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."
How was the guy supposed to know that he didn't intend for the AP to be open to everyone.
AP makers should force, once the device is connected for the first time, for it to go to a config page which outlines all the security settings (WEP, etc.)..... maybe then some people will start to understand security.
There's no place like localhost
and i supose if you go and drink water from a public fountatin i should be arrested too for the fact the water is open to the public and not locked down. Sounds like they dont want to take fault for not fencing up a public oasis in the middle of no where because you know if it isnt yours its owned already by some one else more powerful and richer then you. Also what if the wifi is a public wifi by choice for the people to use? is it still stealing then?
"to be like god we make our own dolls to play with, but what does that make us, but dolls for god to play with?" Ikari,
I've got a handheld (Dell Axim) and frequently when I am out and about, I'll turn it on to see what networks are open.
The other day I was eating my lunch near some businesses, and I found 4 networks...3 of which were completely open.
I sat there and checked my e-mail while I ate lunch...not a big deal.
Then I went into one of the businesses (that is the reason I was out in front eating) and I saw a big 'free wireless networking' sign on their counter. And this was a physical therapy clinic...
No reason to lie.
I dont want to bang on the "the guy had it coming" drum, but Dinon admitted he KNEW how to secure his wifi but declined because most of the people in his neighborhood are "older".
In most countries it is illegal to leave the keys in your car. Partly to not give kids and others an opportunity to hurt themselves or others.
That is, piggybacking off someone else's wireless in the building. I told them it was not a good idea due to security and legal concerns, among other things, exactly like the article says.
How do you know what's coming over that Internet line you're piggybacking on? Okay, so it's not going to your MAC address based on your initiated connections, but how do you know what kind of worm or virus is running on that guy's machine - and what it's scanning for in terms of local connections? It's just dumb to piggyback unless you have a really secure setup, and if you know that much, why don't you have your own wireless?
It's also possible to find out who is piggybacking once it is noticed because all you need is a laptop with NetStumbler and walk around until you get a signal from a laptop and capture the MAC address. Then just knock on the door (if you're the building manager) and demand to see the computer - if the MAC matches, it's over. This is bad news for people who are in buildings that charge for wireless access. Fortunately for them, most of the management and other tenants probably aren't that knowledgeable.
As for this guy in the article, he was obviously stupid to hang out right in front of the victim's house, and then CONTINUE to hang around even once the victim had spotted him. Guy must have been desperate for that connection for some reason, which probably means it was something illegal he couldn't afford to be seen doing at the local Starbucks.
On the other side, I can't understand what the victim meant by not having security because other residents "were older". Was he sharing with the other residents in his neighborhood? If so, then wasn't HE screwing the service provider? Did I miss something here? If it's stealing to share an open wireless access point without someone's knowledge, then it's stealing to share one WITH someone's knowledge. I don't think the terms of use of most commercial providers allow for sharing access to anyone except perhaps ones immediate family at one location (unless of course it is a building-wide access point that is paid for by the building - which doesn't apply in this case because Dinon's is a residential home.)
So it seems like this guy got arrested for accessing an individual's network while the individual involved was sharing it with his neighbors probably in violation of his Terms of Use contract.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I fail to see a difference. If you go to a library solely use their internet, it's no different from if you go to get a book and happen to check your email while you're there. If you go and sit in your own car outside someone else's house and listen to the radio, it's the same as listening to it at home (well, it's a bit weirder to sit in your car, but equally legal). Fact is, the guy was on public property, accessing public, unencrypted radio signals. There's nothing illegal about that as far as I know. If the connection was encrypted it would be a different story - cracking the encryption on a wireless connection is illegal in many districts - however, that was simply not the case here.
It'd be interesting to see what OS he was using.
If it was Windows xp-pre-sp2 it would have automatically connected to the network.
He could have been lost, stopping to look up directions on his laptop when he noticed he had internet access, then went to mapquest. It's just a hypothetical but some wifi cards with connection software still auto-connect to unencrypted networks.
Is this scenareo against the law?
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Sigh, this is so annoying, you are comparing this to physical trespass. It isn't.
