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.
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.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
"...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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Modded down for Redunance on a dupe post!?! Who's the flaming asshat behind that decision?
-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
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.
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.
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
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."
He intentionally left the network open. He was voluntarily sharing it with his neighbors. The article doesn't seem to mention who his ISP is, but most don't allow that. He steals from them, then gets upset when somebody else re-steals from him?
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.
By advertising your network with an SSID and by not encrypting said network, you are making the invitation to use it.
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!
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!
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
How about staying in an unlocked home with a sign on the door that says 'come on in and stay a while!'.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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.
Insurance companies will not honour your home insurance or car insurance policy in the event you left your car unlocked and it was stolen.
This is why insurance companies are now looking at how they insure around the liability with regards to the operating system companies use and efforts that have been made to secure infrastructure. Bruce Schneier has discussed the insurance and network security issue often, like here.
The onus still lies on the end user to make the effort to secure their asset. And the criminal will still be charged with unlawfull entry, but the insurance industry will use lack of effort on the owner's part as an out to not pay out on the policy.
Scientia et Potentia
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
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.
No, what I am doing is stating common sense.
;)
:)
You hide behind the "Anonymous Coward" tag, that shows what shaky ground you are on.
Yeah yeah, I know. I shouldn't feed the trolls.
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.
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.
Is crossing undemarcated private property adjacent to public property trespass? The key word here is undemarcated.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
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 ...
That's funny, it looked pretty demarcated to me, what with a network name that I know isn't mine and all...
Type something, will you? We're paying for this stuff!
The great thing about this position you have, is that it is possible for me to create a situation which causes your equipment to automatically connect to mine, without my having "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.", and also without you having initiated any action whatsoever. In which case, I have caused you to break the law.
Example:
I set up an access point which has the same SSID as yours, runs on the same channel, but with a much stronger signal. Assuming both have no security beyond protection of law, your PC could automatically connect to my AP instead of your own. Which would mean you hacked my AP.
Please, explain this away.
Model 551, Chambered in 6mm
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.
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"
Doesn't look like that to me. Demarcation is WEP or WPA. Clear notice "stay out".
OTOH, if you are running a wireless LAN, and the transmission comes into my house (or car), are you liable for trespass when you are running it with no security (as in this case)?
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
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.
Please go research how DHCP works. Pay special attention to the "OFFER" and "ACK" stages.
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
I see. So you're ok with people listening in on your cell phone calls because the radio waves may be leaving the bounds of your private property?
I'd be very surprised if you thought that was ok. And even if you do, the law obviously doesn't agree with you -- doing so is absolutely illegal.
Type something, will you? We're paying for this stuff!
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.
Nothing was taken, standing in somone elses property is not stealing just trespassing thats the very most this could be as nothing was unlocked broken or taken.
Nothing was taken? So if he was paying for a 4 Mbps connection, and the guy out front who was sneaking on to his network was using 2 Mbps of that, he was only getting half of what he paid for.
I imagine most slashdotters get pretty pissed when they're broadband/DSL connections run slow.
Type something, will you? We're paying for this stuff!
GSM is encrypted, albeit weakly. Also, tappable by the government (or any one with the right equipment).
Without encryption, that is the equivalent of shouting in a public place and then complaining that other people can listen to your conversation.
What I want secret, I encrypt and send via multiple channels in parts.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
Sensible, but we're not talking about whether it's sensible to protect information you want to keep private. We're talking about whether it's ok to snoop on traffic that isn't explicitly protected.
Just because you are aware of the risk in transmitting unencrypted information doesn't make it ok for someone to listen in on your private traffic. See my comment above regarding cell phone signal interception for an example.
Type something, will you? We're paying for this stuff!
You miss the point. Actually, you miss a few of them, though I can not determine if you are intentionally missing the points or honestly fail to understand the specifics of this situation.
But first, let me make my position regarding end users of technology perfectly clear:
The end user is responsible for knowing how his device functions and is responsible for using said device in a manner consistent with his own personal wishes.
If you don't agree with this, then you may as well stop reading now: people who excuse any combination of ignorance, voluntary stupidity, ineptness, sloth, failure to read and at least attempt to comprehend instructions and/or accept the natural consequences of deliberate actions are of no concern to me. If you tolerate, exuse, endorse or participate in any of the above then in a nutshell I don't care what you have to think.
There are two parties involved here: we'll call them Q (the tech-saavy homeowner) and Pon, the Mensa-qualifier who thought that sitting in front of the guy's house for hours on end was a stroke of brilliance.
Let's examine the actions (or lack thereof) of Q first.
Q buys a wireless access point. According to my standards at this point he willingly assumes responsibility for configuring and operating the device according to his own personal wishes, desires, fetishes, dreams, schemes, wants, needs and lusts . Q installed his device and knowingly and admittedly operated the device with the following paremeters:
- Said device would advertise its presence to any and all devices equipped and configured to receive such advertisements
- Said device would provide internet connectivity upon demand to any and all devices upon request This operation was consistent with the design and configuration of this and all similar devices. It is clearly documented and well-known that any person who does not accept these parameters of operation must perform a few token and trivial operations. Q admitted that he was aware of this need and that he understood how to perform these steps, yet made a conscious decision to allow his access point open and available for public use. His claim that most of his neighbors were elderly does not preclude the possibility of any of them buying a computer and connecting to his network, a decidedly non-zero probability.
So we have the following:
1. Q admitted knowing that his AP is designed to advertise network availability
2. Q admitted knowing that his AP offered the advertised network availability and provided it upon request by any and all devices so equipped
3. Q admitted knowing that he could deny general, public access at any time and with intention and deliberation aforethought declined to provide any indication to any party that he wished to use this device in any manner other than initially configured.
So where is the theft?
There was no physical trespass. Pon was in a private vehicle in a public place. The invitation to connect to Q's network was knowingly and intentionally broadcast over public, unallocated frequencies with the explicit (and confirmed) knowledge and permission of Q. Q knowingly and deliberately plugged in a device that actively solicited general and public connections. I can only rephrase this so many different ways - the situation is clear: Q knew that his AP was designed to actively invite any and all devices to connect to his network and knowingly and intentionally made no effort to prevent his device from doing so, even though the steps to do so are trivial and within his ability to accomplish.
It is painfully clear that there was no theft - there was, however, acceptance of an offer.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Interesting article on the subject of open access points.
Hale, Robert V., "Wi-Fi Liability: Potential Legal Risks in Accessing and Operating Wireless Internet" . Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, Vol. 21, p. 543 http://ssrn.com/abstract=692881