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 ;)

Comments

Entrapment?

[John Paul Jones]

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?

-JPJ

Re:Entrapment?

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, first off, entrapment is when law enforcement people encourage someone to break the law, and then arrest them when they do.

Second, you're not a lawyer, and I'm guessing youre knowledge of law comes from watching Night Court reruns. For property, there is the concept of "lost" and "abandoned". The difference depends on intentions, but if you abandon your property (intentionally give up posession of it), whoever finds it first has legal posession of it.

If you lose your property (unintentionally give up posession of it), the finder has a responsibility of reporting it to the local police. If they can't contact the true owner, possession goes to the finder if it was found in a public place, or the owner of the property if it was found on private property.

Duh

[scrod98]

...but if I watch TV, I am not provide less TV signal for other people to watch. Not the right analogy for bandwidth!

Just like beggar marks

[ites]

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! :)

Okay

[Wrexen]

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"!

Re:Theft?

[fluch]

...but if they leave their chalk lying around the street unatended, is it a crime to pick it up?

Re:You can't steal something i fit is protected!

[TheFlyingGoat]

If a company doesn't protect it's wireless network by restricting MAC addresses, etc ... then I believe they loose their right to complain!

Keeping with your lock analogy, that's like saying that if a company doesn't actually make use of their door locks, that they lose their right to complain when someone walks in and takes their stuff. Furthermore, weak wireless security would be the equivalent of your house, which may not have a top-of-the-line security system, deadbolts on every door, and bars on all the windows? I agree with most of your comment, but companies that aren't bright enough to secure their network don't forgo any of their rights, and unauthorized use of their networks is, in essence, theft. On the other hand, warchalking has nothing to do with the use of their networks, so Nokia is out of its mind.

Re:Well of course Nokia don't like it

[Tune]

> If Nokia made WAN gear, I'm sure they wouldn't be quite as vocal about it...

...Or like their *friends* at Ericsson: Combining the two?
(This more informative article is unformtunatiely in that awful language.)

Re:How is it different?

[chill]

Listening to their music is passive. Using someone else's network consumes resources and possibly denies those resources to the company paying for it.

Corporate Internet connections are frequently bandwidth metered or bandwidth limited. "Burstable" connections are where the price increases as usage increases. Your usage increases bandwidt and thus has the potential for increasing their cost.

Re:How is it different?

[xyzzy-ladder]

Thank you for pointing this out. If I request an IP, and they grant the request, haven't I asked for and received permission? So what the hell are they complaining about?

I'm only being marginally sarcastic.

wireless networks advertise themselves anyway

[klparrot]

But if you left them in your house, and forgot to lock your front door, and someone came in and took them (then left a sign by the road saying "this house is unlocked! help yourself!") then that would be a crime.

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.

Re:How is it different?

[SlugLord]

If a kid jumps into my swimming pool (which isn't fenced in) and drowns, I am responsible because a swimming pool is an attractive nuisance.
I don't see any difference between the pool and an insecure wireless LAN, so I'd have to think the WLAN is an attractive nuisance and therefore the responsibility of the owner, not the so-called thief.