Slashdot Mirror
Nokia calls Wireless Warchalkers 'Thieves'
Mr]-[at writes "Nokie "has condemned as theft the placing of chalk symbols on walls and pavements at places where people can use wireless net access."" Ok I guess if you wanna be technical about it ;)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Can I borrow some air from the nice people? - If I
walk past?... pretty please..... I am just a humble
human.... air... please....
- To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion -
How is it any different than me sitting next to some one at a stop light and hearing their crappy music?
However tchnical you'r being writing chalk marks isn't theft. Maybe aiding and abetting...
Anyway, they're not thieves just informative.
...in related news, primary schools have called for the banning of the underground childrens activity known as 'hopscotch', arguing that such wanton chalking of pavements could lead on to a life of bandwidth theft.
===
You know that guy who stole your girlfriend away from you in the summer of '95? He's going to die.
Does not sound like warchalking cleanly fits the definition of theft to me.
- Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
No, warchalking is technically *not* theft. You may argue that the act of mooching the bandwidth of the wireless access is theft, but the warchalking is, at worst, vandalism (graffitti). It is no more theft than someone selling a "guide to the stars' homes" (since a burgler could deduce that there may be things of worth in their houses and rob them)
... but at least get the spelling of the header right. :-P
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Theft? Omg... They must be really joking right? It can be millions of other things but theft of what?
Maybe it's just an attempt to start some talk about it.
-- Would it be acceptable to just put my name on my sig?
Its like Microsoft declaring OSS & Free software "un-American", or the RIAA and MPAA complaining about P2P networks. It is a threat to their business models.
Think about it; people have started to use Warchalking as a means to advertise and propogate open wireless networks. Geeks are setting up their own networks and chalking the area themselves, allowing people to use their nodes freely. Nokia is afraid that if warchalking becomes popular, it could threaten the uptake of the forthcoming 3G mobile networks.
If Nokia made WAN gear, I'm sure they wouldn't be quite as vocal about it...
Take an analogy, and call me in the morning. If TV signals leak (Videocrypt Pay-TV goes out unencrypted, for example), they don't call the people who turn on their TV and see "Oooh, unencrypted Sky" and watch it, theives - they fix the problem. A leak is a bug, something to be fixed.
Why don't Nokia put more time and effort into convincing people to secure their wireless networks? It's my airspace too! As a citizen of {insert friendly first-world nation) I would like to think that I have some right to the cancer-causing radiation that is travelling through my head. If I choose to pick it, that's up to me. If it can go through walls, it's going through my head, goddammit!
It's my airspace. These people are sending signals through our bodies. Even assuming it's 100% healthy (no trolls with stories about studies into cancer causes required), I don't have the right to attempt to listen to this signal?
Perhaps the issue is transmitting back onto these networks should be illegal, but snooping shouldn't be. Turn on the encryption, smarten up and stop bitching at (white-hat) hackers for using technology in ways it wasn't originally intended to be used. That's how development works.
it's in my head
slashdotters condemn another speeling mistake
He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
Not entirely, but it would help get the freeloaders off.
If you're going to be a wireless 'hippy', submit your location to an online database or something.
I know places where I can plug into CAT5 or RJ45 phone lines, but I don't walk in to companies, pluggin' in.
Of course, Nokia would rather want you to buy a Nokia UMTS phone which can be used on UMTS networks built by Nokia...
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
Nokia may have a point, however, with the advent of high speed wireless technology, we (mankind), may finally have a way to create an ad-hoc global network (using Mesh concepts) without the need for the middleman. I find it sad that some of our technologies (such as computer graphics) are way ahead, while others (such as high speed networks) are hindered by politics and greed. Let's have a free global network paid for by taxes and then just pay for the hardware. Sounds like something else: Roads. And it works. Nokia: You will get to sell more phones. (Just as long as they are 802.11 compliant of course!)
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
IANAL, but I believe that if I left a few cases of beer on the sidewalk for a few days (discounting the skunk factor) and some or all of it disappeared, it would be regarded as "Shame on me" for not securing my property, and I would have no case.
How is this different?
-JPJFeh.
Should be useful to security auditors. Get out and take a stroll around your site, and be alarmed at any chalk-up you find.
And of course, do something about it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm surprised they didn't call it terrorism.
_
\\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
I would imagine this poll will rate very similar to the file sharing poll...should Napster have been illegal? Most would say no, sharing files in itself isn't illegal, the downloading of copyrighted material without having paid for it is the illegal part. This is similar, the chalking in itself isn't illegal but the usage is.
One thing to remember is that it may be illegal to chalk in some places. On many college campuses they have made it illegal to chalk the sidewalks advertising parties, concerts, etc. Stupid, but laws are still laws.
--trb
This is like the old practice by panhandlers of putting a little chalk on their hands, and then patting the shoulder of someone who gives them money. Thus, identifying him as an easy target for the next guy 'a mark.' Unauthorized bandwidth use is theft, chalk marks are like the casing someplace for potential theft.
LETS DECOMPOSE & ENJOY ASSEMBLING
You have to admit, warchalking is bad citizenship, if nothing else. Bandwidth is not free. Just because someone is sloppy about setting up their 802.11b network doesn't mean they deserve to have bandwidth stolen from them.
Nokia has a point. There may not be a specific law against warchalking, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
...writes Nokie "has condemned as theft the placing of chalk symbols on walls and pavements at places where people can use wireless net access."" Ok I guess if you wanna be technical about it ;)
...writes that Nokia has condemned the placing of chalk symbols on walls and pavements at places where people can use wireless net access as theft. Ok, I guess, if you want to be technical about it ;)
Sorry to be so picky Taco, but this is pretty bad. What you should have written was:
I can't believe this has been posted on SlashDot ... again!
... then I believe they loose their right to complain!
IF they are really worried about theft, do something to protect yourself!
... my appologizes to those that really know what is going on) off of a network!
If a company doesn't protect it's wireless network by restricting MAC addresses, etc
How many businesses don't have a lock on the front door? Let face it, a lock won't keep EVERYBODY out, but it will kep 99.9% of people out!
Instead of wasting time and money complaining about theft, why don't these companies spend those resources implimenting wireless security. It isn't that difficult to keep the majority of would be "hackers" (and I use that term VERY loosely
Some common sence here people!
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
...but if I watch TV, I am not provide less TV signal for other people to watch. Not the right analogy for bandwidth!
LETS DECOMPOSE & ENJOY ASSEMBLING
Once upon a time... :)
when tramps abd beggars roamed the lands
you could find strange marks inscribed
in chalk, on pavements and walls...
Tramps would write: "generous, number 12"
or "tea and biscuits, this house"
And occasionally, "back door sometimes unlocked".
People who do not secure their networks invite theft.
But people who steal are still thieves.
"Warchalking" is not illegal - how can it be! - but it is immoral.
Go get your own IP link, you bums!
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Giving to the poor has now been denounced by corporate America as "theft" because it denies them of profit they could have earned. One CEO was quoted as saying "Every dollar spent on the poor is a dollar stolen from our wallets!"
What about Nokia's high prices for their mobiles, you could call them thieves too.
First off, it's "Nokia" not "Nokie"
Second, learn how to use the right form of quotation marks
Back to the point - what is so difficult about bolting down your wireless access point? MAC address filtering is available on pretty much every AP/router, and unless you're having LAN parties every weekend and can't be bothered to add each person's card, you have no reason not to have a secured point of access.
Warchalking gave me a great idea - on Halloween, kids should bring chalk and mark the paths to houses - different symbols for "gives money", "gives soy milk", or "gives good candy"!
but it seems to me that if you are too lazy to secure your wireless network, you deserve to have it used by strangers. Just because there are no wires doesn't mean the need for access control has gone away.
Are these peoples bandwidth thieves? Perhaps. But if companies are so angered by the idea of war chalking then maybe they need to spread the world to secure wireless connections. Company needs to secure their connections wireless or otherwise or quit there bitching. plane and simple.
Most consumers will look for days attempting to get the correct piece of hardware for the cheapest possible price. Yet these same people won't even crack open the manual about the default security settings.
So if your not going to get off your dead ass and secure your wireless connection.... suffer
I totally agree with them.
Companies have to pay for their bandwidth, and it is there for them to use. Anybody who uses it without permission is impairing their use of it.
It is absolutely NOT a valid argument to say that they should take steps to prevent you from using it.
How would you like somebody standing outside your house, peering through your window to watch your TV?
The only thing that is *possibly* wrong is that it's not really the people marking out the presence of the signal that are the problem, it's the people who are taking advantage of it.
Mod me as a troll, or whatever, I don't care. You can't justify using somebody else's bandwidth without permissoin.
I wonder if someone could get Professor Touretzky of Carnegie-Mellon to set up a "Gallery of Warchalk Art".
Check out his Gallery of CSS Descramblers.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
If it's being broadcast out onto the street with zero security then obviously the company places no value on this "resource".
If it's up for grabs and can be shared to anyone passing what do you expect? You don't even have to do any hacking these things are OPEN.
Nokia is just upset because it may stall profits from future sales of wireless kit for the up and coming subscription based "public access" nodes being touted by companies such as BT.
I bet the pavements round every Nokia building will be covered in chalk by the end of the week!
I can see the ads now: Nokia - Connecting Thieves. Heh.
Unless the company owns the land and airspace where the wireless network reaches, people should be free to stand on public ground and use their computers. If there's a hilltop in a public park from which you can see and hear a concert, or athletic event, is it 'stealing' to sit on that hill and enjoy the entertainment? Any network administrator that allows an insecure wireless signal to be accessible from a sidewalk should know better.
Companies can't just say, 'we're going to leave this [money, confidential documents, unprotected wireless AP] right where any chump on the sidewalk can get at them, but you can't touch them cause Nokia says it's stealing' and call it a security plan.
It used to be OK; things were too technical for most people to understand. Similarly, locking mechanisms on bank safes used to be simple; now they're as complex as any sci-fi fan could dream of. And in the computer world, there's no excuse for any security-by-complexity setup less than large-prime algorithmic encrytption.
$8.95/mo web hosting
Essentially, what we have here is a bunch of people putting stuff out for free and a another bunch of people putting the same thing out and not intending for anyone to take it. How is anyone supposed to tell the difference? Is the impetus on the user to try to differentiate between dozens of servers offering free bandwidth or on the servers to decide whether or not they want to give something out for free?
To me, and while I know this analogy seems strange, this seems a lot like neighborhood garbage collection. If the guys on the garbage truck see anything near the curb, they take it. They don't know the difference between someone throwing out a chair and someone accidentally leaving a small piece of furniture outside for a few minutes. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to make sure that they don't leave anything out near the curb that the garbage men might accidentally take, not the responsibility of the garbage men to walk up to everyone's door and say, "Excuse me, ma'am, do we have permission to take this? I know you probably meant for it to be thrown out, but we thought we should wake you up to make sure".
I know that hackers (in the broad sense of the word) often say that it is the responsibility of the network administrators to secure their networks rather than the responsibility fo the hackers to not invade open networks, usually with little justification, but in this rare instance, I think it really does apply. It's the responsibility of the network administrators to secure their network that looks just like the free ones and could easily be mistaken as such, just as the it's the responsibility of the homeowner that doesn't want their piece of furniture taken by the garbage men to keep it away from the street where they would mistake it for trash.
