Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wardriver Charged with Theft of Communications

Posted by michael on from the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction dept.

BiggsTheCat writes "A number of news sources are reporting that a Toronto man is the first to be charged with "theft of communications" (Canadian Criminal Code S. 342.1) for downloading child pornography using someone else's residential wireless network. The "War Driver" was caught naked from the waist down driving the wrong way down a one-way street, with a laptop in hand. The Edmonton Sun warns that 'War Driving ... is becoming more and more common among perverts trying to avoid online detection'. Yeah."

27 of 678 comments (clear)

  1. Don't Hack and Drive... by kju · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...at least not during the same time. Sorry, but i thought that to be common sense. This Person is not a Wardriver but an complete idiot. "Real" Wardrivers do not wardrive for the sake of downloading or getting a personal advantage, but just for the fun of finding and mapping unsecure networks.

    1. Re:Don't Hack and Drive... by acidrain69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, that's called "boring". A wardriver is someone who participates in wardriving, which is travelling around looking for networks, which this man has done. He's an idiot becuase of the child porn. He was still wardriving.

      As long as the long arm of the law doesn't overreach and try to pass laws on private networks, whatever. This isn't that interesting except as another example of why people need to be more careful with their networks.

      If you were looking for something to make people worry, and possibly act, this is a good story.

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
  2. Just to clarify by mixy1plik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The guy was arrested for kiddie porn and this theft of communications crap was tacked on, because, they could.

    Contribute to the greater good, bust those wardrivers.

  3. Re:Wait a second.... by elmegil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I don't get is why he wasn't charged with indecent conduct, posession of child pornography, and left at that? The theft of communications doesn't seem like it's that significant in the overall scope of this moron's behavior.

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  4. A major point here seems to be.... by reality-bytes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aside from the charges made against him for the perverted video he was watching (and not to belittle the charges) it would seem that there is a major point that he has been charged with "Theft of Communications".

    This would suggest that all "Wardrivers" are at risk of being prosecuted for "Theft of Communications" regardless of what data they recieve over someone elses network.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
    1. Re:A major point here seems to be.... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And that's a bad thing?

      Absolutely. I read that law, and it's something that I've broken before myself. I was at work. Our internet connection went down. I happened to pick up an 802.11 signal from the place next door, so I used it.

      I didn't harm anyone. I certainly don't deserve to go to jail for 10 years for doing it.

    2. Re:A major point here seems to be.... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful
      However, if the wireless network is left wide open without WEP enabled, it's potentially arguable that there's implicit permission to use the network

      Actually I don't think that argument washes in a legal sense. I recall the old cordless phone setups that didn't have the random security codes the new ones do. If you happened to have compatible models with your neighbor you could wind up using his base station (thus his phone line) to make tons of long distance calls. Saying there was an "implicit permission" just because the hardware was wide open would not be an allowed defense if you were charged.

      but the owner of the network should also bear some of the responsibility - namely securing it if they don't want just anyone using it

      Actually the solution is for the product manufacturer to not ship products that are wide open by default. You can't (easily) use your neighbors cordless phone base station anymore. You can't blame Joe user who is an idiot and has no idea how any of this works.

      How "wide open" does a network have to be to meet your standard of "implicit permission"? If I change my SSID to "this_is_a_private_network" but don't turn off SSID broadcast (either because I'm too stupid to do so or my AP won't let me) any modern OS will be able to auto-detect and associate to that network. Does this mean I gave permission for the entire world to use my AP? That's a hard argument to sell, imho.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:A major point here seems to be.... by zurab · · Score: 5, Insightful
      How do you know that the connection in question isn't billed on a per-use basis? Unlikely I'll admit, but possible. In any case you had no right to use it without permission and if I was the admin of said network I would have reported the security violation to the proper authorities -- of course if I was the admin you wouldn't have gotten in it in the first place.


      If it was billed on per-use and per byte transmitted, then it should not have been public. That's what all these insecure (read: open) networks are - they are public. i.e., if you put your 50" plasma TV in your driveway facing outside and turn it on, when neighbors start watching it from across the street, they are not stealing anything - since you've made your signal available to public in such manner.

      There are a lot of open wireless networks like that that are meant to be used by public; some have posted signs saying so, some don't. there is no way for anyone to tell what the intention of the owner of the network is - share it publicly, or keep it private - unless that network owner requires authentication or otherwise locks his network down. Only then you will have an argument that the network was "broken into" and connection "stolen".
    4. Re:A major point here seems to be.... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Sorry, but if you break into my wireless network (even if you are just "mapping" how many open networks there are), you've just committed a crime.

      So port scanning is a crime now? How many of those APs were 'closed?' On average it hovers around 10%. You're still just another node on the internet, the transmission medium doesn't make a difference.

