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 -
...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!
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.
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.
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.
Chalk symbol-free walls?
Yeah, I agree it *is* silly...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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
Because at the stop light, you don't get to pick which CD they're playing. When connecting to someone's wireless network, at some point you're going to be making use of their resources (DHCP server, intranet, bandwidth, firewall...whatever).
Not saying I agree with Nokia's description, but there is a difference between your stop-light analogy and warchalking.
Cheers,
Ian
...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.
I would have suggested posting anonymously on this one- the RIAA is watching!
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
What about Nokia's high prices for their mobiles, you could call them thieves too.
The equivalent would be if you were listening and as a result they heard less of their own music.
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"!
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 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
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
...but if they leave their chalk lying around the street unatended, is it a crime to pick it up?
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.
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.
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.
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
"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
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); }
If you don't want me to have something, don't send it to me.
And I think the courts are wrong.
Excuse me who are you to decide if your depriving them of service? Many companies use a great deal of their bandwidth.. If I walk into a bank and steal 50 dollars of 500k in their guess what... Im still stealing..
....wireless networks inside offices. Wireless is maybe god where people....
Wireless is really cool and everything, but it's got a long way to go before it becomes a religion! Do you have your WAP in a little shrine?
Although, religion usually is wireless....
...
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.
Convertibles must be popular.
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?
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
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.
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.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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?
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?
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 suppose, being rather pedantic here, that the new listener being present would "reduce" the amount of music the original listener could hear simply because he might be absorbing some of the echo.
Anyway, I think the original analogy was rather flawed. It's not the listening that's really the problem but that the new user has pulled up in another car with a loud stereo that is drowning out the original car's sound system.
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.
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.
This is theft..
Because at the stop light, you don't get to pick which CD they're playing.
Well, I can certainly make a request.
When connecting to someone's wireless network, at some point you're going to be making use of their resources (DHCP server, intranet, bandwidth, firewall...whatever).
A perfect example of an automated request process!
Now, if you do not wish to honor my requests, for songs OR for bandwidth, then stop granting my requests. Simple as that.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
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
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.
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.
There are two types of people; those who divide people into two types of people, and those who don't.
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
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.
Happens all the time (I am refering to tv not broadband) Many houses (such as rental properties) are connected to cable lines from previous people. You can crack open the box on the side of the house, play with the filter elements and allow the cable signal to pass through.
The person with the crappy music did not authorize you to listen to it, but the company's wireless access point did authorize you by explicitly granting you access to 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.
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.
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.
If I stand outside their window at night reading a book, am I stealing their light?
It's actually NOT trespass if your house looks like a commons - say, you designed it to look like a McDonalds, or, more relevently, if it's a coporate office building. The issue here really is whether or not, should you come across an unsecured network that allows you access without authentication, you should consider it to be closed or open by default. Alot of people are going to say that of course you should assume it's private and not go in unless you're invited, and that's legitimate. On the other hand, I don't like this habit we have of declaring things private and protected by fiat (cell phones, cable and satellite tv), and exepting the provider from any responsibility.
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, that brings up a question. Do these wireless networks leak into/interfere with one another??
As to unauthorized use -- if the network is that insecure in the first place, what is happening to your corporate data??!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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
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...
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!
Not really, they aren't bothering people and flooding their mailboxes with tons of stuff that they will have go through and filter. They are reducing the amount of available bandwith.
Its not ok, I guess, but its not as bad as spamming them.
You can't take the sky from me...
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
Cheers,
Ian
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.
Justify it to yourself however you want to its still stealing...
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.
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
Actually, you probably have RJ-11 jacks on the outside of your building. There are test jacks on the phone box that you can use from the outside.
Yes, it is the responsibility of the company to secure their assets against thieves.
HOWEVER, if I hop out of my car and leave it running in a public parking lot, NO ONE has the right to hop in and take it for a joy ride. That is a crime, pure and simple and unrelated to the use of gas, wear & tear and whether or not they got it back before I needed it again.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
You can crack open the box on the side of the house, play with the filter elements and allow the cable signal to pass through.
:)
But you don't crack anything open when you use wireless network. Better analogy would be if the cable socket would be wide open for the next inhabitant. (Physically and... well what's the word, accessally?
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.
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.
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
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."
Actually that isn't the same, because you're accessing the net. I think that their net provider has more of a cause to bust you for B&E right?
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!?
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?
Ahh, I see, so if I lean my bike against a telephone pole without locking it and someone takes it without my permission there is no theft involved? I don't think so! It may not have been very smart to leave something unprotected, but it is still my property, and it is still theft.
If I leave the door to my house unlocked and unguarded and someone walks in and takes my TV, is that not theft?
Just because I didn't secure my house doesn't mean that I wouldn't be offended.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
I would ask you to please produce a police officer who would actually say this. Theft is theft, no matter how you look at it.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
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.
Remember: the ownice[sic] is on the owner, not the thief.
But in this case, all of the guilt lies on the thief.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
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.
"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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
then it's not theft.
If you have to bypass security checks then it is theft.
And here I thought Nokia was based in Finland, rumored to be part of Europe...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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]
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.
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.