Slashdot Mirror
Wardriver Charged with Theft of Communications
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."
Wow! I wonder if they told the owner (s?) of the Internet connection he was using? Can you imagine that phone call?
I guess it doesn't say much for the intelligence of the idiot involved. Why drive around? Why not find a good signal and park? I've sat in my car using my laptop before -- never got questioned. Of course I wasn't driving (and I was fully clothed). It's hard to consider this a victory against war drivers or child abusers when the champ was only caught because he was being an idiot....
I also doubt this will bring any major attention to the underlying problem (unsecured home APs). It'll probably take something like Grandma Jones being charged with transmission of child pornography to bring this problem to the general publics attention. I feel bad for the innocent person who is going to wind up being charged (sooner or later -- if it hasn't happened already) by cops that don't know what is going on -- to be defended by a lawyer who probably doesn't know what's going on -- to be tried by a jury who doesn't know what's going on. Scary situation to be in.
Or is the more scary thought being nabbed by RIAA (whose burden of proof is a lot less then the cops) for some punk teenager next door using your connection to download/share mp3s? Wonder how long (or if it already has) until this happens?
Either way, your into thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars worth of legal fees. The former case is definitely the worst (who wants to be labeled as "that guy" with all the child porn), but either scenario seems likely to destroy/severely set-back your life.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I thought Michael Jackson was driving through Las Vegas last night, not Canada.
And why did you staple the trout to the RAM?
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.
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
Had the ISP been subpenoed they would turn over the necessary logs, show their cutomer's IP address (on his router) as the offender. How many perverts will turn this around the other way? Buy wireless routers, leave the settings wide open, download their kiddy pron at heart's content, making sure to always get rid of temp files, history, and cookies. If they get busted, the simply say, "it wasn't me, someone hacked into my wireless router, and downloaded that stuff on their onw machine... Shows we need to hold net admins (even of SoHo's to some standards of use.
Could we have our hardware manufacturers include non default SSID's, on a cdkey type set up process, so the default isn't "default" or "linksys" but "As3deyt#$seKJ34". Changing it upon sucessful install should still be allowed, but at least we've reduced those that just leave 'em as they got 'em outta the box.
I didn't harm anyone. I certainly don't deserve to go to jail for 10 years for doing it.
If it was unintentional then you didn't break any laws. Most laws (at least in the US) require some sort of intent for you to violate them. If your Windows XP box helpfully picks up a WLAN and you start surfing on it (not knowing it isn't yours) then you've hardly committed a crime.
I would have to say though, that based on what you said... "My Internet connection went down so I used this one" that you did break the law. Saying "I didn't harm anyone" is a piss poor excuse. 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 your phone line stops working is it ok to start using your neighbors just because your cordless phones happen to be the same model and your receiver will work with his base station? If you even tried doing that you'd be in some serious hot water. I don't see why it should be any different for Internet connections.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"The "War Driver" was caught naked from the waist down driving the wrong way down a one-way street, with a laptop in hand [downloading child pornography]."
I should think that perhaps the "Theft of Communications" charge is the least of this individual's problems. That's really one for the record books there, almost to the point of being a publicity stunt of some sort. Naked from the waist down, driving the wrong way on a one-way street, using a laptop, and downloading child pornography. What do you say to something like that? I mean that for each person.
[Suspect] "There a... problem officer?"
[Officer] "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
-blank stare-
[Officer] "You were driving the wrong way down this one-way street."
[Suspect] "Oh my, well I'm sorry about that, officer..."
[Officer] "Well, I'm afraid I'm going to have to write you a... hey, where are your pants?!"
[Suspect] "Oh.. well.. I'm getting them clea..." -gets cut off by cop-
[Officer] "What is that? Are you using a laptop computer while driving sir??"
[Suspect] "Well, I uhh..." -gets cut off again-
[Officer] "What the HELL is that??!! Is that child pornography??!! Oh God..
[Suspect] "No, no! It's not what you think!"
[Officer] "Just where the hell are you getting that from?! Oh, so you're connected to someone's wireless internet from here???"
-Cop thinks to himself: "how the hell am I going to write this one up?"
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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".
DISCLAIMER: Not knowing Canadian regulations, my post treats this event from a U.S. perspective only, as it relates to wireless networks here. I'm addressing the network access issue only, not defending kiddie porn, driving naked, or driving in the wrong direction.
As I see it, there was no theft of "communications". He didn't break into any computers, nor block/alter/view data coming in and out of them. There is no indication that he did anything to bypass security measures of either the network or the machines on it. There is no indication that he did nor intended any harm to the network or its users.
He used net connectivity, apparently with all hardware functioning as designed and configured. It is the operator of the network that is responsible for configuration including access permissions. Many run hot spots intentionally, some through ignorance. In either case, the host is functioning as an ISP. What's relevant here is regulation of the wireless access to the ISP.
In the U.S., 802.11b hardware is allowed unlicensed use of spectrum, as regulated by part 15 of the F.C.C. rules. Part 15 products are required to include a notice: "Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interferrence, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undersired operation." Harmful interference refers to that affecting licensed communications only. Are there licensed users of this spectrum? Yes.
All ham radio licensees (except Novices) are authorized by the FCC Rules, Part 97.301(a) to use all operating modes in the 2390-2450 MHz band. 802.11b equipment is not allowed to interferre. A ham could reasonably ask anyone using 802.11b gear to stop operating if they cannot otherwise correct an interferrence problem (typically by changing channels, lowering power, reducing antenna height, changing location, using a directional antenna etc). The 802.11b gear operator has no regulatory protection against interference from the ham operator, other 802.11b users, or even microwave ovens which operate in-band at 2450 MHz.
In summary, 802.11b gear is unprotected from interference, and the operator of such gear is on their own to try to make it work as desired, with no guarantee of success.
802.11b hardware is being used as designed when people, known to the host or not, access open networks. It isn't communications theft nor is it tresspassing.