand that they shield it from entering my yard, because, in fact, I think I'm developing an allergy to wifi. :-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Der, well what if it's open by default?
Sorry. You don't get the benefits of denial (I'm not responsible what people do with my connection) and also get to be responsible for allowing the connection.
If that is the case, then someone who serves beer at a party to a guest who then goes out and kills someone while drunk driving isn't responsible for what the guys does. This is simply wrong.
Either you say open WiFi means you are inviting people to your connection (and are responsible for how that access is used) or you say it isn't and get to deny responsibility for what is done with your connection.
The technical aspects isn't the issue here. TECHNICALLY, I'm not responsible for my driving because it's my cars wheels moving and not me turning them manually. That's simply wrong. Of course an "invitation" needs to be sent out or the WiFi technology falls apart.
it all comes down to this. Is it your responsibility to secure your WiFi or isn't it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Yes it is illegal!
This is another analogy that leaves out the part where you openly invite use of the resource. If all the buses/trains have loudspeakers telling everyone it is "Free Transit Day," is it still theft of service when you take a ride?
Here's another analogy that works: I'm running a marathon. Random strangers are holding out cups of water. Is it theft to take one? How about if I jog off the route, into a house that has a sign saying, "Go Runners," grab a bottle of water, then run out?
Random Strangers holding cups = Open AP
House with closed door = Secured Router
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ignorance is an excuse?
So, if you don't know how to do something like secure a wireless network then you shouldn't have one. I don't know how to fly a plane so i don't try to because i might kill someone, but i guess i could just blame them for trespassing into my propeller, even though it was in their living room.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Ah.. So by that logic, if I connect to your WiFi computer, I now have permission to enter your house and connect a cable to your computer.. Right?
I asked "Can I connect to your network?". Your Computer said "Yes. Here's your name to use, and if you want to go further, here the door out too." I never stated I wanted to connect wirelessly.
See... This is what I mean. You can't be literal with computer signals meaning permission. It simply doesn't work that way. If you think it does, then I'm sure I can come up with a setup that will let me rob your bank account from what computers say to each other.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Well, you're analogy breaks down and here's why.
Your PC's wireless client - whether it be Microsoft's, Apple's or any third party client - is actively seeking wi-fi networks. All clients can report the security status of the network.
If I go around the neighborhood and "rattle doorknobs" as you say, it could be construed by the other neighbors and the authorities I am actively seeking an open door, unless I have a reason to perform this activity. Maybe I'm a neighborhood security guard for example.
The concept that just because someone leaves their network unsecured is an open invitation is ludicrous. At least in a court of law it would be, unless someone here can cite US court caselaw where an unsecured network is just that - an open invitation.
Keep in mind, the network owner may be in violation of his ISP's terms of service (TOS) if he is allowing the network to remain open because a residential network is not to be shared, at least by the majority of US ISP's TOS.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Der, well what if it's open by default?
I think of this the same way that in the US, ISPs are covered by safe harbor, as Jason mentioned. I'm not checking the bits flowing, I'm not filtering them, or restricting them. I'm not at all concerned with what they do.
Free WiFi isn't beer, it is water. There are no inherently detrimental effects in water, it is your use of the water that could cause trouble. Beer contains alcohol, which is known to affect the brain. If I serve you too much beer, and you kill someone driving, that would be my fault. Would it ever be the dealerships fault? No. It would also not be my fault if I served you orange juice, and you killed someone.
It would be ok to let my kids have a pillow fight. It would not be ok to let them have an aluminum baseball bat fight. In both cases, I am allowing them to strike each other.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Der, well what if it's open by default?
You are because the computer is under your control.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
But aren't you negotiating how you will connect via 802.11a/b/g/n? Doesn't that explicitly mean you are asking for a wireless connection? The only way to negotiate a wired connection would be to plug the wire in (correct me if I'm wrong anyone). That means there is no ambiguity in the type of connection you requested.
I would like to hear the bank account robbery scenario though, because I can't think of one.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Sign
thats what the owner's manual is for. there is no theft involved what-so-ever with an open wifi network. it is up to the technician, son, salesperson, production company to inform the everyday joe that they need to either secure their wifi or accept responsibility for what happens on their network.
as they said, just leaving the door open to your house is not an invitation. broadcasting your SSID is an invitation. your analogy was more along the lines of disabling your BSSID and not securing your network.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
DHCP discovery = The client broadcasts to find available servers.
