Slashdot Mirror
Florida Man Charged For Stealing Wi-Fi
baldass_newbie writes "The Saint Pete Times has a story about Benjamin Smith III who was arrested for stealing a wi-fi signal in Saint Petersburg, Florida, where apparently wardriving is considered a third degree felony." From the article: "...xperts believe there are scores of incidents occurring undetected, sometimes to frightening effect. People have used the cloak of wireless to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information and send death threats, according to authorities. For as worrisome as it seems, wireless mooching is easily preventable by turning on encryption or requiring passwords. The problem, security experts say, is many people do not take the time or are unsure how to secure their wireless access from intruders. Dinon knew what to do. 'But I never did it because my neighbors are older.'"
Yet another dupe...previous story can be found here.
Zonk fails it again...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
a third degree felony...
\u262D = \u5350
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/ 06/0217252&tid=193&tid=17
Wake up and smell the noise, admins. I know it's just me screaming in the sea of other people yelling about dupes, but isn't it time to implement some kind of link checker system?
Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
Its not WiFi, its DeJa Vu. All over again.
Florida seems to be the snitching capital of the world. Wasn't it there that so
meone told police that 3 doctors where plotting something evil when they overheard them at a resturaunt.
this poor bejamin guy is going to be in jail for quite a long time with all the arrests he's been getting lately.
Christ driving around to see what doors stupid ppl have left open should not be a crime. If I drive around my neighborhood and look at how many dumb ppl have left their front door wide open should I be arrested. Breaking in is one thing but just looking is another.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
It's a dupe of the most commented on story of the week, proving once again that the editors don't even take a passing interest in the site.
...we are living in the Matrix.
:)
-everphilski-
How many is this in less than 2 weeks for the zonk-meister? at least 6 i think.
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
Didn't this guy get in trouble for the same thing Yesterday?
:)
I'm not so much upset about my liver leaving me. Its really fair enough, I guess. But did it have to take the dog?
There should be a new poll:
Slashdot editor responsible for the most dupes:
(a) Commander Taco
(b) Zonk
(c) write-in candidate
(d) CowboyNeal
Download my free songs!
- GNAA trolls
- "Netcraft confirms..."
- "In Soviet Russia..."
- "I didn't read the article, but have an opinion about it anyway."
- "But Clinton..."
- Dupes.
I'm beyond caring.Michigan - Zonk was charged with posting dupes to slashdot, where apparently a dupe is considered a third degree felony. From the article: "...xperts believe there are scores of dupes occurring undetected, sometimes to frightening effect. People have used the cloak of dupes to troll, spam, and send death threats, according to slashdot editors. For as worrisome as it seems, duping is easily preventable by actually reading what gets posted to the front page. The problem, slashdot editors say, is many people do not take the time to read posts, or are unsure how to prevent dupes. Dinon knew what to do. 'But I never did it because my neighbors are older, and no one reads the articles on slashdot anyway'"
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Nicely done with the whole reposting and all. Im still surprised that stealing wifi would be considered a felony. I dont think there's even a law against it in most places... Anyone willing to tell me the places where there is a law against stealing wifi access?
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
I really feel sorry for the /. subscribers whose paid-for ad-free page views are going towards dupes. It almost seems like the /. eds are trying to make them buy more views just to be able to see new articles...
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Meanwhile, I post a story about MechWarrior/Battletech pods for sale and I am rejected...
But hey, no grousing...
I'm not so much upset about my liver leaving me. Its really fair enough, I guess. But did it have to take the dog?
Is not an excuse. This dupe is so recent the article is still in my chache!
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
This is just a simple case of, "He can do something we don't understand. And since we can't understand it, it must be immoral, so he must be a witch, and therefore, he must be burned at the stake"
"The Chevy Blazer was still there, the man furtively hunched over his computer." Well lets give this guy the stupid award for getting caught. Seems he wasn't so furtive after all? -----3 106011
Since this is a duplicate article, I will just post a link on how to secure your wifi on the road.... http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Ok, the admins don't seem to listen or care, tons of people moan about the dupes and nothing seems to happen SO how about doing something positive and suggesting here some other sites as alternatives to /. - maybe a few walkouts would get noticed?
AT&ROFLMAO
"...xperts believe..."
You couldn't even quote the whole word? Or is that the new spelling? Or are we talking about people that used to be perts?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
But I never did it because my neighbors are older
So after Security through obscurity and Security through openness: Security through youthfulness?