    5. Re:A major point here seems to be.... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if some one leaves a computer on the side of the street and you sit down and use it is that against the law.

      Where I live, scavaging is technically illegal, so technically, yes.

      If some one doesnt deny public access to something, then why should the public get in trouble for using it.

      I agree. In order to be considered to have ownership of something you should at least make some token effort at protecting it. At the very least you should put up some sort of notice that it is yours. We require "no trespassing" signs in order to charge someone criminally for trespassing on unprotected (unfenced) property. You can still be held civally liable for any actual damage you do, but in order to be charged criminally there needs to be a "no tresspassing" sign. Why shouldn't we do the same with internet access?

    6. Re:A major point here seems to be.... by DarkVader · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it not OK to use a wireless network?

      The network is advertising its presence, has no indication that it isn't available for whoever wants to use it. And I think that's the key - IT IS ADBERTISING ITS AVAILABILITY to anyone who is listening.

      It's very simple to add a password to a WLAN, and I see anyone who doesn't do so as intentionally making the network available to the public.

      If they don't mean to do that, they should restrict access to the network.

      And yes, accessing a protected network should still be a prosecutable offense.

    7. Re:A major point here seems to be.... by ifwm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if you leave your house unlocked I can move in? You can still live there, you just have to deal with me living there too. By the way, a wireless network is property. Regardless of the fact that it can be picked up by a neighbor, it's still the owners property, to use as he wishes. the fact that he doesn't secure it is no excuse to steal it.

    8. Re:A major point here seems to be.... by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Insightful
      With wireless, the neighbor is broadcasting onto my property.

      In order to make effective use of it you must broadcast onto his.

      Is he ignorant, or generous?

      Sorry, you're asking this question about a human being? How much do you know about human nature?

      What it comes down to is that the only safe thing to do is leave it alone until you can find out for sure.

      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    9. Re:A major point here seems to be.... by a+whoabot · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I guess I'm insane. You can borrow my lawn mower any time you want.

      No shit. Who would have a problem with that? Here would be that conversation:

      Him: "Hey, Pete I used your lawnmower."

      Me: "Oh...huh?"

      Him: "Don't worry, I put it back."

      Me: "Is it alright?"

      Him: "Yeah, I filled it back up."

      Me: "Oh. Alright then."

      Him: "Thanks."

      Me: "Uh, no problem."

      But apparently, because the law implies that that's wrong I should probably just "beat him up" like somebody said about something earlier.

    10. Re:A major point here seems to be.... by nathanh · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If it was billed on per-use and per byte transmitted, then it should not have been public.

      Should. Could. It doesn't matter. It's still illegal to use somebody elses data link without their permission.

      If you leave your front door unlocked - by accident or otherwise - it doesn't grant permission to any passerby to steal your stuff. Yes, you were stupid for leaving your door unlocked. Yes, your insurance might be voided. NO, it doesn't mean you forfeit your property rights.

      Same for the wireless connection. They might be pretty dumb for not securing it. Their ISP probably won't refund their money. But the person who stole the bandwidth is NOT vindicated.

      if you put your 50" plasma TV in your driveway facing outside and turn it on, when neighbors start watching it from across the street, they are not stealing anything - since you've made your signal available to public in such manner.

      TCP/IP is a TWO WAY PROCESS. Not a one-way transmission. The 50" TV emits light; it doesn't receive it. The person using your wireless LAN without permission is sending and receiving data. They are also initiating packet transfers that might involve a cost to you. That's very different from passively watching a television. Your analogy falls very short.

      Now if your neighbour used their infra-red remote to control the 50" TV, and we lived in a universe where certain channels were charged by the minute, and your neighbour decided to change channels to the boxing match, thus racking up a $250 charge to your television bill... then we'd have a workable analogy. And I think you'd find the small-claims court would rule against the greedy neighbour.

    11. Re:A major point here seems to be.... by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am not aware of any broadband service that is billed on a per use basis. This is how it generally works:

      For DSL and Cable Modem, you have a maximum upload and download speed that is choked by the access provider to maintain service quality over the whole network. QOS is generally nonexistant for these customers.

      For larger connections (DS1, DS3, ATM and so on) you have a maximum bandwidth per second - however the service provider can increase this as a part of a service level agreement to allow spikes above the ceiling. However, in most cases spikes above the ceiling end up on your next bill. These accounts are generally very big and very expensive (my company is spending more than my whole salary for the year - per month - for connectivity at one of our sites).

      Given that, most small businesses (those most likely to be using WiFi btw) will have a fixed bandwidth - so no additional fees will acrue.

      The real effect for you using bandwidth on another network may be the slowdown of the host network - if that network were running near maximum capacity, or you were doing something - like downloading MP3s - that ate up the available bandwidth.

