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."

Comments

Open doors

[bburton]

Police say Benjamin Smith III, 41, used his Acer brand laptop to hack into Dinon's wireless Internet network.

Yeah, because we all know how much "hacking" is required to use wide open WiFi connections.

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.

Re:Open doors

[NormalVisual]

The public is absolutely free to listen in on private systems (except for cellular) but not free to transmit on it. This is because of FCC regs, not because of some twisted interpretation of property law. Besides, we're talking Part 15 stuff when talking about Wi-Fi, so it's not a good analogy anyway. You generally can't transmit on a frequency you're not licensed to except in case of emergency, but that's not the case with Part 15 devices. In fact, one could argue that the owner of the open access point is the one at fault, since Part 15 clearly puts responsibility for preventing interference with the owner of the device, and I'd consider it interference if your neighbor's AP is putting our a signal strong enough to cause your wireless card to connect to it instead of your own AP.

Closed repeaters are also not a good analogy, as they occupy a gray area in the FCC regs, and have been controversial for some time. There are private property arguments, but I personally believe they're overshadowed by the fact that such repeaters are operated on publicly available bandwidth and thus there is no reasonably expectation of privacy or exclusivity of use. I've never heard of anyone being fined for intentional interference for using a closed repeater. The FCC regs clearly state that amateur frequencies cannot be used exclusively by any station, so for those that want a private network, go apply to the FCC for a frequency to run it on just like your local police department or Wendy's did. Besides, most operators of private repeaters do attempt to set some kind of access control using CTCSS tones, so once again the analogy just doesn't hold up.

Re:Open doors

[jusdisgi]

The prosecuter's office that is handling this case can be reached at 727-464-6221.

I suggest we let them know that if you broadcast an SSID into the public airwaves and then grant DHCP leases across it you are authorizing access to your network.

Re:It is theft

[IgnoramusMaximus]

It is theft

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".

Re:Entrapment

[tez_h]

The homeowner KNOWINGLY left his router unsecured.

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

The Looming Legal Threat to Wi-Fi

[usurper_ii]

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

Re:Darn

[Cramer]

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.