YOUR wireless is painting the entire area, so essentially YOU'RE forcing your signal into someone elses personal space, if you don't want it used secure it, or quit complaining.
Satelite radio is painted everywhere, can you just go ahead and use it? No you can't, you need an approved device and a subscription to decode those signals. Why would anyone expect otherwise with wireless? Not encypted its free to anyone. Notice also that little FCC statement that says you have to accept any interference yadda yadda sinced it is an unlicensed device. So what if YOUR access point is overpowered and suddenly you find YOUR pc on another's network? What now?
um... I actually have a wireless network *specifically* for passers by wanting to browse my wirelessly delivered website. the fact that no-one has yet connected doesn't mean they aren't supposed to get in their SUV with their laptop - that's the whole point. If someone makes a publicly accessible network, it is publicly accessible right?
From these axioms you can easily make the argument that beating people up for fun is not justified. By introducing just a few more axioms you might make the argument that drivers should be licensed to ensure a minimum level of competency in order to prevent unprovoked pain to others, etc.
But hey, feel free to keep making arguments the old fashioned way. After all, it's not like you ever claimed you weren't intellectually lazy. It's not like you're posting on a site where one of the most treasured attributes of the target audience is their intellectual superiority or anything.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Well, there's another aspect to this. This guy was around for hours - the article does not mention exactly how long, but definitely longer than a few hours. And he pretty much had no reason to be there except to mooch off the wireless internet.
I am not sure about calling the police but if some random person was hanging out in front of my house for hours for no apparent reason, I'd be a bit peeved and freaked out.
This seems to be similar to "attractive nuisance" violations: If a homeowner sets up a trampoline in his front yard he must also put a fence around it. Otherwise, he cannot complain about trespassers when all the neighborhood kids start jumping on it. Furthermore, without the fence the homeowner can (and has been successfully) be sued for negligence when one of those kids breaks his neck.
While very possible, I doubt that was the case. I think we (as those who know about these sorts of things) need to force vendors and sales people to communicate these kinds of things to consumers. The commission sales junkie at as no interest (and probably no idea) in tell Joe Sixpack that the wireless hub he bought has no security on by default. Joe Sixpack bought it because his buddy got one and its "cool" to not need network cables anymore. That being said, if this guy wasn't doing anything criminal, I really don't think there should be any criminal charges laid. Maybe pursue a civil case.
That is an interesting point that you've brought up.
It is completely opposite way of thought than how American's have previously thought about property. For example how many of you grew up and left doors unlocked to your house or car all the time. I for one never locked my car doors at home nor the front door to my house. It is your private property and you never expect anyone who wasn't welcome to break those boundries, but we have welcomed the Internet with it's complete opposite point of view.
I wonder if this same ideal is why people don't bother securing wireless even when most have some grasp of the reprocutions of not securing their wireless.
That one speaks for itself.
They make it sound like he just used Lowe's to get internet access. Lowe's was sending credit card number, expiration date, cardholder name, billing address, and cvv2 number in the same unencrypted packet.
It's been called the "Man In The Middle" attack since long before wi-fi ever existed. Where the hell did "evil twin" come from? Are they just making shit up?
He makes it sound like there's only one program on the web that can crack WEP. There are several, because there are several independent flaws in WEP, and most implementations are susceptible to multiple different attacks.
GAH!
As far as I know, not even the BSA has attempted to assert that failure to abide by terms of service, in the absence of additional laws, constitutes a criminal act. At least this is a quote.
What's really appalling is the confidence with which they maul both reality and language. It's one thing to be light on details, or present them as uncertain or controversial. It's quite another to present them as a straightforward list of facts to acquaint those otherwise ignorant. They do quote Mike Godwin, but they use misuse his quote to make it sound like he's talking about something else, so they've squandered what slight authority they could have had.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
No, the story in fact does not mention any illegal activity that the person performed. It only says that the guy used the WiFi point, then it goes off on a tangent about illegal uses of WAPs, giving the impression that any use of WiFi is illegal, omitting the fact that criminals have HACKED INTO CREDIT CARD DATABASES, replacing that with "using an unsecured Wi-Fi network."