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
LOL! I know the feeling. If you look at my journal and ignore the stories that I had submitted, were rejected but posted hours or days later by someone else, you'll see I have the same situation.
:)
Particularly the one about the internal structure of T. Rex bones.
But like you, no grousing.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I thought there was something wrong w/ my browser for a moment ... I read the same post last night ... and replied to it ... then poof ... it's there again ... w/ fewer replies ... had this been the good ol' days ... I would have smacked my monitor ... damn flat screen ... would probably come right off of my desk.
People have used the cloak of wireless to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information and send death threats, according to authorities.
So shouldn't these people be charged for these crimes, and not for using a technology that makes these crimes possible? Why not:
People have used the postal service to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information and send death threats, according to authorities.
People have used computers to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information and send death threats, according to authorities.
People have used telephones to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information and send death threats, according to authorities.
Do you think the guy was whacking it in his Chevy?
This really would be an American Revolution
Or was he just downloading to whack it later?
Perhaps he was:
Greasing the weasel
Waxing the dolphin
Choking his chicken
Stroking the Ferret
Did TFA mention if he had a mullet or not?
The primary difference between WLAN access points and wauter faucets, trash cans, porch lights, big screen TVs in windows, radio stations, cookie jars on front lawns and other bad analogies is that access points are to a certain extent "intelligent" devices. They have means of permitting or denying access. Because WLANs are intangibles which cross property boundaries, these access controls are the only means by which a user can decide whether the access point forms a public hotspot or not. These access controls are the one and only way by which a WLAN operator can communicate his intentions in an efficient, non-ambiguous way. Furthermore, there are many open hotspots which operate under precisely this understanding of negotiating access, so there is a reasonable expectation that a truly open wireless lan (no encryption, no MAC filters, DHCP address) is meant to be used by other people.
Your right to leave your computer and access point without even token security conflicts with the right of others to efficiently provide and use public access resources. It is reasonable to expect at least minimal access controls to non-public resources from someone who wants to connect to the internet or use public frequency bands for communication.
Florida passes increased legislation against men stealing wifi, caused by repeated sensationalistic stories on popular news sites such as slashdot.org. "My son has this site as our homepage on the home computer, and I kept noticing how Florida men like to steal wifi bandwidth, so being someone in a position to do something, I decided to do something!" - anonymous Florida politician.
from the please-read-your-own-website dept.
annoyed_reader writes "The Pete Rose Times has a story about baldass_newbie who was arrested for stealing Slashdot articles via wi-fi signals. Experts believe that there are scores of incidents of stealing slashdot articles. People have used the cloak of wireless to take old slashdot stories and resubmit them. Sometimes they use multiple aliases. The problem, experts say, is that slashdot editors do not take the time or are unsure how to check for duplicate story posts. Slashdot editor Zonk knew what to do. 'But I never did it because I was busy playing The Sims.'"
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Intrusively enterring a network can be deemed illegal since it would be analogous to going door to door and enterring the house of the first unlocked door. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. But, what of the non-intrusive folks such as us who wardrive with our network NICs in promiscuous mode? Could anybody see any possible way that the authorities could prosecute or convict when your NIC has it's transmit portion completely turned off??
"xperts believe there are scores of incidents occurring undetected, sometimes to frightening effect" let's do some critical thinking here. If it's undetected then how do they know some unknown evil underworld is doing this to spread porn and what not? I cry BS, it's nothing more than "we gotta do something" thinking that lawmakers (formerly known as Representatives and senators) have. Show me a legislative session where absolutely NOTHING is passed and that will be a successful session!
Come on people, this is hardly a dupe.
xperts believe there are scores of incidents occurring undetected, sometimes to frightening effect.
These are X-perts we're talking about here, not to be confused with normal experts, these x-perts take 802.11 security TO THE MAX!
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
I know it's been said before, and I vaguely recall Rob telling us all why he wouldn't do it at LinuxWorld...
But damnit, editors/posters (whatever their title is) should have to provide a reason for rejecting and article, even if it's just from a drop down list of pre-written reasons..
A friend of mine actually noticed the trend of some editors to post certain things over others and would post only when he knew the "right" editor was on.
I'm not so much upset about my liver leaving me. Its really fair enough, I guess. But did it have to take the dog?