I guess it is theft. Warchalkers are performing wireless security audits for free, thus stealing from themselves.
How can it be theft? If i toss my copies of my secret papers of off a tall building i cant really blame the pople below for spying if they read them. likewise i cant really blame someone if they snoop on my poorly configured wireless network.
That aside i arent that impressed of wireless networks inside offices. Wireless is maybe god where people move around all the time but in an office people tends to work at the same place. It has its place but today everybody and his mother is installing it without thinking about pros and cons even a single second.
HTTP/1.1 400
I'm walking down the streets and at some corners bandwidth happens to be available ... so what? If the bandwidth owner would defend "theirs properties" they would simply put some access restriction to their wi-lans, it isn't?
Besides that, why is Nokia worrying about other companies properties? Do they fear that a world covered of harmless wi-lans would cut off the use of theirs extremely expensive and high radiating cell phones?
If you don't want people borrowing your bandwidth, either don't use it, or employ encryption to prevent it. Don't cry theft when your half assed wireless LAN is used by others OUTSIDE of your building.
However, if people use your access and cause havoc, different story. But still.....who left the door unlocked????
Theft is when something is taken from the owner by someone else without their permission.
Warchalking is not theft, using the networks they indicate may be.
You are using someone elses bandwidth, however do you have their permission.
When someone broadcasts TV or radio signals it is generally accepted they are giving you permission to use these broadcast signals.
When someone leaves a locked car in a parking lot they are not giving you permission to take their car.
Newspapers in a bin are free for the taking, those in a box accepting coins you are expected to pay.
Is an open publicly broadcasted network a locked box explicity denying without authorization, or is it a public broadcast open to all.
I mean come on, call me whatever name you might think up. Prosecute me. Put me in Jail and rape me. Why even bother caring about this name-calling BS.
Nowhere in the article does it say that someone that simply chalks a sidewalk is a thief!
...
...
An advisory issued by the handset maker said anyone using bandwidth without the permission of the person paying for it was simply stealing.
Now Nokia has joined the chorus of criticism by saying that anyone who sits outside an office and uses a company's wireless network to do their own web surfing is stealing.
"This is theft, plain and simple," wrote Nokia in its advisory.
The company said that anyone using a company's bandwidth without permission is reducing the amount of a valuable resource available to the workers in that organisation.
Nokia warned that if too many warchalkers log on together, the whole network inside a company could slow down.
It says anyone that actually logs in is technically a thief. That's it. It does not say that someone that leaves a chalk symbol is with that act alone a theif.
Let's pay attention to the distinctions, people!
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
When did the world change to a place where corporations dictate was is legal and what isn't legal?
You're right, except that both the Slashdot title and the BBC title are wrong. Quote the BBC:
(emphasis mine)
So actually, what Nokia is saying is that sitting outside a company and using their bandwidth is stealing and not actually the act of warchalking.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Every other post seems to be saying:
"If you left your door wide open, you would expect people to come in".
How is operating a wireless network at all analogous to leaving a door wide open? It's more like leaving it unlocked, but SHUT.
It is not up to the companies to encrypt their networks, but it is maybe up to them to *identify* their networks.
The real problem is when you have company A, who has it's private network right next door to company B who says, 'use our network free of charge'. How do you know who you are connecting to?
it was "Nokie" that said this. They have no credibility and their claims are completely unfounded.
Now if it was "Nokia", we would all be in big trouble.
Or...
Is it theft to listen to the music comming from a car passing by? Is it theft to look into a shopping window without the intent of buying anything? If so, I'd have to agree with Nokia, otherwise they're just talking utter nonsense.
--
Facts are stupid things -- R. Reagan
Yes, companies should lock down their networks. I have done so myself by pulling the plug on my wireless access point until I can find a real good solution that suits me and my users.
No, warchalking itself isnt, IMHO, unlawful, unless there are specific laws against the graffiti or such where it is done. {Until the great and powerful OZ,,err,,government enacts a law or three making it unlawful.)
Maybe, just maybe, actually using that bandwidth that you find open to the public from a private network is unlawful. This could be as much a social issue as a legal one. People doing it are not being good citizens perhaps, by "stealing" bandwidth from others. Naughty Naughty. Just as someone else said, if you leave something out on the sidewalk, dont come back later and complain that it has vanished.
Anyhow, I'm beginning to babble so I'll sign off now with one last thought. Perhaps we should look into ALL THREE halves of the situation here!
"Get Moose and Squirrel!"
In this case, as in other examples of supposed theft of computer resources, people seem to adopt either one of the extreme positions:
Why can't it be true both that the 'thief' is wrong to steal the resource, and that the victim is also to blame for leaving it unguarded?
We already see the notion of contributory negligence in the courts where a victim can be found to be, say, 30% responsible for their loss and have their damages reduced proportionally. (Yes, I know tort is not crime). There seems to be a similar continuous scale of responsible behaviour on the part of sysadmins.
"Nokia warned that if too many warchalkers log on together, the whole network inside a company could slow down."
They would not noitce, 200 people sitting on the sidewalk outside their building with laptops??
Elp
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means..." Inigo Montoya
Obvisouly you can't go prosecuting theft when you can't casually determine the difference between a network that is non-deliberately insecure and one that is deliberately open. It's like me putting my telephone outside my house with not restrictions on it and complianing someone used it to make a phone call.
I'm sure everyone is aware that Nokia isn't without a vested interest in what's going on here right? If the concept of freely available or at least tolerated wireless 'borrowing' catches on, it -will- hurt the adoption of horribly overpriced 3G solutions which they have an extremely large investment in seeing through. In many ways, a decentralized wireless infrastructure makes a lot more sense and it is feasible with things like 802.11 and the derivative technologies that will happen.
It is definately in their self-interest to make this activity heavily illegal, but everyone should remember they are far from a casual onlooker.
..don't panic
It's about the equivalent of someone putting up signs near concert halls and sports stadiums.
"Hey, Good Listening over here." or "See game from this pedestrian overpass."
If someone is going to blindly cast their resources out to the public, the public is going to use it. That's not theft. If anything it's stupidity on the part of the admin for not locking down his network.
Although a case could be made against the warchalkers on charges of vandalism or graffitti.
So, did these guys get training from a RIAA spokesman or something?
Just drawing symbols in chalk on a sidewalk to mark where you can get free wireless access is not theft. If you sit down and use the bandwidth now that is theft. But I feel that it is the responsibliy of the company, organisation or indvidual who owns the wireless network to secure it. Frankly I would gladly sit down an slurp some of their bandwidth.
(Potential bandwidth theif and proud of it)
I won't warchalk again ... ;-)
I won't warchalk again
I won't warchalk again
I won't warchalk again
Hmmm...I would think that warchalking would be closer to vandalism than theft. But then again, this isn't much different in my opinion than what happened to napster.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
sounds like a good bizarro world anti-headline.
'Crime' is basically whatever those bozos in congress say it is - for instance, tuning into and listening to analog cell phone conversations that come thru the wall of your house by using an old tv uhf tuner is a crime, because the US law says so. The law says so because the cell phone industry lobbied congress to make it so, so they could tell their customers, "Your conversations a re completely private, as guarenteed by federal law".
Good lord, you won't believe what people talk about when they *think* they're having a private conversation - drug deals, endless babblings about relationships. I actually heard this yahoo call his wife from the truck and say, "Honey, I'm in desperate need of a blow job".
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Im gonna go around setting up computers with wireless access points on them with reverse hack and slash software so that when people hack in and try to use the nonexistant bandwidth there the computer reverse hacks and wipes their system as a warning! Muahahahaha!
"Get Moose and Squirrel!"
If you don't want me to have something, don't send it to me.
And I think the courts are wrong.
Using all their bandwidth is like having a kegger in somebody's woods. They (or the police) have to come along and chase you off.
From a security standpoint, I have to address the fact that Warchalking is a powerful factor in the integration of physical and in-wire security, because this requires both parties to have an awareness of the ramifications and risks inherent in the act. Because these have always been such separate departments, and it's such an important phase in the integration thereof, Warchalking is a USEFUL trigger and catalyst.
And it's from that perpective that warchalking breaks into two distinct categories, as well. If we define warchalking as the mere markup of a building that represents an unsecured wireless site, then yes, it is technically illegal, but only as
a.) graffiti, and
b.) possible incitement and abetment of a crime [theft of bandwidth.] It is also a minor offense, one which is the equivalent of putting graffiti near the unsecured perimeter of a locked down area. It is not the theft of bandwidth itself.
And because of this, it IS useful; it is the equivalent of having someone send you a photo package containing pictures of the open risks in your physical security. It's scary, and it's problematic, but it's stuff that you needed to know about.
If someone logs on, it's also technically trespassing, in the same way that punching someone while they are in their car is technically trespassing. It is an uninvited entry into an owned property - the bandwidth in question- for the intent of taking something -in this case ALSO the bandwidth in question. If you USE the warchalks to steal bandwidth, that's a crime. It's a different crime than an employee using the wireless at work for outside stuff- it's a non-affiliated person entering through a hole in the fence and using the phone system to call strangers in foreign countries.
But what if the argument is made that by not securing the premises, the place is effectively open to the public? Powerful arguments can be made that people are effectively using the company phone AFTER it has been placed out in the public arena. For example, if I install a telephone on the sidewalk, I'm an idiot if I expect people not to use it. For this reason, I think that it should be a nonprosecutable crime, unless
anything other than benign surfing occurs,
any attempt is made to access company files
any attempt is made to impersonate a company employee in ways other than simply accessing the net.
Basically, if the person is a squatter in an unfinished building that hasn't got any guards, they are benign trespassers. It's like any hacking- the Force is neither dark side nor light side till it's used.
(The next important question, and one which needs to be separated from the legal implicationa while this gets sorted out in the public forum- is whether this is ETHICAL.) We're grateful to warchalkers because they are doing us a favour that other hackers haven't done: they are letting us know where the holes are. Frankly, that's a movement that I endorse and consider ethically acceptable, and it's our responsibility to act on the risk and see that no one gets to use the hole in the fence that they so kindly sent us a photo of.
It's high time that the two security systems were integrated: someone should be patrolling ALL the perimeters, and if you aren't, it's a lot harder to make the case that someone who's only marking up the property risks is guilty of anything more than a chalkmark or a photograph.
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
Man spills bag of $100 bills all over sidewalk.
"Oh, please, please don't pick up my $100 bills that have scattered themselves all over the street. I am just going to leave them there, and hopefully no one will take them because they are mine."
Perhaps if he cemented those $100 into the pavement, then he wouldn't have to worry about people stealing them.
Now...Nokia, do the same you lazy fucks.
-mar1no
In the UK if you can gain entry to a car that is unlocked or locked,you can have a sleep, or do whatever you want so long as you don't steal anything or damage the car.
I frequently don't lock my car, and i don't really care if someone sits in my car. If i left my network open an polluting the airwaves then I wouldn't mind people using my network, so long at they didn't steal and IP or break anything.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Bandwidth is not free. I pay for x amount of bandwidth to my home or business. If someone mooches off that, they are taking a resource that I paid for and using it without my permission. That's theft.
