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."

7 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.