I move around a lot, from state to state, probably once every year or 2. during the time I am waiting for my cable modem to get hooked up in my apartment i usually use someone else's wireless. I don't download torrents and crap like that until i have my own connection, but sure I'll surf the web and check emails while waiting for my own internet to get hooked up. If they leave it wide open they are asking for it.
Then of course when mine gets hooked up my wireless network is secure. because i don't feel like being an ISP to freeloading jerks like myself.
In fact the man is not being accused of WarDriving. He peformed other illegal activites while on the network which he is being charged with, like trying to gain access to the residents computers, etc.
This would be a good artical... were it not a dupe :-/
That the /. readers know more about the site's content than the people who work there? Jesus this is annoying. This happens ATLEAST once a week.
Even though the incorporated name for the town is Saint Petersburg, no one who lives here spells it out. It's alway St. Pete or St. Petersburg. The masthead of the local paper is The St. Petersburg Times.
Er well copied it.
It's not an *exact* dupe of THIS ONE you idiots. See, the old article was in Hardware, where as this one is in YRO. Completely different...
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
For as worrisome as it seems, wireless mooching is easily preventable by turning on encryption or requiring passwords.
Anyone with a wi-fi card, a laptop and the right programs could break WEP within 5 minutes depending on how heavily it's being used at the time. It's insane the false security the authorities are relaying to people about wi-fi security.
A big LED on your access point that flashes "Unsafe" when your network is connected up but doesn't have encryption switched on.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Making some basic assumptions (the wireless was using an SSID, was unencrypted, and a DHCP server was available), any lawyer can make the valid claim that the wireless access point was intended for the public to use:
- SSID was advertising the availability of the access point.
- Absense of encryption re-enforces the fact that this was not a private network.
- DHCP giving an IP address is as good as saying "have a seat, enjoy the connection".
A good analogy would be to have a big sign in front of your house saying "Cookies inside!" (SSID). You leave the door propped open (lack of encryption). You have someone inside pull up a chair and invite the person to sit down and enjoy said cookies (DHCP).
If you don't want people on your wireless, take appropriate steps to protect yourself. Someone breaking encryption to get access to a network is illegal. Connecting to an unprotected network should not be.
You have no substantive or presumptive right to use some one else's wireless network.
I really don't want to hear arguments of the form: 'But it's just like I was walking in the Village Green and I came across a steam powered can opener'.
We're talking about wirelness networks, not steam powered can openers.
The existance of radio eminations from some one's wireless gear does not constitute an invitation to use that wireless gear.
An invitation to use a wireless network must be something like a big old sign that says "Free Wireless Access" AND instructions as to how to connect AND, once you've joined the network, an announcement of the terms and conditions of use.
Let me repeat this for those of you who are a bit slow this morning -- YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO JOIN A FREAKING NETWORK JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY THAT ENABLES YOU TO DO SO.
Thank you, that is all.
It's all part of the the patented master plan: /. editors
1) Create a Beowulf cluster of duping
2) ???
3) Profit!!!
(Or did someone post this already?)
I used to play this game called Zork. Every time you walked into a room, you were presented the same description. It got very repetitive. Playing Zonk is apparently very similar.
Zonk, read the damn site, or quit as an editor.
1 - The average joe may not even know what he's connected too. So is he commiting a crime because YOU didnt secure your wireless? Last i heard it was legal to receive any transmissions that hit your property. ( Decrypting is another issue )
2 - Does this also make it a crime to intentionally share your wireless? And what about *public* wifi?
Its for the kids remember.. Blah.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So it's about 20% unprotected, 40% badly protected and 30% badly protected if WEP mode is used by clients.
And this is EXACTLY why I stopped paying for pages.
I got tired of paying for the same article twice.
Ok, here's my dirty dupe detect flow...
When an article is "posted" the first thing that happens is every link in the article is compared to a URL_table that only has links, and the ID of the article linked.
If there's a match, return the user to the posting page, put "DUPE ALERT" at the top, and give links to all the matching articles. Then the poster can use his most powerful computer (brain) to see if they are truley are, and they probably will be, URL's are pretty unique.
If there is no match, then post the story, and add all the stories links the URL table.
Here's what needs to be in the URL table:
ID, StoryID, URL
Pretty simple eh?
Want to make it have less false positives?
ID, StoryID, URL, Date
Then when you do your match, only look for matches in the last year...
Somebody make a patch, I don't know perl.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
I particularly enjoy seeing all the "dupe!" comments and jokes being moderated as -1, Redundant. Slashdot is certainly an Irony Free Zone.
