Slashdot Mirror
Turning Network Free-Riders' Lives Upside Down
An anonymous reader writes "You discover that your neighbours are using your unsecured wireless network without your permission. Do you secure it? Or do you do something more fun? A few minutes with squid and iptables could greatly improve your neighbours' Web experience ..." Improve is a relative term, but this is certainly gentler than certain other approaches.
I use WEP, but this certainly looks a laugh. Might turn that off, and see if I can have some fun!
Every link could be tubgirl.
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
I'm surprised the guy didn't send every link to goats.ex... He was being way too nice.
What are the odds that a neighbor would use your network and then sue you for the content that your are sending to him?
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
The "upside-down" stuff was great.
He could always have made a script to redirect every third or fourth or nth click to goatse...
How can you blame people for connecting to a wireless router with the ID "Free Porn"?
Granted, my neighbors didn't intentionally set their router up with that ID but they did leave it unsecured with the default password for the admin account. It was simply the neighborly thing to do to change their ID and resecure it with a new password (that, admittedly, they didn't know).
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
After reading the article and it's comments, I've decided that the best would be to make it allways load an upside-down goatse
I redirected all their dns querries to goatse.
I'm going to burn in hell =/
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
"My neighbours are stealing my wireless internet access."
Possible, but not likely. The most likely thing is your clueless neighbors don't have their own wireless set up very well, and are connecting to your wide-open network without realizing it. Thinking they are connecting to their own setup.
If you are an idiot who set up his network wide open, I wouldn't complain about anyone 'stealing' access. Secure your network properly, or be prepared to share it if you leave it open.
By leaving it open in the first place to be stolen, you've shown your dumb. Now doing this jackass thing to an 'open' resource, shows that you are a dumb asshole.
Could just watch their traffic, and when they try to bid on ebay, just slow their traffic down, then out bid them. They'll rue the day they tried to outbid 'yourneighborfromhell' on ebay.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
If your wireless network is unsecured, permission to use it is implied, and there are operating systems that will automatically use such networks, are there not?
One of my all-time favorites. :)
(Mootar) morons.
(Mootar) these people who live in my apartment complex are connected to my wireless
(Mootar) they must think they're super-cool hackers by breaking into my completely unsecure network
(Mootar) unfortunatly, the connection works both ways
(Mootar) long story short, they now have loads of horse porn on their computer
http://bash.org/?202477
Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
It's as much stealing as sending the signal into their home is trespassing.
I think you just shake your head at your failure to secure it in the first place, decide if you care, and if you do, lock it down.
Funny way to deal with it, though.
But can you imagine Joe Sixpack trying to explain to Pradeep that all the images in his web pages were being displayed upside-down (or better yet, blurry, or upside-down and blurry!), while all the text in the very same web pages was being displayed upside-right in crystal clarity?
Joe Sixpack probably doesn't know the differences between images and text. Pradeep would hear the word "upside down" or "blurry" and immediately think it was a hardware problem.
It'd probably take any of us half an hour to convince a second-tier tech that we weren't trolling him, never mind Joe Sixpack.
I'd give my left nut to hear the support calls on this. (Particularly as I'm pretty sure that those of you in tech support have no use for my left nut. :)
When my neighbour mooched my wireless I had a little fun with Cain & Abel. I got some good recipes from their private documents. Romano cheese really is better than parmesan on spaghetti!
You can have a lot of phun with this all-in-one cracker suite. Hell, if my neighbours had a MS-SQL server or Cisco switch I could have 0wned those too!
Improve is a relative term, but this is certainly gentler than certain other approaches.
I don't really see the point. It's funny as a practical joke. In terms of protecting your network... why not just secure it instead?
Calling someone on slashdot dumb - mostly free.
Making a dumb mistake while calling someone dumb - priceless.
Frankly, if you don't want others to use your wireless, just encrypt it. Annoying freeloaders this way is pretty much childish. Set up WPA-PSK (which is much easier than WEP and more secure, AFAIK) and be done with it.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
He already uses the notion of trusted and untrusted networks, yet he makes no effort at all to prevent 1) spoofing 2) non-IP protocols 3) access from the untrusted network to his trusted network.
If you plan to take on others, make sure your own stuff is secure.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
It's impossible to steal unprotected wifi. If you leave your connection unprotected, that means you are purposely sharing it. Although flipping the pictures upsidedown is pure genious.
Ok, so you don't mind keeping your network open,
and taking up resources,so long as you can
laugh at the idea that someone (who you never see)
might be seeing the internet upside down (and
will have a laugh themselves).
You're probably making their day. How nice of you.
Go to one of the translation websites and type the following:
Osama Bin Laden has just been killed and [your neighbor's name and address here] has just collected the $25 million reward from the Americans!
Translate it into Arabic then cut-and-paste it into one of the Jihad web sites in the Middle East where the beheading videos always get uploaded to first.
Check that your insurance papers are in order and then go take a couple days vacation a few hundred miles away. When you come back, no more asshat neighbors.
they are so going to find that the internet randomly gets about 10% webcam content of their house ....
Hey ... why don't you do something really cool .. have a nasty script web script crudely pre/post-pended to their web response ... or even there are vbs thingo's around which create DUN connections on suitable crippled windows platforms ... make your script create a dun connection to 911 or something ... the harder bit i suppose is making it suitably inserted into the html... (or it can call yourself with their callerid number if they are unknown)
What part of "free" implying "no warrantability of fitness for use" don't you understand?
You could've hired me.
You discover that your neighbours are using your unsecured wireless network without your permission.
This seems to suggest a scenario where it was not the owner's intention to have an open network, and at some point in time he discovers it's being used.
If we're talking about someone smart enough to play this trick on the neighbours, the network would likely be secure in the first place.
The problem is, they'll give up when you apply any of these techniques, because the results are too severely wrong for them to put up with.
A better design would be to replace every 100th image or so with a randomly chosen one from google image search.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
For those that are struggling to understand how the author of this article is accomplishing his approach, here is some further information.
The author obviously has a Linux server in his house, that is running DHCPD
To selectively send some clients to some locations, and others to the normal internet, he assigns an IP address on a different network to clients that don't have MAC Addresses that he knows about.
