Slashdot Mirror
Wireless Hijacker Dealt First UK Punishment
paella_dodger writes "The BBC is reporting on a recent UK court case whereby a man was fined £500, sentenced to 12 months' conditional discharge and had his laptop confiscated for browsing the 'net on his neighbour's wireless Internet conenction. Perhaps I should secure my neighbour's wireless connection for him before Windows automagically connects to it and gets me arrested!"
As has been mentioned on /. on several times before when this particular case came up, this guy didn't accidentally or "automagically" attach to his neighbour's wifi network: he sat outside their house, in his car, and acted very suspiciously when they walked past (e.g. snapping his laptop shut). He'd been doing this over a three month period. To my mind his punishment was more a result of his behaviour than mere connection to some idiot's wide open wireless network.
so, i'm gonna have to stop doing my bittorrent across my neighbours wireless broadband and go back to criminalising myself...
fantastic...
If the network is OPEN then u should be able to use it at will. if you don't want anyone to use your wireless network then secure it somehow. Now anyone that wants u use it has to break you security and that can be considered a crime. If it's OPEN its fair game.
Just another crappy blog
The drivers for most wireless cards just chuck you onto a wireless network the second you're in range - I haven't RTFA but I sure hope he was seriously abusing his neighbours connection, 'cause that is a serious punishment for a "oops I slipped" offence
Also.. FP?
we should all open up public aps, log the connections and send law enforcement large lists of mac addresses of 1337 h4x0rs...
that might cause them to reconsider how they enforce the law.
Get your torrents...
...shouldn't they fine Microsoft? Just a thought.
``before Windows automagically connects to it and gets me arrested''
Fortunately, most courts still discriminate between intentionally and accidentally doing something. If you're connecting to someone else's wireless network from your car (which, I assume, means that you don't have any wireless network facilities of your own around), it's pretty hard to maintain that you did it by accident.
On the other hand, if my mom is found to use the neighbor's network to access the Internet, it will be pretty hard to maintain that she was doing so on purpose. All she knows is that computers can be used as glorified typewriters. GUIs are not for her, much less wireless network configurations.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Sigh. You know you're on Slashdot when anything bad, no matter how remote, gets blamed on Windows and/or Microsoft.
It seems that the person that was dumb enough to leave his wireless unsecure should also be at fault. He/she has left himself and the ISP open to abuse.
Also the people/companies that leave in bugs & security holes are the ones at fault.
as someone who has been stealing internet access for more than a year now, really don't see a problem with doing it.
The neighbour whose connection I'm leeching off of uses their connection for about ten to twenty minutes in the morning when they wake up and about an hour or so at night -- and never uses their connection to its full capacity.
It's being wasted -- why not use it?
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
"reported to police by a neighbour concerned that he was acting suspiciously"
sounds like the guy is not the type to pay for internet anyways if he is willing to go to all that trouble.
Not really. Despite the BBC hedging it's bets, and putting the conspiracy angle on it a touch, The Register has a clearer account of what happened.
Basically the bloke was engaged in Wardriving, and deliberately hooked into the wireless network.
It'll certainly be murky waters when windows automatically selects the average joe's router instead of their own, but with many routers at least asking people to put better security on wireless points, this should start becoming less frequent.
From all accounts, he was caught tapping away on his laptop, moved away when police watched, then came right back to the same point again. At which point he was investigated as he looked a little 'suspicious'.
Wardrivers remember! Just because you're invisible in the network, it doesn't make you invisible to the local copper walking on the street, or the local neighbourhood watch!
Would have been more interesting if the guy had had a clued up a lawyer.
Seeing as these people's DHCP server gave him an IP address, doesn't that count as permission? I guess the prosecutors might have thought so too which is why the crime is using his airspace not his computer. Which is even more ridiculous, their network came into his car not the other way round.
This has alarming civil liberties implications. But I guess is mainly down to cluelessness and incompetence on the part of the judge as these things usually are.
Perhaps because it's unlikely that he did access the computer? Why would he need to, if he's just leeching the bandwidth?
I've no doubt that when this happens it's mainly ignorance, but the trouble is there is no way of pinpointing where the router is, so no way of politely helping a neighbour. In my case: a router called "netgear" - a default of course - and a load of terraced houese. Short of walking round with my laptop and netstumbler, there is no way to help.
This 'news' is from last Thursday for Christ's sake...
While it might get rid of bozos who go and mess with unsecured wireless routers, I don't think this sort of action does anything but create a false sense of security.
Fines and probation won't magically make everyone's wireless network secure. The only reason this guy was caught was because he was acting suspiciously, just like that guy in the US.
... I'm going to make a test of technical aptitude a requirement before anyone is allowed to use it, and then nobody can claim that they need to be protected by law instead of protecting themselves by turning on encryption. Fucking idiots keep ruining it for the people who care about technology...
Well to be fair this has always been technically illegal. If you leave your windows or your Windows open (heh), it doesn't make it legal for someone to go inside. I don't agree with it though, that's the law. I think there should have at least been a flag in the protocol to way 'this is a private network' and hardware should default it on - that way even if its totally open you still know where you stand legally. I also think more should have been done to clear up the legality of who was responsible for what goes on their network, there's no way you should be held liable for what someone else does on your connection - otherwise no-one would have access points, not even Starbucks!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Personally, I feel I have rights to any radio waves traveling through my body.
Wrong. It's more like going up a private road which isn't marked as a private road, and which you have contacted Google to tell them to put it on their maps. Don't want people to go driving up your private road? Put some signs up or a gate.
It's very simple - put WEP or WPA on. To be honest, if someone goes through your WEP, then that counts as a deliberate break-in in my book. If you don't have it no, don't complain when people go using it.
What a coincident, i am writing this using my neighbour's wireless network without their knowledge. ;)
Is that 12 months probation? E.g. if he screws up, can they throw him in the slammer? That'll teach him!
I can't imagine how he feels; if he screws up again, he's going to get traded aroud on the block for cigarettes. That's just not funny.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Long live Amerika, Koka Kola and Vonderbra!
Maybe if you'd stolen a faster internet connection. :(
"the person installing the network, be they a home user or a business, has ultimate responsibility for any criminal activity that takes place on that network," ?
..that gets fined or has it's CEO jailed.
WTF? If someone sneaks into my garden and starts dealing crack does that meen I'm responsible for that crime too? I meen, it was on my property after all.
Enlgish law is f***ed up. Someone should point these dumb-asses at a book about computers which they should read before passing laws like this.
If you're going to fine or jail anyone for having an insecure router it should be the company thats still selling WEP-only routers even though they've been proven to be insecure:
http://securityfocus.com/infocus/1814
Where are the laws to protect the consumer from purchasing insecure WEP routers? Where's the consumer protection law making it illegal to sell someone an insecure communication device? Nowhere. Typical!
I wonder how many people have actually gone to jail over this? Wouldn't this be a really easy way to set someone up that you didn't like? Hack their WEP, browse to a kiddy pr0n site on their connection and then tip off the police!
Coding Monkey.org - Spanging the heavy spade of truth into t
While I'm at home, I can see just one wireless network.. mine. But step outside and I can see eight other ones, only one of which is secured. About half are set to the default network name (so I guess default IP addresses and passwords), all of them except mine use the same channel. And some of them stupidly have the owner's names for the network (stupid.. because a burglar could use that to find out who had kit worth nicking).
