Slashdot Mirror
Man Arrested for Using Open Wireless Network
DaCool42 writes "In Tampa Bay, a man has been arrested for using a wide open WiFi AP. The St. Petersburg Times has the full story. 'It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft,' said Kena Lewis, spokeswoman for Bright House Networks in Orlando."
Also, the poor guy admitted to using the connection too (unauthorized access to a computer network, which is a third degree felony according to the article). Now, if he would have just asked for a lawyer and then shut up, he probably would have gotten off with just a warning.
Slashdot = ((Technology + Politics) / Trolls) % Grammar Nazis
Even though it was an unsecured network, he was still stealing network bandwidth & accessing something he shouldn't be, its fair that he was caught & should be punished for it.
No. You do forget that we are discussing radio technology. The AP actually broadcasts an invitation beacon for wifi client devices to join the network. It is like having someone put up a big pile of things on a table, stand by it shouting "Here take some" and then calling cops if you do.
If you still have doubts, ponder this educational question: How can you tell a difference between a "public" open AP and one opened by mistake, while trying to browse the web from your laptop on a park bench downtown?
A: Unless the ESSID is "SEKRIT!" or "DONT_YOU_DARE!" you can't.
QED.
I wonder how long before we see a suit where a customer sues a manufacturer for not making security clear & easy enough to set up when they purchased & installed a router.
This is in fact a much wiser course of action. The wireless gear should come with maximum security on by default and require multiple prompts to lower the protection level. But blaming the "nefarious" "hacker" is far more sexy and easier for brain-dead prosecutors then going against a large multinational.
Then if the gear is left wide open, no idiot can claim "I didn't mean to do this, honest!". Otherwise (and from the vague statements of the "victim" in this case a likely scenario) it is simply an entrapment, vigilante excercise, a.k.a leaving a wallet on a sidewalk and then shooting anyone who tries to pick it up for "attempted roberry".
The quote about microsoft programs in the story summary is completely and utterly out of context, the guy in the story is actually refering to people who share their cable connection with their neighbours using wireless, so their neighbours don't have to get their own - which is probably against the ISPs terms and conditions
Since, in general, a homeowner is neither an officer of the law nor an agent of the government, the prerequisites of entrapment are not fulfilled.
-Tez
Haskell, the static-typed, lazy, polymorphic, programming language.
Your post reminded me of a good Dvorak commentary that came out about a year or so ago. -- Usurper_ii
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1565274,00.as p
By John C. Dvorak
To drive around looking for connections to open wireless access points is called wardriving. In Canada, people who are caught doing this can be arrested for stealing bandwidth. The legality of this practice in the U.S., however, is a bit hazy, and there are many mitigating factors. One is that several organizations deliberately leave access points unencrypted so that people can use them as necessary. Also, many computers with built-in wireless simply grab the first signal they detect. Then there's the trespassing issue: The wardriver isn't trespassing on the router, the router is trespassing on the wardriver's airspace.
Free Access
This issue was brought home to me recently when one of my laptops told me it was ready to install new Windows XP upgrades, even though the laptop was not on a network and my wireless access point was off-line. I discovered that a neighbor's wireless router, named "default," had provided the access. Using my Toshiba's View Wireless Connections option, I saw five nearby networks that I could grab, three of which were unencrypted. Obviously there's plenty of free access around for harried travelers. It seems to me that being able to download your e-mail at an open connection is a good thing.
Look into the legality of this, though, and you hear vague comments like "The FBI doesn't know how legal it is" or "It may be illegal, because you're using someone else's connection or you're spying on their network." This issue will create ridiculous legal problems, which is bad news for both consumers and law enforcement, unless a sensible, national policy can be developed.
Personal and Corporate Responsibility
Let me jump in and propose a simple, logical public policy. Law enforcement doesn't need to get involved whenever some guy in a doughnut shop poaches a nearby Wi-Fi connection to check his e-mail, thinking he's on the shop's network. This shouldn't be a crime, even if he's intentionally poaching. We must put the burden of responsibility on the broadcaster, not the end user. It has to be made clear that people sending open connections all over town should be responsible for them.
Here's what I propose: Once a wireless signal leaves private property, it becomes public domain. If the person transmitting the signal wants it protected, then encryption is up to him or her. If someone beams an Internet connection into my home and I happen to lock onto the signal, he is trespassing on me, not the other way around. Public policy must reflect this logic. Keep it out of my house if you don't want me using it. Keep it out of my car. Keep it away from me in public places.
The Public Interest
This policy makes sense because it lets anyone who wants to provide open access do so without hassle or fear. Groups in San Francisco and Seattle are openly promoting free 802.11 connectivity. Many coffee shops, restaurants, and community groups now provide free wireless access, and directories of these hot spots are easy to find online.
This ubiquity of access is to be encouraged as in the public interest. But it can't happen if the law doesn't make the person transmitting the 802.11 signal responsible, instead of blaming any roaming users who are simply grabbing open connections. If this means that a corporate network is wide open to hackers, because the company doesn't bother encrypting the signal it broadcasts all over town, then so be it.