      The effect of this on a small business would be worth no more than the cost of the time lost during the slowdown - hardly worth 10 years of someone's life. In either case, the odds of this happening are astronomical because most small networks sit idle most of the time, and most big networks have plenty of bandwidth to spare due to traffic shaping that over-engineers for the worse busy hour in the worse traffic time of the year.

      War driving is a drop in the bucket, compared to the bigger problem: Spam.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    12. Re:A major point here seems to be.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What's so difficult about the concept that the wireless network is being made publicly available and broadcasted onto your property? The guy is actively broadcasting the signal to you.
      In all of your examples you have to take the initiative and go over to mess with the neighbor's property. If I left my can of gasoline in someone else's garage I'd expect them to use it.

  5. Kazaa - 1,286 files? by z_gringo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gillespie said the man used Kazaa, a popular file-sharing web program commonly used to share music, to download the graphic material.

    In a study using 12 words associated with child pornography, the U.S. General Accounting Office found that 42% of 1,286 files on the peer-to-peer site contained child porn.

    Those figures didn't surprise Gillespie.

    What are these idiots on? There are a lot more than 1286 files available via Kazaa, morpheus, etc.. It's not a "site" and there is no way that 42% of it is child porn.. That is absolutely nuts. Most of it is Movies and MP3's There is a fair bit of regular porn as well. If 42% were child porn, that would usurp every single other category.. That stat is just stupid. The sad part is that there are loads of people out there who will believe that nonsense without even bothering to run the numbers..

    --
    -- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
  6. Re:Umm... okay. by c0d39uru · · Score: 1, Insightful

    He's a scumbag, he should get whatever they give him, but the 'theft' of communication should not be the issue here.

    --
    --#!
  7. Don't journalists ever proofread this stuff? by beni1207 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Investigation showed the man had hooked into a wireless computer network at a nearby house to gain access to a resident's Internet connection and download images from child pornography websites.
    The scheme, known as "war driving," allows a computer with wireless Internet capability to tap into a wireless home network and access the World Wide Web, usually without fear of discovery.

    Well there's a nice bit of yellow-press tradition. Linking war driving strongly to the child porn aspect and never mentioning that most people who do this aren't doing anything illegal with the information or access they're using. In fairness to the story, most of it was about how stupid in general this guy was being and the disgusting stuff found at his residence later, but three paragraphs at the end of the story seems to shift a lot of attention to a very minor aspect of the crime. He could have been collecting that junk from his home cable modem connection just as easily.

    1. Re:Don't journalists ever proofread this stuff? by iantri · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whether it is illegal or not is not the point the parent was trying to make, I think; the article demonizes wardriving by connecting it to child-pornography (whether intentionally or through ignorance of the reporter) so that Joe Sixpack will think "Wardriving? Isn't that the thing that kiddie fiddlers do?"

  8. Re:It was only a matter of time.... by sonoluminescence · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On the other hand having an unsecured wireless network could make a damn good defense against anything you happen get caught doing.

    "It wasn't me downloading mp3s, someone hijacked my connection, etc..."

    --
    Karma: Bad. Calmer, good.
  9. Sketchy terms by cvk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the Canadian Criminal Code, S.342.1 Unauthorized Use of Computer:

    342.1 (1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,

    Definitions (2) In this section,

    • "computer password"
    • "computer password" means any data by which a computer service or computer system is capable of being obtained or used;

    Doesn't that make a URL a "computer password?" Would I be guilty of violating S.342.1 by telling my friends to go to goatse.cx or tubgirl.com?

    It's fun to surprise our friends (and enemies) with URLs like those, but the "colour of right" is definitely lacking from such a gesture.

  10. Its was *open* for use by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    CP issues aside, how can you be convicted of 'stealing' when you used a presumed open/free service.

    Since public wireless does exist, and isn't that uncommon, you can safely assume that if you run across an UNSECURED signal its for public use... Be it from a persons house or the nearby cyber cafe.. you cant be 100% sure where that signal is coming from anyway....

    Now if its encrypted, or otherwise secured , THEN you might have a case...

    However, considering 90% of home broadband is flat rate, ( and a lot of dedicated business service is too ) since when is the bandwidth being 'stolen'? that's almost as bad as saying music piracy is theft.. ( if the home owner had pay per use, or if you blow their monthly cap and incur charges.. sure, then its theft of service.. )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  11. wardriving is not a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    WarDriving v. The benign act of locating and logging wireless access points while in motion

    wardriving is not a crime, and it seems that only we as wardrivers know it... the media spreads propaganda that wardrivers are malevolent attackers that we are out to attack and abuse the WiFi-planet )EARTH( and get phree Internet by stealing services; sniffing unauthorized networks in search of passwords; reading your email; blackmailing companies that are not secure... ALL LIES! PROPAGANDA being spread and blindly accepted by governments and its masses... such DISINFORMATION must be rectified!