They try to lead you to belief that Smith was downloading child porn. This is a sensationalist article, and this person should sue for defamation.
Think of it this way. You have a water faucet on the outside of your house. You don't lock it up. Can anyone just come up to your house and use your water? You didn't secure it.
Because the nature of the property is different - if you let random people hang out in your house your "property" is going to go missing real soon, or at the very least your carpet is gonna get dirty...
The average dude with who can't set up a WEP key on his shiny new linksys router isn't even gonna notice the bandwidth that he's missing when he checks his hotmail...
C'mon now...
That doesn't make it any less of crime. Private property is private property, even if it's in the middle of the street.
If it is on the nature strip and not bagged, it is up for grabs. That part is law.
This part is my opinion, which I live by... As far as I am concerned, anything which invades my personal space is fair game for some active scrutiny and manipulation. If you don't want me fucking with your shit, then either don't invade my personal space or if you do, use encryption and authentication. Until then... I will continue to fuck with your shit.
The "victims" here are victims of their own laziness or inability to RTFM and adhere to its warnings. I do however beleive that vendors do not make the warning clear enough (sometimes they make no warning at all) and claim WiFi to be secure. If you are using WiFi with nothing but the software and advice from your vendor, then you ARE NOT secure. Period. WEP and WPA suck.
So, say my apartment/house gets bombarded with the neighbors wifi? Whose property is it? I mean, surely its his radio signal, but its passing through my property. This is akin to running a telephone line through my house. I realize this is somewhat ridiculous, but seriously, your rights stop when they impede mine.
Let's suppose for a second that I sit at home in my bathtub wearing a tinfoil hat and that i don't feel comfortable with your radio waves passing through my house, is it within my rights to try and stop you?
if so, is it within my rights to use your internet?
The parent makes a good point. I'm not as certain about the state laws that may apply, but in any case, it's hard to argue that open WAP's are not configured to be available to the general public. It's not really a case of accessing a network without permission; it's a case of requesting permission to access the network and being granted that permission by the AP. The ability of the AP to grant that permission is, after all, entirely under the control of the user.
Ok lets just say for arguments sake that he wanders with his laptop to the opposite side of his house, far away from his own wireless access point. The computer sees the other access point has a stronger signal and latches on to it during a break in communication with his own access point. He is unaware of the change and continues with his business. Are the default settings for wireless access communication illegal? What would stop someone from plugging in a wireless access point boosting the signal strength and calling the police any time someone accidentally connects? I live in an apartment complex with about 7 other visible access points. I occasionally get bored and plug in a spare access point with no internet connection attached to see who accidentally locks on to me and loses their internet access.
Objection, leading the witness...
For some reason I have the feeling the reporter lectured the victim and encouraged him to give the nice quotes implying the worst case.
As for "I'm mainly worried about what the guy may have uploaded or downloaded, like kiddie porn," Dinon said. "But I'll probably never know." Most routers have at least minimal logging, mac addr (as if that's not easy enough to fake) connection time and maybe websites or IPs
reminds me of this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/technology/4650225.stm
plenty of talk about how mod chips "could" be used to bypass copy protection, but little coverage of the 80 games also included.
With an open AP I'd be more concerned with the neighbors with laptops running WinXP SP1 or no SP who can use the it auto connected to his network excuse. A friend of some other family member was visiting last week and I agreed to let them borrow my wireless card. gave it to her and went on with whatever I was doing waiting for her to ask me to enter the WEP key, she never did. It seems that even in a neighborhood of "older people" att least one of them knows of wireless networks, but not how to try and secure it.
Part 2: blame the wireless card makers
Yes, it is nice to buy the AP and NIC of the same brand at the same time so you can have your 108Mbits UltraG with 256bit WAP and broadcast turned off, just try that when you have to make it work with 5 WNICs of all different brands, that's the most common reason I get when I ask "Why do you leave your wireless connection open?" there's always the hardware that doesn't want to play nice. With all the WNICs my family is using I'm stuck with 128bit WEP with ssid broadcast on at 11mbits, but at least it will show I was tring to protect it if someone breaks in and does something illegal and someone notices, the Feds for kiddy porn or the RIAA for some sucky Britney Spears collection of sound waves or the MPAA for a pre-release copy of SW3 or for some pointless "anonymous" post to their friend's W(ebl)OG.