We must not follow the Canadian model that views using unprotected 802.11 connections as bandwidth theft. My computer grabs wireless signals impinging on my house more often than it grabs my own 802.11 connection. It just does. Agencies shouldn't be required to sort this out; it would be a law enforcement nightmare. In fact, it's
Ron Paul
Yes its not very good. However if he had WEP enabled, knowing it could be relatively easily broken it still is the overt act to discriminate between someone who only wants to use an open AP and someone whos willing to crack their way in.
And if this SUV guy had cracked through the weak WEP protection he wouldn't have any leg at all to stand on in the I was just using an open AP argument.
WEP should be used like a No Tresspass sign - it doesn't stop anyone who wants to enter from entering anywhere - but it does inform them they are not welcome to enter the property and are violating the law if they enter.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
In The Netherlands, you can get a fine for leaving your bike unattended and unlocked in a public space.
I think most people here are using the wrong type of analogy for this case. The "theft" wasn't performed by any form of trespassing - so analogies of "borrowing" someones car because they didn't lock it is absurd. The AP is broadcasting information that is coming onto my property - I didn't go into his house to use it. There is no correct analogy for this - but the best may be with trees. If my neighbor has a tree that is growing on the boundary of our properties, and the trunk is on his side of the property - the tree is legally his. HOWEVER - I am legally allowed to trim the tree back to the boundary between our properties - even if it is HIS tree. But what about the fruit that falls from his tree onto MY property? This is where the law gets fuzzy (and why we will probably never have a good answer for the issue with open AP's). According to long-standing law doctrine - the fruit belongs to the owner of the tree - as well as any limbs, leaves, or anything else that falls from his tree. Therefore, if you ask your neighbor to remove any of these annoyances that happen to be landing on your property and he does not remove them - he can be held liable for any damages or costs to remove any such items. Sure, you can take any fruit from his tree that falls on your property (or is on a limb growing on your property) is he is okay with that - but if he decides he has a problem with that and he has evidence of you taking the fruit - he will win in court every time. The same could be said for your open AP - even if you are just "borrowing" his bandwidth without his knowledge and he finds out - you can bet your ass you are still stealing and can be held liable. The bottom line - even if he is broadcasting into YOUR house, it's still not your's for the taking. Try asking your neighbor is he has a problem with you using his open AP next time.
I don't think comcast had WAP's in mind when they wrote this part of thier policy, but it's directly applicable...
You are responsible for any misuse of the Service, even if the misuse was committed by a friend, family member, or guest with access to your Service account. Therefore, you must take steps to ensure that others do not use your account to gain unauthorized access to the Service by, for example, strictly maintaining the confidentiality of your Service login and password. In all cases, you are solely responsible for the security of any device you choose to connect to the Service, including any data stored or shared on that device. http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
For 802.11B, the channels overlap... 1,6, and 10 can be used at the same time without stepping on each other (and various combinations of one low and one high channel.) Apartments, condo's, and often, townhouses are packed too closely for many resident's deploying an AP. If I turn on an AP, I'll flood between 10 and 14 apartments with the RF -- at standard power levels... at full "legal" power, half the complex can see it.
Aside from all the comparisons, accurate and otherwise, that are being drawn to the situation, there is a legal precident that can be applied here. It's an oldie, but a goodie.
Expectation of Privacy.
Ok, IANAL, but here's the rough version as I understand it; if you have a conversation on the phone, it's private, and can't be recorded, etc. If you're on a speaker phone, in a public place, there's no expectation of privacy, so you can record whatever you want, use it as evidence later, etc.
So, if you have your unsecured wireless device hanging out there in public, there's no expectation of it remaining private. Which makes "listening in" or hopping on the system, perfectly legal.
It's silly, and quite obviously so, that this guy got charged. Then again, it's the florida government. They can't even count properly. </cheap shot>
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
Um... in case you didn't read the article, they did state cases where people use compromised wireless network to send death threat, order sex toys. The child porn part is from the victim's own worry.
"I'm mainly worried about what the guy may have uploaded or downloaded, like kiddie porn," Dinon said. "But I'll probably never know."
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
It's not a matter of one person trespassing on the service of another person, but rather of the recording of phone conversations, which bears on the whole "hey, you became a broadcaster of your own free will" thing. In the days of analog cordless phones it used to be common that cordless phones could be heard faintly on neighbors' handsets or baby monitors, or with radio scanners.
Now, consider that anyone having conversations of an even vaguely secretive nature - that is, conversations they wouldn't want public - would be a fool to use such a cordless phone. However, people did, and sometimes their neighbors recorded the conversations, and the whole situation wound up in court. The case is McKamey v. Roach. The court found exactly the standard being advocated here - that there was no expectation of privacy when speaking over an open-air medium. In other words, your neighbors are completely free to record your conversations when they're conducted over analog broadcast signals. The courts have already ruled on this: if you become a broadcaster, you give up the right to refuse people to receive your signal, even if you became a broadcaster by buying a piece of consumer electronic equipment.
The obvious extension to sniffing unencrypted wireless packets is left as an exercise for the reader.
1,6, and 10 can be used at the same time without stepping on each other
You mean 1, 6, and 11. Channels 6 and 10 technically step on each other.
Although you can also use 1, 5, 8, and 11 together, without interference getting high enough to cause any noticable delays.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.