Forwarding on to sites of his choice is done by using IPTables, which is a utility that allows you to configure the packet filtering components of the Linux TCP/IP Stack. In this instance, the Linux box is just functioning as a firewall, and he is selectively sending requests from certain IP addresses to different hosts of his chosing.
Finally, the Up-side-down and blurry-image conversions is accomplished by sending page requests from those before-mentioned IP addresses to a proxy server, which in this case is Squid - and then allowing the proxy server to run a script which calls an ImageMagick command called mogrify which allows you to resize an image, blur, crop, despeckle, dither, draw on, flip, join, re-sample, and much more.
And that folks, is the rest of the story.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
You discover that your neighbours are using your unsecured wireless network without your permission.
RIIIGHT. With free hot spots all over the place how is one supposed to distinguish, free from not-free, or even not to be used. There is really no way to know, unless you can't connect.
Shame on anyone for leaving an access point open and exepecting that no one will use it. Furthermore, it's not very nice to leave it open and then mess with the connection.
Why not just send em Goatse/Tubgirl/SomethingAweful pics at random. Then use image magick to over write "I am a thief, stealing Wireless acess"
meh
This is hilarious! My coworker and I just sat here laughing and coming up with other great ideas for having fun with hijackers' browsing experience:
;)
;)
-Occasionaly replace images with random google-image-searched images
-Translate any text on a web page on the fly into some very English-like language but different enough to make the pages impossible to understand
-Translate text on the fly into languages with non-arabic characters
-The obligatory replacing all images with random porn images
-Keep the first/last letters of every word the same, but jumble the letters in between. You have seen this site, haven't you?
-Invert the colors of all images on the web pages
-Convert all graphics to grayscale, or 16-color
etc. etc.
The possibilities are obviously pretty extensive... I think after hearing about this I'll be a little more careful with my usage of other peoples' wireless networks!
Remove or replace the body of all emails. Inject masses of spam.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
I just moved into a new flat and as it took a while to get internet access, I had to "steal" someone else's wireless (although I take the position that if they want to beam radition through my property, I can do what I want with it). I took the strongest unsecured signal but because (being a sneaky bastard) I know what I would do if I ran an unsecured wireless access point I just tunnelled everything through an SSH tunnel to a proxy at work.
If you're so intent on leaving it open, I'd suggest just getting their mac address and assign it back to 169.254.x.x or 127.0.0.1. That way, if they actually do anything illegal, its not tracked to you.
You're just flipping webpages, right? What's to stop them from getting on a P2P network and sharing/downloading files? What's to stop them from visiting illegal porn sites?
Doing this to them will just make their internet useless. Not as funny, but safer IMO.
Another thought: Is there some way to randomly route their requests to a totally different webpage? Say they want to go to Google, etc. Is there some way to redirect their request to a randomly-generated (but real) URL? I'd suggest something in a foreign country.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
This would be why anytime I need an access point I use SSH to connect to my home machine and use my own proxy. The added encryption is a plus.
Funny technique though.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
What about the poor non-technical girl who is trying to get her wireless working and selects the wrong wireless network (the keep trying different stuff until it works method)?
I guess they were right when they said power corrupts - even when you're just some dork with nothing better to do than torture your own neighbors.
I don't really care if neighbors use my Wifi. In fact, if the alternative is they get one of their own, I would MUCH rather my neighbors use MY wifi. Reason: Wifi spectrum overlaps somewhat due to harmonics, so even if you and your neighbors use different channels, the interference between nearby channel numbers slows things down.
How about showing a splash-screen with referencing a Paypal account, and ask them to send you $10 a month?
On an unrelated note, I once had a consulting gig in Salt Lake City living at the Brigham Young Apartments, and my husband, bless his gay soul, marked our open SSID as "Nice Gay Married Couple".
umop-apisdn
i think neighbour will be able to sniff the traffic on your network, so he would be able to reverse whatever changes are made to packets. i'm far from expert on the subject, but if you are on the same subnet , sniffing should be trivial.
sorry, I am a supporter of open networks. I think the freifunk olsr-protocol approach of open wireless networks is best. We don't need internet providers and we don't need internet provider which leak our communication data to the governments and endanger the freedom of the net. The net should be a net and wireless technology is great for the creation of a real P2P internet.
I cannot support any action against people who use your network. It is against my understanding of hacker ethics. When you don't like it then close your network. But no childish games please.
I may even say that I find it unethical to exclude your neighbours from using your network but I respect your opinions. When your network is open it means: Be free to use it. Not: You can use it but I will fuck up or intercept your communication.
I redirect everyone to their free wifi here.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I did something similar awhile back. Router was open, dhcp was normal, no WEP, and all ports but http and the VPN were closed. For http, the server would redirect to an internal page showing a rotating collection of goatse type images and the text "Please go violate somebody else's network."
To actually connect to anything useful, one would first connect to the VPN (with the valid key), giving a much better encryption than WEP and the amusement of having any leechers getting goatse'd
My plan for when it becomes useful to have wireless at home.
First put the wireless subnet in a DMZ. Firewall off everything in the DMZ but an IPsec VPN. Change to a non default SSID, but otherwise don't secure it (false sense of security for authorized users).
Redirect anything to port 80 in the DMZ to a local httpd. httpd always returns a page consisting of an image of the business end of a double barreled 12 guage shotgun with "State your business." One link for "I was invited" returns instructions for legitimate guests on setting up VPN needing a verbally supplied password. Another link for "I made a wrong turn somewhere" leads to some wireless configuration help. Probably come up with a third link for cracker wannabes. Suggestions welcome.
httpd will claim to be IIS 3.0 on DOS 5.1.
This is Great. It makes me think about turning off my WPK with mac address lockdown...LOL
"...or be prepared to share it if you leave it open..."
I'm always amazed by the surprize of intercepted intruders. I have no pity for them. Using the property of others could become a complex choice.
Well, first of all then they're quite likely to just go jack somebody else's connection. It's much more fun to mess with 'em.