    Use this apparel as a statement for your local wardriving events, conventions, or when just going out to get some lunch. Let the world know you are sick of being compared to terrorists and convicted criminals. Let the world know you are not a pawn in their politics.... This shirt is a top quality Gildian 100% cotton BLACK T-Shirt with silk-screened lettering 'wardriving is not a crime' across the front in white. There are limited quantities of these shirts, shipping in the United States is FREE, outside the US there is a 5.00 Shipping/Handling fee.

    Sizes range from Small to XXL for Crew neck, and Small to Large for Babydoll Tee's, and you may order more than one to send to your wardriving friends, spouses, offspring and law enforcement agencies...

    wardriving defined:
    wardriving v. The benign act of locating and logging wireless access points while in motion. - blackwave

    History of WarDriving:
    WarDriving was invented by Peter Shipley and now commonly practiced by hobbyists, hackers and security analysts worldwide.

    More definitions of WarDriving:
    http://www.dis.org/shipley/ :{Shipley}: "Most recently I invented Wardriving, while I am not the first person to go out and search for open wireless LANS (a few before me ventured around with in a with a laptop, pencil & paper manualy scribbling notes). I was first to automate it all with dedicated software and a GPS. When I started this project the usage or WEP was around 15%, after going public with my findings, a year later WEP usage is now 33%. Thus is good to know people are getting the message. Some maps I generated from these exercises can be found at http://www.dis.org/wl/maps/. "

    http://www.wardriving.com/about.php : War Driving (wor dri'vin) v. 1 Driving around looking for unsecured wireless networks. -term coined by Pete Shipley

    http://www.seattlewireless.net/index.cgi/WarDriv in g : WarDriving v. The searching for wireless networks by means of a roaming (driving, walking, busing?) wireless client. Sometimes accompanied by a high gain antenna and GPS.

    What wardriving is NOT:
    wardriving is NOT illegal or unlawful in any form or fashion in the United States.
    wardriving is NOT about theft of services.
    wardriving is NOT about unauthorized access.
    wardriving is NOT a crime!

    http://www.wardrivingisnotacrime.com/

  12. And WHO gave you permission to use slashdots.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Bandwidth? You have no explicit permission to come here. You can because it is an offered service on port 80. That's how networks work. If they are open then they are supposed to be offering public services. Picking up unencrypted wi fi access is totally different than cracking the security. Make sure you know the difference when arguing.

  13. Bullshit detector goes off by danila · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We all agree here that the story is ridiculous. But it seems to me that the journalists are just adding to that, not making it clearer.

    1) What the hell is "Sun media", is it even remotedely similar to "Sun" in the UK?
    2) "watching a movie on his laptop of a 10-year-old girl performing fellatio on an adult" - how does this scribbler know about that? Does the police tells this kind of info at press conferences? How do they know the age? I smell bullshit.
    3) "Stealing Internet, or War Driving as it is sometimes called, is becoming more and more common among perverts trying to avoid online detection." and "A man... has become the first man in Toronto charged for allegedly stealing an Internet connection." - well, how do they know about all that perverts if they have only busted one?
    4) This quill-driver thinks that saying "allegedly" a lot allows him to write any kind of crap... Sadly, it seems to be true.
    5) The movie can easily be closed by pressing Alt+F4, takes only about a second. Unless the policeman run to the car and busted the door open, I don't think the cop had a chance to see it playing. I mean, even my parents don't usually manage to catch me watching movies of 10-year-old girls performing fellatio on adults - and they only have to open the door. :)
    6) As a side note, I like the department name. ;) "Police child exploitation section" - I though those guys were supposed to serve and protect, not to exploit the kids...
    7) "They recovered 10 computers and thousands of CDs and floppy disks" - yeah, sure. We have a guy who can break into wireless networks and he still stores images on floppies. Puuuhhlease! Not to mention that even one thousand of CDs is one terabyte of data, which is fucking huge. People who can collect that much child porn, don't usually drive naked, while watching child porn and masturbating. Ergo, the scribbler is probably lying again.
    8) "It involves some of the worst child pornography that we've ever seen" and "it's becoming typical of what we're seeing" - that's in the same paragraph. Can't you at least decide whether it is the worst or something you see every day?!
    9) "child pornography... including young children and babies". Well, I thought the point of child porn was that it features young children. :-) Is there even a thing such as an old child?

    Some of these concernes may be unwarranted, but overall the story reads just like a million or so of stories about scary paedophiles (although I applaud the officer for using the words "like-minded people" instead of "evil paedophile scum").

    Some more info about Internet child porn: original version and a censored version at Wikipedia.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.