:-)
It's not like cable TV, where your decoding a signal doesn't take away from the service I paid for for myself. It isn't legal, but it's not hurting me. Ironically, it's kind of the exact opposite - stealing my service hurts me, but it doesn't hurt my ISP, because they already allocated the bandwidth to me and they're being compensated for it. Stealing cable TV doesn't hurt me, but it does hurt the cable TV company (you're depriving them of the revenue they're entitled to for stringing the cable past your house and plugging you in).
As for my own wireless, I WEP it and keep the network closed. I have yet to see chalk in front of my house (I do see a lot of open networks in my neighborhood lately), but if I were sufficiently motivated to set up a firewall between my base station and LAN I'd proably open it up. I just lack the time or motivation. Having a 4-month-old has a strange ability to play havoc with your technical priorities...
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
If I go around checking the doors of business which are on "public" property, and where I find one unlocked I put up a sign that says "this door is unlocked," is that illegal?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The FCC has ruled on a number of occasions that if you transmit something on the public airwaves it can be used. Is it 'steeling' to sit on the hill near the drive-in theatre and watch the movie? Is it 'theft' to use a scanner and listen in on radio transmissions? The only possible difference is the interactivity of the broadcaster/receiver in question. You are interactively using it rather than just listening/watching. But so what? It's a publicly placed, non-encrypted tool. They have no right to 'invite' you in by publicly placing it in such a way that it _automatically_ connects to your equipment and then calling you a thief for actually making use of it. BTW, the whole warchalking angle is just a red herring. It's obvious they're calling the use of the wireless access point the theft. TW
Now something like this Nokia article comes along and what do we do:
1) Play the 133t card 'Well if their network is that insecure they deserv to have bandwidth stolen
2) Play the Word game '***TECHNICALLY** its not stealing because of x,y,z'
3) Play the They can afford it card 'Well Nokia charges too much so they cant complain'
Its pathetic and its beneath us, if we dont want to be preceived as theivs lets not act like them..
Sorry for the rant, my 2cents..
Ok. Scenario:
I put a computer, hooked to my company's internal network, on the front steps of the company. It's just sitting there with the screen on the Windows desktop. No keyboard, no mouse.
All of a sudden, someone comes along, plugs in a keyboard and starts using the service. Should I be mad? Is he an instant theif?
What's the legislation here, folks? What determines when something that is publically accessible is privately controllable? There has to be some point at which breaking past certain barriers is considered "illegal". If said computer on the front steps had a fence around it with a lock and a security login program on the screen, breaking past that seems a bit more illegal to me than simply coming along and using a very open resource.
At some point, things that are private become public, too. Sidewalks, for instance. Maintained by private companies and people and available for public use. Defining that point is necessary, especially for wireless due to its nature of not staying between visible barriers.
Blog,Twitter
"So, quick recap - that's Iran, Iraq, Enron, the Economy, and Daschle, and one of those Koreas. They all form a terrible Axis of Evil, standing in the way of all that we as Americans value.
And don't forget Bandwidth Thieves. The Bandwidth Thieves don't like me saying "Axis of Evil", so guess what? They're now a part of the very same Axis of Evil that they don't like me saying. How do you like them apples, Bandwidth Thieves? Next time, you keep your mouth shut. You mess with Texas, and it's straight to the Axis of Evil, got it?"
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
Look, If you leave your front door open all the time and someone walks in and takes something your as much to blame as guy who took it.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
It isn't the chalkers. It's the people who use the access later.
And don't even get me started, it pisses me off how someone doesn't know how to keep their shit secure and they're not the ones who get in trouble when someone takes advantage of it.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Well, first off, referring to the actual chalking in and of itself as "theft" is ludicrous and beneath contempt.
The actual use of the chalk and the attendant bandwith might be theft, but this raises an important point: Stealing, or in some other way negatively impacting the capital stock of a mega-corp, is not only not wrong but, in fact, is supereragatory and should be applauded.
We, the wireless networking users, have taken Nokia's comments under careful consideration, and have issued our response. Thank you, and have a nice day. :)
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
It is RADIO people. I can receive any broadcast I desire. It is up to the owners of these radio emissions to secure their networks. Class B must accept interference etc...or ?
1. Warchalking necessarily involves sniffing around for open wireless networks. You generally do not do this by accident. I mean, I don't sit in my car with my 802.11b card in while driving up the street and then going "whoops! I found an unsecured WAP" (I'm aware the last part of that is redundant). Frequently, these are sought out. It is generally therefore a necessary condition that a certain amount of "door rattling" is going on here. That in itself is illegal.
2. The quotes from Nokia were ambiguous. Clearly, the unauthorized use of somebody's network is illegal and is theft. The fact that no physical property is removed may mean that larceny has not been committed, but it is an action that is going to be punishable by some criminal statute where you live, dollars to donuts. In common parlance outside of strict legal definitions, this constitutes theft although the offense you will be charged with may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
3. People that go warchalking, rather than going out to use the networks, are doing something a little different. They have no way of knowing whether the intention was to leave a network open. This shouldn't give carte blanche for people to go in and rape their bandwidth, however.
I think you need to ask yourself if a place really intends for their network to be open. There are little clues about this that the average moron can pick up on. If the WAP is in a doctor's office or a business, the chances are that they are not intending to allow their networks to be used openly. Just as someone may leave a car unlocked with the keys in it does not mean that there is a standing invitation to drive the car around for a while without asking.
The general rule should maybe encourage proprietors to mark their locations if they to allow others to use their networks. If no markings are in place, then the assumption should be that no use is permitted.
4. I would like to see Nokia's actual statement. As it has filtered from Nokia => www.computing.co.uk => Slashdot, it is no longer clear whether the warchalking itself is what was slammed or whether there is some confusion about the use of the term "warchalking." Clearly, Nokia has classified the unauthorized _use_ of a warchalked WAP as "theft". This is hard to argue with. I do see a legitimate beef from the pro-warchalking crowd against the idea of Nokia opposing warchalking per se, so long as vandalism does not occur.
The fact is that there is no right to go and use things that belong to others without permission. This notion is juvenile and dangerous -- it is akin to the people who claim that the US income tax is illegal for a variety of reasons. It constitutes willful ignorance of the law.
guac-foo
Lots of petrified grits
1. The war- chalking itself is not theft. They are stealing nothing unless it is someone else's chalk.
2. If I am using their bandwidth, I (as an attorney) would argue: the company assigned me a DHCP address and hence they are implicitly authorizing me to use their network. I would use the analogy of someone leaving a stack of newspapers outside a store without any notice that they are not free (there are plenty of free newspapers and plenty of free wireless access points) - people would likely assume that they are in the presence of a free access point.
What exactly can a manufacturer of wireless products hope to accomplish by condemning warchalking? Other than boosting awareness (which imho is a good thing, increasing security and all) of the problem, what business is it of theirs? Condemn all you want, but the real steps you should be taking are to work towards more secure standards and equpiment. Be proactive instead of reactive.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
They're not lawyers. They're not law makers. They're not chalkers. They probably aren't even getting chalked. So why does anybody give a flying fuck about their opinion?
A spokesman from the chalk industry today bristled at allegations that his products were enabling - indeed promiting - circumvention of 'industry standard' security measures as they pertain to wireless networking.
In other news, manufacturers of the ever popular 'on button' found on many of todays wireless networking peripherials (such as laptops), are finding themselves in a similar awkward position. Their "on" button, it's argued, allows a thief to turn on their equipment,which is clearly an enabling them to circumvent 'industry standard' practices of securing wireless networks.
What is the need for a global network that wouldn't actually be free since it would be paid for by my tax dollars? You LIKE government mandated monopolies? You think innovation will happen faster within one? If the service levels suck who will you go to? If the price gets too high who will you switch to? Did you even bother to think this out first?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Suppose he got the chalk from alt.binaries.crayola?
On a related note, anyone know how to decompress a .rar file? I just nabbed the BIG box o' crayons...
http://www.linux-wlan.org/index.html
i fi cations.html - Slick, huh?
Check it out. They make Prism2-based 802.11 devices.
No 11b devices listed there, but I wouldn't be surprised that if they had classic 802.11, they have 802.11b
If WAN rather than WLAN was not a typo, they make plenty of WAN equipment too. Check their site. http://www.nokia.com/
http://www.nokia.com/phones/nokiad211/d311_spec
A lot of cellular companies see 802.11 as augmenting 3G, not competing with it. Or more properly, 3G as augmenting 802.11. 802.11 for your 'net in the cities and 3G out in the boonies.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
You managed to misspell both "its" and "lose" in one sentence. Maybe illiteracy is a bigger threat to society than wireless bandwidth theft.
tough luck. ahahahhahahhahhaaaa.
Gur svggrfg funyy fheivir lrg gur hasvg znl yvir. Jr zhfg ercrng.
you don't have to walk away with something in your pocket for it to be theft. As a case in point, there is a great deal of case law regarding theft of cable TV by unauthorized users
Chalk up another win for Stupid Posters. I can't believe how many people are bickering over whether it's theft or not. But then again, I was stupid enough to read them, so...
The article's author says:
"[Nokia] has condemned as theft the placing of chalk symbols on walls and pavements at places where people can use wireless net access."
Nokia Says:
"anyone using bandwidth without the permission of the person paying for it was simply stealing."Seems to me this is a simple mis[interpretation|representation] by the author.
Nokie Quickfingers' Sojourn Page
Of course, it is not that easy to switch on a laptop on a sidewalk and hack into the ubiquitous mobile phone service like it is to a wireless LAN. But why is that? Because Nokia and the industry in general sells secure systems to large companies like telcos, but neglects to make the small systems secure, although anyone would expect the small customers to be less knowledgeable about security.
These systems should be designed from the ground up to provide security out of the box. It should be easy to add legitimate users and block the rest of the world.
Score:1, Unread
Why they don't just secure their fucking networks instead of bitching to Nokia and the FBI about it.
If I left my car unlocked and with the windows down and my stereo gets stolen, the cops would tell me it was my own fault for leaving the car unsecured and probably not bother looking for the thief. So I think it should be the same with these companies. The FBI should tell them to secure their network and only come to them if someone forces their way in.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
I think I do understand where they are coming from: their primary customers are the cellular phone folks, and it makes sense for them to brand the airwaves as property.
It's much the same as Bill Gates calling software copiers "thieves", back in the days when software copying was standard.
Nonetheless, I disagree on one level, and one level only.
I tend to think that not everything can be or should be "property". Specifically, if something is inherently ownable -- that is, defendable -- then it can be property, and will probably best be managed as someone's property. However, such things as ideas, once they are released to the public, are not really defendable. Software is the same. To brand such things as property, then, is to either increase disrespect for the law, or to hurt those who do respect the law and benefit those who don't respect the law. Either way, a society slowly self-destructs under such a situation.
So I can't support just claiming that bandwidth use is theft. Why, just yesterday I was at school and used the internet to look at a site that was personally of interest to me (SLASHDOT, for crying out loud). And I don't at all feel guilty.
So I tend to think that it would be trespassing (not theft) to hack a system -- but if the company leaves the system open, then it is not trespassing. That is, if a company is attempting to secure their system, then they are showing that they are defending their bandwidth as property. But if they leave their bandwidth open, then that becomes instead a public accessway, much like McDonalds' bathrooms.
Word of warning, though: abuse it, and you'll lose it.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Does anyone know Nokia's position on warchalking to identify "community" wireless nodes that are intentionally open for all to use? Seems hard to equate that with theft.