But there are some WAREZ people who like having an open network or at least an unsecured AP, even if it's not connected to anything or maybe as a honey pot so they can tell their ISP "someone hacked my wireless network and this the MAC addr my router logged" to not get sued for some copyright infringement.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
In general, cattle are stupid. In general, people who sit in front of a house with their computer accessing the Internet from an open access point nearby know what they are doing, and they probably know that the person with that access likely doesn't want them using it.
But let's take the Internet free/open bit a little further.
So I have a wireless router on my house. It's unsecured. You're claiming that somehow, this gives someone the right to connect to it. Fine. But why does it give them the right to connect to my Internet service? Simply because the router routes information by default? Rubbish.
Let's move to analogies. My property doesn't have a fence around it, so in theory, anyone can come up to my garbage can and put things in it. People without trash service could, in theory, drive up to my house with their garbage bags and place them in my trash can. Then, when my trash service comes to collect the trash, they take the other person's trash away.
Around here, that's called "illegal dumping" (laws may vary from municipality to municipality). Even though my property is open, my trash can is unlocked, and I don't have a no-trespassing sign up, I could call the cops and have someone hauled away if I caught them putting trash in my trash can.
Let's look at another example, this time with a slightly more plentiful resource than the small space in my trash bin. How about water? I have a water hose on the outside of my property. If I caught someone using it, I could have them arrested, despite my lack of a fence, surveillance, or a posted sign that says that no one is allowed to use the water.
Now in both cases above, it's pretty plausible to argue that someone has to pay for the service, and that unauthorized use of the service may cost someone money. Why isn't the same said of computers? There are plenty of ISPs around that still use metered service, and even if there weren't, anyone using my unlimited service may be infringing on my use of it if I am doing anything on the network at the time.
Regardless, it looks like laws vary from state to state.
Texas, for example, seems to side with me. If you don't have the person's consent to access their computer, it is a crime to do so.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the owner.
New York, however, sides with you, as there must be a posted notice before computer trespass occurs.
I don't particularly care to go through all the laws, however there is a listing at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/hacklaw.htm , and suffice it to say, I tend to side with Texas on this one. I should be able to leave my computer and network unprotected and have people assume that I don't allow access unless I give it. I'm not saying it's smart to do so, but the default status should not be, "if I can get to it, I can use it."
Of course, the catch ultimately is that, even in states like Texas, does the SSID broadcast count as consent? Possibly, but the intent behind the law seems to be that active consent is required, so it's impossible to know how such a case would be interpreted.
Right - the point is that you start a conversation and hopefully arrive at a reasonable conclusion. Like how about I pitch in some and another neighbor pitches in some, and we all get more bandwidth than any of us would have had individually.
Heh - actually, it was a pecan tree. And when I pointed out that the only reason the pecans remained on my side to pick up was my dog roving free in the yard, a board was removed to let her roam in both yards, and ultimately I received an additional bag of pecans as a gift, the harvest from other nonoverhanging trees having greatly increased too.
Was a satisfying conclusion for all, except for the multitude of thoroughly PO'ed squirrels.
Dunedin's network, however, will be protected by the AES encryption standard, used by the Department of Defense. Passwords will be required, and each computer will have to be authenticated by the network. There also will be firewalls. "I'm confident to say our subscribers are at zero risk for that kind of fraud," Guerin said. (emphasis mine)
There's a word I once learned for that. It's "You are a muppet". OK, that's 3 words, but it's a lot shorter than "blithering incompetents shouldn't be allowed in positions of technical authority, especially not when paid by public money." Alas.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
There's also the problem with litigation. A few decades ago had the thirsty stranger gotten sick because a water main had burst a few hours earlier, he would've recovered and that would have been the end of it. If that happened today? The kindly home-owner would get sued for everything he's worth.
Learn something new.