So are these people being stupid or what? Errr well.. no, they're just being normal people who expect the kit to work out of the box. But really, who many non-geeks understand WEP, SSIDs, MAC addresses and all the other jargon?
The probably is made worse by "leakage". If you are inside then you'll rarely pick up someone else's wireless connection.. but these things leak out all over the place when you go outside. The perception of the typical user then is that if they can't see someone else's network from inside, then nobody else can see theirs. Alas, this isn't the case.
I think the bottom line is that WiFi is incredibly dangerous if you don't know what you are doing. Most products do work straight out of the box, but crucially they are not secure out of the box. Even Microsoft eventually learned that lesson with its operating systems - early versions of XP didn't even have the firewall enabled and were wide open to attack.
In this particular case the issue of intent is important. Given the proliferation of insecure networks, it must be trivially easy to accidentally connect to some else's wireless point. How you can prove intent is more difficult though.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Ah, right. So if you have your door open in summer, I'm welcome to walk into your house and help myself to some of the cookies that are on the kitchen table? Or print a few copies of the document you happen to have open on your PC?
The problem is that Windows will automatically put you inside the house, and you don't have to have done anything so conscious and specific as take cookies or print documents to steal bandwidth - you could just open IE and go to Google without thinking about it too much at all.
Just because something is easy doesn't mean it's morally justified.
True. But when something's done for you, and not by you, your moral responsibility for it is rather slender.
Your "Door" isn't open on your private property. Your "private" information is flowing out into the street. The PUBLIC street. So if you dont want your "private" data to be exposed to the "public" then dont broadcast it out where anyone can read it. Its more like leaving your hi-fi plugged in and out in the middle of the street, and someone comes by and listens to it, and then you get mad at them for doing it. Its like dressing like a slut then being offended when people stare at you in public places.
I can connect to some guys internet in my street.
He doesn't have it WEP enabled or any form of security at all, not even a password
So how is it my fault if I was to connect to it ? Surely I could claim accident as the guy hasn't a clue how to setup such a device
"Sweet llamas of the Bahamas !"
... you want to DDoS the FBI? Sounds good, count me in!
"Fortunately, most courts still discriminate between intentionally and accidentally doing something. "
Except for one thing, you can't know if he neighbours INTENT was to share his open wireless connection for sharing. Thats the whole point of Open WiFi afterall, sharing. By doing this they're making Open WiFi illegal, because not only does your computer have to get permission to connect to the network (via the login) but now extra permission is needed too.
Let me put it another way. Suppose you have free open municiple wifi and Fred Bloggs open wifi, you computer has no way of telling which is the free Municiple open wifi and which is not so it connects to Fred Blogs's net, attempts to login and is given permission -> crime comitted. You had the intent to connect to an open network, but not the method to determine which network is permitted.
Or rather you did have the way, the login, but the court ignored that.
Are you saying this guy unconciously, repeatedly, hijacked the connection? If not then isn't he in the same kind of ethical position as someone who waltzes in through your open front door and takes the cookies?
Okay, I know you're not his lawyer, I'm just asking for clarification on your position.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Now when I see those little LCDs in the headrests of cars in front of me playing movies, I'm afraid if I look at them I'm stealing the movie from driver of that car. And if I happen to be behind that person playing other movies a few times a month(they live close, or drive similar roads) I'm conspiring to steal thier video!
really though. When he signs on, the instant the router assigns him an IP the network has asked him on to the network. Since when is an unencrypted signal entering your private space(the guy was in his vehicle, on what I'm assuming was a public road) not yours to use?
This idea of "theft" is one put about by RIAA and MPAA. Don't confuse things.
A better analogy than stealing hifi would be if looked through your window and watched your TV that you left turned on. Is that illegal? Is it immoral?
K.
Theft is theft, wireless or otherwise
Chris ,
Php Programmers.
No, I'm saying that a guy could unconsciously, repeatedly hijack a connection, and that the extent to which that process is automated complicates questions of guilt and ruins most analogies.
With this guy it looks like it was intentional, deliberate theft. But generally speaking, the "waltzes in through your open front door and takes the cookies" image is completely imprecise, as you were placed inside the house and handed the cookies. No analogy supports that accurately.
Note the inflation of rhetoric...now it's "hijacking" if some bozo's AP *gives* you an IP address over DHCP...!!
...the door is unlocked = no encryption, no security.
...turning the handle gives access to anyone that tries - the router hands out IPs to anyone that asks.
...the door can be locked very easily - the WiFi network can be configured to deny access easily.
...accidentally opening the neighbour's unlocked door = Windows automatically connecting to a WiFI network
You know that most people do not intend to let everyone use their WiFi, any more than they want everyone to use their house when the door is unlocked. Most of them are poorly configured (typically, default SSID/password), and you know that 99%+ of all residential ISPs don't allow them to run a public hotspot.
Consider it something like garden furniture, even though it's not under lock and key it is still mine to use. If I don't sit in it, you still don't have any right to the unused "bandwidth". And don't give me the "reading in your light" argument, because using my network consumes my bandwidth. If I have a download running, you are slowing me down.
If you really are a free hotspot it is trivial to indicate that you are in your SSID. Otherwise the only thing you have is a very thin argument that since you can use it, it must be free. It certainly has no truth in the physical world, and hardly in the electronic world either. Just because I misconfigure a server to make an open relay/proxy/service, doesn't imply permission. Not if you have good reason to understand that this isn't intentional. You can play really stupid, but no court will let you get away with it.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Personally, I leave my wireless network deliberately open, and the login message (when seen) says "welcome to...". I do this in a public minded spirit, in the hope that if I need a public network in some other place, some other kind soul will leave one open as well.
Fixed computers actually on my network are individually firewalled off.
If I ever find evidence of massive bandwidth leeching, I may change my policy, but even then I would prefer to simply cap non-me connections.
Morally, I don't feel it is wrong to borrow enough bandwidth off an open wifi node to read a few web pages or collect email.
Massive bandwith leeching, copyright theft or invading someone else's samba shared files via an open network (that they probably intended to be network private) are off limits, of course.
These days, I would hope that people are aware that these things are open by default - there have been enough articles in the major newspapers about it, and certainly I would prefer that hardware manufacturers shipped them in a default secure configuration, but I don't think this should prevent people leaving them open if they want to.
If i leave a plate of biscuits (cookies) just inside the open gate to my garden with a sign saying "take one please", is it a crime for someone to take one?
Eye sea that slashdot is you zing cowboy kneels open sores speil czech are again.
Can we go ahead and get these two tired metaphors (that come up any time a WiFi story is mentioned) out of the way?
1) If I leave my door unlocked, does that mean you can just walk into my house?
-or-
2) If you're broadcasting music over the radio, can you sue me for listening?
This is way off base, not only is it pretty clear that no one would want strangers in their house, but that you are also trespassing on someone else's property. No one specifically owns the airwaves. In addition I don't know of anyone that leaves their door open, in fact I don't know of anyone that leaves their door unlocked that often even when home. If your door is wide open that is actually somewhat suspicious and police patrols will actually look into it if driving by. The police also consider open doors fair game for entry and do not require a warrant if I remember correctly. I could be wrong but if I am lets not nitpick about that last one it is minimal.