The SYSTEM you set up AUTHORIZED my system to do what it is doing. That is my AUTHORITY to do what I am doing.
Now, if I do any extra, perhaps I am doing something unauthorized.
Say I have a laptop with 802.11b abilities and it is set up for dhcp.
In order to get anywhere, your dhcp server must give me an IP address. My system may have requested an addressss, but your system GAVE mine the ADDRESS, and prpbably told mine what the default gateway and dns servers were to boot.
Your system authorized me to be where I am. If you don't want me authorized, make it so. If I crack your system, we have a different ball game.
As to using their bandwidth: When I walk into someone's place of business several things happen.
For example - There is now less fresh air in the building for others to breath. If the building is air conditioned, my body heat now requires their system to work harder to maintain the set temperatures at a cost to the organization. There is less room in the building for others.
Is it the contention that if I walk into a building, without an express invitation, that I am a thief.
OK, so I am a thief if I walk into a building without an express invitation, I am a thief if I go to the kitchen and get a snack during a TV commercial (luckily, I can go to the restroom without being a thief!)
I do not see this as equivalent to someone leaving the keys in their unlocked car and someone else stealing it. It may have been foolish or forgetfull of them to leave their keys, but the person taking the car is still doing wrong and stealing. (Insurance companies may take a different line however.) I see it more like having a cool water fountain in your lobby or even outside of your building. Why wouldn't passersby take a drink?
A Nony Mouse ~;-)
Slashhdotter calls Insecure Wireless Networkers 'Stoopid'
If they don't want people taking their bandwidth, then they should A) use WEP, or B) not use a band that's UNREGULATED by the FCC.
I mean, how stupid can these people be? for a metaphore, imagine the 'commons' grazing land for cows or whatever (except practicaly unlimited in size). It's like nokia claming that people are stealing their cattle's food because you ride your cows in with their heard. or something.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I have a previous comment that illustrates my point on how wireless networks will evolve that I will summarize here:
basically, the future will see a free inter-networking of wireless networks.
each network will, like the freenet, act as a router to carry on to the next network
and even pdas (once battery life and antennae become more efficient) will route,
allowing for chained connections in tunnels and other dead areas.
companies like nokia will make money on the devices but not the services.
I envision a future where there are no big towers, just lots and lots of nodes.
this is somewhat similar to computer clustering:
lots of small wireless routers can be more efficient than a handful of towers.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
I guess if warchalkers are thieves, then wireless providers are litterbugs.
You're absolutely right that it would not stand up in court. Nonetheless, the courts are wrong. When people try to seize power that is not theirs -- that the cannot inherently countrol (imagine Jabba the Hut suing for ownership of Luke Skywalker's "force" abilities, or a klutz suing to be named a blackbelt in judo), they self destruct. So a basic definition of ownership SHOULD be whether ownership is possible. In the case of satellite signals, it isn't possible, and attempts to control it actually tear down the society that allows such attempts, by either increasing disrespect for the law, or making the government go to draconian effort and expense to enforce its more foolish laws.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
its simply really, after 2 months of the press reporting these chalk symbols of possible suicide bomb attack spots, these odd symbols that represent circles, semi-circles and letters used in warchalking give computer-users the information they need to tweak their wireless network setting to access other people's connections. The idea of the chalk marks comes from "hobo signs", an old tradition among travellers and the homeless in America. They would scrawl a mark on a wall to show other hobos where they might find food or shelter. more... What if these symbols represented steganistic versions of network passwords... then that would be unauthorized access... if the door is open, well then friend, come on in!
pretzel_logic
First, I doubt they're talking about "warchalking" (really, there needs to be a better name for this); rather, the unauthorized use of someone else's wireless network.
There seem to be a lot of people here defending this use of someone's wireless network. How are you justifying this? I'll be the first to admit that legality doesn't always coincide with morality, and that words like "thief" and "steal" are used far more often than they should be. For instance, I don't think that copying software or MP3s or even ideas is "stealing" -- because the copying doesn't deprive the original owner of the right to use the software or idea.* In other words, (if you are familiar with "natural law") the resource is abundant, not scarce. However, bandwidth really is scarce!! Many small businesses (the usual kind that have open APs) have a shared T1 or worse, and some pay metered bandwidth. Unless we can determine that they really do have an excess of bandwidth or that they don't mind us using their service, how can we possibly justify this kind of thing?
Some forms of illegal activity (ie, copying software) can be morally justified with a cogent argument, but we should really be careful not to let that extend to thoughts like, "Anything I like doing is moral in cyberspace."
* I know this is a pretty glib argument, but that's not really the subject here.
If you see warchalking, SECURE YOUR NETWORK.
I mean damn, how much more obvious do network admins need this to be. If you see war chalking symbols at your location you know that other people know you are wide open. So FIX it and stop yammering about theft of service. It's illegal to break into people's houses, but people still put locks on their doors. It's called common sense.
I mean really, they should be securing their network in the first place. Not doing so is simply irresponsible, and to get pissed off at people roaming onto their network is just passing the buck.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Aww.... you wanna NOKIE?
When I was in the Army (specifically, in Basic Training), there were few things that would bring down such harsh retribution from the drills as an unlocked wall locker. A friend of mine once got pt'd to unconsciousness because he had a bad habit of putting the lock on his locker but forgetting to click it shut. He never forgot that lesson, and after that he would often run back to double-check the lock, just to be sure.
This might sound harse to the uninitiated, but the philosophy was simple: thievery is the fault of the victim. If everyone would secure their belongings properly, there would be no theft (because there would be nothing lying around to steal). While admittedly simplistic (hey, the Army thought it up, how complex could it be?) it is a philosophy not without merit.
People who install wireless networks should secure them, lest someone come along and take advantage of them. Of course, many will probably need to get pt'd a little before they learn that lesson. But you can't blame the drills for giving "corrective training" to bring your attention to the problem.
is rather scared of the spreading of free wireless networks. Long term what could cellular-like mobile VoIP do to Nokia and their clients? I'd have to agree that is in the same class as MSFT complaining about OSS. I think they're scared.
;)
Rather than incorporating expensive high-margin hardware into a proprietary cellular network - such as Nokia provides, people can develop a wireless IP network instead. In NZ our telecom is working towards only becoming a wholesaler. What if people used their wholesale bandwidth, put up their own wireless drops, and some electronic company develops a VoIP mobile phone. Instant community mobile network. Oppps, no resellers either. Just wholesalers and users. This is definitely not a bad thing
Nokia sells (*BSD based) firewalls based on CheckPoint's FW-1. I should expect a product announcement/some advertisements shortly telling us that if we have WI-FI we should protect it with a VPN, all costing $$$$/££££.
Sad really this being reported as news.
Nice spin though, calling Nokia a 'phone manufacturer' when they also sell VPN/Firewalls by the bucketload. I wonder how much Nokia paid for that article to be written?
I did it all for the Nokie. The Nokie, the Nokie, the Nokie. So i'll tell you what to do with that cokie. You can stick it up your..
How ya like dat?
Panhandler breakdancers can come and plug their Panasonic 'Super-Bass' Ghetto Blaster Mark 12 into it, and spin on some cardboard.
They are stealing electricity; they didn't pay for it, however the company is at fault for not securing the outlet. Much like the reaction you will get from the insurance company if you leave your keys in an unlocked car and it gets stolen.
The breakdancers are not depriving the company of electricity; the light in the executive washroom does not go out when the Panasonic 'Super-Bass' Ghetto Blaster Mark 12 gets plugged into the street level outlet. If the company notices the breakdancers, they can get a locking plate and put it over the outlet.
If they do this the breakdancers may still show, but wont be ABLE to steal electrictiy. (Unless they bust off the cover, but then you get into the whole 'hacking' thing which I won't go into here)
Warchalkers are guilty of nothing but graffiti. What Nokia is trying to do is foist corporate responsibility on citizens!
Nokia doesn't want to be responsible for thousands of unsecured networks, so rather than help fix the problem, they are passing the buck to legislators who, as always will go after the symptoms. Which means that citizens will become criminals for nothing more than pointing out a problem.
Use of someone elses network without permission is wrong. We see this with spam, why can't we see this with wireless? It's the same resources being abused.
Dyslexics Untie!
Privacy/Ownership issues aside? Why are they even expressing an opinion on this? Stick to making phones with nifty chat features and cool games and leave the real networking to the big boys 'kay?
Your jurisdiction may vary
Under our Criminal Code in Part IX Offences Against the Rights of Property, (shiver, property should have no rights) subheading offences like theft, this little paragraph turns up.
Unauthorized use of computer
342.1 (1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,
(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service,
(b) by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system,
(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system, or
(d) uses, possesses, traffics in or permits another person to have access to a computer password that would enable a person to commit an offence under paragraph (a), (b) or (c)
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Under our laws, Nokia is technically right that wardriving, warwalking is a crime, but chalking.....no. This would be no greater crime than chalking any other sign.
I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
If you want to call getting on the wireless network thievery then fine. While I'm not sure I agree if you haven't bothered to put decent security in place but I can see your point (I consider even WEP an attempt at least. That at least shows the desire to keep someone out and breaking it could legitimately be called theivery or cracking or trespassing or whatever.).
All that said the practice of writing on pavement with chalk is to theft as eating pancakes is to murder. I think we've forgotten what the basic rights of man as an individual are and we're moving toward a collectivist society. Now for some sarcasm...
Oh good, that's worked well in the past.
Damnit now I've got to switch cell companies next time I buy. I hate when these monkeys start trying to lose my business it's such a hassle.
Firstly, lets make one thing clear - Warchalking itself is not theft!! Making unauthorised use of a
wireless network could possibly be deemed as theft, but I would disagree.
Consider as a comparison a company which has a drinking fountain in their entrance hall. Is it theft for me to drink from this fountain? The company could probably claim that I was not authorised to consume their water and that this
was clearly a case of theft! They would probably be right.
Dont forget that a lot of places that have open wireless networks have specifically left them open to everyone as a public service, eg cafe's, private people etc. There is no way for the person to know what the intention is of the person providing this service.
Therefore, i would say that using a companies network should be prosecuted as theft if it was VERY clearly announced that use of this network was not allowed. If this is not made clear then it is unreasonable to expect the user to know the expectations of the owner of the network.
Well obviously the act of entering your house and taking your beer would be a crime. But is it a crime to leave a sign saying "this house is unlocked!" if you don't take anything?
Nokia has condemned unauthorized access to wireless networks as theft, which slightly makes sense from some point of view (not that I agree with them). But to condemn warchalking as theft too? That's saying that leaving the sign is illegal. IANAL, but I don't think it is.
It's my opinion that having an unsecured network effectively authorizes outside access. Any computer in range will detect the SSID, which is almost like advertising the network. It's a trivial matter to enable WEP, so these companies have no excuse to complain.
I know WEP is not perfect, but by enabling WEP, a company has effectively said "this network is private," and in that case, attempting to gain access should be considered stealing. Also, any hacking of the company's local network should be (well it is) illegal. But simply using the AP for internet access? What's the problem? Just be polite and don't download hundreds of megs of warez and moviez, etc.
If I leave confidentaial papers out in public view, it is not illegal for someone to read them. Same with WiFi. If you do not protect it, it is fair game.
Jamey Kirby
You seem to have no problem calling Jonathan Hedley a theif, and what's he's done doesn't even affect you directly.
