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 ;)

7 of 602 comments (clear)

  1. No, this is not theft. by BigASS · · Score: 5, Insightful
    How about we consult websters for a moment.
    Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief.

    Does not sound like warchalking cleanly fits the definition of theft to me.
    --
    - Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
  2. Not Technical by FatRatBastard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

  3. Well of course Nokia don't like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  4. As humans, don't we have right to our airspace? by Plug · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. We're focusing on the wrong question anyway by mosch · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The real question here is why does Nokia have an opinion on the matter, and why should anybody care what their opinion is anyway?

    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?

  6. Re:Slashdot and BBC article are titled wrongly by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  7. Re:How is it different? by Quixadhal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Agreed, but with one caveat.

    In a traditional (wired) LAN, if I were to install rj45 jacks in the outside surface of my building, at ground level, and someone walked up with a laptop and plugged in AND my dhcp server happily gave them an address and allowed them to use my resources -- is that really "theft"?

    I would say no. I have (perhaps unwittingly) created a public terminal and allowd people to share my network. Perhaps I didn't *intend* for unauthorized people to use it (maybe I had the idea that a salesman could stop by and download something without having to go up to their office, or some other equally stupid idea), but then again, they didn't *steal* the ip-address, nor did they *force* my router to accept their traffic. I gave it to them without bothering to validate their identity... Stupid me.

    Now, how is wireless access any different? If you are stupid enough to setup a WAP without restricting it by MAC address and/or using encryption, then you essentially have an open rj45 port on your wall. It would be theft if I asked for a dhcp address, you said no, and then I tried to hack my way in anyways.

    As another analogy, if I leave my car open and you get in and drive off, you're stealing because you deprived me of the use of my car. If I leave my car open and you hop in the back seat without my permission, you're guilty of trespass. If, on the other hand, you see a city bus with has no place to pay fares and no indications that you need to do so, how is it stealing if you get on and ride it? It costs the city money to cart your butt around... but if they're too dumb to charge you or keep you off, that's their fault.

    An unprotected WAP is like a big flashing neon VACANCY sign. Please don't try to pass YET MORE STUPID ANAL-RETENTIVE LAWS to make it a punishable-by-finger-removal crime... instead, learn how to secure your network and make your sysadmin do their job!