The analogy Rather like if a webserver is publicly accessible, then anyone can connect to it. If there's stuff you don't want people to see, then force people to authenticate. is pretty dead on. There are alot of people that provide open wifi usage for whomever wants to use it in the area, as well as coffee shops, libraries, bars, community centers, etc... The list is rather endless, so how can you differentiate what access points you are allowed to access? My answer is that it should be if the access point is open then it is open for public use. One good analogy is this is similar to the phone network, businesses especially pollsters and advertisers are allowed to assume that any phone number is fair game to be called unless it is on the federal do not call list. I interpret this as my phone lines are fair game to be used to contact my house unless I explicity require authorization or deny you to call them via do not call lists. The authorization part is that as an addon you can have white lists of phone numbers allowed to call you and people often will only answer phone numbers on their caller id that they know ignoring the others. Another analogy is potentially FM radio (FCC restrictions aside) the signal is open to the public unless otherwise restricted.
In my area there are alot of newer development that end with circles and people put portable basketball hoops on the side of the road but do not care if kids besides their own use it as long as they don't break it. Sometime people play football or soccer in the yards but I and most other people don't care if they use some of my lawn as long as it isn't too close to the house. I paid for that land and pay taxes to own it and etc..., but I don't mind sharing.
One of the churches in my area put up an open wifi access point for anyone to use, the only reason I know that is we were looking for a church to attend and the pastor happened to mention it when he found out I was into IT. How would anyone else know? but yet they want people to feel free to use it.
I'm not sure what the law is right now in the US as far as using someone's open wifi AP. I would honestly feel that a decent attorney would get any charges thrown out of court unless the AP owner wanted to specifically press charges of theft. This is something that definitely belongs in the civil realm unless it is an actual hack to the AP or systems on the network.
For those about to scream about the insecurity of my open AP and that I am a moron because of it I have an AP setup on its own supernet range firewalled off from the rest of my network and bandwidth limited for those that do want to use it. It also has some specific ports blocked like ftp, bt, and a few others. My other AP has WPA enabled and only I, some friends and the wife have access to use it.
If you walk into an unlocked house without being invited, it is still trespass. You cannot argue sanely or logically that since it is unlocked, you are allowed to use the house. The analogy is simple, as is the definition of theft. The courts have not let their brains take a holiday, you have.
Sorry, I misunderstood your post - I thought you were countering the idea that this particular guy was culpable. Sorry!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
"that under British Law you cannot just assume rights over another person's property (in this case a computer accessed via a wireless connection)."
Except that his computer asked, it said "here - I'm an anonymous connector, is it ok to connect to your network" and the other guys WIFI said "sure".
Think about the Internet, do you get permission to connect to someone website and download some files? Hell no, its a public network, and if you want to stop people visiting the website, you can password protect it.
In the words of Kosh truth is a thre edged sword;
Your side
there side
and the truth
Theft of bandwidth on a home internet conenction beacuse of an un-securt WLAN would be viewed thus.
Every secong xMbit of unused bandwisth is wasted, I was simply using something that the owner was throwing away. Besides it should of been secured, its' like leaving your shopping on the front garden wall.
It was my property and as it is part of my network you invaded my privacy, it is like walking into my house and decanting the hot water out of my kettle after I'd just made a cup of tea.
You ARE stealing and you ARE gaining unlawful access to a private network. If you want to share bandwidth (I do so with my neighbours as they are very light users and I have a loverly fat pipe) then it should be done openly. Although you could argue it is the owners responcibility to secure there own network it is no different to seeing a house with an open window and going in to nick the biscutes.
So Say'th lord Timebrwolf.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
This is the worst wi-fi case ever I mean come on it's like if I decided to make a wi-fi hotspot open and all and then someone connected to it Then I call the cops and say that you were stealing my wi-fi connection, hell it's my fault i left it open.
However, there is another ancient principle of Common Law: De minimis non curate lex, which means "the law ignores small things". If this is applied, clearly someone occasionally getting their neighbour's wireless network because of signal strength variation is not worth worrying about. Finally, there is the CPS or Crown Prosecution Service. Whether or not they prosecute depends on the current level of terrorism paranoia, what the Daily Mail is screaming about at the moment, and whether the paperwork has been filled in correctly.
The one thing in all this that does not matter is whether or not you were doing this on purpose. And, being completely serious for a moment, that is exactly as it should be because, in reality, it is almost impossible to prove intent.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Cant speak for US courts, but in the UK, except for some specific cases, a person is guilty only if they committed the Actus Reus (guilty act) with appropriate Mens Rea(guily mind). I've watched enough US TV to have heard these phrases used often enough, and since US law is generally based on English law, I presume the same applies.
Preumably the chap was charged with some form of Theft; that usually requires proof of intent and dishonesty. "Oh, I though the other person wouldn't mind" might be enough of an excuse if a lawyer can make the court believe it.
So granny is probably quite safe if she accidently connects, and any descent lawyer could get her off.
There was a young fellow named Rex
With diminutive organ of sex
When charged with exposure he replied with composure
"De minimis non curat lex."
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
" ...the door is unlocked = no encryption, no security."
Man 1: "Knock knock",
Man 2: "Come in",
Man 1: Goes in.
Man 2: Police arrest that man.
Man 1: But I knocked and you said I could come in
Man 2: But that was a misconfiguration, if I wanted you to come in I would have put a "FreeToComeIn" sign on my door.
As someone who's been breaking into my neighbour's house to watch his TV for more than a year now, I really don't see a problem with doing it.
He doesn't watch his living room except for ten to twenty minutes in the morning and an hour or so at night - and he usually watches bad TV.
It's being wasted - why not use it?
My Journal
One of the better analogies.
Why do we need to create analogies? We know what happened?
Someone had a wireless router. They broadcast their SSID so everyone knows they exist. They could easily not do that if they don't want people to use their networks. Then, when you ask for an IP address, they oblige and say happy wireless networking. They don't limit entrance by MAC addresses. They don't use WEP security or anything.
So, some guy goes around looking for wireless access to use (abuse). I don't thing most people thought of this as illegal. Some think it's immoral (and I'd only agree if it's abuse vs just use), but that issue shouldn't be very relevant when hardly anyone thought it was illegal!!
The owner took no measures in discouraging or preventing the use. The AP broadcasts itself and allows access to all. To pay 500 pounds and lose your laptop over it?! What the hell is wrong with people? They talk about wanting people to be responsible over their networks, but then they don't force people to be responsible about the wireless router? geesh..
In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
"As has been mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, the guy was aware that he did not have the owner's consent to use the connection."
Yet his computer asked for concent and was told it was OK.
Your cell phone for example is a very similar device. You drive around, it gets a good connection to a nearby tower, and you make your call.
You don't get extra permission to use that tower, you assume because your phone says its ok that its ok.
You visit a website, its password protected so you don't use it. You visit a website and its not password protected so you do use it.
Did you get extra permission? Internets also a shared public network, just like WiFi.
Wow...cool. I had no idea I was a hacker...will have to add that to the resume. Now to go get a lifetime supply of black t-shirts with obscure *nix jokes on them, throw away my shaver, and stock up on Mt. Dew.
since when can windows do anything remotely magical!?!?!?!??!!!!
"A wireless router is not a person, and therefor cannot be compared to the person saying come in."