Some companies allow open access - for example, some branches of Panera Bread and Starbucks provide free wifi access. This allows them to bring in people that would use an Internet Cafe, without having to maintain a bunch of desktops.
Is this scenareo against the law?
d e=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0815/SEC06. HTM&Title=-%3E2004-%3ECh0815-%3ESection%2006#0815. 06
In Florida, Yes. Yes it is.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mo
Specifically, (1)(a):
(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:
(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network;
Chapter 815.03 defines "Access", "Computer", "Computer network", and "Computer system" as:
(1) "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
(2) "Computer" means an internally programmed, automatic device that performs data processing.
(4) "Computer network" means any system that provides communications between one or more computer systems and its input or output devices, including, but not limited to, display terminals and printers that are connected by telecommunication facilities.
(7) "Computer system" means a device or collection of devices, including support devices, one or more of which contain computer programs, electronic instructions, or input data and output data, and which perform functions, including, but not limited to, logic, arithmetic, data storage, retrieval, communication, or control. The term does not include calculators that are not programmable and that are not capable of being used in conjunction with external files.
Note the broad definitions that effectively outlaw the internet.
I can not remember the last time I visited a web site that I had previous written or verbal permission to access.
Well, Heres to hoping I dont get arrested for illegally accessing slashdot!
-Una
The fact that his computer probably took advantage of the signal by default, that he did not elect to use that signal, the computer just finds it does all the work behind the scenes, should be enough to get him off. The computer is sending data and "accessing" it without express authorization whether the user tells it to or not. It would be like walking down the street and automatically appearing in each unlocked house you did not elect not to enter (to add another metaphor to the flurry).
useless sig advice - Read Nabokov.
he was outside the house sitting there for the sole purpose of leeching off his internet connection.
So? Would it be any different if he lived nextdoor in the basement?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I've never seen so many bad analogies in one day.
.000075 cents per megabyte...
I live in Tampa - St. Petersburg, where this absurd action takes place.
Verizon installs wireless routers by default on all new DSL connections for the past year in this area.
Tresspass... his router said it was Ok to connect to. The protocol for connection goes like this...
Here I am... Here I am.. says the router.
Knock knock... (laptop) speaks to the router.
Whos there... says the router. Its me X05FD7F says the laptop. Router says come on in and connect. The router is the gateway-man and authorized the entry. Its automatic unless you say otherwise.
To claim things about locked doors and garbage can s and property tresspass... absurd analogies. Garbage cans full of whatever become public property when placed on the curb... I am free to take whatever is in them...
Theft of services???
What exactly is the value of that bandwidth which is stolen?? Maximum possible speed 1.5Mbs a second over the DSL link... or 180KBytes a second.. (of course overhead eats up some of that but we'll go with the very optimistic rate).
So the maximum amount of data over a 1.5Mbs DSL link could draw if it was downloading a whole month is around 466 GigaBytes a month... for this amount you pay $35... thats
The guy was connected for 6 hours.... AT maximum amount of bandwidth used is about 4 1/2 cents worth...truly a big time crime going down here.
The biggest crime is the expense the city faces to bring this through the courts.
If the guy was browsing the other persons computer... then there is a crime of tresspass.
So to frame the story correctly... the phone company issues wireless modems in this area for DSL connections. They may be shipped closed or open... dont know. Obviously the phone company wants people to use the wireless connection.
At the rate Verzion is laying fiber to the premise in this area... bandwidth is becoming very very cheap. So cost of bandwidth is moot and inconsequential cost at the residential level.
As far as the FCC... I am a Ham operator and License Examiner.
All people can listen to ANY frequency except cell phone frequencies. Any and all people can use part 15 FCC devices to transmit. The wireless card is a part 15 FCC device.
There is only a crime if the guy accessed the fellows computer...But surely he has a firewall and antivirus software.
You leave your door open in the city, with a wireless beacon that says welcome. Some one will come in.
It's more like sitting on the sidewalk outside someone's house at night. Their porch light is on and you're reading a book by that light.
