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."

9 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.

  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 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".
    3. 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.

  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. 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.