But the Wifi login *is* the electronic proxy for the person. It *is* where the person gets to say whether its OK to come in or not.
A mobile phone tower is not a person either, your phone connects to a tower. You do not have explicit permission from the owner of the tower that its OK to use it. You assume that because your phone connected that there is some permission via your provider to use it.
The login from the phone to the tower is the *proxy* version of whatever contracts give you permission to use that tower.
Finally Americans can make sarcastic comments about the police state across the pond. Sure, we're in the same situation but at least someone else is now too.
IN YOUR FACE, UK!!
A better analogy than stealing hifi would be if looked through your window and watched your TV that you left turned on. Is that illegal? Is it immoral?
well, if this was in the UK, and the ownder of the house did not own a TV licence, then it would be a crime on the part of anyone who watched it, whether they knew about the licence or not, whether they were inside the house or not.
dave
Look, I have unlimited ADSL account. I leave my WIFI Open for anyone who happens to be in range to connect to as a public service, if that's someone parked in there car acting shifty then so be it.
If I wanted to block access to others it's easy I can hide my router, put in a security key and only allow certain mac addresses to connect, but I don't and anyone else who doesn't is 'asking' for people to use their WIFI point.
10% of the male population dies in the English civil war so that we didn't have to rent world+dog from the landlords and that includes open WIFI networks.
Wireless Hijacker Dealt First UK Punishment
I'm fairly sure the UK legal system has punished people before. Just not necessarily for unapproveed use of a wireless network.
"This is quite different to the situation where my phone connects automatically to a nearby tower, (without me even being aware) *provided* by the mobile phone network company for that very purpose."
Not so, its provided by *a* mobile phone network, for *a* user. There is some chain of contracts that stretch from that tower operator to your service provider and to your headset seller and to you, the login is the proxy for that chain of contracts.
The WiFi is no different, it is there for some purpose, to provide network to *a* user by some entity. The login is a proxy for that.
What they're saying here is that the login can't be taken as a proxy for permission but then you can't have open wifi because you can never know if the intent of the person providing it was to permit open wifi or not.
The login was the way they give permission or not and they've just discounted that!
This is a really bad precedent.
How do I know when a WiFi AP gives me an IP if I am a hijacker or allowed to use it.
I leave my WiFi open, around town (Edinburgh) there is so much open WiFi that if you can't connect on 1 street you can on the next.
This case sets the precedent that there is no way of knowing if an AP is for public use.
Public WiFi Lockdown.
Please stop droning on about cookies and open windows and cars and HiFi's - WiFi is none of these.
This judgement is totally wrong, the guy did nothing wrong, this is a fallback law, we think you did something wrong although we have no crime, no body, no murder, but you look the type
Not true. Ignorance of the facts is a defence. If the person watching TV from outside the house can show they did not know that the set was unlicenced, they are not committing a crime.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
"In the end wifi products are shipped from the factories without security features enabled....., does not make it legal for all to use. "
Its not that they have security features switched off, they have 'allow everyone' switched on. If you ignore the login as the proxy for permission then you can't have open wifi.
Likewise you can't walk in the open forest because forests are open by default, or swim in the open sea because sea is open by default, or walk through an open square because the square is open by default.
"*YOU* know that in all likelyhood the owner of the wifi would not let anyone join his network if he knew how to secure it"
I know nothing, I select "This Network", I make no attempt to disguise who I am, my computer requests a connection and the remote wifi says "sure, here have ID 1847565". If I walk in the open forest and the intention wasn't that it was supposed to be open isn't that just trespass?
Can I asked, if I said that it was the equivalent to 'trespass' would you accept that as true?
How about free wireless community networks? I use other peoples' access points all the time whenever I go places and I keep my access point open for everyone to use. Its all about sharing and not about an illigitimate totalitarian government coming up with reasons to arrest people.
"Any Windows machine with a wireless card will automatically connect to any unsecured wireless access point. Period. Allow me to repeat this. Any Windows machine with a wireless card will automatically connect to any unsecured wireless access point." I'm so sick to death of hearing this. Windows will NOT connect to an unsecured wireless network automatically with the SP2 wireless tools. The connection will show up in your list, but you have to click the connect button before it will actually connect you. Once you've connected, the network shows up in your profile, and the OS will continue to use the network until you delete it. The fact is you must actively select the unsecured wireless network in order to use it.
Ok I agree it is wrong what he did and yes the average user knows nothing about their wireless equipment. Everyone keeps talking about my door has a lock I leave it unlocked you are not allowed to come in and help yourself... This refers to physical property and should not be used. This case refers to radio waves if you do not wish someone to listen, do some reasonable effort to stop them (WEP in this case). If you do not it could be construed as open for use like FM radio and TV signals. Think of this as CB radio open for all to use.
Downtown dayton provides free wireless. I guess the first person there that uses it is going to get arrested? http://www.harborlink.net/news/04-07-05.html
"An open network does not give implied consent to use anymore than an unlocked house or car."
Can I connect to your network? I am foo bar.
Yes, "foo bar", here have ID 198675 and IP address 192.111.111.111
What do you mean '*implied* concent'? Surely 'explicit concent'!
I moved into a new neighborhood where the front part has broadband cable, but the back part does not. The cable company ended their rollout about 200 feet from my house. DSL is also not available. I've had broadband for years, and found myself going nuts that I could not get it. I tried everything including cellular wireless internet access, which was too expensive and sucky. A neighbor told me about several wireless APs in the "good" side of the neighborhood and that he surfs everyday, broadband, by using a cheap, linksys usb wireless adapter. So, I bought my own and did indeed see the two or three APs and was able to use the one that was unsecured.
I began looking into what I was doing was illegal or not as I do not wish to break the law. It seems only lately have things really ramped up with these news cases. Before, I wasn't sure and even felt it was ok so I've kept doing it. I also call the cable company all the time inquiring as to when they will finish their rollout, but they keep saying it's not available and lying about the time when it will be.
According to what I'm reading here, I am indeed breaking the law and should stop immediately. So, I will have no broadband now and no way of getting it even though the signal is coming straight into my house and XP attaches automatically.
(Sigh) My kingdom for broadband....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Maybe I should unsecure my WiFi, and sue the first one that uses it with Windows autodetection..
Profit!
In the UK a TV licence is required to operate a television receiver (a television receiver being a device that receives television, television being moving picture signals broadcast from afar, afar including cable and satellite but not CCTV cameras). Neither ownership nor watching TV per se require a licence. Someone outside a house peering in through the window cannot reasonably be said to be operating a television. K.
OK so given the outcome of this case does this mean that if that if a connection was War Chalked it is then OK to use it or does that require the provider of the connection to have chalked it and if so how do you know the provider made the chalk.
maybe we need another kind of mark to denote that the chalk was made by the provider... but then we would need a further mark to denote that that, previous, mark was made by the provider...
Or we could make the AP advertise that the advertisement of an open network is advertising an open network...
Or we could assume that people are capable of logical thought and therefore if they are advertising an open network, then you can use the open network.
Given the assumption that is it OK to use a AP if there is a notice advertising its presence. However, it is illegal to use it if there is only the SSID. To see a notice outside someone's house, informing you that there is a network you can use, requires nothing more than perceiving the light emitted (reflected) from the sign and this means it is OK to use the network. Yet receiving a notice outside someones house, a bit further down the electromagnetic spectrum, informing you of the open network doesn't make it legal.