Speak truth to power.
Why do you care so much? I don't understand the appeal of an seemingly endless stream of dupe-related "me too" comments. Are you personally involved in this site? /. is a site that's worth more than its fee? Also, there indeed are people that don't refresh /. every 5 minutes to get the latest, freshest story, so if it is a "hot" story, why not make sure even less-frequent visitors get to see it?
Yes, I do understand that it can be annoying to see the same story over and over again. Yes I do understand that it makes one worry about the editor's attitude and interest towards their site and what we are missing because of their sometimes sub-optimal editing. But why do you still post a comment under the dupe? Just consider the dupe a troll posting and do the only right thing: ignore it. Why do you read the same article again, and why do you still read slashdot?
Is it because, overall,
Last but not least don't forget that in most stories, the comments are what really make a story shine, be it the Funny or the Insightful ones. IMHO, an example. Don't be dupe nazis.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
TFA:
IE Smith was charged for war driving. Period. There is NO indication that he performed ANY illegal activities other than allowing his computer to respond to an invitation to connect to the network that was sent by the AP.
More from TFA:
If you have further information, please provide. If you don't, then don't ask people to RTFA to ascertain information that simply isn't there.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
from thomas.loc.gov
"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."
Same person, same offence, 2 times. Sounds like a clear cut violation to me. This guy's lawyer should be all over this.
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
I have a real question so I am sorry if this was already discussed...
You must be new here.
"For Great Justice."
No we should simply just have a moderation on the entire posting: ...
... and then we could draw some statistics on the editors.
() Dupe
() Old stuff
() Interesting
Hardware: Man Arrested for Using Open Wireless Network
or is it
Your Rights Online: Florida Man Charged For Stealing Wi-Fi
so now he's charged rather than arrested...with the same article as proof? Madness!
Here's my comment about how this story is a dupe and/or sucks.
CmdrTaco... grumble grumble... Zonk, grumble grumble... slashd0t sux0r, grumble grumble.
Someone give me bait. Grumble Grumble.
Dupes are poops and dodongo dislike smoke.
Can I get modded insightful/funny now that I contributed to dupe complaints 101?
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Why don't they just make a small poll type thing on each post to vote if it's a dupe. If there's enough votes, the post is removed.
Wireless internet is to be shared. I am running an open accesspoint for others to use and I expect to find the same when I am on the road. You cannot possibly "steal" wireless access because:
a.) An access point is open to be used
OR
b.) An access point is not well enough protected by its owner which is clearly its owner's fault and nobody else's.
And this is why I don't pay for a subscription to slashdot. Until the editors can be bothered to care about the site, no way I'm paying my hard earned cash.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
Oops. Wrong piss-and-moan site...
"Hey Bob, I've got an idea. We'll repost stories just to tick off our readers and never verify links."
BRILLIANT! BRILLIANT!!!
Quick somebody post the dupe again, so we can put this guy away for life. Or does Florida not have a three strikes law?
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
A member's only club has now accused a non-member for walking in front of their automatic door and opening it. "The scum was stealing our air conditioned oxygen." When asked why the club didn't put a common card lock, hand scanner, or security guard nearby, the owner replied "We aren't the thieves. We shouldn't have to go to extra trouble to secure our door!" Though the accused did not steal (anything other than the oxygen), it was his presence at the door that unnerved the owners. He has been arrested and will be spending his next 10 years near many auto-closing doors.
Taking an unlocked car no longer considered stealing!
Taking things from an unlocked home no longer considered burglary!
Don't think those are valid analogies? How about:
Staying in an unlocked home while the owners are out of town no longer considered illegal entry!
Type something, will you? We're paying for this stuff!
If not, then you should have seen this one coming...
Why do you care so much?
Because those of us who comment want a large variety of ways to express our done-to-death jokes and opinions. Besides, it's fun to pick on the editors.
you personally involved in this site?
On a more serious note, yes, we are. The people who form the community of /. are highly involved in the site. We provide the world-renown sarcam, humor, and insight. Think of us as a reincarnation of USENET.
But why do you still post a comment under the dupe? Just consider the dupe a troll posting and do the only right thing: ignore it.
But it's not as fun that way.
Why do you read the same article again, and why do you still read slashdot?
We don't read the same article again. We read it for the first time!
Also, there indeed are people that don't refresh /. every 5 minutes to get the latest, freshest story, so if it is a "hot" story, why not make sure even less-frequent visitors get to see it?
