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!"
...shouldn't they fine Microsoft? Just a thought.
> Bullshit, there is no hijacking involved!
Of course there is. He did not merely "look" at wireless network. He connected to it and was using it. That's hijacking.
This is more like getting into an unlocked car and driving it around just because the owner left the keys in the ignition. Hardly fair or legal.
> How about 'permission to view' the flowers in front of my house?
No but if you haven't secured them, then I reserve the right to pick them all and give them to my girlfriend. This guy was not just *looking*! Have you not even read the article?! He CONNECTED to the network concerned and used it to access to the Internet. "Looking" doesn't come into it - if he'd simply seen it in a list of available wireless networks then I doubt he would be prosecuted.
> Do you need permission to turn on the TV and watch open air TV shows?
How is that related? A wireless network that hasn't been secured is not a public service. Anyway - this is a UK case and in the UK we require a TV license to watch open air TV shows, so yes, we do need permission. You picked a bad analogy...
> If people are too ignorent to use a piece of hardware
> they shouldnt purchase it
People leave their cars/houses unlocked. This doesn't mean it's perfectly acceptable to steal/rob them!
> How do I know when a WiFi AP gives me an IP if I am a hijacker or allowed to use it. Well, you're a techie user, so you know that most access points are left insecure by accident. It is up to you to either seek permission to use it, or not use it, as you are perfectly aware that by using it you are using someone's bandwidth, etc., without their permission. > This case sets the precedent that there is no way of knowing if an AP is for public use. Yes. What's the problem? The judgement is not wrong. The man is a thief, because he deliberately sought an insecure access point and used it for free Internet access without permission. This is a crime: there is a victim (AP owner), a perpetrator (the thief), and malicious intent.
You're an immobile computer, remember?