Does anyone know exactly what parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are legally binding?
On an entirely different point If it is legal to use a network if there is a Visible notice denoting its presence. If i write on the Side of my car my intention to use available networks does that make it legal?
ZapTheDingbat http://www.zapthedingbat.com
Repeat after me:
An IP Address is not an identity
An IP Address is not an identity
An IP Address is not an identity!
If a crime is committed and it is traced back to an IP, that is A START of an investigation and should NEVER be the end of it! Far too often do we instantly assume that just because the crime came from a certain IP address, the person who owns the machine is the person who committed the crime.
All an IP gives you is the "place" part of the puzzle. Worse than this is the fact that it is virtual and multi-dimensional. The "place" where the crime occurred actually exists in many physical locations at once and can be nearly limitless in scope.
More important in these types of investigations is the "means" and the "motive". If neither exist for the person behind the IP, it is likely that his machine (or connection) merely acted as a proxy.
It just seems *WAY* too easy to frame someone for an Internet-related crime. Just find some motive and place "the means" on their machine.
If I were on a jury for any sort of Internet crime, the amount of evidence against the accused would have to be ENORMOUS for me to even consider a "conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt".
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
"Perhaps I should secure my neighbour's wireless connection for him before Windows automagically connects to it and gets me arrested!"
Windows doesn't automatically connect. It warns you when you try to connect to an open network. Maybe older versions doesn't, but Windows XP SP2 does, and that's what the majority of people are using with wireless (or at least the majority of people are on XP, and should have SP2 installed.)
FFS. There is a really simple principle here. IT IS WRONG TO STEAL. Using someone else's network, someone else's bandwidth and someone else's electricity without permission is stealing.
I can only assume that this kind of thing is now so common amongst Slashdot users that it is now assumed to be morally justifiable. In fact, it seems that most of the people who think that this thief should not have been prosecuted are actually blaming the owner of the insecure hotspot. Yes, that's right - you are saying that theft is the fault of the victim, not the thief.
I agree that the hotspot should have been secured, just like front doors should be locked. But an unlocked front door is not an invitation to come in and take whatever you want, and neither is an insecure hotspot.
You're an immobile computer, remember?
perhaps its time that companies stopped selling routers that allow WEP to be turned off. Make it a requirement that users secure their own networks. This can be made very easy by just asking users to supply a password when they're setting up, you know, by reading the instruction manual. It isn't more difficult than programming a VCR, for example. If it was a required step, then all this talk of "if you leave your network open you should expect people to use it" would be moot.
Stop it earlier:
However, a wireless network's purpose is to provide access
That is all.
AP controls are there to do the remainder of your sentence.
I have used my neighbors wireless network in the past. After several stories like this, I'm starting to get nervous about it. I think the solution is that vendors need to ship routers with a unique WEP key (or whatever security method) and include that key in the box. Then joe sixpack comes home with one of these babies, he has to add the key to his pc/mac/whatever before he can use it. Sure it will increase tech calls a bit, and they will probably need an easy method to reset the device to no security in case the key is lost.
:)
If someone goes to the trouble to reset it or turn it off then I should be free and clear to use it.
My neighbor knows that someone with a Mac laptop is using his network. He knows the hostname and a rough guess at the operating system because he scanned me. He even knows it might be me. It hasn't stopped him from using wireless with no security of any kind. All my other neighbors are smart enough to use WEP or MAC address protection but him. Did I mention he's taking network security and system administration courses? My wife had a class with him this summer and he talked about it during class. She was using my laptop at the time. After he found out where she lived, he asked her the hostname but wouldn't say.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
My wireless network doesn't depreciate in value with use, my car does.
Thank you, drive through. Now.
In cases where it's a router default SSID that you've already connected to previously (linksys, netgear, belkin, etc.) it will be in the list of "friendly" APs that will be connected to automaticly and without confirmation in order of preference.
She: Hey, are you a traitor? Me: No, I'm atheist.
Please tell me what "Windows" you have that automagicaly connects to a wireless network. I have PCs with XP Home (SP2) and XP Pro (SP2) in which it takes approximately 30 minutes each to configure/test/reconfigure before I'm able to get them on the wireless lan. Also, would you tell me whether or not your "Windows" drops the wireless connection at least once every half-hour and wastes a minute trying to reconnect?
C:\>
...but sometimes /. submissions seem totally senseless.
"Perhaps I should secure my neighbour's wireless connection for him before Windows automagically connects to it and gets me arrested!"
Perhaps instead you should buck up.
Wow.. this has really got me pissed. I'm going home and make a public AP no matter what my ISP says...
Except for the fact that every bouncer would know not to let underage people in. (insert lame joke about bouncers' brain capacity here.)
I for one also support the car analogy, as do most insurance companies - at least to a degree. If you leave your keys in the car - and some dude drives off in it and "exports" it to another country - you either get nothing from the insurance company, or you get a fraction of the cars' worth. Don't leave your keys in the car! All new cars I know of have a remote control for the locks. The instruction manual explains how to use this.
People do read the instruction manual for a new car, don't they? Sadly, fewer actually read the instructions for a new computer device - such as a WiFi router. They're supposed to be so easy to use it's not necessary (as far as the user is concerned). If they'd care to read the manual, it will explain that the network is open by default, and go through procedures to make your wireless network private.
I don't want a mandatory "driving license" for using a computer, but If a user haven't studied the capabilities and configuration of a device, the user shouldn't... use it. At least until someone with the know-how sets it up.
Or, simpler yet, if manufacturers turn *on* WEP by default, with a default access key, and then forces the user to change the SSID and key the first time the equipment is set up, they could just add a couple of pages to the manual explaining how to connect to it in Windows. No more difficult than using it anonymous. Just a couple of fields to fill in.
Blogs are mainly just the Geocities homepage of the 2000s.
- j-joshers
By leaving the AP open you are GIVING away the signal. No buts about it. If you can't be bothered to use the very very simple tools that come with your AP then you have no business owning one. Why is this so hard for some people to understand? I just don't get it. My AP is open because I really DON'T CARE if anyone happens along and picks up my signal. However, I live in a cul-de-sac in an upscale neighborhood and my signal doesn't reach past my property. If I had hardcore bandwidth restrictions or sensitive data I would enable encryption and take other steps to secure my network. What's sad from my point of view is that the guy could probably have gone to a local coffee shop and used their system for free with no fuss and probably had somewhere more comfy to sit than his car. I just think it's an asshole thing to do to sue this guy. Because he probably just wanted to check his email. The problem with the unlocked door analogy is that IT ISN'T A DOOR. Making it illegal to log on to an usecured AP you don't own is the height of stupidity. The world gets dumber everyday. Paranoia is rampant. We should be enjoying the fact that we are the most priviledged generation ever to live with access to mind-blowing technology that our ancestors would have called magic. But no, we have to have frivolous bullshit lawsuits that destroy freedoms.
Calling me and others like me "morally bankrupt" is a sham and a cowardly thing to say. Again, if you DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR EQUIPMENT, YOU SHOULD NOT OWN/USE IT.
"If you walked into a forest every day for 3 months, and everytime the owner or one of his neighbours came past you hid or ran away (acting suspiciously), you definitely could end up paying a fine for trespassing."
I'll settle for that.
If you have explicit or implied concent then trespass is only a crime if you refuse to leave when concent is removed. So you can walk in the open forest, even every day for a year if you like and it only becomes a crime if you refuse to leave when you're told its private property.
You can argue whether he thought he didn't have permisson by his behaviour, fine. But hacking should be more like 'breaking and entering' a much more serious crime.
There's a world of difference between connecting to an open network and hacking. Just as there is between common trespass and breaking and entering.
I have an open WAP. No strings attached. I even have my SSID changed to "call (my phone number)". Nobody's called yet, though I've seen several dlinks and other adapters tag the AP, and once or twice obtain an IP address.
The more legitimate open WAPs we have scattered around, the more difficult it will be for the law to judge any unapproved access to an open access point as a de facto illegal activity.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I know this story comes out of the UK...
But in the United States, the FCC allows public use of the 2.4 GHz band for wireless.
The wireless network is unsecured and broadcasting on the 2.4 GHz band.
The 'hacker' is either on a public street or on his or her own property. (it would be different if you parked in the driveway of the home providing the Access Point)
The same 'hacker' is accessing a radio spectrum from which the FCC has allowed public access.
I just don't see the crime here. The only real aggrieved party would be the company providing the broadband.
- dj
is that with a door it is obvious:
L ondon+gets+a+mile+of+free+Wi-Fi)?
or if it is a private network? The SSID most likely will not help and you would most likely have some trouble finding exactly where the signal originates from.
*who owns the door
*where the door leads to
*if have permission to enter or otherwise regardless of whether there is a "keep out" or "everyone welcome" sign.
It is not that easy with a wireless access point.
This is mainly because:
1) the wireless network can extend well beyond the physical limits of the property that it is based on.
2) The only indication of what the network is for is the SSID which is not usually very helpful at all.
If you turn on your computer and a wireless connection becomes available how do you know if this is a free and open wireless network from a local starbucks or soem freewireless organisation/council (eg http://bayareafreefi.com/article.php?id=96&title=
So IMHO an open (unsecured) network is just that. Open for all to use.
If you dont secure your network then you are leaving it open for others to use. If you dont want this to happen then secure it in some way (or stop it from transmitting outside your property - not an easy task).
If there is any security at all then it is closed and private.
Whether you agree with that or not I dont think the door anaolgy can be used to argue this case one way or the other, it just isnt the same thing. The door doesnt extend way out past the property, you can easily see what the door is connected to and who it belongs to, there arent "free doors" available in the same area. doesnt work.
The comparison used in TFA is inappropriate. Taking a joy ride in someone's car without permission is being likened to using their WiFi without permission? Unless you're using all of their bandwidth, you're not depriving them of anything.
;-)
I believe a more fair comparison would be passing by someone's home and being able to see what's on their television. You didn't pay for access to see what's on there, and you almost certainly were not granted permission to look in their window to see it.
Would it be suspicious to have someone standing outside your window watching your television? My vote is on "yes, creepy as hell." I'm pretty sure other laws or ordinances already cover that sort of thing in most localities though... There's no need to prosecute the guy for "stealing internet" unless his use is causing a drain on resources.
I wouldn't care if people used my WiFi if they weren't hogging it or otherwise using it improperly... which is why I have at least secured it with WEP-128. If you want in badly enough to crack my WEP key, more power to you
A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion. -- Chinese proverb
IMHO, using my neighbors un-secured wireless connection is fair game. I have as much right to the frequency band as they do. If I use that connection to sniff their traffic and get credit card information, logins, etc, all the better. If I use any of that information in a fraudulent manner, then I'm guilty of something. Snatching someone elses email off an unsecured network as they download it is akin to listening when someone reads thier mail aloud. Shut up if you don't want someone else knowing your business. But if you use someone elses login to access thier mail server then you are guilty of fraud, as you just represented yourself as them, even if it's only to a machine.
The water gets murky when you use someone elses wireless rig to commit a crime, like kiddy porn or GASP! the evil FILESHARING. The owner of the unsecured wireless should be as guilty of criminal facilitation as anyone who rents a warehouse to goodfellas to store stolen goods, perhaps moreso since they're just too lazy to learn how to secure the AP.
Cracking an encryption scheme or MAC spoofing are different balls of wax though. Even the most simplistic method is akin to a locked door, and breaking it is like breaking and entering.
I've always thought that it would be a great legal defense if the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/SIIA sued for copyright infringement. If your wireless network is open, how do they prove whether the person uploading/downloading the copyrighted material was you, a neighbor, or some guy in a van outside of your house?
The downside is that a criminal prosecution could mean the confiscation of every computer in your house and some computer forensics guy combing over every file and e-mail looking for something to implicate you. It could be months, or even years, before you got the systems back. Under this administration, they might just hold them forever without filing charges under some obscure provision of the PATRIOT Act.
Perhaps I should secure my neighbour's wireless connection for him before Windows automagically connects to it and gets me arrested!"
True story: I recently got broadband installed at home. After the cable guy left, I whipped out the wireless router I had bought, hooked it up and secured it.
I head downstairs to access it from my wife's PC. whoa! Unsecured connection available! I figured I must have screwed up so go ahead and resecure the router with password and all again. 30 seconds later my router pops up on the screen. Oops! I just "secured" my neighbour's router. Time to go and introduce myself and explain some router fundamentals...
Broadcasting of the SSID is that "'FreeToComeIn' sign" for the network.
A better one would be: You search your neighbourhood for an unsecured wireless network, you find one and piggyback off it ignoring the dollars that you are causing to flow out of your unwitting host's pockets and into his isp's. I don't really see how anyone can defend this as moral, unless you decide that taking advantage of stupid people is moral.
Just because it's (very) easy to do doesn't make it right.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
While the article doesn't mention if the owner of the network was aware of the security features, here's how I would have argued the so-called theft of service:
Suppose I am a homeowner, and I've got a fancy-dancy sprinkler system. It can be configured to only spray certain parts of the yard. I'm a DIYer, and while I've read the manual, I can't be bothered to finely tune each sprinkler. I've got one in the front yard that happens to spray the sidewalk and some of the street in front of my house.
Now it gets pretty hot, and let's say a homeless guy walks past and notices my misconfigured sprinkler. He decides to take advantage of it and sits on the curb in front of my house, letting the sprinkler hit him as he passes. He makes a habit of this, and can be seen regularly.
Would it be proper for me to have the homeless guy arrested for "theft of services" from my misconfigured sprinkler system, even though fixing the sprinkler system is within my means?
I mean, maybe you could get the guy for loitering or something, but the presence of the laptop and usage of the network are irrelevant. There's simply no theft of service if I'm sitting in a public area (the sidewalk) and the router (sprinkler) gives me a valid IP address (water) when my laptop asks for one. Like the fictitious homeowner, the plaintiff should SECURE THEIR DAMN NETWORK because *then* if the "homeless guy" uses the sprinkler he has to tresspass to do it!
Sigh, but IANAL.
Nathan
So if you are sitting in a public place, and you make use of a broadcast signal in that public place, you are a hijacker...
I suppose, to be fair, that people who use cell phones and experience crossover and don't immediately hang-up, should be convicted also...
and if my television experiences interferrence can I file a complaint?
This kind of cavalier judgement sets a dangerous precedent that will only get worse if it starts here in the US, which it will.