:-)
I wonder if you could write something that took all P2P traffic, redirected it locally, and uploaded copies of custom video files etc in the place of their kazaa/torrent downloads
At first, I thought there were way too many screenshots. I mean, ok, we get it. But then at the bottom of the FA, it pays off. After the dumb kitten and upside-down stuff (where they know someone is fucking with them) we get to the treasure: blurry-net. That's subtle and I love it. The ideal prank for the proverbial Man In The Middle would be to do things to confuse the endpoints, not merely annoy them.
The next step is to spy on them and see what websites they visit, and then insert some fake content one day. For example, if they use it to read CNN, insert a casual story about a nuclear weapon getting used in the Middle-East or South Asia, or a story about the president of USA selecting a new vice-president due to the assassination last week ("What?! I didn't hear about that!"), or the CDC in Atlanta is investigating the recent rash of improbable claims about the dead returning to life to feast on the flesh of the living, etc. If they visit Slashdot, then the jig is probably up, but maybe it would be great to have a story where a security study found Windows98 to kick OpenBSD's ass and then a bunch of comments where everyone agrees that the findings pretty much match their own experience, along with complains about "how is this news for nerds?!"
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
To be safe, I find it's better to use a VPN (openVPN or whatnot is cross-OS compatible). You get key-based authorization, a higher level of encryption, and you can just ditch the non-VPN traffic (or send it to goatse)
I put a strong password on, Enable WPA/PSKless, enable mac filtering, disable the ssid broadcast and change the ssid to something like "Youdumbfuck". then save the whole sha-bang. Let them figure it out. Because almost everytime I have seen an unsecured wireless AP, the admin and password are factory defaults.
Reminds me of my first run-in with wireless at home.
After noting that the same bozos kept connecting to my network as soon as I powered it up, I tried configuring the wireless router to only accept the MAC addresses of my computers. No dice: at best it didn't work, at worst the router locked up and I had to do a hard reset.
So I phoned tech support. Rather than answering my question ("Why can't I lock the router to specific MAC addresses?") they proceeded to attempt to walk me through setting up WEP. I told them that wasn't what I wanted to do, that it was my router, my network, and I did in fact know a thing or two about networks. Eventually 2nd level tech support called and admitted that locking to MAC addresses was broken, and they had no ETA for a fix. I took the router back and bought one from a different manufacturer. It works fine.
I still like the idea of leaving part of it public and dispensing scrambled content...LOL!
...laura
send them a bill.
Access + My very valuable time.
lets see
7 bucks for hale my access + (30 hours * 100 per hour)
3507.00 Not bad.
If they refuse to pay, remind them that it is a felony.
If they can't pay that much I do need yard work done.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
OHH....that explains the upside down pictures i was getting from the web!
sorry neighbor!
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
You misunderstand. Your dumb is like your taint. Down under my butt. Showing your dumb to someone is like mooning them.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
by having my wifi properly secured.
assuming someone broke the encryption they would just wind up at m0n0walls captive portal page
but turning off the encryption and sending unauthorized users to kittenwar could be fun??? I guess?
I would leave the wifi open (albeit firewalled off from my wired LAN) but I do not want some douche downloading/uploading child pr0n on my residential internet account.... so no open nodes here.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
It's the occasional story like this one that keeps me coming back.
A fun/clever hack with a brief description, code snips, and screen shots. Thanks editors!
by leaving it open he is inviting other people to connect.
Some computer says to the router "Hey, can I come in?" and the router says "Sure". Now, the moment you put something up, like needing a password, then you are no longer inviting people in.
Computer says "Hey, can I come in" router says "Sure, if you know the password."
Or you can encrypt it
Computer says "Hey, can I come in?" the router says "KE*jd7638JDEJE*834899(&^&#nd&#&bd*e#"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Network freeloaders put themselves at risk... It would be trivial for someone to set up a "Free Internet" wireless AP and then run phishing attacks, sniff IM conversations, e-mail, etc. Considering how little the average internet user even pays attention to SSL, one could very easily imitate a bank, ebay, paypal, etc... One should certainly think twice before freeloading on someone's wireless network - and if you do, at least tunnel your connection securely (even socks5 over an SSH tunnel, etc)..
if i ever stumble across an unsecure network with a shared printer, i always make sure to print out tubgirl and other fun stuff on it.
i'm far from expert on the subject, but if you are on the same subnet , sniffing should be trivial.
Sniffing has nothing to do with subnetting. It has very much to do with the hardware that connects you. If you're both connected to the same hub, you can see all of each other's traffic. If you're both connected to the same switch, you can't.
Note that as a Slashdot comment, this an extremely simplified explanation and not a complete picture.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Let me re-phrase this to make the absurdity of your statement clear:
Using something that is not yours, without the permission of the owner, is wrong - period.It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Do I understand that code correctly -- the writer looked up the MAC address of his networking card, put it into a "trusted" domain, then set up a second domain that only accepts connections from a certain IP range but doesn't care what identity those clients have?
Revive the Constitution.
for another overlooked sysadmin day.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
As I posted before your message, wireless networks advertise themselves. Your analogy is flawed.
None of the ISPs I've ever dealt with permit you to resell services. Maybe you and your neighbor are "going halves" on the network service, but from their point of view, one party is getting that connection at full price, and reselling it to the other at half price.
Leaving an open connection is a more interesting problem, because you're giving away bandwidth, not reselling it.
But as others have pointed out, as the officially contracted party for the network connection, you're responsible for all communications over it. By leaving a connection open, you're inviting the ??AA, DHS, and all of their friends to come knocking at your door. The government might buy an innocent-faced, "Oops, I didn't know my connection was open to others' sharing," excuse, but I'm sure the ??AA wouldn't.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I think you might've been referring to goatse.cx, but you'd still be wrong, since that's been down for quite some time.
Kudos to a job well done. That is hilarious! I'd love to know how to do such a thing on my WRT54G....
A car left idling with the door open advertises itself. Stealing it would still be wrong. I'm sorry, but your moral compass is flawed.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Get on his open "upside down network" and fetch yourself foobar.com/;ASHELLCOMMANDHERE.jpg and then we can all have some good laughs!
More evil uses:
* Dump their usernames and passwords? (be creative... \d{3}-\d{2}-\d{4})
* Read their e-mail
* Steal their session cookies! (YAY!)
* Send those IRC transcripts to their significant others
Sure, you could be content with making all of their images progressively more fuzzy, eliminating every 300th character that comes across, or inserting ", dammit!" at the end of every other sentence. You could even insert an image tag inside of HTML to add your own advertisements to every web page they visit, or make them pay to continue to use the service. The possibilities are endless!
This is the problem with free/anonymous access points.
Of course, if they VPNed through, you wouldn't be able to do anything except for drop/add packets to the encrypted stream (no fun).
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
The analogy is not flawed. So the router is "visible", with an option to make it invisible. Big deal. My garden is visible from the street, but I can put a tarp around it to obscure its existence. What you are saying is that, unles I put a tarp up around my garden, everyone has a right to use it.
Wireless networks may make themselves conspicuous, but that does not confer an invitation to use them. The connection between "visible" and "inviting" is not legally or morally valid. (I am excepting the concept of "attractive nuisance", but I don't think open routers will come under that area of liability)
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
BZZT! Wrong.
Packets on his LAN will not be visible to wireless clients. A WAP running as a bridge selectively forwards frames. If it did not, wireless performance would suffer greatly.
ettercap fun aside, sniffing other's traffic on a LAN is not as simple as it was in the big-fat-bus days.
What part of "free" implying "no warrantability of fitness for use" don't you understand?
There's still lots of potential legal hot water to be in, though.
Copyright infringement lawsuit by the content owners: By placing their content on a web site, the creators of that site arguably grant implied permission to make a single verbatim copy of that content for display on the end user's machine. There is, however, no explicit grant of permission to display or edit the web content in any other form. "Fair use roulette" aside, there is no right to copy the works of others. Copyright trumps free speech.
Misrepresentation lawsuit by the content owners: If you misrepresent the content of a given site (by, say, changing the prices on E-bay, or simply by mis-representing the content of the site owners), it might be interpreted by the courts as a form of slander or defamation. Don't forget, every domain name that contains a trade mark is legally considered an object of value in and of itself, and it's illegal to use a trademarked domain name without permission; this is the basis of "cybersquatting" rulings, and of the 2600 ruling, as well.
Misrepresentation lawsuit by the neighbours: Misrepresnetation can also be a tort in and of itself, even when no money changes hands: consider the following comedic situation...
Door to Door Salesman: Hey, there! Say, wanna buy a toothbrush for $25?!!
Customer: No! Get lost!
Door to Door Salesman: Hey, don't be like that! Here, want a free cookie?
Customer: Well, okay... Hey! This cookie tastes like horse manure!
Door to Door Salesman: That's because it is horse manure! Say, wanna buy a toothbrush? Only $25!!!
Customer: Grrr....
In real life, the salesman would be sued for misrepresenting the contents of the free "cookie", and thereby causing harm to the customer. Equally, the wireless provider would be sued for misrepresenting the content of the web pages he altered, and thereby causing harm to his neighbour. It's a much simpler case for a lawyer to win than that of a burglar breaking into a house, tripping over something, and getting hurt: but burglars regularly sue homeowners for things like that, and win.
In other words, he's not in the clear, by any stretch of the imagination. As always, the side with more money to spend on lawyers will win...
Just to play devil's advocate, what if you were to place you bicycle, car, bank account, magic wireless tranmissions on my property or in my house, where do we stand now?
The upside down images will clog the tubes and slow the delivery of internet to Ted Stevens. This should never be tried unless you live outside US.
..... best things in life are not so free..........
i read a 2600 letter where this guy found people camping on his wifi, and they had unsecured windows shares on their machine, so he filled them with horse porn, then banned their MACs. that made me laugh :-)
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
I suppose you could also add a frame to every page and then sell advertising space. Since you probably know a bit about your neighbour it is much easier make targeted advertising. Of course you could always make the top frame read:
"This is borrowed bandwidth. Have you thought about getting your own connection."
Oh and make sure it is flashing. Actually you could make it so that the whole content flash. Now that would be annoying.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Upside down is cute, but blurry is just too fantastic.
You know they were on the horn to the vendor after punching every monitor control and several loud screaming matches and an expensive service call for a monitor that then worked just fine on the bench...
As a webmaster I can now say April 1 just got very far away...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
> I agree, but the question is: he's inviting other people to connect to what? To an unfiltered global internet,
> or to his wacky fun-house where he tortures visitors for his amusement?
Exactly the problem with the anarchists and their notions of "Down with 'da man', Free Internet for Everyone" bilge. When you contract for your connection you get certain assurances and service level promises. When you leech off any ol WiFi router you get what you get. As the practice becomes more commonplace expect the suprises to increase.
This guy is just yanking his neighbor's chain a bit. But just wait until most of those "Free" Hotspots in businesses start learning they can get in on the action for both fun and profit. Advertising, banner/popup insertion spying, user profiling, you name it they will soon be doing it. And because it is "Free" you won't really have any room to object. If enough profit is in it the telcos will switch to "Free" Internet to escape the SLA and bypass any network neutrality laws that might pass.
Democrat delenda est
But he really did show his dumb.
That blur effect is great, but I'd love to see this expanded upon with a time variable. Start at a certain level, say blur -2, then increase the longer the IP address is in use, to the point where people can't even see an image, and also question their sanity.
Funny how slowly kittenwar.com is loading, you'd think they'd be used to getting Slashdotted by now.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
That is hilarious, and somewhat genius.
You haven't secured your own network and you wonder why people are using it?
Come on. The only reason you really should not secure your network is if you want people to use it!
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Even if a WiFi connection is NOT secured, using it without permission is theft. Analogy: if I leave my bicycle unlocked in front of my house, if you take it without permission, that is theft. While a person's failure to secure his WiFi connection is unarguably stupid (and likely evidence of someone operating beyond his technical knowledge level), using a resource that is not your own without permission is theft. Jeff
1: Share wireless internet, let neighbours use it
2: Flip and blur all images so they think there is a virus on their computer
3: ????
4: Profit
Where 3 could be "Repair" neighbours computer and make sure they use their own AP, charging $100.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
sure, it's funny now. After the neighbor spends hours on the phone to tech. support, goes crazy and starts shooting people, then it will be fucking killarious*!
*New word I invented.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Just because you didn't invite your neighbors to use your network doesn't mean you aren't responsible for it.
And for you "the net wants to be free - I share my WiFi on purpose" crowd - same thing goes. You might very well be responsible for how your "free" network gets used. Just the same as you would be responsible for a pile of hammers in your front yard that say "Free - use as you wish".
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
turn your monitor upside down. - another reason to buy to dell.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Heck, simply shutting it off isn't going to prompt them to secure it -- for all they can tell, it might just be a flaky product; there's nothing they can see that would indicate someone outside shut it off. Do something with more obvious symptoms than "it don't work", like renaming to something ridiculous that they'll actually see when next they log on, or tweak the settings to redirect to something silly (but not legally dangerous), like the kittenwar site mentioned in TFA.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Even something as amorphous as bandwidth is a limited resource. To paraphrse the head of the commerce committee, an open wireless connection is not a dump truck you can just load up with as much as you like; it's a tube!
Sure, if you want to make sure nobody uses your tube, you should protect it. But just because you don't doesn't mean you're giving explicit permission. If I leave my bike on my front lawn without a lock and someone steals it--even if they give it back before I notice it was gone--it's still theft.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Yea, it's funny that he was able to do that, but was it clever? It would seem to me that an unsecure router is a major security hazard. What if our neighbor figures out he's being screwed with and starts making illegal downloads on your internet connection? or worse, what if he starts google-searching for things like "child pornography"?. You're the one that winds up dealing with the MPAA, RIAA, or local police.
Seriously, if he's that good at setting up his network, shouldn't he just secure it an be done with it? One of my neighbors has an open wireless router and I'm trying to find him so I can help him get his locked up as well.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Uh, huh. Am I the only one who sees the irony in the above?
So, you contend that you're only using your neighbor's transmissions, not transmitting your own signal, not also using the wiring inside his house, his network gear, his phone/cable connection?
If your neighbor left his bicycle on your (or public) property, it's OK for you to use it? If you accidentally dropped your wallet (anywhere), it's OK for me to keep it?
I think the world would be a better place if people did what was right, rather than what they can get away with.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
...I mean, the broadcast from your router is probably giving them a higher % chance of cancer.
Those are private property. I believe the question really centers more around whether or not a broadcasting wireless signal can be considered private property -- especially since my use of it does not necessarily preclude your use of it.
You ARE very sneaky! Instead of finding out what the latest headlines are on slashdot, your neighbor is stuck only knowing where you work. Brilliant!
In soviet Russia, the wifi leeches you.
My name is coaxeus, and I approve this message. In fact, I think it is awesome.
This was hillarious. I loved the upside-down images! The comments for this story have been entertaining...
However, I suspect the neighbor of just not understanding how things work. I'll bet they set up a wireless access point in their house, put in the wireless card, and fired up the machine, which connected to the first network it could see, and they assumed it was theirs.
IANAL... But I play one on
So, you contend that you're only using your neighbor's signal, not transmitting your own signal, not also using the wiring inside his house, his network gear, his phone/cable connection?
Receivers are, generally, unregulated due to the nature of a broadcast signal, transmitters are not.
Simplying listening to your neighbor's unencrypted / unprotected signal is OK. Transmitting your own signal with the intent of accessing/invading your neighbors network and utilizing his equipment without his knowledge and permission is not OK.
As I said, I think the world would be a better place if people did what was right, rather than what they can get away with.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Suppose that I were to set up a WAP that rerouted all ftp requests to some kind of copyrighted material, hosted out there in the ether of the web. People connect to my network and try to get a download, instead getting the illegal content. Who, if anyone, is legally at fault here? At no point was the illegal content hosted or stored on anything of mine. And also, I have set up no controls on who can access my network, so I'm not legally at fault for them trying to download something through my network (or at least, that's how I understand it). As has been said before, its my networking equipment, I can do whatever I want with it, including redirecting all links or requests to something else. The people on the other end, however, did not request this illegal content, it was merely supplied to them through my equipment, which, again, never stored it. I have a feeling that someone would be legally at fault here, but I'll be damned if I can figure out who.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
"You discover that your neighbours are using your unsecured wireless network without your permission. "
Then you're a moron, and deserve what you get.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
What would be the legal implications if your neighbor decided to use your WiFi connection to do illegal activities? What would be your liability? Especially if you already knew that your neighbor was using your WiFi access? It's one of the reasons I clapped down on my WiFi access. That can also be one of the problems of having "fun" with your neighbor's free loading your WiFi access. You can't use the claim you didn't know they were doing it.
I also don't buy the idea that "if they didn't secure it, it's an invitation to use it." If I leave my front door unlocked or left a window open, I still don't expect the neighbors to come right in and rummage around my icebox. You certainly won't be successful in that argument if they complained to the police.
If you want to piggy back on someone's network, ask first. It's not that hard to do, and most people don't mind.
If you want to open your network to the public, divide it into two networks (one secured and one unsecured), close potential trouble ports, and direct everyone to an opening page where you make no claims of any warrenty for service, and that your network can only be used for legal purposes. That'll protect you from most legal problems.
Not really. The wireless broadcast simply says, "I'm here" to other wireless equipment (in a way humans cannot detect directly) and your computer translates that for you. I'm pretty sure most of us can detect an idling car, with the door open, unassisted.
In neither case do we have to make use of the object. In one case, sending our own signal to access your neighbor's network and the physical objects that enabling it, the other climbing in and enjoying the rich Corinthian Leather.
It's ultimately a questions of morality.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The analogy is terribly flawed, for a list of reasons:
#1. The design of wireless technology broadcasts available services to the listening world.
While I despise real-world analogies, let me try my hand at one: You put a sign up at the end of your driveway, advertising free water from the hose. The hose is run from the house, down the driveway, left running constantly. If someone wants to come drink from it, they can.
This analogy fits better than the 'unlocked door' one, because wireless routers broadcast SSIDs and if they use encryption.
#2. The use of someone's wireless does not prevent them from using it themself.
You get in someone's car and drive it off, you have stolen their car. If you drink from someone's water hose (that has a sign over it saying 'free water'), are you (to quote Adam West on Family Guy) 'stealing their water'?
#3. You don't 'own' the radio waves that pass through your property. To compare radio waves and internet service to stolen cars, wallets, houses, etc is just intellectually dishonest.
Now, is it moral to use someone's unsecured wireless network? Probably. Does the implied technological permission to use that wireless network (translation: broadcast SSID, DHCP leases for whoever asks, etc) translate into real-world legal permission? I don't know. But the way the technology works should impact this debate.
Please, people, stop using these inane physical analogies. It does not compare to the 'visibility' of your garden. You are broadcasting radio waves, advertising a service for public consumption. If you had a sign on your garden saying "Public Garden" then, yes, the analogy fits. Stop comparing this to private property. Your radio broadcasts, leaving your private property, are not protected as if they were physical items you own. Do not pretend this is the case. This is about more than private property, this is about advertised services.
Absolutely correct. Unless you have a "no tresspassing" sign or a fence or something, everyone does have a right to enter your garden!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
This last bit (bold) is a bit of or moral relativism -- sharing something without permission would be OK. Would it be OK to use your neighbor's lawnmower without permission when he's away on vacation? Didn't preclude his use of it... You say he couldn't have used it then anyway? How about swimming in his pool without asking? Doesn't preclude his (concurrent) use...
Not to be snarky, but haven't any of you people taken an Ethics class?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
He is offering free, unsecured WiFi to anyone in range. His router is actively broadcasting "Hey, free wireless over here! Come and get it!" His neighbors aren't stealing it, he is giving it away for free.
Do you call it "stealing" when you use Google's bandwidth to do a search? No? How is this different? Google offers free search, this guy offers free wireless.
Use a MAC filter. Encryption takes a little time and also slows down transfer rates a little bit. If you filter MAC addresses then you'll have only the computers you want on your network allowed but still be able to transfer at unhindered datarates. Somebody may still be able to snoop a little bit, but they'll not be able to freeload.
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
If your bicycle, car, home, or bank account is unsecured, permission to use it is implied...
Not true, but if you leave all your money in a pile by your door, then you have little recourse when someone take it.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
This is just like using Slashdot. To read slashdot it uses their system resources, however I'm not stealing their service when I read it, why? Because the reader does the same thing a wireless client does when connecting to a wireless network. It knocks on the web server door, says "Hi, I view this URL?" and the webserver will either give permission or deny it.
Otherwise before we could go to any website we'd have to contact the website owners first and get permission in writing or else you'd be guilty of unauthorized network/computer access for viewing any website.
Back off the defensive. I never contended anything but the question of whether or not a wireless network would be considered private property. I also never said anything about the overall legality, merely that I don't believe you can consider something that does not obey property lines to be as black and white of an issue as a discrete object that can be used by one person at a time.
Your statement about people doing what is right has no bearing on this argument. Of course the world would be a better place. But then if people did what was right, everyone would have open access points and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Your comment about listening to the wireless transmission seems spurious to me, as I consider (perhaps incorrectly) network transmission to have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as a wireless phone conversation. I would love to hear the opinion of someone with true legal knowledge of this situation -- that was the intent of my original comment.
The problem is your signal, accessing/invading my network gear, using my physical hardware and broadband connection. The gateway may be open, but that doesn't mean it's OK for you to send whatever you want through it.
Are you allowed to fire projectiles into my house, through my open front door? I didn't think so.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
"Please, people, stop using these inane physical analogies."
Who is using inane physical analogies here?
"It does not compare to the 'visibility' of your garden. You are broadcasting radio waves, advertising a service for public consumption. If you had a sign on your garden saying "Public Garden" then, yes, the analogy fits. Stop comparing this to private property. Your radio broadcasts, leaving your private property, are not protected as if they were physical items you own. Do not pretend this is the case. This is about more than private property, this is about advertised services."
Advertising a service for public consumption? No it isn't - it is sending bits and bytes through the aether. It is you who are identifying these these electronic happenings with the real world of permissions, rights, law, and morality.
It is wholly irrelevant what the boxes are doing with their electrons - if one has not received express permission to use services paid for or otherwise possessed by another, then the use of those services is wrong both legally and morally. Trying to justify it by saying "their box gave me permission" is both disingenuous and deceitful: first, because permission to use the Internet services wasn't what was given, only that a connection to a private network was established, and second, "permission" can't be granted or implied by devices interacting with each otehr in the absense of some other agreement.
You cannot give your computer power of attorney, and you cannot assume I am giving my router that same power to grant the "permission" you are saying it is granting.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I understand the legal loopholes, disagree with them, and think they need to be tested in a court of law.
The best counter is that I intended to deceive (hmm, would a pop-up window saying the sites have been modified suffuce as "notice" of the service I provide? What if the client disables popups? What if I know it does?).
But, even then, at most, I should be guilty of "mischief".
You could've hired me.
Not under most systems of law. With some exceptions (Montana's open range law comes to mind) walking on another's property is trespassing. Period. The law allows for flexible sentencing regarding teh nature of the crime, and there are juries to consider, but trespassing is pretty straightforward under most legal systems, and walking into my garden, sign or fence notwithstanding, qualifies.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Except, I am not offering the customer anything! Bad analogy.
A better one is this: someone wanders into a building, sees a sign that says, "free" and says, "I want one of your cookies.... Hey, this tastes like shit!". "Yes, everything we sell is shit in various forms." Might be a bit different if the sign said "Free Cookies", but that is not the case here.
Look, you're asking some unknown service to translate a web request into a web page. You're not even checking to see if you're asking the write service. If I stand on a street corner and asl "What's one plus one?" and someone shouts "Three!", can I sue them, effectively? I doubt it.
You could've hired me.
I frankly don't care if I get modded troll for this. Your assumptions have gone from defensive to ridiculous. I made a post noting that I thought this topic had more to do with whether or not wireless signal and the use of said wireless signal could be considered violating private property laws, particularly since said wireless signal isn't a discrete object that can be used by only one person at one time. How is making note of this fact moral relativism?
A lawnmower doesn't constantly cross property boundaries. A backyard pool sure as hell better not.
Not to be snarky, but I didn't need an ethics class to know that getting in someone's open, running car is stealing. I made the comment because I was interested in hearing from someone who might have done a bit of research on the topic and could offer some insight, not to be talked down to as if I were a ten year-old with chronic sticky fingers by someone who can't understand others wanting clarification on where the definition of private property lies in this subject.
Finally... someone gets it. Thank you.
No let's talk IP and Copyright law ... :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
You left out the "Hello, I'm <...>. Can I come in?" "Sure." (Yes, the messages actually correspond to that.)
Does the car say "I'm here"? And even if it did, does it say "Come in"?
What you are saying is that, unles I put a tarp up around my garden, everyone has a right to use it.
No, actually we're saying that if your garden pelts us with carrots and peas as we walk past on the public street, we're at liberty to catch them and consume them. Only if you place anti-vegetable-flight netting around your garden (or stop planting vegetables that lend themselves to comparison to an unsecured WAP) does it become incumbent upon us to behave as good citizens.
Hey! Analogies are fun! Somebody compare Internet privacy law to hunting and fishing licenses!
Finally modding someone offtopic when they rant about what "Begging the Question" means: priceless.
...and suing the homeowner for beating your ass because it was 3am, dark, and he was scared shitless.
Oh wait...
Blar.
/etc/pf.conf
rdr pass from [untrusted net] to any -> goatse.cx
Let's say in the course of troubleshooting this issue, they reload their computer and in the process lose data. Could they go after you?
Doubt it, but i'd love to see the expressions on their faces.
I'm pretty certain pornolizer was made for cases just like this.
I'd give my left dumb for some modpoints.
You have to agree that it's not as clear cut as that though. Just because you feel that something is wrong doesn't make it tmorally so. Judging from this thread, it's clear that many people do in fact feel that it's ok for strangers to use their access-point. Thus there has to be some ambiguity.
Using someone elses (un-used) bandwidth is more akin to someone breathing the air that was just expunged from your lungs. Sure, you can make an argument that the air is yours. After all, it came from you, it was chemically altered by you and it sure was not in that other persons lungs a moment ago. Of course, this is an extreme analogy, but it shows that not all use of what you (or I) consider to be "mine" is wrong. It might be better or worse for society if it wasn't used. Just don't come dragging with some moral compass stuff. Leave your moral at church or live by it yourself, just don't try to make it seem like it's the only way and most cetrainly don't use it to justify how others should behave.
Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
I can barely make it through five minutes of "American Idol" - is that because I have a short attention span? An entire season? That is just masochism.
Are you sure about that? I live in Georgia, and I was under the impression that I have no legal recourse for getting the damn neighborhood kids off my lawn unless I post a sign or put up a fence or something.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be defensive, but I don't really think they're that ridiculous.
I thought this topic had more to do with whether or not wireless signal and the use of said wireless signal could be considered violating private property laws
If all we are taking about is whether receiving / listening to your neighbor's signal is a violation, then I don't think we have a problem. The problem is the other way around.
To "make use" of that signal, you have to send another signal that then (and here's the problem) gets processed by and uses your neighbor's physical hardware and network connection. Unless you have permission, you are violating his private property and/or purchased services at this point.
I made the comment because I was interested in hearing from someone who might have done a bit of research on the topic and could offer some insight, not to be talked down to as if I were a ten year-old with chronic sticky fingers by someone who can't understand others wanting clarification on where the definition of private property lies in this subject.
To be snarky... I have done some research, have taken Ethics classes, and have just clarified the point about private property -- which should already be clear to people and should have been taught to them by their parents, but are and were obviously not.
I did not, repeat not, mean to attack you. I'm just annoyed at the logic people try to use to rationalize this sort of activity -- kind of like IP and Copyright violations, but that's another thread :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I choose to allow my neighbors to use my Internet connection. I've never really had a problem with it. I understand that there are SSH, SSL, and IPSec MITM attacks, but I simply assume that my neighbors aren't smart enough to pull something like that off. I've never had bandwidth issues, especially since hacked cable modems running tcniso.net's sigma x2 can see around 20Mbps on a good day.
Plus, WiFiDog (http://dev.wifidog.org) and RabbIT web-proxy (http://www.khelekore.org/rabbit/) take care of most people's privacy and bandwidth issues.
Is it, though? I can configure permissions on my router based on local IPs. If I left my wireless LAN open, expected people to connect and not use the internet, but I didn't specify this in my permissions, is the lack of a denial configuration an implicit acknowledgement that anyone connecting can use my internet connection?
And once you've given your key to one other person you might as well remove the WEP or WPA. There will be people you never met using your wireless to do what ever they want, regardless of your wishes.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
So maybe many slashdotters think this is childish, or stupid, or otherwise lame, but I know our office here found it amusing, and we immediatly started thinking of other things to do to freeloaders. Why? Its funny! Nothing too bad, just to make them scratch their heads, and maybe ask their friends questions....questions that leave their friends with an opinion of them right up there with Jessica Simpson! So here's a few to get started... Reorder text backwards. Yes, this requires decompressing, modifiying, then recompressing, who cares Get all image names in a page, then rename all of them to some other image on the page Maybe even store previous images from the site they had just previously visited, and add it in. And the best.... Run as much of the traffic through http://www.gizoogle.com/
*sigh*
Your signal is announcing the availability of a service. Thats how the underlying protocols function. You completely ignore the whole point here:
Your equipment is broadcasting a service for anyone to pick up and reply to. That may imply permission to use said equipment. It may not. That is what we are actually debating here. That's why analogies are so asinine.
It isn't fucking legal for me to shoot projectiles into your house to begin with, how does your front door being open have any fucking bearing on the whole goddamn situation? I tell you to stop using stupid physical analogies and you top if off with the worst one I've ever encountered in this debate.