I stand in the middle of the street and scream: Does anyone want to let me in? It's cold outside.
DHCP offers = When a DHCP server receives an IP lease request from a client, it extends an IP lease offer. This is done by sending a DHCPOFFER message to the client.
This message contains the client's MAC address, followed by the IP address that the server is offering, the subnet mask, the lease duration, and the IP address of the DHCP server making the offer.
Someone screams back: I'm the third house on the left, the green one, use the side door.
DHCP requests = When the client PC receives an IP lease offer, it must tell all the other DHCP servers that it has accepted an offer. To do this, the client broadcasts a DHCPREQUEST message containing the IP address of the server that made the offer.
OK, third house, green, side door. Got it.
DHCP acknowledgement = When the DHCP server receives the DHCPREQUEST message from the client, it initiates the final phase of the configuration process. This acknowledgement phase involves sending a DHCPACK packet to the client. This packet includes the lease duration and any other configuration information that the client might have requested.
Yep, you got it. Make sure you take off your shoes. You can stay as long as you like. It's a blizzard out there.
Am I trespassing?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
There are instances that you want to have open wi-fi networks, I know not far from here, there are open wireless networks to provide a service to people.
This does not mean that everyone wants to have an open wi-fi connection, many do not. However there is also a cd that comes with almost all of the routers I have seen that helps you setup your router with a password, or disable wireless if you do not need it.
There is also the security of MAC filtering if you do not want a password on your network but you want a secured connection, with MAC filtering you can make it so that only people on a list can connect to your network.
The best analogy that I can think of for this sort of situation is TV aireals. You are getting a service for free, that others pay for. These are being broadcasted to your location, is it theft if you deside to turn on the TV and watch these without a service? What if I have a local broadcast channel that I broadcast to my community and I want everyone to be able to get it so I can inform everyone of whats going on?
Some may consider it theft, and some do not. You're going to have the debate going on, computers are still a hot-button for scandle about various things. But ultimately it comes down to you did not run the CD that came with your router or choose not to lock it down. There are typically stickers on the routers as well that say "run the CD first"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"But aren't you negotiating how you will connect via 802.11a/b/g/n?"
Are you? You made it as simple as "Can I connect". My point is what you are saying. That there are lots of extra information there and breaking it down to it's base element (Can I connect) leaves issues in.
The handshaking actually does check to see if you are authorized to access the network. It's just off by default by allot of routers. Technically, Dell (or whoever owns your router) made the decision. Should I now be like steve dallas and sue them for loss of service? :)
"I would like to hear the bank account robbery scenario though, because I can't think of one."
Let's see if I can wrap my head around something.. Without thinking to hard...
By allowing me to connect to your network, you are granting me (by default) access to your computer as well and all the files on it. If you happen to have your bank password saved on the browser, I can interperate that as permission to use said information to take your money (after all, you invited me onto your network. Right?)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Der, well what if it's open by default?
Coward, I was referring to the so-called worst-case default setting scenario that has been beaten to death here and posing the question of the exact same scenario with a laptop. Yes, just like with the router, the settings can be changed on the computer.
The point was to debunk the previous what if scenarios with routers.
I could just as easily say, no, you are because not only is the router under your control, but once my computer connects, all of the control, such as IP address, network permissions, etc are assigned by your router.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Exactly.
The problem is: Corporate Trolls.
Corporate offers services but keep in mind - there are no favors. When they do offer a benefit for using their service or product - some dumb a## monkey at the top decides to find a way to charge you for getting their benefit.
Just remember: There isn't anything for free and no one is doing you any favors.
The second the Corporate Trolls find out that someone is happy they come in and Fu## it Up, then bill you for their mistake. BARF!
*Sprint
*Staples
The list goes on and on while the consumer pays one way or the other.
I'm SO sick of having to discuss my personal business, to some dope in INDIA.