I've read a few articles on people charged with stealing someone else's internet connection. Two were of that guy in Florida parked in from of someone else's home with a laptop. One was of some kid connecting to his neighbor's connectionn that he setup and had the pword to, another was the guy posessing a cantenna, possibly pointed at someone else's house, now this one.
NONE are simple cases of WinXP accidentally connecting to the wrong open connection, these people went in search of free internet. If you're driving around in a residental area then chances are the wireless connection is coming from a home, not something given away by a business with a big "FREE WiFi" sign in their lobby.
It's like stealing electricity. Someone's house may have electrical outlets on the exterior but that doesn't mean you can walk up and recharge your laptop. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the AP use more power the further away the connecting device is? A laptop in the next room requires less power than a laptop in a car parked in front of the house. By connecting to someone else's wireless work, even an open one, is also using their electrical power through the ap, router, cable/dsl modem and can't forget the led on the ups and/or power strip.
If you and your neighbor have home wireless networks that overlap. Your AP is in the back of your house and your neighbor's is in the front. It is possible that your neighbor's signal is stronger than yours in your home and XP might accidentally connect to it at times. This might be able to work as a defence if you live in a packed urban area, apt/condo building or houses with 5' between them and if you also have your own network so you can tell the court under oath that you have your own wireless network and broadband connection and because of the placement of the APs your neighbor's connection is stronger in YOUR home and your XP laptop sometimes accidentally auto connects to it.
I've seen visiting friends with laptops with XP connect to my neighbor's unsecured network, I know because they didn't have to ask for my WEP key.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was working in West Yorkshire and travelled by train from Todmorden to Leeds every day. One day I missed the train so I opened my Laptop and was composing a few emails to send later when a totally open Airport network appeared. totall open. SSID was airport.
Naturally, I took advantage of this free connection. But now I could be convicted of theft. Yes the analogy of leaving your door open and me waling in and helping myself is correct. The law in this case is an Ass. A total donkey. They are broadcasting a signal. I have a bit of kit that is equipped to receive it so why should I not be able to do so? If I was to 'break' in then fair enough but if you leave a network totally open then I say fair enough.
Perhaps someone should devise a standard that says "Set your network name to XXXXX and you are inviting people to share your network and they are absolved of the risk of prosecution"
If this is not done then the law could be applied to people who have IMHO done nothing wrong.
In this case they guy was a plonker to be secretive like he was and probabbly deserves the fine.
I can see our court system is going down the swanny. How can they justifiably confiscate a laptop that may be used many other things (for all we know his kids could do their homework on it) as part of the punishment - that's not a £500 fine, that's a £1500 fine not including the value of the data on it.
It's like customs confiscating people's cars for having brought too much wine home with them from France - £12,000 fine and the inconvenience of not having a car for the next decade for bringing back too much alchohol.
Since when did Britain do draconian?
FGD 135
My guess is that he didn't have a lawyer, unless he actively cracked the network, which is pretty unlikely. My point being that DHCP amounts to asking permission to use a network.
Oh well, what the hell...
...deserves to go to jail for simply stupidity, if anything. Only an absolute mongoloid moron would be caught doing this. This is like being caught masturbating in your own house.
For us 'Merkins, there's the "fuck you" factor (we don't bother with all that Latin stuff.) What this means is that if you grovel appropriately defore the authorities, you will be given leniency. If you're response to everything is "fuck you", you will be treated harshly. An extreme example of this was when, some years ago, two yahoos shot up LA in a botched bank robbery, spraying hundreds of rounds of AK-47 fire everywhere. One of the yahoos was shot in the femoral artery, and his responses to police help consisted of repeated "fuck you"'s. So he was cuffed and left to bleed to death on the sidewalk, even though his partner has been killed minutes earlier.
I'm sure there's a Latin expression for this, something to the effect that "the law can always be a bigger asshole than you can."
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?"
- sorry about that "you're". Its Monday morning, and my typings not fully connected to my brain's.
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?"
I fix computers for a living, and recently went on a call-out to this blokes house. He was having trouble with his wireless connection, turned out that because his router's wifi was not switched on he had accidentally connected to his neighbours (unsecured) network, and had full net access.
He didn't even realise, because his internet worked okay, he just couldn't access his ISPs SMTP servers with outlook (i.e. "couldn't send any email").
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I want to make sure I *never* go there for surgery. You have vital patient records that can be accessed and deleted by just anyone? You have surgeons who know nothing about the person they are cutting on? Who rely on a computer screen and not a printed out patient record to check for allergies? What, pray tell, do they do if the power goes out? Or the network goes down? Or someone drops the laptop?
Have you ever turned on your TV and watched anything broadcast over the air instead of using paid cable TV? You have? THIEF!! Oh the shock?!!
People leave their lines wide open all the time, on purpose, so who's responsibility is it to know the difference? The end user, who's a lamer and shouldn't be allowed to use WiFi without reading the instruction book or the guy who uses the wide-open network to browse the internet?
If people are going to bitch, it needs to be because some 'real' cracking has occured... The headers of a protected network can be captured and decrypted... then the real hijacking can occur - as they use the 'protected' key they snatched out of the air... THAT's wrong and THAT should be punished..
but....not using something that 'any one of us' would use if available...... If you leave your network open, I'm going to use it - so will the rest of your geek neighbors... Thanks for the gift of your bandwidth.
I've always thought that it would be a great legal defense if the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/SIIA sued for copyright infringement. If your wireless network is open, how do they prove whether the person uploading/downloading the copyrighted material was you, a neighbor, or some guy in a van outside of your house?
;)
I think (usual disclaimer...) you might be partially liable under some form of criminal negligence law. And let's not forget that there are worse things than copyright infringement, like spamming, phishing, hate speech, etc. Also, a good legal defense usually comes into play when you are in court (or well on the way there) and that's probably a lot less fun than it sounds
Using up someone's bandwidth may not be polite. However, I use my connection at home for downloading, web browsing, etc. But when I am out and I need to download something, I jump on the closest network and remote into my computer at home to download whatever it is that I want. That way once I start it and disconnect from my home computer, I am no longer using there bandwidth. Using someone elses network is just a convenience thing for me like checking my email on the go. If you are causing problems by using the open network, such as hacking, then yeah, put them away, but if you just need to check a last minute auction on Ebay, or your email, I can't think of anyone that I know who would care if you use their open network. And if they do care, they probably have it locked anyway.
It seems to be that it would be better for the analogy to have some form of processing happening in the middle, then send "return packets"...
What are you in for?
// Anal Rape Begins Now
Surfing the web...
Unlike old-school dial-up per-minute usage charges. As a consumer, your 'host' is paying a fixed monthly fee for broadband access, regardless of traffic volume. Nothing extra is coming out of his wallet.
I think (usual disclaimer...) you might be partially liable under some form of criminal negligence law.
;)
Then why isn't Earthlink liable under a criminal negligence law when they let their users have open access to peer-to-peer services? The fact that I don't charge for access should not prevent me from being shielded by the same "common carrier" defense that they use.
And let's not forget that there are worse things than copyright infringement, like spamming, phishing, hate speech, etc.
You could block block every common port (21, 22, 23, 25, 80, 110, 443), leaving open others, including those used for peer-to-peer services.