In any case, this is probably just shitty reporting, and what Nokia probably said was that "anyone who sits outside an office and uses a company's wireless network to do their own web surfing is stealing," not "warchalking". Or has the term "warchalking" changed to include those actually surfing as well? Damn Internet, new words get coined one day and their meaning gets perverted the next.
Innocent until proven guilty; until the AP owner publicly says No, you can assume leech access is allowed.
$8.95/mo web hosting
If I stand outside their window at night reading a book, am I stealing their light?
The Beeb doesn't link to it, just to nokia.com, and there's sho' nuff nothing about warchalking, or stealing bandwidth, chalked on the pavement there.
Securing a wireless network is simple, well documented and highly reccomended by many security folks.
We can only assume that if a wireless access point is unsecured, it's the individual's or company's intent to share their resources with the community.
right on! those thieving chalk marks are blatantly depriving the building owners of their rightfully earned um... er... uh...
using somebody else's wireless access point for your own purposes might be called unauthorized access and usage, or maybe misappropriation of network resources, even if the resources' rightful owner was an idiot and left their AP without security and broadcasting a default SSID. being an idiot, unfortunately, is neither illegal nor painful. but merely noting - even in a public place - that somebody else is being an idiot, cannot reasonably be called in any way wrong, at least not if it's true.
And wouldn't it just be horrible if so many people eventually got wireless that there'd be no "chalk gap"? Then everyone would just be walking around with almost non-stop internet access, stealing from one company and the next... and the world would suffer, the sky would turn black and Bush would get elected to a second term.
I mean, if I come to work, as a network administrator, and I see a warchalking symbol outside my office, that's a HUGE red flag for me to go fix my network.
- "That's just the kind of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten."
In the United States, these devices are regulated under part 15 of the FCC regulations. They are not licensed devices, the users of these devices do not "own" the bandwidth. These devices must not cause interference to licensed stations, and more to the point, these devices must accept interference from other stations, even if it causes undesired operation. In short, part 15 devices have no rights, it is impossible to steal anything from them. I don't know about the rest of the planet, but here, if you're stupid enough to expose your assets over an unlicensed, unprotected radio system, you're probably stupid enough to kill off your business for other reasons.
in french there is a famous phrase where we say "qui trouve garde" in english that would be "who finds keep" so warchalking maybe condamnable at the same title of grafitis but access to a network in a public place should be legal.......
Overuse of the Pumping Lemma causes blindness
Generally, if people leave useful stuff out on the sidewalk, the default assumption--barring notification to the contrary--is "free to all."
I don't see how an unsecured network is any different. It is so easy to add password or other simple security that it is reasonable to presume that anybody offering network access to the neighborhood intends to do so. Of course, simple courtesy demands that one not abuse such a service--by sending out 10,0000 spams, for example.
On the other hand, it is certainly theft to break into the network, no matter how rudimentary the security.
placed on the public side of corporate firewalls, because they do not offer any security. A side effect of this is that any passerby can use it. There is nothing wrong with that. A sysadmin would be irresponsible if she placed it on the inside of the firewall.
WLAN's cheap. 3G's not. The margins are better, etc. with the 3G stuff.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
342.1 (1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right
I would guess that in people talk that would translate to something like.
fraudulently - acting as another who would have different rights, ie any non-anonymous user.
without colour of right - without permission?
I would guess you could argue that.
1 you are accessing without any misrepresentation, you are not accessing fraudulently.
2 by virtue of their public broadcast they are giving permission for use
To me, uninvited hitchhiking on a wireless network is the same as sending spam, meaning that you steal bandwidth in both cases. The same reasoning that so many slashdotters apply to spam can be applied to war-whatevering:
-You are using someone else's bandwidth w/o their permission
-Just because it can be done doesn't mean it's okay
-The companies with the wireless LANs pay the cost of your surfing, not you
etc, etc... Seems to me that Nokia has the right stance
Is it also Nokia's position that dressing up as a pimp is prostitution, plain and simple?
Seriously, I wouldn't want some yaya using my company's network without authorisation, so I would think that is they did they were stealing bandwith. But if you leave the door open, its your own fault.
Hell, warchalking is a nice heads up to the company, it says "people use your network!". They should either block access, or better yet, let 'em do it and place a whole bunch of ads around the chalk marks : )
You can't take the sky from me...
I drive by your house and yell, "give me the key to your house." You do so. No subterfuge, no social engineering, I just ask for the key and you oblige. Nokia thinks this is theft.
I'm sure some of you have a bone to pick with this analogy, so pick away. I still don't think it's theft, though, since I asked.
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
Steve Ballmer not only searches for and uses unprotected net, but tells others where to get access to Mountaineer services. Check the InfoWorld article.
Is it stealing if you put a sign on a door that says "Unlocked"? You haven't taken anything. You just made the realization that it is possible.
instead of leaving it open for the world?
You think? It's the same as having a network drop on the outside of a building, would they do that? unlikely.
if an adult sane person steals something,
then something is missing.
what is missing?
If you want a public, free, and open wireless network, we'll have to bribe politicians. Nokia and the rest already are. If they want warchalkers branded as terrorists, the way things are now, they'll be rounded up right after the pirates (aye, matey) who help Binladen by downloading music without paying CEOs the intellectual property tax.
Can't we build our own network, and leave Nokia and the rest out of it? Maybe we can have some kind of hardware GPL, you get free access to the network as long as you allow others free access as well.
There are two types of people; those who divide people into two types of people, and those who don't.
Step 1) Raise red flags about WiFi theft.
Step 2) Come out with a new service that helps secure WiFi.
Step 3) Make lots and lots of money.
People will buy your product only when they think that they need it.
Nokia went on to say, they were quite displeased with the warchalkers or "thieves" efforts. Nokia said it would use all of its available resources to fight this growing problem.
A community reporter asked if Nokia would be educating admins on proper security over wireless networks and how to take steps to defeat possible intrusion.
A nokia spokesperson said that such efforts were futile and they would need a more proactive reproach to the situation.
After a long winded discussion on the possible future ramifications, they unveiled their new tool to defeat warchalkers.
Nokia has specifically trained these chimpanzee's to clean surfaces that have been chalked. The test program initiates in New York and will deploy 100's of monkey's across New York to deal with the existin threats.
A Nokia spokesman commented, "We trained these monkey's to identify chalk and wipe it from the premise. They have been issued squeegies and a safe chemical substance that will remove the chalk."
When asked what the monkey's would do for food the spokeman declined to comment. Later, they itterated there existed plenty of dumpsters in New York that would allow for the monkey's to forage.
After the statement, NY's growing population of homeless vagrants began a protest outside Nokia headquarters. While no representative could be approached for questioning, they were definately angry about their food supply dwindling to those damned dirty apes.
This was cylix d. kewl for krad news.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
So What
How is it Nokia's business what I do? I already buy their firewalls, one would think they would think this is a good thing.
Doesn't part 15 of the FCC rules state that
1. this device must not cause any harmful interference
2. this device must accept any interference even if it causes undesirable operation.
This applies to wireless lan products as well. So what if that interference causes some corporation's wireless device to use bandwidth and transmit potentially useful information to the source of such interference (me with my handy dandy wireless enabled laptop)
Warchalking may be theft of service. If you want to stop it, don't introduce more laws or create press releases, just key your router to MAC addresses that you bless. Use user verification and validation on the devices. Get a decent security policy, don't whine about bad people stealing your electro-magnetic radiation.
Oh, and wear a tin-foil hat.
Your analogy lacks a certain something, is all I can say.
Hershey has decried wrenching caps off fire hydrants as vandalism. Sears has classified unfounded assumptions made by physicists as "dangerous". And MacDonalds is putting up billboards stating that playing overly loud music is "un-American".
May we never see th
"How is [accessing a publically accessible wireless network] different [from listening to the music coming from the car that pulls up next to you at a stop light]?"
"It's passive".
So you're saying I can pirate cable and DirecTV, because doing so is *passive*, since the calbes and the signals are already present.
I guess this means I can run dump packets off a publically accessible wireless network, as long as I don't send any, right?
Thanks, but I don't quite buy that theory.
-- Terry
You stop for a second in the middle of the street. Just to take a rest or something else. Suddenly someone pushes you and you see a cop dressed in ol'style pharaon uniform crying to you: "Why the hell you stop by? Trying to warchalking? Keep moving you little bastard. I know you all. Just make the impression you jus'stop to rest and in a second you are stealing some more bandwith of a decent corporate citizen... Behind bars is the place for the scum like you. Go on! Go on! Keep moving!! If I see you again in my sector I'll not be so humble!"
Well most of us may not remember or note that once upon a time not only in America but also all over the world, cops loved to hunt small gatherings of people and disperse them. In some countries a gathering of more than three people on the street would be considered a demonstration and they could be thrown to jail for that. Probably we still have some countries where such practices still exist... So the humour may not be so unrealistic...
How is WarChalking theft? It is not! This demonisation of WarChalkers in the mass media is akin to the ignorance of the distinction between Hackers and Crackers.
I am a Computer Professional; I am also a WarChalker. I am not a criminal or thief. I have never stolen bandwidth or illegally accessed a computer.
The first issue to remember is WiFi is public spectrum it belongs to everybody not to a particular company simply because they've bought an Access Point.
Secondly most WarChalkers provide internet access via a WarChalked WiFi Access Point out of community spirit or as part of expermental community wireless projects.
At first it appeared to me that some technically ignorant Nokia marketing droid had simple jumped on the sensationaist anti-WarChalking bandwagon as paraded in the mass-media.
However as I write this it is becoming increasing obvious to me that this attack is more insipid. Nokia's problem is that cooperative community based Wireless Access Projects run by WarChalkers are competition that will in future destroy their existing business models.
Serving a WAP with no authentication requirements is equivalent to owning a toll bridge, while forgetting to setup a toll booth with a sign to let people know they need to pay to get across.
-- Panzergheist
It they're unencrypted, yes. If you have to bypass a security mechanism, like encryption or scrambling then it is illegal.
I believe that is how the ruling worked.
So, yes. If those morons don't lock their wireless networks you could probably legally get away with sniffing but not sending.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
While I agree that the actual usage of bandwidth from a company, without prior permission is theft, I don't agree that warchalking is wrong. I think it might be used as a warning to the administrators of the companies that get warchalked to get their act together an really limit wireless usage within their company. Wireless is inherently insecure and therefore should be used sparingly. It's a HUGE security hole in any network. If companies are worried about people using their wireless network w/out their permission, they need to put security measures in place to prevent it. IE. Firewalls behind ALL WAP's and using MAC based ACL's for starters. If companies are really that concerned about the all of this, DON'T USE WIRELESS! You've lived without it up until now, you don't really NEED it. It's more a convenience than anything.
Like the rest of you, I wondered why Nokia cares.
v ad.pdf ...
Nokia makes 802.11, and other networking equipment; they also make 3G phones, and, finally, they are in bed with Covad: http://www.nokia.com/networks/mw1642/downloads/co
So why does Nokia care? Nokia cares because they believe that they will sell more equipment if connections can not be shared, than they will if connections are shared.
-- Terry
What "the ruling"?
We are talking about an "advisory" published by Nokia, in which they call people who do war-chalking thieves... not the outcome of a court case.