This could easily be solved by creating a "hot stories" section to further clutter up the page... If there are more than 300 posts, it gets 1 extra day. More than 600, 2. More than 1000, it's there all damn week... well, you should get the idea.
In any case, the appropriate solution isn't to post a dupe article... then all of "the Funny or the Insigtful ones" are lost to those who read the dupe.
To quote someone I've met.
Analogies are like goldfish. Sometimes they don't shed much light on the discussion, just like goldfish.
We have many thousands of years of shared experience with physical houses and probably some territorial instincts that go back further. It's been relatively easy to agree on laws about trespass on physical property. WiFi has some important differences from physical property.
Even so we could borrow some ideas from the law of trespass and build a legal structure that will promote the general welfare. What if the law said you had to leave a WiFi network when some authorized human asked you to, and that in any case it would be illegal to impair its functioning (e.g. by maxing out the backhaul)?
... and I don't think it's accidental.
If the story was good once, odds are it'll get lots of attention a second time, some from people who didn't see it while it was on the front page the first time, and some from people looking to see if there's anything of interest in the new discussion. And some from people complaining about dups, of course. And some from people complaining about people complaining about dups. And some from people explaining why dups are probably not accidental. And some from style Nazis lambasting posters for begining sentences with conjunctions.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
who do not turn on their encyrption/firewall what ever
I did turn this stuff on , and things went to hell in a handbasket
so, as in most cases where "lazy users" are blamed, the problem is actually crappy software/hardware
(would we blame people for not using seatbelts if you had to spend 5 minutes adjusting them every day ?
An article about the internal structure of dinosaur bones has scientific value, and therefore has no place on Slashdot.
You should have posted something about copyright infringement, hacking, installing Linux or wardriving, i.e. Slashdotters' favourite activities. I think you've been drawn in by the 'News for Nerds' marketing, and you may have thought it was about intelligent articles written for an educated audience. I was that naive once.
TWICE in TWO DAYS??!?!?!
/ 06/0217252&tid=193&tid=17 )
Mother of God, there must be a lot of War Drivers in Florida!
I wonder if Jeb Bush will start an anti-WiFi war?
(Yesterday's arrest here: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Just looking gets many a man in trouble all the time!
All people that access open WiFi networks are transmitting child porn and stealing credit card info. So we must prosecute all violators in order to catch the 0.25 percent who are shitbags out there, regardless of criminal intent.
All three government branches in this country are severly fucked up, and need cleansing. Nobody upholds our constitution anymore, nor considers it when writing new laws.
Your life will be easy, as long as you don't shine laser pointers at airplanes, log on to an open WiFi network for quick internet access, or raise your rake at a police officer, or reach for your wallet to get out your ID.
This is more like swimming in a pool left unfenced in the owner's front yard.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
...and can help me file this as an application for a low cost please reply here. Serious responses only please.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
The WiFi signal spills out beyond your property boundaries. If someone uses what's extended to them, it shouldn't be an issue if they're not compromising your bandwidth or your personal data.
Did I say overlords? I meant protectors.
Has noone thought about this... There are people who want to share there wifi connection... And do leave it wide open for this... I would use this in my defense... I thought I was allowed to do this... There have been some legitimate break ins to company networks and case was dismissed because they didn't have a banner saying they weren't allowed on the network... I don't think this will stick, unless his lawyer is a real dunce...
Just dump ALL the stories submitted on the front page and let the
Dump the editors, dump the moderators.
We'll just spider the whole goddamn site - or let Google do it for us.
Obviously the editing and moderating just is not working worth a shit.
Like the guy in Hackers said: "Give...it...up!"
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Anyone with a wi-fi card, a laptop and the right programs could break WEP within 5 minutes depending on how heavily it's being used at the time.
It's more like 9 or 10 minutes to crack WEP, AFTER you've captured a sufficient volume of traffic, even with the fastest laptop. That's almost double the time of your guess.
...it links the same bloody article!
I am grateful to you for firing michael. Not only was he a shitty editor, but he was totally belligerent and always abusing his power. Zonk is a great improvement. However, it seems that despite earning 20K a year just to read this site and hit the "Approve" button on submitted stories, Zonk still won't take the time to actually read his own site. Get Zonk to stop with the freakin' dupes, seriously. He just needs to read the site for maybe half an hour a day.
Ron dies in chapter 9 of book 7.