I like your analogy, but I disagree. It is more like running a splitter and a cable and stealing your neighbors cable TV. Or running an extension cord to a backyard outlet and stealing power. Or perhaps a cordless phone. People accept that they have to pay for electricity, phone, but the internet should be free? why?
The fact that it is a wireless transmission is moot.
When I moved into a new apartment in Naples, FL, I was shocked to find 3 wireless networks in my range that were wide open. It was nice because I unpacked all of my things and was on the net that night courtesy of my sharing neighbors, while I waited for the cable guy to come the following afternoon.
So what I don't get is, why don't wireless companies just ship their routers pre-setup with encryption. Then, they could just include the key much like software ships with a license number you enter when you install it. If people can handle software installation, this really doesn't seem to be any different. The router companies could even offer a more marketable interface to make it look much like it does when you enter a CD Key from software so people don't even realize what they're doing. Seems like a really easy fix to me.
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
I was just fine-tuning the analogies being used here and have one of my own that's a little closer to the point.
Imagine your neighbor has a TV going loudly - he has cable TV and you do not. You hear a show playing you've been meaning to see. You yell over the fence, "mind if I come over and watch that show?" The neighbor's butler yells back, "Sure, come around through the gate.". You go over, sit down and enjoy the show. After the show is over, the owner shows up, and is PISSED because you are there.
The neighbor has not lost any property, but has been denied payment for a service he has performed. (providing you with entertainment) Unfortunately for the neighbor, you were allowed free access to the entertainment indirectly by the neighbor. The neighbor has no legal grounds against you because you were acting with permission of an agent of the neighbor. (the butler)
This is very similar to the issue of open access points. The wireless router being the butler that's been told to allow anyone that asks to be given free internet access. Just because you get upset that the currentl policy of your own access point bothers you does not give you free license to sue someone that has taken advantage of your offerings.
Looked at another way, if a store owner places a tray out in his grocery store labeled "free samples", and some kids come in and start eating the samples, the store owner has no right to prossicute the kids for theft just because it's not "what he intended". He has every right to change his mind and tell the kids to leave, but what's done is done. Give someone permission to do something, and you're just going to have to accept it when they've done it.
This second example has only one assumption to be made though... does an open access point imply a "free samples" sign? Surely we can agree it would not be the same if the tray was sitting in the store and did NOT have a "free samples" sign, surely anyone in the store would be apprehensive about taking something from the tray, and surely the store owner would have right to be upset if someone started snacking on his new display he was setting up. Unfortunataely, access points come from the factory open, and unedjucated consumers don't realize the door is open by default for the world, so they feel that their beliefs take precidence over their actions. This complicates the matter of assuming an open access point is intended to be a free access point, because it can't easily be said that most access points that are open are intended to be free. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the open access points in my city would get closed if the owner realized I had free and unimpeded access to them. Given that simple reality, I realize that most laws are made to protect the majority, sometimes from their own stupidity.
Should accessing open wireless access points be illegal? That is a tough question for me to answer. I believe the 'free' sign cannot be assumed because the majority of WAP owners simply don't realize the WAP is open to all - this is not something that anyone can effectively argue against. This makes the open access point much more akin to the plate of what appear to be free samples in the grocery store, but with no sign saying "free samples". This places Joe Public on much more shakey legal ground if he digs in. It could then be assumed that the onus is on the public to determine whether they really are free samples before digging in, and if they eat some and then the store manager storms out and is pissed because you are eating his display, I believe it could be assumed he has a right to be upset.
The simplest way to clear this up is to ship WAPs with free access disabled, OR to ship all WAPs with a label taped over the power jack, saying THIS ACCESS POINT SHIPS FROM THE FACTORY WITH ALL SECURITY AND PRIVACY FEATURES DISABLED. UNLESS THIS CONFIGURATION IS CHANGED BY THE CONSUMER, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT COMES WITHIN THE RANGE OF THIS DEVICE MAY HAVE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO YOUR INTERNET CONNECTION. With that in place, the onus then falls on the WAP owner to secure his access point, and we can more easily say the "free" sign is out on the WAP if it is left unprotected.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The current situation in most (all?) western countries is that the legal system is walking after the facts when it comes to matters relating to computers, networking, etc. . This makes the more technologically aware part of the population quickly lose all faith in their legal system.
