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

But really.....

[DotNM]

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.

Re:Open doors

[bigman2003]

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...

Re:A poor analogy

[QuantumG]

Or it's like, umm, leaving a hotdog on the front seat of your car in the midday sun.. it just keeps gettin' hotter man. Ya know, prior to The Enlightenment there was only two forms of argument. The first form was the usual "appeal to your sense of humanity" emotional bullshit argument favoured by mothers and republicans of all eras. This argument usually starts with the five most stupid words you can ever use to start an argument: How would you feel if.. The second form of argument available was the "appeal to analogy" style or, to use a fancy name for it, Case Based Reasoning. That's the kind that summary girl used and you just compounded, where you try to dumb down the situation so people who have never thought anything through in their lives can make a snap decision about the moral standing of a unique and complicated situation. Following the middle ages we received another kind of argumentive style. Some might call it a "modern" style of argument, but I prefer to say that it is a logical form of argument. This is where you state a number of basic axioms and then using easy to follow rules you present a string of statements which one can follow to arrive at the current situation. For example, you might present the axioms:

1. People exist in time.
   
2. People feel pain.
   
3. Pain is unpleasant.
   
4. Actions can be taken by one person to make another person feel pain.
   
5. Sometimes people can be provoked into performing such actions.
   
6. Causing pain without provokation is unjustified.
   

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.

Attractive Nuisance

[cmd]

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.

Re:Open doors

[v1]

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.

Is accessing an open Wi-Fi network a crime?

[ptb]

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:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person --

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not --

(A) scrambled or encrypted ;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi is ruled by part 15.]

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:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo