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...
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...
``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.
If ur door is opened, is it legal for me to get in and grab your hi-fi?
And BTW, do you have a hi-fi set?
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.
I agree, or they should be secured as default and have to be made open manually.
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!
Besides, I'm sure that you would agree that spammers sending spam through an open relay are commiting a service-theft crime. Having the open relay is really stupid on the part of the owner of the mail server, but it doesn't make the abuse any less wrong.
Perhaps because it's unlikely that he did access the computer? Why would he need to, if he's just leeching the bandwidth?
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.
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?
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.
The diference is that said hi-fiset exists in teh physical world, and if u take it then i cant use it. if u use your Wi-fi connection u can still use it, and if i am using all your bandwidth then just kick me off
Just another crappy blog
It may not be legal, but at least it puts you in a difficult situation when you try to claim money from your insurance.
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
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 i ment to say was "if i use your Wi-fi connection u can still use it, and if i am using all your bandwidth then just kick me off" thats better. i need to get some sleep
Just another crappy blog
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_
Yeah, but this "hijacker" sent a request for an IP from their wireless router. His request was granted and he was given access.
Say there is a computer at his entrance. It says "Welcome" when you walk up. You type into it: "Can I come in and take your hi-fi?" And it responds with "Yeah, sure" and it opens the door for you. That's pretty much what happened I'd say.
MY car is Private property ( i think) so your analogy wont work here
Just another crappy blog
So, he bought a product that allows computers to connect to his network wirelessly, and expects computers to not connect to his network wirelessly?
Maybe if you'd stolen a faster internet connection. :(
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.
But the difference is that a computer requests access to the network and the piece of equipment you've put in place to maintain the connection essentially says "Go ahead, here's an IP address to use".
It's more akin to having a doorman who, when people come up and ask for access says "Go ahead, let me open the door for you". If you haven't told him to stop people, that's your lookout.
Stuart
It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
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.
I don't know why some people see wireless networks any differently from that.
Follow me
"That might summarise the way you would like the world to be, but it's not the way it actually is.
Besides, I'm sure that you would agree that spammers sending spam through an open relay are commiting a service-theft crime. Having the open relay is really stupid on the part of the owner of the mail server, but it doesn't make the abuse any less wrong."
Actually, I think a better analogy would be the drive in theatre. If you are parked outside the theatre, on public property, would it be illegal for you to listen to the short range FM broadcast they produce for sound on their movie? Or better yet, if you are driving behind someone who has XM Radio and you can hear their short range FM broadcast, is it wrong for you to listen?
I mean, if your network is BROADCASTING a welcome and providing DHCP for ANYONE...then that's fair game to me.
You'll have that sometimes...
>>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.
... 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?
So someone can walk through my backyard because I leave my fence's gate open?
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.
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...!!
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.
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.
I don't know why some people see wireless networks any differently from that.
Wait a tick. If it is the owners fault for not securing their AP, then would it be the municipal councils fault if a park bench went missing because it wasn't cemented to the ground?
Be responsible for your actions, your basically saying that it's not the criminals fault for particpating in an unethical activity.
It's true that the tresspassing part of the analogy is invalid. On the other hand, capitalizing on the generosity of the doorman to intentionally steal from inside the house is what the wireless hijacker is actually in trouble for. As I pointed out elsewhere, the intentions of the hijacker are really, really important in deciding their guilt in something that can easily be done by accident.
Er, yes. Under UK law at least. It's not trespass unless they refuse to leave once you've told them to or they've ignored the sign that says "keep out".
-- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
...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?
no, more like "The neigbour can accidently walk across the property line because i have no fence?"
I installed a web server to share my web pages out, and I installed a few APs to share my internet connection out.
:-)
If I didn't want people to see part of my site, I'd make it secure. Same goes for my WiFi, but I'm not bothered if it's all public.
Groups like BackNet exist to promote publicly accessible WiFi networks. Seems like a good idea to me
Follow me
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.
Has anyone had any criminal charges brought against them for watching cable without subscribing to it (over here (at the very least) all of Sydney is flooded with Foxtel so any satellite can pick it up. However only those who have a subscription are allowed to)?
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.
Indeed, I hope someone picks this one up and goes to a higher court, even after reading various accounts it's not obvious he had to break anything to gain access.
This realy is like the guy took an apple from a bowl with fruit in the street carrying a sign om it that vitamines are healthy.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
No, but if they left it sitting on a hand truck would they really expect to find it there in the morning?
I'm just here to regulate Funkyness
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.
Do you realise that analogies are there to draw simple comparisons with familiar situations, rather than complicated comparisons with unheard of situations?
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.
While IANAL, I do remember reading somwhere that yes, under English law you would at least be partly responsible. From what I can remember about the article where I read that (yes, it's a bit sketchy, this was several years ago), it was to do with somebody (I believe a political activist and the police were out to get them) was charged with with allowing drug offences to take place on their property (ie, they caught somebody else smoking hash in the guy's flat). I think a lot of it depends on if you know about it or not (ie, if you saw somebody dealing crack in your back garden and you didn't phone the police then you'd be liable, but if you owned a flat and rented it out to drug dealers and didn't know that they were selling crack, then you wouldn't be).
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
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
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
You might be thinking about the Cambridge Two.
"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!?!?!?!??!!!!
First off, I think comparing public web servers and open APs is comparing apples to oranges.
Just because an AP is open, doesn't mean that you can assume that it is "free for all". Sadly, most routers are not secured by default and this is what's causing the problem. If APs were secured by default, then I could see that "but it was open" would be a reasonable excuse as you could assume that it was intended to be open (ie, somebody had to intentionally make it public). Instead we're in a situation where many people "buy a house, but don't bother to lock the door because they either don't know how or can't be bothered" and while some people are happy to let people come in to their new house and eat a biscuit or print something on the printer, other people aren't.
In the past (and apperently in a few places still), people didn't lock thier doors as it was just assumed that even though something that was private was open, it didn't make it all right for people to come in and use it. And as people knew other people wouldn't go in they didn't have to lock the doors.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
"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.
Yep, that was it. Cheers
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
However that signal is encrypted, coded and or marked in such a way that says "you need to have our premission to watch this."
Radio and TV signals over the air do not nor do un WEP/WPA/LEAP/ETC'd networks.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
As for the topic at hand; WiFi access points already have a mechanism to determine whether people may connect to them or not. If the owner of an access point does not wish the general public to use it, then they should enable encryption or some other form of access control (e.g. MAC addresses). If the owner leaves their access point completely open then they are responding to the "may I use this" challenge with "OK".
If, for some reason, they must have an open network, but don't wish others to use it then they should take steps to prevent their signal from leaving their property (e.g. using special wall insulation).
>>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.
That would be true if you were simply listening in. But using someone else's wifi network means instructing their private property on their ground to do something for you. If your TV remote was powerful enough to access your neighbour's TV, would you have the right to do it, since it doesn't involve trespass? No. There's no blurry line here.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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!
no, more like "The neigbour can accidently walk across the property line because i have no fence?"
That is the case in the UK - you have the right to roam if there is no fence and/or sign (and sometimes even then) as long as you do not set up camp - your analogy is crap Right to Roam Bill
While IANAL, I do remember reading somwhere that yes, under English law you would at least be partly responsible.
I don't believe this is a common law concept, but, at least in the US, I know that there are specific laws regarding drug offenses and property owners. For instance, in some states, a landlord is *required* to evict someone whom he knows has drugs on premises, or faces charges for failure to do so. This law is yet another offshoot from the War on Drugs, but doesn't necessarily mean that a landlord whose tenant is doing something else illegal is required to evict.
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?
"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.
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
First of all, afiak, there is no such law in the United States (except maybe a few really anal locales).
Secondly, if such a law did exist, it could approach the issue one of two ways.
First, the law implies that all AP's are private unless specifically shown to be otherwise (i.e. a public welcome message before allowing access stating who is allowed).
The other way would be that the law imples that all AP's are public unless specifically shown to be otherwise (i.e. you need some basic form of authentication before being able to access the network, or there is some form of notice).
The first option (assumed private) has the following benefits:
1. Majority of networks are not intended to be public access.
2. Many APs are sold in an open configuration.
3. Most users are not smart enough to otherwise secure their network, even though if they knew anyone could access it probably would want to know how to stop that.
Therefore, it would protect a lot of people; and once you knew about the law, you would know that you can no longer connect to any access point without permission first.
The second option (assumed public) has the following benefits:
1. There will be more networks available to freely connect to.
2. If you want to open your network to the public you don't have to do anything.
3. It removes any burden of the end user of having to determine if the network is open.
However, I feel the first option is probably the better one, and the attitude you should probably take if there is no such law.
Most people that willingly want to open their network to the public know enough to be able to put some kind of message out to those connecting to it that it is open to the public.
Most people that don't want to open their network to the public probably don't know how to do much more than plug their AP in and use it.
There's more to it than that, but it does make good public policy sense to assume all networks are private until proven authorize. Just like any other kind of property.
Just because there isn't a fence around that lot on the corner, doesn't mean it is public property, or that the user wants you to use it.
This case sets the precedent that there is no way of knowing if an AP is for public use.
Simple, if you want your AP for public use, you simply force them to "login" through a web browser first, at which screen you provide an anonymous login and a message stating that it is for public use.
It is just easier to imply all networks are private, than it is to imply all are public. Especially when you consider that in most cases a private network is preferred, and in most cases the person running the network won't know how to make it private.
What?
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.)
Hah. I like how this post has been moderated Flamebait, when it is quite clear that a lot of morally bankrupt Slashdotters agree with what it says.
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.
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
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.
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
I was continuing his analogy. How else could I make it comparable?
"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
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.
How about just pointing out why the analogy is misleading?
Why should you get to assume you're invited, and impose the burden of securing a network on every non-technical person out there? Just ask the owner if you're invited, simple as that. If you really want to open your net to strangers, and hate the idea of actually meeting any of them, put up a proxy-based welcome page, as so many commercial free hotspots do.
An unsecured hotspot is not an invitation, as you can't reasonably assume it's unsecured on purpose.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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...
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 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...
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
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.
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...
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.
You know, in a discussion filled with completely shitty analogies, it's amazing how many people come up with analogies that aren't even against the law.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Yes, it doesn't start by default, but wireless routers don't magically fly into your house and hook them to your DSL, either.
Ergo, by your logic, since people might start up a webserver without realizing it is open to all, accessing all webservers is illegal.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
HIPPA is a USA law - so UK hospitals aren't covered. Health seems to be one of the few areas where the US has better privacy laws...
"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.
More like there was a machine in your house throwing a cookie out the window onto the street every 5 seconds. Ignoring how dirty the cookies might be, is it OK for a passer-by to eat them? Or how about someone standing on the sidewalk catching them as they fly by?
We are the 198 proof..
How do i know that my network is hijacked? Any windows tools ? Thanks, MC
Actually, a lot of less frequent users have cheaper data-limited plans in Aus and a preliminary search shows these types of plans are also quite easy to obtain in the UK, maybe you should do some fucking research before you get on your high horse.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
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