-- Terry
I work in a public library. We have installed Wireless in all branches. Rather than use the very de classe chalk we had nice signs made up with the war chalk symbol. You see it when you walk in the door. It's all on default in front of an RT-311 which supplies DHCP and masks the network itself. We even have one hub pointed directly at the parking lot. You can plug into our dual T-1 system 24x7. It's all free, of course; we're not pulling a Starbucks. In the near future you can expect to see all public libraries do this. It's too cheap not to do.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Ok, there are some huge fundamental differences here that you are glossing over...
1. Cable isn't even comparable, as the signal does not pass over a publicly-accessible medium. I should have no expectation of access to a fiber network that the city (or the Cable company) put down underground.
2. DirecTV isn't comparable either, although last I checked (won't swear as to now), hacking DirecTV signals, at least with your own hardware, is not illegal (tampering with the card is because they own it). Reason? Signal goes through air that is public domain. To be fair, the particular frequencies they use are licensed to them, so there could be some ground here for legislation. But I would still argue that passive (ie, receiving) access is legal - if they can't keep their signal away from you, they should expect some hacking. Note that their solution has been equipment that has updatable security - smart.
3. 802.11 isn't even in the same ballpark. It goes through a public medium (air) and a public frequency spectrum (frequently the 2.4 GHz band). I suppose I shouldn't use anything that could interfere with that frequency? Like my cordless phone? That's ridiculous - there have been enough crappy analogies already, but expecting privacy here is like building a house with no doors in a public park, and then getting all upset when people trespass. Either licence your own spectrum or use some damned security.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I guess we did it all for the nokie.
just because you CAN steal something, doesn't mean you can... you come across a car in the street with the doors unlocked and a laptop on the seat, you take that laptop, you're a thief...
and it's things like this that make corporations welcome palladium, or whatever the next thing of that sort will be, so cheers fellas!
(as for the Anon. coward thing... i guess i should really sign up here...)
Theft? I don't THINK so ...
... whose responsibility is it to ensure that their mailserver is not an open relay? Whose responsibility is it to ensure their anonymous ftp server is properly chrooted? It is the responsibility of the system owner, that is who!
If access to a network is NOT restricted it should be considered an open invitation to outside users. After all, restricting access by MAC address is NOT rocket science and the tools to do so are included in the box with your shiny new WAP.
It's the same principle as running a webserver on the 'net. If port 80 is open, it's an open invite for people to connect to port 80. ANY responsible net user knows that it is their OWN responsibility to restrict access to resources they don't want to share with the world.
Look at it this way
It is not theft to pick up money you find laying in the gutter, therefore, it is not theft to use bandwidth flying through the air. Companies and individuals who don't want to share their resources have all the tools they need to prevent unauthorized access, let them use them.
Nokia is all wet on this.
utter rubbish
Well, if their network is insecure, they *do* deserve to have bandwidth stolen, and it should show up in their logs and monitoring systems.
Then the sysadmin should be fired and replaced with someone who has some clue about network security.
Let's face it. Damned near everyone will accept an offer of something for nothing. If I leave my front door open all the time, people are going to walk in. Some people might even take stuff. If I leave a phone in a publicly accessible place, people will start making calls.
To hell with legality and morality, people want a free lunch. Just look at Digital Satellite hacks, cable descramblers, game console modchips, phone phreaks... Some of these are ridiculously easy to take advantage of, others aren't. For $30 on top of the cost of a laptop/handheld (and face it, no one who doesn't already have a portable device will give half a damn about wireless networking) I have the ability, though not the right, to walk about my city and access the 'net from any access point in range.
If you don't want people stealing your bandwidth, then LOCK IT DOWN. If you're running a company and don't want your IT department giving it all away, then hire an admin who understands that. Stores have security guards, residential buildings have doormen, suburban areas have the neighborhood watch, networks have admins. Let them do their job, and the only wireless bandwidth available will be from those who want to share, and have a right to do so. Believe me, in most urban areas, that'll be plenty of bandwidth to go around.
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
From a legal standpoint, though, he's right; swimming pools that aren't fenced-in, the owner is responsible if a child wanders in and drowns. This has been upheld in court before, I believe, though IANAL. (My father is, though.) From that standpoint, I can see some of the logic. I.e., it's not the poster's opinion that he'd be liable for his non-fenced-in pool, it's the opinion the courts have repeatedly upheld.
As for the rape analogy, I'm not even touching that. It's too close to something I find that I still haven't dealt with.
--Rachel
nokia = waaaaah! Embrace the future!
I am BLaRG!
Yet another bullshit opinion about why is is ok to use their resources. Keep saying it to yourself. Honestly, if you all felt it was fine, you wouldn't feel the need to make up these analogies to try to compare it to something acceptable.
I notice you didn't answer my question asking for a justifiable reason to be on their network without their knowledge.
if they choose to share by not securing their network at all, then it's not stealing
Warchalking is not a theft but connecting and using bandwidth is a theft.
This is like giving away e-money cards' numbers.
It is not a theft to say the number but it is a theft to call to a bank and register (add money to your account) with someone-else number
As in, who's buying the server and paying for the electricity?
Me?
I think not, socialist boy.
It works for CD blanks... put a tax on chalk and spread it around to the large "bandwidth" providers. :)
Asking a wireless server for access and receive the requested access is against the law.
Stealing my right to understand how a device works and build my own device (just the way I like: "Do it by yourself") IS NOT against the law.
Stealing my right to buy a CD (cdda compatible) and play it in the ONLY cdda compatible device I have IS NOT against the law.
Stealing my right to develop my own software and do with it whatever I want, even give it way for anybody who wants even see its source IS NOT against the law.
Stealing the right of a country to solve its own problems, and decide it's time to change its president (dictator or not), without the agreement of the proper organization responsible for these cases IS NOT agaisnt the law.
Accepting money and gifts from big companies to submit new laws following thir interests, instead of the people interests and freedom, IS NOT against the law.
I hope to still have the right to disagree with things that I think that is REALLY wrong and MUST, or else we will become slaves of laws that were created by our own legal and political representants, representing others interests.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
At least in the US, most courts would probably disagree with your opinion. Per an article by the Tennessee Bar Association What is Trespassing?:
If you leave your door unlocked and an unknown passerby entered your house and either you asked him or her to leave and the passerby refused or you have a posted "No Trespassing" sign, then trespassing has occurred. Otherwise, the maxim no harm, no foul most probably applies.
If I want to provide access to anyone passing by my home, I should be allowed to. The way I'd do this would be to broadcast my SSID and let anyone in range know that there was a network available. I could advertise in papers, online (newsgroups, local chat spaces, etc), but the best way to let people know would be letting the access point tell them.
Now, I'm an individual doing this, but there are ISPs, corperations and small businesses who have decided to share their bandwidth. If connecting to their networks is made illegal (that seems to be the way it's going), how will users know which networks are there to be used, and which aren't?
To me, it seems an open network, broadcasting it's SSID, and having no security isn't just an "open door", it's a "come in, have a drink, put your feet up" sign - I don't want to be breaking the law by connecting to a network that finds me. WEP is simpliest - not super secure, but it tells me, right off, "sorry, you're not welcomed here". I'm not looking to crack or do anything malicious, I'm just looking for a network connection. And since many nice people let me share, how am I supposed to know, when your network comes knocking, that I shouldn't shake hands and have a drink?
How true. Wish I had some mod points for you! Mod this guy up somebody.
This is absurd, If I can pick it up on public property and its not secured then its free game.
Imagine if I ran some cable from an office and set up a bunch of ports in a public park I
can't demand that it only be for my employees. If you dont like it then secure it. Conversly they could probably get them for vandalism.
Finally, a good analogy. There are so many bad ones here at /.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I seem to recall hearing somewhere (can anyone help me out?) that in the US there is nothing illegal about receiving signals transmitted. So, technically, it's legal to listen in on analog cell phone conversations, police band, and what not. Were that data encrypted, then it is illegal to break the encryption to read it.
The UK may be different, but I'm not sure what the illegal part is. Running dhcp to receive an IP address is not hacking. If you then attempted to get into their systems, that would be hacking. So as long as activities were kept to simply using their system as an access point and nothing more, I believe you're within your legal rights (in the US) (for now).
The RIAA has recently filed a lawsuit against Chalkmakers of America (CA), alleging that the primary purpose of the "chalk" device is to transcribe and distribute lyrics of copyrighted songs.
Got Rhinos?
Blaming the company is absolutly pathetic, lame as hell. Its not for you to say 'I can take their bandwidth because its not locked down'. Ill clear something up for you, If you walk by my can and I forget to lock the door I am not saying its OK for you to use! If a guad falls asleep at a store its NOT, say it with me, NOT ok to shoplift, and if the head of my neighbord watch is on vacation please dont start a crime spree.
It seems that more and more often the answer is not to take precautions to prevent theft but instead pass more laws to make the act illegal. It's illegal for someone to walk into my house and take my TV but I don't leave my doors and windows open. I can't imagine going before a judge to complain that I left my doors open for a few months and came home to find my stereo was gone. Ignorance seems to be a satisfactory defence nowdays.
Great...Cmdr Taco post a story about Warchalking on Slashdot and the Warchalking website, http://www.warchalking.org mentions Slashdot. Kinda scarey isn't it.
"chalking in itself isn't illegal but the usage is."
Whoah there partner, you're making a bit of a leap there. If one were using the open WAP to break into a company's interior network and/or muck around with their computers, then that would be illegal. However, it is not at all clear that a WAP open to the public, used for internet access is illegal. Many people leave them open on purpose, and secure the intranet from the WAP. It is reasonable to think that many people and companies would not be concerned about the bandwidth used by a passerby on the sidewalk waiting for the bus. "Exploiting and open WAP" sure does sound bad, but it isn't necessarily.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I can assume the door to your dwelling being open gives me the right to come in and eat stuff out of your fridge?
:-)
To read my argument about how trespassing laws combined with publicly available property ownership documents DO in fact legally prevent you from entering my residence and consuming my food/resources without my permission, refer to this other post.
Similar laws might apply to unsecured wireless networks, but the hotspots of those networks need to be legally documented and publicly available.
Not to mention the fact that you won't find much to eat in my fridge anyway, unless you like to eat baking soda.
$8.95/mo web hosting
At what point did I say that it was OK to steal the bandwidth? At what point did I even deny that it was stealing?
Bandwidth (on a per company basis) is a finite resource. We both realize that. You're arguing with me on a point that I already agree with!
The point is that *someone* is going to do it, and it has nothing to do with OSS. Damned near anyone these days can up and buy a card and steal bandwidth. Since it's going to happen, you DO YOUR JOB and stop it.
I'm not about to shoplift, start crime sprees, etc. But why does it happen? Because of inadequate security.
I *can* take bandwidth because it's not locked down. I just won't. I could also run about the streets with an assault rifle gunning down anyone who looked at me crosseyed. That doesn't mean I will. You're the one confusing ability with intent.
As a sysadmin, I fully expect some idiot to try to weasel their way into my networks. When he does, I should hope that I've taken enough precautions to make sure he fails miserably.
Back to your final response, if a guard falls asleep at a store, someone will try to shoplift. The guard will be fired. Does that get the stolen property back? No. If the head of the neighborhood watch goes on vacation and someone starts a crime spree, someone else will take charge in his absence.