It also makes the world a more dangerous place to live in as such technologies become a more important part of our society: police, courts and similar institutions seem to regard any sufficiently advanced technology as a magical, unpredictable black box, and as such make essentially random decisions on what they will do about it. Court cases are no longer centered around using facts to convince the jury of the truth, but around trying to create in the minds of those concerned an arbitrary but believable idea of what the technology does.
It shouldn't be too hard to imagine how big this problem can become in the long term.
But the WiFi network publishes itself and tells you to come in.
What if someone bought a 1-click inflatable restaurant for his family.
He opens the restaurant, with flashing lights saying: "This is a restaurant!!!!"
A person comes by the shop, and asks: "Is this restaurant free???"
The inflatable waiter says: "Sure! Come in and eat".
The person comes in and eats, leaves and gets arrested for theft.
Regardless if the person went around looking for free restaurants, is it really that wrong for him to go and get his free food?
Now, if the building said: "I'm a restaurant, but i'm not open for everyone" or just not reply to anything, then obviously it's wrong.
Now, because people are generally stupid, the companies decided to have open wifi as the default config for the APs, instead of wasting hours of configurations on the phone to "make the network work".
^_^
Does anybody else find "wardriving" a puerile expression? It's interesting to see the St. Petersberg Times article pick up on the expression with a little frisson of excitement - though it gives the term's heritage. I can feel the ripples of an expression being criminalised (a comparative example in the UK is watching "asylum seeker" being re-interpreted), and hence the associated activity being criminalised as well...
The difference is because up until the time of the start of the 20th century, making it to the New World basically gave you squatting rights. You might not be able to vote but if you wanted to move into the virgin mid-west (or unoccupied Crown land in Canada) than nobody much cared and your second generation would have legal rights by virtue of being born on it (there were plenty of acts in US and Canada that recognized this).
Things didn't start tightening up until after Industrialization but even that was mostly in the urban centers and limited to visible minorities who couldn't speak English. It wasn't until after WWII that North America got serious about watching their borders and ejecting people that they didn't want in.
It's because of our nations' histories that those "migrant rights" groups are viewed so ambivalently. They once had a place in society and were accepted by the establishment as social welfare and assimilation charities (though they weren't actually counselling illegal activities back then).
In Canada (where I live now) they take the form of immigration and refugee advocates and mostly are 1st and 2nd generation immigrants who can't get real jobs and spend their time lobbying for more generous policies. The US is a different matter. For one thing, you've got southern border that's a real headache - drawing more illegal immigrants in a day than slip into Canada in a year (I don't have any numbers on that statement, obviously, but it's my impression). Also, in the US you have vested business interests in the South that want cheap sources of undocumented labour, and businesses that can't use undocumented workers but benefit anyways by the existence of a surplus of labour affecting wage demands. Then you have the 2nd and further generations asking to be allowed to bring family into the States, and many of these support "members of their communities" through the illegal activities you mentioned. And worst of all, most immigration (legal and otherwise) to the US is from Latin America, overwhelmingly Mexican. That means that you're got an enormous ghettoized segment of the population who have lots of children that grow up to be poorly educated and unassimilated voters.
Frankly, the US is going to be one different society within a few decades. I'm just glad Canada has a reputation as being too cold amongst the Latins and we continue to pull in diverse immigrants. Nothing against Mexicans in general, but if you want a taste of what'll happen..... look at Canada's Quebec. Think of all the problems we have in getting along. Now, imagine Quebec was full of Mexicans and a state bordering Mexico. I know who I'd be voting for.
From what I understand, it's not uncommon in crowded apartment complexes for people using wireless cards to have rotten connections because of all the radio noise from their neighbors using wireless.
In some cases, the only way to use their wireless is to shut off their AP and use a neighbor's instead.