Thanks alot corporate. I hope someone poops in your Cherios.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Most like trespassing, definitely not theft
If you don't put up a single "NO TRESPASSING" sign, fence, physical or social barrier, cops will roll their eyes at you and allow you to waste very little of their time for trying to prosecute someone for walking across your property.
So why do we give any credence to people who take precisely zero measures to restrict access to their network WiFi network?
I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to say the presence of an open network equates to invitation, but at the same time I cannot say that the presence of an open network does not equate to invitation.
So if you add in the fact that most people who care enough about the matter would take some measure to secure it you end up with better than even odds that an open network is a deliberately made open to all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Again, the openness of the "another computer" is the combined responsibility of the owner/operator of the router, and the owner/operator of the other computer.
The router assigns all of the network permissions and decides which doors are open and which are shut, and the permissions on the other computer would have to be wide open for me to acces it as well.
Not that I would, but it's basically like hauling your computer over into my living room with it logged in as administrator.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
most correct analogy
if i leave my car door open and the keys inside and you take it it is stealing. even if you take it when i wasn't using it and returned it before i noticed, with a full tank.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Or as the defense lawyers will argue: only using the wifi, going through the router, and not connecting to the computers also behind the "firewall" does not count as "accessing a computer".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Most like trespassing, definitely not theft
You are almost right.
IT'S ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION - and the government don't give a crap about that. So why this?
HA!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Then keep it out of my house.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Your not inviting, your router is.
It simply comes down to the fact that the one giving out the invites in a "open" network probably ain't you in person but your router or access point.
If your access point ain't secure and is sending out information that states that it is a OPEN wireless network and a random user comes along and tries to connect he's basically asking your router if its ok for him to connect.
If the owner read the manual or ran the cd that came along with the product then the router will answer the unsuspecting user if its ok or not and depending on the setting the user will have to live with this.
If the user at hand decides not to listen to answer from the router and "breaks in" then its a totally different question.
The big problem here is that a lot of people want advanced technology to do rather basic stuff but they rarely take the time to read the manual or even to read the ELUA and therefor end up doing things they did not intend to do.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Phillip, you're wrong. The port used by the router for wireless access is specific to the wireless component of hte router. That's part of the request, part of the granting, it can specifically be denied by that port or set to require authentication specific to that port. It DOES explicitly announce that you're connecting wirelessly.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Please reread the full comment. I know. I was pointing out that if you discuss what is authorized and what isn't, you can't break the conversation down to "can I connect".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
BUT IT HURTS MY FEELINGS!!!!
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS AND I FEEL STUPID AND INFERIOR WHEN SOMEONE REMINDS ME OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE INTERNET OR SECURITY AND I DON'T THINK I SHOULD HAVE TO LEARN BECAUSE I ONLY READ AT THE FOURTH GRADE LEVEL.
I DON'T HAVE TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT TELEVISION TO WATCH AMERICAN IDOL. MY TV PROTECTS ME AGAINST BOOBS AND LIBERALS AND VIDEO GAMES AND THE INTERNET SHOULD TOO.
YOU HAVE TO CHANGE EVERYTHING AND PASS A BUNCH OF LAWS SO I DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT TO BEING STUPID AND NAIVE. I WANT TO REAP THE BENEFITS OF THE INTERNET WITHOUT LEARNING ANYTHING OR TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR MYSELF OR MY ACTIONS.
AND DON'T SAY THIS IS UNREASONABLE OR I WILL CRY. INTERNET PEOPLE ARE MEAN.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Oh, and you're also wrong about the bank thing. If I were visiting your house and saw your bank password by accident because you left it out, then I cannot pretend to blame you if I get on a computer somewhere and steal your money.
Interestingly enough, though (although many banks don't practice this), the banks are often within the law to blame you and not give you your money back.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Governements position
I know that in the US military, every computer has a splash screen that basically says "Do not use this Computer unless you have been authorized by the systems owner". It says this because back in the day some one hacked into a military system, got caught, and successfully used the defense in a court case that: "The system did not tell me I wasn't allowed to access it, so I thought I was invited into the system."
In my book that means there is already a precedence for this at the federal level.
JM2C
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
I can see where you are coming from Phillip, you can only see my words, so it is important to use the right ones.