Your target market is makers of WiFi equipment, not end users. Makers of WiFi equipment WILL NOT EVER put a big blinking light labelled "unsafe" on their product!
What you want to sell them is the idea of a big green light labelled "Secure" that comes on when the network is up and encryption is on. Not as effective to the end (l)user, but SALEABLE to the equipment maker.
There was this guy who originally invented an easy way to get ketchup out of the bottle. Every ketchup maker in America turned him down. "But people won't think our ketchup is thick!" they cried. Another guy invented runless pantyhose. Same deal. "We want to keep selling these crappy products to women over and over and over again!" said the execs.
"Know your target market" is the first rule of actually selling inventions.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If you're going to repost, at least use a different reference article. This piece of news has made it all the way to CNN.
I think he should be made to give back all the wi-fi packets he stole. And the court should examine them carefully to make sure that they're the same ones, so he can't get away with just giving the rightful owner any old packets he happens to have lying around.
What about those that just need internet access to check their email? Whenever I visit my parents, who have no computer (let alone a broadband internet connection) I take my wireless laptop and find a nearby unprotected network to surf and check my email. Should I be arrested? Who does this REALLY hurt? Similarly, I wouldn't mind someone tapping into my own wireless network at home for similar use.
should be punishable by death without a trial... or maybe just the same as a second degree murder. Yeah, the latter is more fair.
I have freaks! I did something right...
So shouldn't these people be charged for these crimes, and not for using a technology that makes these crimes possible?
The guy isn't being charged for using Wi-Fi. He's being charged for using someone ELSE'S Wi-Fi without their permission. Your examples ALL support this action, because in all three cases, it is also ILLEGAL to use someone ELSE'S mailbox, or someone ELSE'S computer, or someone ELSE'S telephone without their permission.
Trafficing in child pornography, stealing credit card info, and sending death threats are all crimes. Using someone else's property is ALSO a crime, because using someone else's property to commit those crimes is WORSE than just comitting the crimes themselves, as you're basically trying to frame someone else to take the fall for your crime.
paintball
Of course! He turned the wap into a newt....but fortunately it got better.
The wireless network invited the person in by authenticating him and giving him an IP address. It's the same as if you gave someone the key to your front door. The owner needs to take some part of the blame for this. so in theory, can the FBI or police set up a dummy open wireless network and then arrest anyone that connects to it? that seems like entrapment to me.
Just the other day I was going through my web site traffic logs, and I found several thousand people visiting my site and eating up my data transfer allotment - get this - without my permission!
They were *hitting* my web site! That has to be illegal somehow.
Damned hackers.
So he didn't secure his wireless because his neighbors are older. What a fuckhead. I'm older. Nahh, I'm old. I leave my wireless open for folks. I can afford to do so: I firewall it from my internal network with the same OpenBSD firewall that I use to firewall from the Internet and I traffic shape so that my bandwidth isn't consumed by drive-by's while I'm getting all the useful crap that I get from reading Slashdot. Did I mention that Dinon's a fuckhead for assuming that older creeps aren't technically knowledgeable? I forget since I'm old.
Amd why would I bother to write a script to post to Slashdot with my few remaining sentient hours? Lose the "confirm you're not a script" junk; my eyesight sucks and I can't read the damn things.
Yes, it's a bad analogy. A better one that I've been using for ~15 years is an office building. Doors in an office building are there to be opened. If you have a door to your private office that opens on a public hallway -- lock it or expect that people will walk in from time to time. Some kid walking the halls and twisting doorknobs is not trespassing, stealing, or anything else except maybe being a pain in the butt. Even if you put a little "private" sign on the door you should expect people to open it from time to time and they are still not trespassing or stealing.
Similarly, network services are there with the expectation of being used. If you don't want them used, the burden is on you to restrict them. If you don't you have no grounds to complain.
As an aside, I think law enforcement hates the idea of this for the same reason they hate all forms of anonymity - it gives plausible deniability that some particular person comitted some particular crime.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
if this case is upheld, perhaps the recording industry should sue for royalties from those of us forced to listen to boom boxes and 1KW car audio systems....
I have never considered using someone elses Wi-Fi that is wide open a crime. Maybe I am in the wrong but I don't think so.
During my last move from one town to another 20 miles away I had to have my Verizon DSL circuit moved (No cable broadband in the area). Getting the phone line part disconnected and reconnected at my new residence took hours to do, yet, to get DSL reactivated took over 30 days! (Meanwhile, DSL still continued to function for weeks at my old residence even without a dialtone, proving Verizon was full of shit when they told me an active phone line is required to get DSL service.)
