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)
How is it any different than me sitting next to some one at a stop light and hearing their crappy music?
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)
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.
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.
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 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
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
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!"
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Laptop: Hello, is anyone out there? Can I have an ip address please? Anyone?
Wireless Access Point: Of course, here you go. The company I represent has configured me to route packets for you. Have a nice day.
Nokia: Unauthorized Access!!! Thief!!!
Wireless Access Point: Uh, oh. Am I fired?
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.
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.
Well, take that analogy to its conclusion. It only justifies sniffing traffic leaking out. By using that wireless network for internet access (or any use infact) you are throwing stuff into their premises and consuming their bandwidth without permission. It is stealing, plain and simple.
Just as leaving your door unlocked doesn't make it ok to come in, not protecting the network doesn't mean it's ok to exploit it. Administrators should secure wireless networks with extra care, but it is not the responsibilty of warchalkers to exploit that.
All that being said, Warchalking is a hell of a lot more innocuous way of finding out that you are wide open than, say, corporate espionage. I came in for an interview at a company that operating in a single suite on the third floor of a building. I noticed a warchalking mark outside the premises and thought 'some company's administrator needs to get it together'. I get the job and find out they have an access point wide open. They had it carefully positioned in the middle of their small suite so they would get best reception. I mentioned what measures I thought should be taken and they said they didn't want to deal with the hastle on employee laptops and that they *knew* the wireless wouldn't extend beyond their walls. Some months later I was able to show them that I could connect from the ground outside the building, and then they let me enable 40-bit WEP. about as secure as a wet tissue, but better than nothing.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
That's not how wireless works. Your house does not continually broadcast to the street and other areas "There's a house here! Here's how you get to the front door! You'll need a DHCP badge to get any service from the butler, here's one you can use...", etc, etc.
A more fitting analogy would be if you were to establish a public establishment (a bar, for example), advertise a grand opening, and then someone walks into your bar...
Kinds changes things, doesn't it? Your bartender likely has a specific policy about allowing your patrons to make 1-900 calls, the fridge is likely behind the door to the kitchen, or at least behind the bar (both are understood to be access control mechanisms) but you probably don't mind too much about the peanuts on the bar, allowing others to use the WC is a given, so is sitting on the furnature and watching the telly.
If they're doing it without authorization, then they're stealing. If they're doing it with authorization, they are your guests. Wireless (and other computerized) services offer you (as the host) a common, difinitive, simple, clear and automatic method to unambiguously differentiate between those you would consider thieves and those you would consider guests. All you have to do is use it.
Here's another one of life's little secrets; if you want people to cooperate and do what you want, you have to at least tell them what you want. If I were to visit your house, I believe I'd find ample clues as to whether or not I'm invited in, if I can grab a beer from the fridge, etc. If I need to make a phone call, I'll ask. If it has to be a 1-900 call, I'll ask that too. Your (presumed) wireless access point can (and does) answer the questions my wireless card asks, and can implement whatever policy you (as the administrator) see fit.
It's no different than assuming that people will see the actions you have taken and the steps you could have, but didn't take and deciding that you don't want people to do this. You can't expect people to read your mind.
Then in the same spirit, I would respectfully request that you do leave some signal for those of us that might misinterpret your actions.
If you don't want we accessing your AP, that's your call entirely. I have no intention to take that which you would not willingly give. But I don't read minds. If I honestly can't tell the difference between someone intentionally offering a service freely and someone inadvertently offering a service freely, I'm likely to interpret the situation in the manner which is most favorable to me. And I'd submit most people will do the same. A simple tech note in the broadcast saying "private access point" will stop me (perhaps not others) but if you won't even exercise that due dilligence, you must accept some of the blame.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Completely different. It would be more equivalent to shouting, "Hey! Will someone let me in their house?" And the person's butler (who they have given instructions to) opens the door and says, "Sure! Come on in!" There is no attempt at entering where it can be presumed that you should not. You merely requested an IP address from any source that would give you one. If someplace doesn't want "outsiders" to connect to their network, it is trivial to configure the access point to not hand them an IP. Merely turning on WEP (although completely insecure) would still show that "This network is off-limits."
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
I can assume the door to your dwelling being open gives me the right to come in and eat stuff out of your fridge?
Someone please post the parent's address because I'm hungry for some free soda and food.
Poor security or not, it is still tresspassing. You don't have to have locks on the door for it to be tresspassing. I personally think a person is stupid/irresponsible for not securing their home/network/etc.
You can leave your car in a bad neighborhood with the keys in it and the windows down. The law will prosecute anyone who steals it if they can find it. Don't be surprised if it is trashed/strippped/etc.
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.
Using that connection to access bandwidth resources paid for by the company IS theft, without the company's permission.
Agreed. However, we let machines represent ourselves every day for monetary and data transactions. When a WAP boradcasts in a public medium and grants access to an arbitrary client, it is acting as a representative of the owners. Such a grant of access constitutes authorization of network use in the same way an anonymous ftp server authorizes upload or download of files to it.
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!?
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.