You can call it theft all you want, but just because you say it's bad doesn't mean people will stop doing it. The proper response is to take the proper precautionary measures. Reliance on some utopian ideals will ultimately get you nowhere.
And once again, NO, it's NOT ok to steal. But it's still going to happen.
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
And your arguing me with something I agree with, you should protect your netwrok. My origional post was respoinding to the attitude some people have that its ok to steal if we can. Many of these people are the first to scream if DVD/CD's are made copy protected..
I have a small development company with a couple of small offices in a relatively empty office building.
:)
More and more of our developers have been switching(TM) to Mac laptops, and they've been bringing them into the office. (We do 99% of our development at home, doing the "office thing" about once a week).
Well, I've got a WAP set up in our office, but it's "silent" in that it only responds to devices that it's been configured to accept.
Needless to say, I came in to a meeting and a couple of guys had new laptops, and they were happily surfing the net, checking their email, etc., wirelessly, which kind of surprised me, because, well, I hadn't set them up yet.
Turns out that someone in the office building had just bought a new LinkSys WAP and just plugged it in, and the "go-find-me-a-network-connection" feature in OS X had automagically configured the closest available network connection.
We proceded to pick up the laptops and walk through the hallways until the signal got strongest, knocked on the door, and offered our services in securing their wireless network.
The guy was totally surprised.
At the end of the day, though, I would NOT consider what we did to be theft, because it lacked the intent, and was a result of the other guys negligence in his configuration of his own tool.
At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own action. In the same way that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", "ignorance of the technology is no exuse".
$0.02 (CDN)
So, in a way, these are signals for "wireless hobos", people wandering around with laptops but no internet connections...
First result
Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.
There's not such as big a difference as you imply.
...so basically, yes, cable *is* comparable, as the signal passes over a medium that they put into my bedroom, and they've explicitly taken measures to block my access to any signals which don't.
Several months ago, the cable company signed an agreement with my apartment complex, where they paid the aprtment complex some money in order to get the apartment complex to do two things:
(1) Install cable outlets in the bedrooms of all apartments.
(2) Rip down the roof antennas.
In any case, my argument was for access to broadcast signals, or signals in wires on your own premises, without an explicit grant of a right-of-way that would preclude you accessing them.
In case you want to argue cable some more, I'll warn you that I can argue "attractive nuisance" for a live cable outlet in an apartment building, and I can argue the right-of-way exception on the basis of court cases in which TCI Cable and Cox Cable have strung cables over someonees yard to get cable to that someone's house, and had to remove/reroute the cable becuase they failed to use a legal right-of-way.
-- Terry
In short, the only thing that all of this analogy blather does is muddy the waters when what is needed is a debate on what is the proper morality of access to a new object of this type. What are the societal costs of prosecuting versus non-prosecution? Is there a responsibility for society to protect stupid admins who won't protect their own systems? And so on. But stupid analogies of locks and houses won't get you there...
That is all.
This must be a marketing piece. Notice there are no names of Nokia staff are and only one Nokia reference. They must be selling a new product. Sounds like Mr. James Middleton has just reproduced a Nokia company press releases and label it as News. And you wonder why we don't trust the press :-).
Now let's address the real issues in this article, theft of services. The theft is the result of companies are not practicing due care for their wireless networks. And as always, it's easer to blame a "Hacker" then take responsibility for your actions.
If I put an Ethernet cable out the windows and connect it to my network. Someone uses the Ethernet cable and labels it as an Ethernet cable. You are telling me that the villain the person who use my Ethernet and labeled it. No, it is me, for being stupid enough to put the Ethernet out the window.
Joe Klein
As others have pointed out, WAPs default configuration leaves them literally broadcasting the message "Here I am! Come get your internet access here." The laptop asks, "can I use your net connection?" and the WAP says, "Absolutely! Here's a key! Have a nice day!".
Using these advertised services is in no way stealing.
The ONLY reason there is any moral dilema is because we, as geeks, know that the WAP user may not have actually intended to have their WAP open to the public.
WAP makers are selling a fundamentally unsafe product. They do it because it's the status quo. It's the status quo because it will cut into their profit margins if they have to handle support calls explaining to customers how to use their shiny new WAP. Right now, you buy a WAP, connect the wires, and you're good to go. Forcing the users to choose a security mechanism or explicitly make the connection public would generate more support calls and cut into margins. All the other WAP makers do it, so why should Linksys/DLink/BrandX be the first to annoy customers?
There are two ways this can go down. Either the WAP makers can get together and simultaneously agree to ship secure by default (and raise prices or lose profit to compensate), or there will be a class action lawsuit that will force them to do it anyways.
Ah, the old DVD/CD issue.
Well, they shouldn't be copy protected, but that's just because I supposedly have the right to make backups, and use the data as I see fit for personal use.
If they could somehow make it that I could make 15 billion copies of a song/movie that I've already paid for, but ensure that I'm the only one who can use those copies, I'd be perfectly happy.
Anyway, no, it's not ok, as we both agree. And yes, resources of any type should be secured from improper use. However, I'll still stand in the anti-copy protection side, since everything that I see in place these days seems to limit fair use.
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
Yes you/I can say that because we think stealing is wrong, the people here saying its ok to steal have imho no right to complain about any security measures people take for their IP..
If I point my web browser at a web site and it returns a page with no authorization request, have I illegally accessed that site? If send subsequent requests to the site and it sends back more documents, am I illegally using their bandwidth?
If I ftp to a site, and without seeing a message from the site other than "connected" use "ftp/my@email.adr" to log on, have I illegally accessed the site? If I cd around and pull/push a few files, have I illegally used their bandwidth?
If I scan for a WAP, and I get connected, have I illegally accessed the WAP? If I then request the WAP to pass on my packets and relay my packets back to me, have I illegally used their bandwidth?
-no broken link
With a WAP, its as if you were to install jacks all over public sidewalk, in the laundry mat accross the street, the coffee shop, etc.
One might say that folks walking up to a jack on your building and hooking up were tresspassing, but it does seem to me that if folks are merely plugging into an port you are making available in a space you don't own, it's a leap to turn around and accuse them of theft.
Seems to me that if securing the WAP is too much for them, they should at least put a sign up: The virtual ports available on this block are for Nokia employees only! before making accusations of theft.
Maybe they could save some $ by making their TANSTAAFWAP sign in chalk?
In this case, if the wireless standards had incorporated decent security, warchalking wouldn't exist. 802.11b, and the various products based on it, are the most incompetently designed products from a security point of view: lousy user interface (you have to type lots of weird numbers into dialog boxes before your system becomes secure), and even if you go through that, it still isn't secure.
Nokia: fix your systems, don't blame others.
Because the Network is _actively_ saying "Get your Free IP address here".
It's like you put a water fountain out on the street with a sign on it saying "drink from me".
In such a case, all the justification a person needs is that they are thirsty.
Or break an agreement you signed.
But here we have a DHCP server saying "Have a free IP address", and the user's laptop just says "OK".
Which seems to me an entirely different scenario from actively stealing cable: to your laptop, an open DHCP server has a sign on it saying: "Get Free Bandwidth Here". Period.
I see no difference between this an Nokia accusing folks of theft for drinking from a water fountain that Nokia pays for, that has a sign on it saying "Get Free Water Here".
Seems to me that if you put a sign up saying "Have a Free IP Addy", as an open DHCP server does to a laptop with the default DHCP settings, folks certainly have a "right" to assume its ok to say "OK".
... let me see - that was when IBM painted
Love, Peace, Linux all over the pavements of
some larger US cities ?
Toon Moene.
Add a "Free Beer" sign and your analogy is more like an open DHCP server on a WiFi network (the server is actively broadcasting "Get an IP address here").
Of course you could still get in trouble if underage kids took you up on it:-).
I haven't used WiFi so I was wondering... if their network is an NT based system, the ONLY way you could get through is to know the name of the domain (W2K network) and know the exact user+pass combination to be able to receive a DHCP IP address... Am I wrong ?
-Amir
MCP
I'm not a idealogical socialist, nor am I a zealous capitalist. I just believe that responsibility is a pendulum that swings both ways.
I have never once read a post where every single person absolutely agreed. There's like 1000 posts that all agree.
However, if there is disagreement, forgive me for not noticing anything below the -10 threshold.
Someone here that lives near Nokia should write warchalk symbols outside of their corporate offices.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
*G*
So lets say your microsoft.
So, you're having business dealings with a company you don't really like and they sit in your office and fire up their laptops lets say the laptops are Apples..
The laptops find the wirless lan, fire up the e-mail checker and use your bandwidth to check and see if they've got any new e-mail, they do and the e-mail checker program goes 'beep!' you promptly get written statments from everyone to the effect that their laptop said 'beep!' and logs showing that a laptop logged in at the same time.
Whey now you can do whatever the law allows for this evil theft of your service I say let em hang..
Afterall its as bad as if they walked into your HOUSE and stole your food! hey its JUST LIKE they pulled up next to you at the lights and emptied your petrol from your car, I mean they PRACTICALLY just walked off with your god damn TV!
rofl.
Assuming you can see the stupidity of this being illigal at what point should it become illigal?
No. It is not theft.
The warchalkers are not taking anything. Rather, they are requesting a service, and it is being granted to them incorrectly. The decision to allow access to the network is made by an entity within that company. Normally, that entity's supervisor would be responsible for correcting it. In this case, the network admin.
Imagine a waiter at a restaurant who gives extra food (or service) to those who ask. Management may not approve of this practice, but it is in no way the responsibility of the customer to not ask.
Asking for a service is not a crime. Using a service provided illegitimately is not theft, unless an attempt has been made to mislead the provider. In this case, this has not happened.
What constitutes authorized access? Must it be explicit, or can it be inferred? If there is a drinking fountain in the lobby, am I to assume I need explicit authorization to use it? At a local café, the toilets are clearly marked as "for customer use only". While hardly a comprehensive method for deterring freeloaders, violators of the sign's edict can at least be labeled as thieves with some credence. My point is that I believe the onus is on the owner of wireless network to identify it as a private resource; especially when it is publicly accessible, and actively soliciting users (a phenomenon documented by Warchalkers). There are those who deliberately share network access with the public. How can a laptop discern intent without the metaphorical sign? Ironically, by Nokia's reasoning companies that pollute public areas with broadcast packets are also guilty of "unauthorized access". A wireless enabled computer will react to broadcast traffic. Whether or not I participate on a wireless network, if my computer detects broadcast packets, I'm losing precious CPU cycles.
In essence, it is up to the company. I am moving my business next month to a location where I can get a fat DSL for a reasonable price. I'm setting up a WAP router, and I'm putting a Warchalk symbol on a sign in the window. I have a VPN/Firewall behind the WAP; no one will be able to get to my servers but they'll be able to get to the Internet if they want to check their E-mail. But, I am the one inviting the use, and implying consent - no one else has the right to do it for me.
then it's not theft.
If you have to bypass security checks then it is theft.
I have open AP at home, no WEP, nothing. I have nothing against other people using it as long
as they don't abuse it.
If I didn't want to - I would protect my network.
It is similar as land ownership - if I have
a land and do not want people to wander
around - I put a fence. If I have land and
no fence - feel free to wander around
as long as you do not abuse it.
I guess it is too hard for greedy Nokia people
to understand that people sometimes do not care
if others use their things.
Well, I had a hard time to decied if
should get Nokia phone or Ericsson phone -
now it is easy!