I am a network admin and need access to my work from home. Where I moved to there are "a bunch of old people", lol, so I wasn't expecting any Wi-Fi signals from my neighbors.. but I found out that the local city police station which is a stones throw from my house had their Wi-Fi wide open so I just hopped on there network to check email/www. My opinion is, if I can receive a open access Wi-Fi signal from sitting on my couch in my own house, I should be able to use it. Just like any other radio waves that land on my property without encryption. If I have the device that can receive and use that signal without breaking any encryption then I should be entitled to use it. It is so painfully easy to enable encryption/Mac filtering on every WAP that if the person is to lazy to read the one page "Install" sheet that explains how to do it then they have no right to complain if a neighbor uses it from the comfort of their own home.
I am not trying to make an excuse for the guy in the article, he was an idiot parking directly in front of someones house for hours on end, but he was on a public street using an open Wi-Fi connection which I am sure happens thousands of times everyday throughout the world. I have done the same thing this guy did but to a much lesser extent. I have driven around just to find open Wi-Fi's and occasionally hopped on just to check my email, but never spent more than 5 minutes in front of someones house I don't know. At most this guy should get community service for his stupidity but any fine/jail time doesnt fit the so called "crime".
I also don't understand all the posts of people saying the homeowner was "stealing" from his ISP by having an open Wi-Fi. With Verizon DSL, when you sign up, they mail you a wireless router/DSL modem in one which comes preconfigured with no encryption. If they (ISP) were so worried about other people using the broadband, why would they give every customer a wireless router that is wide open? The answer, they don't care. The customer pays for an alway on broadband connection with limits on up/down speeds which you can't exceed. If you use your entire bandwith 24/7 for a month straight, your entitled to, you pay for it. I have done that very thing and never once recieved an email or phone call from my ISP about my usage.
10 to 1 he's a dirty, no-good, gay nigger. Those crazy queer coons will steal anything if you give them a chance.
It's a dupe, but oh well. I wrote an e-mail to the author of the article telling him how I thought the article was full of obvious bias and some misinformation but I haven't gotten a response yet. Oh well, I guess it's back to writing letters to politicians under my bare bulb in the basement.
Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
You would think that this guy would have learned something from this, since he was arrested yesterday for the very same thing.
Christ driving around to see what doors stupid ppl have left open should not be a crime. If I drive around my neighborhood and look at how many dumb ppl have left their front door wide open should I be arrested
I dare say most of the front doors in my neighbourhood are unlocked most of the time if people are home, and often if they're not. But I sure as hell would report to the cops anyone walking around opening doors and looking in. Unless they were smaller than I am, in which case I would ask what the hell they were doing.
But someone camping onto an open network? Meh... couldn't be bothered to get worked up.
People have used the cloak of wireless to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information and send death threats, according to authorities.
Perhaps, but all this guy did was use someone's wifi. It's like calling a jaywalker a killer because sometimes killers jaywalk.
Actually, the previous article on this subject was filed in Hardware, which makes no sense. So really, this is the real article, that other one was the wrong one ...
2 kinds of DUMB posts here:
1) Stupid analogies. Look why bother with these? I can make up an analogy to try and "prove" any point I want to. And the point is? Why not discuss the reality of the actual case and it's specifics. We can make up analogies about how it's like leaving signs in the yard, or unlocked doors, or WTF all day long. Those have nothing to do with police, lawyers, and courtrooms who rely on written laws.
2) This is a newpaper article, which as we all know usually don't get all the facts and they do get are often a bit off. If there was a specific law broken, it would be nice to know which one it was so we can look it up. Then there would not be endless stupid speculation about whether it was a "wardriving" law or not. More than likely they applied some existing law about "breaking into computer networks/computers" to this case. It would be good to KNOW instead of SPECULATING in a vacuum.
I am sitting here inside my car, outside of Jeb's house in Florida -- I just got on his lan to read slashdot....And all I get to SEE is dups.
Now I have to go to all the trouble of pulling up my comments from yesterday's story and add them to this post. You would think they could write a "Dup' It Forward" module that would automatically carry ones comments forward to any future posts that were duplicates of the stories one had already commented on. Hell we can put man on the moon. (I think) at least my grandparents BW tv showed man on the moon.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
you both have it 100% wrong. What makes it a felony is, "Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization: Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network;. That's Chapter 815.06(1)(a) of Florida Statutes. That section is the one that pertains to Computer-Related Crimes. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_ mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0815/ch0815.htm
Wardriving, per se is not a violation. Finding a hot spot is not access within the definition of Section 815. Once you "instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any computer network", THEN you have accessed it.
