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.
Sigh. You know you're on Slashdot when anything bad, no matter how remote, gets blamed on Windows and/or Microsoft.
It's not the "dumb user" who left his wireless insecure who is at fault. He has just bought a product, plugged it in and expected it to work. Why not?
Hey, you use your car for maybe an hour each way to work. It's being wasted the rest of the day. Fair that I grab it without you knowing in between then?
Of course not. Anything you decide to do becomes their problem. And, well, it's just rude! If it's one of the low cap broadband connections, perhaps you're going to push them over their limit? Or several people using it will do that?
Still alright to cost them money?
All it takes is a nip round to your neighbour's place and say "Look, you've got a wireless point there and broadband.. Mind if I chuck you a bit of cash each month and piggyback on top of the link, 'cos I can't really afford it?". Many would say to just hop on anyway if it's not used, without you paying anything. That's certainly the arrangement I have with my neighbours that can't afford the link (now have 3 people on mine).
Nothing wrong with sharing a link, it's just good manners to ASK before taking things.
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.
If you have an agreement with your neighbour allowing you to use their network, then of course you can use it -- otherwise, it's theft, and you can get into trouble if you are caught. Whether or not they are using their network is irrelevant, it's theirs to use or not to use, not yours.
Theft these days is so easy that it takes real moral strength just to not do it. I understand perfectly why some would choose not to exercise their moral muscles; it's just too hard.
Who?
Does it matter? If it behaves like a public hotspot, it is one. The access point owner communicates on public frequencies, I do the same. I have no control over his access point. Whether my network card is allowed to associate with his access point, whether my computer gets an IP address, whether my browser can connect to the internet through his access point, that's all under HIS control, not mine.
He's not in his home, he's on the public airwaves. There is an established protocol for open access points and his access point behaves exactly according to that protocol. It's his responsibility to clearly state his intentions in the public space if he doesn't want to be misunderstood. You learn how to safely use a car before you use it on public roads. Why do people think it's ok to use the ISM bands without so much as a thought about what it is they're doing?
>>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?
Bad analogy - that would involve tresspass; there is a physical boundary of someone else's property that implies private access.
A better analogy would be if those cookies were floating through the air, coming in MY window and out my door, and I happened to eat a few as they went by.
Although it may not reflect the law, I personally believe that unsecured wifi should be public domain. WEP (even 1-bit for god's sake, to show that the intention for it to be private) should be enabled by default on routers, and it should be blatantly clear that you're providing public access (with consent) if you turn it off.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
"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.
And why isn't it secured again?
If a hospital network isn't secured, IMO it is GROSS negligence on the part of the IT staff of the hospital.
--Remove chicken to e-mail
Sending spam is a crime. Using an open relay is not. Spammers using this are committing a crime, but not the one you point out.
Open networks require a handshake between the router and PC. This is analogous to authorising use.
One says 'Hi, can I use your network'
The other says 'Yes'
The owner of the network authorised this by turning the thing on.
I don't agree with the top post though - I leave my network open, I don't mind people using it. If they abuse it, they get kicked. I use other people's networks to send and receive email and to do the odd bit of surfing.
If I commit a crime on their network, then I am a criminal. But using a network which I have been authorised to use to do legal things is very different.
This idea was invented by Shampoo.
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.
"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.
A more accurate representation.
...
Man 1: "Knock knock",
Man 2: Door swings open by itself.
Man 1: Goes in.
Man 1 repeats this many times over a 3 month period.
Man 2: Police arrest that man.
Man 1: But I knocked and the door opened
Man 2: But that was a misconfiguration, if I wanted you to come in I would have said so myself.
A wireless router is not a person, and therefor cannot be compared to the person saying come in.
East Coast Brewers
Man 1: *turns doorknob*
Door: *swings open*
Man 1: *goes in*
Man 2: Police arrest that man.
Man 1: But the door opened for me, and thus gave me permission that I could come in
Man 2: I forgot to lock it, if I wanted you to come in I would have put a "FreeToComeIn" sign on my door.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
not only is it pretty clear that no one would want strangers in their house - It is clear to me that some people might not want strangers using their modem/router and possibly volume-capped broadband service.
but that you are also trespassing on someone else's property - Trespass is a good example of a crime that is technically victimless but which most people agree should be in place. It is a precident for a "cyber-tresspass" law that would address this issue and others, like zombie networks.
The police also consider open doors fair game for entry - I'd be surprised if this is true. I certainly don't want the police entering my house without a warrant!
Rather like if a webserver is publicly accessible, then anyone can connect to it is a bogus analogy. A website is like a shop or a library. That is what the web was set up for. But that wouldn't ligitamise knowingly accessing a private corporate intranet just because the IT guy accidentally left it open one day any more than it is legitimate to enter a shop that is closed just because the owner forgot to lock up.
how can you differentiate what access points you are allowed to access? - Questions like this arise with almost every property-related law. You must find out from the owner first either by direct communication or via a notice. If you cannot/will not do that then you will have many problems fitting into society quite apart from internet access.
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 - The problem is that many people would like to receive certain unsolicited calls eg from someone who found your lost cat, and you can't announce the fact that you will allow such calls in the case of telephones. But you can indicate that your WiFi is available by various means.
Another analogy is potentially FM radio - That's not remotely close. FM broadcasting is purely opt-in by both parties. No-one is taking control of anyone else's communication equipment or consuming other people's pay-for services.
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 - And what if they do get too close to the house? You will ask them to stay clear of the house, then you will ask them to keep off your garden altogether, and finally you will call the police and get them arrested. All the while they may have done no damage at all. My point? No-one should assume they have a monopoly on what is reasonable in the context of sharing.
I have an [blah blah] for those that do want to use it - I'm glad you're rich enough to be generous to people who own WIFI laptops but won't shell out for a broadband connection of their own.
If there's one kind of champaigne socialist that really gets my goat, it's people in the top 0.1% of global earnings who can afford to make expensive but insincere and ineffectual gestures of generosity, and then snobbishly expect everyone else to do the same. I hope the neighbours' kids tread the f**k out of your garden, especially in the forbidden part right next to the house.
Remember, it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich hippie to get over his guilt complex.
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!"