The IP address you receive is your confirmation number that you were authorized. If the AP is wide open, then it is authorizing all. Plain and simple. The internet is public property.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I think a better analogy (at least for those less technicaly minded) would be a building with phones in publicly accessable locations that could only make "free" outgoing local calls, the only time a problem comes up is if the public were using so many lines that none were left for the workers to use. The question then must be asked should the company hang signs reading "courtessy phone" or a signs reading "no public phones".
First off, I'm not trying to justify using someone else's resources without their knowledge. My point was that you cannot blame someone for utilizing a resource they were never told they were not allowed to use.
:) But it was still wrong.
About 12 years ago, I first got on the internet via a 'public' dialin at the local university. This number wasn't published, but was likely discovered by someone knowing somebody there, or perhaps by wardialing. Upon getting carrier you were presented with a banner saying nothing about restrictions, followed by a telnet prompt which you could use as you wished. Only certain people were supposed to know about this, and those of us that weren't supposed to know knew damn well to be careful sharing the information, since we knew we weren't supposed to be there. It didn't take a sign or anything to realize that it costs money to maintain a network connection, and that we were in no way contributing to its continued operation, had not been invited, etc, etc.. It was just obvious. The moral pang was easily overridden by the geek's desire to explore, of course.
Just like you 'instinctively' know that you're not supposed to just walk into somebody's house if they've left the door open. It's basic human courtesy.
True. However, walking into someone's house is very different than being given access to a network. In one instance, you've entered someone's property uninvited. In the other, you are being actively invited to use the resource.
What this really boils down to is incompetence on the part of the corporation in question, and the lack of desire of said company to spend any money on securing their network.
Let me relate this another way: A certain individual is given a link to a page of a website. Upon clicking the link, the individual is presented with all the resources of that page that the designers included for viewing. This individual browses the site for a while, then disconnects and continues on his marry way. Three days later, this person gets a call from the operators of the site he visited a few days ago. As it turns out, the section of the site he visited was supposed to be for registered users only. Should this person be labeled a thief for what took place? Before you toss out my argument as being BS, remember that during the push for WAP in coffee shops, etc. that these services were often offered gratis as a reason to come back and spend more on the actual product of the shop. So the assumption that it should be 'common sense' that you need to pay for this service is not a valid one.
Bottom line, corporations need to start being accountable for their own shortcomings, instead of passing it off on the consumer. If someone logs into a WAP and isn't asked for authentication in the process, then the person in charge of that network is the one to blame for that. And yes, the people involved with leaving a hole in the network that you mentioned are the ones responsible in that instance as well.
Yes actually you are. Sorry... W2K networks also by default do not 'know' the dhcp server. You can configure it that way. So how do they find it?...
DHCP is a broadcast type network service. In this case usually the wirless hub feeds them out. These connection points should be treated the same way as if you are hooking up to the internet. With distrust and security by exception not by rule, and in layers. Some one else mentioned only certian MAC address's being allowed. Also another way is an actual firewall. Both sides of your equipment will need these measures. For example your machine should be configured to only talk to certain access points and ignor everything else. You should also presume everything you are broadcasting through the air is being listened to. Now if your trading emails about what the boss did to his secretary yesterday it probably doesnt matter. But if you are trading source code to your latest gizmo you probably will need encryption to help you out. It just needs to be treated as an outside connection not an internal one.
It is easy to fall into the trap that only you have total controll of the hardware in this case. Most of the time you do. But if someone walks by you may not...
Its probably just as wrong as hacking through the internet into someones network. The fact that people can come up with maps of 'open' networks, shows a fundamental problem. The tech is treated as a inside the network thing. It is not.
Anyone found hacking into a wireless network should receive appropriate punishment. Perhaps they should be banned from having a personal internet account, or maybe something more inventive, such as systematic spamming of their personal e-mail account or removal of security from their e-mail on the server. Let's see how they like it when they are stripped of security and their secrets made available to all the other hackers out there. Anthony Gilbert, UK" How about we just decide when you say something wrong we put a listening device in your brain and we can all hear what you think. Then any time you think something we dont like we get to electricute you. You IDIOT!
meridian at tha.net
And here I thought Nokia was based in Finland, rumored to be part of Europe...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
First off, I'm not trying to justify using someone else's resources without their knowledge. My point was that you cannot blame someone for utilizing a resource they were never told they were not allowed to use.
How about common sense? Do you really expect, that if you walk down the street and find an open network, that it must have been provided for your benefit?
If it was intended to be freely accessibly, there would most likely be signs posted. Otherwise, common sense would suggest that the network is merely misconfigured, and that an honest individual would decline to take advantage of it (or even notify the operator, if practical, that their network is open).
Nokia, people who war chalk arent even 1% as evil as all the CEOs/board members of many corporates.
At least we earn money from our hard work, not sit in a board room and say , "yes bob" and get $5000/day
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I wasn't refering to someone merely walking down the street and finding an open network. My argument had to deal with establishments that offered wireless access to customers at a specific point. In other words, my argument was directed towards businesses which provided access to customers in a established area. To make myself perfectly clear, I was not directly refering to the exact topic at hand (warchalking, and people intentionally searching for wireless networks that are open). More over, my argument concerned the need for corporations to tighten their own security, or at least properly weigh security concerns before jumping on the latest technological fashion trend. If they cannot secure it, then they should not be providing it to anyone. Think about it this way: would you want to use a WAP that some corporation never properly configured, meanwhile transmitting your personal information across it? Again, I am not promoting taking advantage of misconfigured networks, nor am I trying to defend warchalking. I am declaring that anyone who is considering running a network, including corporations, make certain they have implemented properly the security levels required, and have weighed all the risks before adopting the new buzzword of the week. If they cannot be bothered to do so, then they should not be implementing that network.
What's next? Stickie pads? Green and pink highlighters?
People ride bicycles to the office. They leave the bikes outside unlocked. A stranger comes by and takes one bike, rides for some time and returns it.
:-)
Theft? - No.
Illegal? - Yes.
Immoral/unethical? - possibly, althou that may be subjective.
--Flam
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
Who gives a rusty fuck what cops think? It's what the law says that counts.
If a cop "thinks" your mowhawk presages criminal behavior, he'll find _some_ excuse to bust you. Do you really want to have to spend your life worrying about what some donut-sucker "thinks".
to solve this problem equip yourself with a hand made frequency jammer that blocks all WLAN's, cell phones (especially in theaters) and while were at it, bluetooth. Who says they have a right to pass electronic radio frequencies through my body without MY permission?
Oops! I did it again
The reminds me of the recent story about a South American couple ion Italy. Every day for a month they would go and sit in front of a statue of the virgin Mary. The priest guy was really impressed -- everyday rain or shine -- for one hour!
Late he discovered that they had been unplugging the light behind the statue and using the outlet to charge up their cell phone.
---
From the web:
"Madonna statue in cell phones "miracle"
ABC News has reported that a couple who appeared to be devoutly praying at the foot of a statue of a Christian icon, The Madonna turned out to be less devoted and more interested in recharging their cell phone.
Priests at the Milan, Italy church told ABC News that the young South American couple had been coming in to the church for about a month and had spent about an hour in front of the Madonna statue each day. It was when a cleaner noticed a cable from the couple to the back of the statue that the truth came out - they were plugging their cell phone charger into the plug socket at the back of the statue and recharging their phone battery.
The parish priest, Don Antonio Colombo said that he would not bar the couple from continuing to recharge their cell phone, saying that they were a homeless couple, "The church is their house and letting them charge their mobile phone is a bit like giving them a glass of water." "
Late he discovered that they had been unplugging the light behind the statue and using the outlet to charge up their cell phone.
---
From the web:
"Madonna statue in cell phones "miracle"
ABC News has reported that a couple who appeared to be devoutly praying at the foot of a statue of a Christian icon, The Madonna turned out to be less devoted and more interested in recharging their cell phone.
Priests at the Milan, Italy church told ABC News that the young South American couple had been coming in to the church for about a month and had spent about an hour in front of the Madonna statue each day. It was when a cleaner noticed a cable from the couple to the back of the statue that the truth came out - they were plugging their cell phone charger into the plug socket at the back of the statue and recharging their phone battery.
The parish priest, Don Antonio Colombo said that he would not bar the couple from continuing to recharge their cell phone, saying that they were a homeless couple, "The church is their house and letting them charge their mobile phone is a bit like giving them a glass of water." "
> if I don't put locks on my doors, when someone
> walks into my house > it must be that I
> *want* people to do this? I respectully disagree
I disagree as well; but you've missed a key point. If that same trespasser knocks on the unlocked door and you (or someone in your household) lets them in, no crime is commited.
In order for a passerby to access the internet through one of these AP's their laptop must send a DHCP request (DHCP request = knock at door). The DHCP server then must allocate an IP address and inform the laptop of available name servers (DHCP server = someone in household, allocating IP/DNS = LETTING YOU IN). Seems straight forward to me. Of course, I doubt that many judges know enough about DHCP traffic to see the connection.
Holy shit, that's a good idea. Thank heaven for NT5.x.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No, that would be banning chalk from the stores using the DMCA; after which the geek community can set its hopes on Bruce Perens to chalk HP HQ. ;-)
Go Bruce!
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
And this leads to the FBI chasing you down and blowing up your backpack. : )
I am a monkey. This is slashdot.
There are many different attitudes a network admin can have towards 3rd party access via their WAP:
1) Actively supports public use of their WLAN, probably put the warchalking marks around the AP. SSID is set to blank or otherwise indicate public access.
2) Doesn't intend to offer public access but doesn't care when they find out it is happening. Usually these are home users or some small businesses.
3) Doesn't intend to offer public access, has no real clue about how far their signal leaks or how easy it is to find a WAP left on default settings. When given clue, either begins to secure network or whines the g'ment needs to do something about these "evil hackers". Most open APs are in this category.
4) Doesn't intend to offer public access, takes steps to secure network. Can either be totally private or a pay network like the one at Starbucks.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
no. When a woman says no, that's like putting up a fence around your pool or a sign up on your private property. If a woman didn't say no and then changed her mind later, that would be an appropriate analogy, but then again the woman would, legally speaking, be screwed.
I was accused of "stealing" a static IP from an ISP. At the time I was using a Mac and it was soon after Open Transport was released and stable. I signed up for ISDN service with a providor. In the TCP/IP control panel you could manually enter an IP address. I did this, to see what would happen, surprisingly every time I connected, I was given that IP address.
I was accused of stealing the static IP because I didn't pay the extra charge for the priveledge of a static IP. If someone misconfigures their hardware, if they respond to every request, be it for a static IP, DHCP address assignment or blowjobs, it is not stealing to take from them.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
it's more like watering your lawn with a sprinkler system -- are you going to consider your neighbors as stealing water as they walk on the sidewalk through the water-spray to cool off on a hot summer?
But it's all kind of beside the point. You can argue all kinds of analogies and parallels. Public information is free to those who find it; an unsecured access point is like an open door; putting data on an unsecured network is like having a conversation in public; etc., etc. The bottom line is that the U.S. courts have never been tolerant of unauthorized access to systems and their data, no matter how careless the owners of that data have been.
Legally and morally, facilitating a crime is a crime itself. Sometimes it's a lesser crime, but not always, and it's never a much lesser crime.