In this case he DID get into trouble for "stealing" Wi-Fi.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I don't care what other think or what stories they try to use to set their example to be true. In regards of who you are or where your from. It is a crime to use such network with out the permission of that network owner. Even though that network is open and not encrypted, it is not a material thing like cookies or a house or what ever you wish to compare it to. Yet if you must imagine this. Might be sick to some yet just read it, second time I have this text up here. Image a girl in a bikini out on a beach, she is lying in a lawn chair just soaking up the rays, she is more relax so her legs are spread apart, showing her love triangle. Anywow, a guy was walking the beach and sees this girl. He thinks she is advertising (Broadcasting SSID) No signs around this girl that say private (encrypted) or must have permisson to connect. So he connects, la'de'da'la, Like your poor excuse for analogy, did he commit a crime....If you say yes then the people who get onto open networks also commit a crime. (Did it without consent) Now if he had her consent then it would be ok, yet if no consent it is a crime.
Please, people.. Wardriving is just driving around a logging wireless signals for fun or statistical purposes. Wardriving is not a crime. Deciding to steal bandwidth after you bring your wardrive to a halt is. Ugh. Slashdotters should know this.
From what I understand, 802.11 is an unlicensed spectrum and is free for public use. In my mind using an open AP is like tapping into public TV. Its broadcasted over the air in a form all can recieve and use. The opposite of this is satallite TV which is locked down, similar to an AP with encryption (or other restrictions) enabled.
When then is using someone's open AP any different? After all, whether they intended to or not, they offered you free access to their network connection.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
If someone is lazy/uneducated/doesn't ask for help in protecting their network, it should be as it has been. Open Game. There were previous unrelated rulings across the country that say an unlocked network is an open network. If the owner of the network doesn't even read the manual or just know what they're doing, don't they deserve it? If they(owners of network) had read the manual, even if they didn't know how to secure it themselves, they could have asked someone. It's not a crime to steal the open.
I ran this issue by my wife who is lawyer. A similar analogy can be drawn to a fruit tree in your neighbour's yard. According to australian law, if one of their apple's land in your yard, legally you must throw it back in their yard. Because the apple is still theirs. (interestingly enough, if their leaves or branches soil your yard, you can throw it over too!)
Law is generally about the INTENTION of PEOPLE, not machines. Although your machine is basically saying "I am a public network", YOU, as the home owner, did not say so.
Is it really necessary to give such ridicule to the editors for duping an article? Seeing as every time I make my way to this site there's another article, I feel they should be cut some slack. Of the 300+ comments at the moment, how many are flames to the editors? Too many, I'd say. Ease off, and just ignore the dupes. Stuff happens, and the editors are human, not computers.
And no, this wasn't posted anonymously by an editor.
Its all fun and games until... someone combines the two and makes a fun game. Here are from stats from a match in a wardriving game my friends and I ran a few years ago: http://web.archive.org/web/20040210184050/www.driv ebyctf.com/stats.php?game=6
Instructions here (archive.org, sorry, I'm poor).
Required a strong hand at the wheel and a keen ear on the midi blips for signal -- four laptops in each car and a lot of fun.
Ok, we know it's a dupe.
Here is a dupe of what I wrote last time:
dupe.
However, this article gets the story wrong.
"Arrested for stealing wifi."
Previously, the original post had been titled, florida man arrested for using wifi.
He was using the wifi.
He wasn't stealing it.
He wasn't arrested for stealing it.
He was charged with unauthorized access to a computer network. Since his access was authorized (in dispute, but reasonable) a good lawyer could get him off. If he can't afford his own net connection, what are the chances he can afford a good lawyer? I encourage slashdot users to ask the prosecutor to drop the case, and if that fails, to consider filing a complaint with the florida attorney disciplinary commission, and to see to it that the prosecutor gets some competition within his party in the next election.
The guy's conduct is like somebody who rides an elevator or escalator they don't own, or who listens to a radio station they don't own.
Reasonable people can disagree whether or not his conduct was authorized. No reasonable person could contend that he was charged with stealing.
The article isn't just a dupe, it's wrong.
I must be new here.