Also, a good legal defense usually comes into play when you are in court (or well on the way there) and that's probably a lot less fun than it sounds
An excellent point.
Then why isn't Earthlink liable under a criminal negligence law when they let their users have open access to peer-to-peer services? The fact that I don't charge for access should not prevent me from being shielded by the same "common carrier" defense that they use.
ISPs don't just claim to be common carriers - they are - it's some kind of legal status conferred on them by law, not just a legal defence. Not only that, but it comes with all kinds of strings attached: Earthlink is protected from certain kinds of claims by virtue of being a common carrier, but it incurs certain obligations as well.
You could block block every common port (21, 22, 23, 25, 80, 110, 443), leaving open others, including those used for peer-to-peer services.
I think (once again... disclaimer) that part of the common carrier thing controls to what extent you can limit what your customers do. I remember some discussions about how phone companies that provide internet connectivity aren't allowed to block VOIP traffic precisely because of the common carrier rider. I know that more and more ISPs are disabling port 25, but I believe you can legally get them to ennable it on simple request.
HIPPA makes leaving a patient's records open a CRIME. The hospital could face a very large fine, followed by a lawsuit from its patients.
"Femputer sentences them to death... by snu-snu!"
Amazon Women in the Mood
Develope a technology and if anything goes wrong with it blame the users.
I didn't really much know about wireless stuff until recently when a friend wanted me to fix his computer. After much debugging I was able to determine it was his wireless card, not being compatable with a PII, etc..
But to determine this I tried it on another computer I had gotten as a toss out (this whole thing inspired me to finally take a look at this a nd a few other toss outs I had collected but did nothing with).
So It fire up and connects with "access4free" in teh title bar of firefox... go figure as I had done alot of cleaning of that systems drive including something along the lines of access4free...
grabage ontop of garbage in this case would have lead anyone to think it really was free...
But I know nothing is for free and questioned it, where many people wouldn't have...
Its a tech failure, plain and simple, not a user fault.
When I set up my wireless network, it will be open and I will be happy for others to use it. I consider this a social good - and had assumed that most folks who left their networks open were just being good neighbours.
Given that the law is moving in a different direction - it would be great to have a more formal way of sharing.
How about a google overlay of open (intentionally) wifi spots, or a register, or a protocol?
Thoughts?
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
People leave their cars/houses unlocked. This doesn't mean it's perfectly acceptable to steal/rob them!
Is it acceptable to steal them? No!
Is it legal to steal them? Not really.
Could you procucute a someone for taking off in your car you left unlocked with the keys in it? This would be hard. If they got the keys... the person who "borrowed" you car could say "He lent it to me". And according to my local police in that situation you have to send a certified letter asking for the return of the car before they'll even declare it stolen if they don't respond after 14 or 28 days (don't remember exactly). The point is this, while it's not legal to steal someone else's car but if you left your keys in it and they took off it's possible for them to get away with stealing your car cause you were a dumb ass.
"It ain't stolen, I got the keys" works very well from what i've observed.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
How do i know that my network is hijacked? Any windows tools ? Thanks, MC
Here's another bit of UK law for you to mull over.
If instead of using an open and unencypted AP, I had walked through my neighbours front door (that he forgot to lock) and sat down in front of his TV I would have committed no crime.
I can sit in his back garden and lay on his sun lounger... No crime.
There is no crime of trespass in the UK.
I can only get in trouble if I force entry or cause damage, or drink a beer from his fridge. Although I'd expect the judge to laugh at a charge of stealing one beer.
I'm curious to know if I could be charged with anything if I'd happened to take my laptop with me and plugged into his router with a bit of cat5.
assume your neighbour is doing it on purpose, and delete his router's settings!
It's funny because I download at 32mbit/s
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
Someone has written a bit more on this story: http://www.londonreporter.co.uk/index.php/main/com ments/wither_wifi .
Seems like the poor chap got his laptop crushed too. Personally I think that if he'd been doing anything more serious than using someone else's network, they would have done him for it. As it is, they simply wanted to make an example of him to show that their crazy law is being applied. What a waste of police time.
I was amused at how many posts could be boiled down to "People who don't know that they have to configure the 'plug and play' router that they bought are really dumb" followed by "why do people care if I'm on their network".
Or to put it another way:
SlashDotNerd = TechKnowledge + CompleteSocialIneptitude
I've head a great day today reading through the comments on this subject, I have an affinity for idiotic arguments, and they are not in short supply today.
.... but the point is that the house cannot be the network.
I also have an affinity for pointing out the limited areas of such arguments I know to be fact: (I started a new thread as the idiocy is quite widespread in the comments, there was no one comment to respond to. This is aimed squarely at anyone who thinks this guy deserved more than a slap on the wrist)
The AP is like a house, with talking doors and cookies to steal.
No. Your computer is the house, with cookies (files) to steal. Your computer's shares should be secured, but even if they aren't, as with houses, in many circumstances it would be considered immoral (possibly illegal) to wander around someone's unprotected file system without 'real' permission. The network is the medium by which houses are connected, which is to say air. If the air around your houses is blocked by a gate/moat/forcefield, I will probably not consider entering, but if you have no gate, I may consider walking through said air to your house and knocking on the door to see if I can come in (authenticating to view shares).
In adaptation for increased accuracy, this analogy starts sounding very strange
The AP is like a car with keys in it
Only in that the owner deserves whatever happens (well, to some extent anyway). Besides that, a distinctly puzzled 'huh?' sums this one up.
[Insert any analogy where the onus is on the connecting party to find a way in, inviting doorways and lack of 'keep out' signs etc.]
Transport-Layer and lower protocols (at least the ones in use on the Internet and on wireless networks) at most require the connecter to ask (to everyone, not anyone in particular) 'can someone give me an IP address/access to a network/a route to this host?'. Something on the network will then answer if they can offer this service. This is the basic model of networking. If it's available, it's there for you to use. This applies all the way up from ARP through DHCP and up to the level of a person with an AP. Computers (except in cracker's hands) do not search for ways into a system, they ask to be let in.
One comment puts an opposing view well: 'You can't take absence of dissent to imply consent.' But what must be kept in mind is that computers, by default, consent if they can, and if they can't, you know it. The fact that a real person doesn't consent every time is irrelevant. In the example of the above quote, the analogy of cookies with a note saying 'take one please' is compared to the analogy of cookies lacking a sign saying 'hands off' (followed by the aforementioned quote). But the lack of a sign isn't an open network: It's a lack of one. Computers either consent or don't, or they don't even hear the request, so your computer (AP in this case) says either 'take one' or 'hands off', but if it is on a network it has to say one or the other. No cookies for guessing which one unsecured routers say.
So, people do not find a way in, they ask to be let in, and are let in, just like in the misinformed doorman scenario, people you don't want may get let in, but it's your fault, and they didn't break in.
There are also some misconceptions about the nature of a few things:
It has to be assumed that in a residential area that unsecured networks are unintentionally so
Wrong. Some people just don't mind sharing bandwidth with anyone who can connect. The idea being the free sharing of information (or access to information), whenever feasible, is a Good Thing. Such networks have already had some success.
Also, this is the assumption the Internet works on. While changing the assumption in law for wireless networks will not really affect the Internet a some people think, it would slow down the spawning of an ad-hoc wireless Internet in areas which would potentially support it, and would no longer be con