First, I agree with the Metered v. Unmetered argument put forth by another replier. Second, sure go ahead, if you can. When I lived in dorms and apartments, I specifically never used a cordless phone (though I did have a cell phone, but that's worlds harder to fake a call from), just because I knew the broadcast area extended beyond the bounds of my dwelling, and I didn't want people listening in unrestricted, much less placing unauthorized calls. Now at my house, I have a consumer-grade cordless phone that I know does not reach the boundaries of my yard, while still being available where I usually am. Thus, you'd have to be trespassing on my property, which would show willful intent to steal bandwidth/airtime.
--- What
The mentality all along was "hey, cool, I know this house next door is unlocked, so I'll just go make myself a free sandwich there. It would be stupid of me to pay for something when I can 'share' someone else's food for free instead."
I'm really not to keen on the word "theft" in most digital-contexts. How many of us pay for metered Internet access? I can understand an arguement that someone maybe eating up part of your bandwidth and as a result you'd have slower speeds, you could of course, take measures to prevent that. Calling it theft though, seems a little bit of a stretch. He's not really eating my sandwhich, he's just smelling it, it's kind of irritating that he's watching me eat, and all in my face with his sniffing, but I suppose I could have eaten this by myself in private had I cared that much.
Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.
My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic communications interception and interception of oral communications) from usdoj.gov:
I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov applies:
Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo
Actually, it is. It's more like you have a window open into your apartment and the guy across the street watches your Pay-per-view off your TV just by looking out his window and into yours.
You won't find any judge or jury willing to convict the guy across the street for stealing PPV content. It'd be REASONABLE to assume if your window is open you're aware of the risk of someone looking in.
By the same token, with the status of today's networking and the news about open WiFi points, the onus is on the network operator to take reasonable steps to secure access. If the man had to decrypt a WEP key or guess a passphrase to get access to the WiFi AP, I'd say he indeed was stealing and should be prosecuted. Since all he did was take advantage of a publically available (by all rights) network, this case is rather baseless.
The problem with your logic is there's no way to put up a sign that says "Come on in" with WIFI. I leave my AP open so that anyone can use it, in the hopes someone returns the favor. Some nice guy has an open AP at the pool in my community, so you can 'work' from the pool. How can you differentiate between someone letting you have access to their WIFI and someone too stupid to password protect it? Answer: You can't. So it should be assumed that an open hotspot is just that: OPEN.
Okay, so if a grown man was on the sidewalk dancing in the water from a lawn sprinkler, it'd be kinda creepy, but would it be theft? Is he stealing "your" water that isn't even being used for the purpose of watering your lawn?
If the only notable impact of "borrowing" your network is slower response time, then why should it be a crime if someone happens to be on the network but isn't causing any problems?
I can't wait for the day when "bandwidth" is no longer a limiting factor - then the only thing that should be illegal on an open network is unauthorized access of someone else's computer. If I just happen to be sitting on a park bench outside your apartment and need to check my email, what's the problem, as long as I don't go near your sensitive data?
Did I say overlords? I meant protectors.
I'm very surprised that a PT clinic would have an open WiFi network. My wife's clinic is run by a company so afraid of HIPPA regs that they only have one or two computers connected to the Internet and those aren't on the same network as the computers with the patient info. She can't even email or ftp anything to and from the house to work on (like reports and notes). They're very cautious about that sort of thing.
While in the military, I was told to change all the "Welcome to [servername]" messages off of our systems. Our security officer said that messages such as these "invited" people to attempt to log in. Not exactly something you want to do when you manage servers that may contain sensitive data.
Cause everyone wants a free Xbox360
These house analogies don't work. Entry to a house is not automated. Also, I cannot enter a strangers house while sitting on my friend's couch. If I was in the wrong house, the absebce of my friend or the presence of the stranger would clue me in that I was in the wrong place. I frequently ran into this problem at Friend A's house. A has a Linksys, SSID "linksys". Friend B has a Netgear, SSID "netgear". Both were open, default config'd. Unfortunately, A's neighbor has a Netgear, SSID "netgear". Open laptop upon arriving at A from B, computer thinks I'm still at B's house and connects to A's neighbor's WAP. Didn't notice until I went to print something and found I was on network "MSHOME". Fixed problem by changing the SSID's for my friends, but if I hadn't tried to print, I would never have even noticed.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.