But you did raise an interesting point. I have an open router, and I have my entire My Documents folder shared. Have I also given you permission to read those files, since I allowed you access to the network, and shared those files on the same network? Have I given you permission to access my bank account?
I definitely say no to the second, and say maybe, even probably, to the first.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
People are far too confused about what an open network really means. It's not property, even though we sometimes think of it that way. If a person simply hops through a router to the internet, then they are simply using a renewable resource of bandwidth. Now, if they start snooping around at computers on the network, they are entering a system and privacy becomes an issue.
Personally, I have no problem with people entering my unsecured wifi router. That's why I set it up. It's like lending a cup of flour to my neighbors. I have it limited down to 768k of bandwidth and segmented from the rest of my network. If they are in a situation where they need to use it, they are free to do so. I know that I have had to use other peoples networks while my connection was being worked on or while waiting to have it installed, so why wouldn't I offer it in return?
We are becoming far to self absorbed and greedy as a whole. We need to reintroduce common sense to laws and start being more realistic and neighborly.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: most correct analogy
No. Incorrect. For the same reason as every other flawed analogy.
Where is the sign on your car saying it is ok for me to drive off in it? If there is no sign, it is not ok. If you have a recording on loop playing from your car's speakers, saying "Feel free to take a spin in me, it's ok," then your analogy is correct. In which case I'd peel off in said vehicle, cruise the strip, and not feel the slightest bit of guilt.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
it's more like this.
i knock on your door, and you're not home. (attempt a connection to your WiFi hot spot)
your roommate (router) answers, and i ask if i may come in for a drink. (request an IP address, and a gateway to access the internet)
your roommate not knowing that you don't know who i am invites me in. (your router assigns me an IP address, and allows me access to the internet)
i sit on your couch, and hang out for a while watching TV not damaging anything, or taking anything from your house before kindly leaving before you get home. (i download large amounts of pornography, and unauthorized music files before disconnecting from your WiFi to return at a later time)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
I don't think we can equate radio waves with physical intrusion, otherwise everyone with a cell phone, cordless phone, wireless keyboard or microwave oven could be accused of trespassing signals on someone's property.
If you believe an open wi-fi is an invitation then does the wi-fi owner have permission to monitor your activity? After all, you know the network is unsecured so should you have an expectation of any privacy while using it? And if the owner attempts to use your computers resources while you are attached to his network is he misappropriating your equipment? It would seem turn-about is fair play.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Your wifi router does send out a notice when you check for wifi connections, you can set it to be "invisible". Your door does not have an open or closed indicator without trying to open the door. You do not have to check a wifi connection to see if it is unlocked, it tells you its self. therefore you are inviting people to use your connection.
It is not hard to secure your wifi connection. you can simply follow the on screen instructions, and if you choose not to lock it, you are therefore inviting people to use your connection.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Issues with the analogies...
The thing is, the technological interaction is not the same as the human interaction. Your average guy just setting up wireless for his house doesn't really know that it's going to be available in the street, and what he thinks of this isn't the same as what the technology does:
Network/House: Hey, there's a house over here.
Laptop/Random wanderer: Great, I'll automatically try to enter it. Can I come in?
House: Sure. [Your address is 192.168.1.2]/[Mind the step.]
Wanderer: Can I take a drink from a tap?
House: That's why you're here, go ahead.
The dialogue between the wanderer and a person in the house might be completely different, although the person might get them some water. *might*. While the laptop and the network interact in an "open by default unless told otherwise" way, that may not be the intention of the owner of the network. The owner is still paying for the water used by the wanderer (tank water is not part of the metaphor), or the bandwidth. And the wanderer might want to refill his car from the tap (ie use the network to view large images or download something), which costs the house owner more.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Analogy #11382
If you build a sidewalk in such a way that it looks like a public easement even though it's on strictly private property, you have no ground for prosecuting so-called trespassers who walk on your sidewalk.
In fact, where I live the law dictates that if you open up a road to the public you can reserve the right to deny access to anyone at any time. However, if you fail to exercise that right and simply let anyone and everyone access the road year after year with no notice as to the fact that it's private and that you retain your rights, then you lose the right to deny access and it becomes a public road.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
I tend to agree with poster #53's expl