Your network device is telling the world that it is available for use. If two neighbours have the same Linksys router, with the same default config, and one accidently unplugs theirs one day and starts using the neighbours' one (without changing ANY settings, without choosing a new network, nothing).. See what I'm getting at?
This is about technology devices that are configured to request/response. You should be responsible for making sure your equipment doesn't respond to mine. My transmitting radio waves into your house is not illegal. It's not like throwing stones. If you believe that me transmitting radio waves into your house is illegal, then you should go after your neighbours for broadcasting their cordless phone conversations onto your private property.
So, we've determined the basic transmission of radio waves can't possibly be illegal. That leaves the unauthorized access of your network. Only, how can it be unauthorized if there is no authorization mechanism? How can it be unauthorized if your network equipment is broadcasting it's availability?
'Invading' is a hell of a term to use when authorization is implied by the technology itself. Would you like to try debating that point, instead of ranting about projectiles being thrown into your house?
You've posted no research thus far, and backed up none of your claims. Taking an ethics class (or classes, or having a degree) doesn't mean you're an expert in the legality of this issue.
I understand private property just fine. You've glanced over an overwhelming wealth of technological concerns with your replies, which is what makes this issue of open wireless networks unclear. Cars, bikes, gardens, and other discrete objects don't really relate to the processes that two electronic devices go through to establish a connection to each other. Claiming that an open car door and a running car is equivalent in any way to a microwave transmission communicates a lack of topical understanding to me (particularly since I don't need to have line-of-sight with a wireless access point to be receiving its transmissions, and a running car with its door open may have a slew of mobsters standing in its doorway, physically stopping me from getting in).
Furthermore, if the process connecting a machine to an open wireless access point requires transmission to that wireless access point, then does merely connecting violate private property, since I am using services (load on your wireless router and electricity) that you may have not wanted me to use, but unwittingly allowed me to. Does this implicit allowal of wireless router load time and electrical use then allow me to use the Internet if you have not configured your wireless router to deny all IPs -- aside from a few specified ones that you have set aside for your own use -- access to the internet?
Is what I said a stretch? You sure as hell better believe it. But could a lawyer potentially argue this point well enough for a judge or jury to agree that it's not a violation of private property? That's where I'm looking for expert analysis.
As long as I have plausible deniability before the Powers That Be that I was not the sole utiliser of my connection, I'm golden from a legal perspective.
Also, just from a human networking perspective, I should get at least one call per three people using my network, since most people don't know more than two other people who would need wireless access in the same small area on a regular basis. Think about it this way: A guy discovers my AP, gets the key from me. When his friend comes over with his laptop, he shares the key and gets online. He then leaves, not to return for quite a while. How often will this random neighbor have friends over who have laptops? I figure I'm pretty much safe (enough). I'm not violently paranoid. It's like the saying goes, "Locks exist to keep honest men honest." I don't need perfect, uncrackable security, just security that's good enough to foil 99.9% of users that'll be in my vicinity. I'm willing to bet that that one guy in many thousands who just so happens to be a laptop-equipped Windows hacker is not going to be chilling near my WAP and if he is, well, I guess I'm pwned. Sucks for me. I'll restore my whole system from disks and my back-up drive and reset the passwords and Keys on my router.
For me, setting up any more secure system would be like buying volcano insurance in Kentucky: likely to only cost me money up front and not ever pay any dividends.
If that were actually honestly true, that probably would be a good defense. But it's not really in the intent in this case, and the judge probably won't be fooled by appearances. Here, the real intent was to give his neighbours (not himself!) mangled content, and the article basically admits it. As you point out, it's the intention to deceive that's at issue.
If I take an store's "special's" flyer and ask someone to edit it for me, that's fine, no? The fact that someone else can ask that it be edited the same way, at my expense, is not my problem.
Knowledge of the editing process is the issue here.If you ask me for a copy of store's flyer, I am under no obligation to give it to you. However, if I claim to be giving you the store's flyer, but I secretly (and knowingly) change all the prices first, some judge may well consider that defamation of the store.
I understand the legal loopholes, disagree with them, and think they need to be tested in a court of law.
I wouldn't call them "loopholes": you're asking for the right to modify someone else's content, and represent that content to a third party in a way neither party expected or knew was taking place at the time... That's a lot to ask for, in this current economic and political context.
A whole lot of laws are current being drafted to try to prevent this very thing; a lot of people with a lot of power have a vested interest in controlling a given end-user experience. And although we nominally have a democracies in the West, plutocratic interests are often the best predictor for how laws will be written and interpreted...
--
AC
[1] While the principle of freedom of speech would support saying whatever you want, this freedom is certainly not absolute: it's strictly limited by several other laws, such as copyright law, trade secrets law, industrial design law, defamation laws, advertising laws, etc. etc. etc.
On the one hand, I personally would prefer to see freedom of speech strengthened, especially with respect to copyright law. On the other hand, I hate to see people (on both sides of this issue) intentionally behaving like jerks. In this case, I doubt either party has the right to claim the moral high ground... one guy is trying to swipe free services under the guise that "the other should have known better", and the other is just responding in kind...
Advertising a service for public consumption? No it isn't - it is sending bits and bytes through the aether. It is you who are identifying these these electronic happenings with the real world of permissions, rights, law, and morality.
What an absurd thing to say. That's like trying to say "I wasn't downloading a pirated copy of Photoshop, I was just recieving bits and bytes through the aether. It is you who is identifying them as a Photoshop binary."
The 'bits and bytes in the aether' are very relevant here. Those bits say "Wireless network here, without security, and here's a DHCP lease just to be sure you can use it!"
I'm trying to focus the debate on whether the implied permission that the network devices dish out (aka broadcasting the availability of a service) should extend to show legal permission. I'm sick of stupid physical analogies that don't fit.
You, the owner of that computer equipment, have set it up explicitly. How you set it up is VERY relevant to this debate. If you explicitly allow public access and you are the owner of the equipment, how does that impact the implied permission? You set up the equipment to broadcast those electrons, so to say that what the boxes do with those electrons is irrelevant is absurd.
Funny, I happen to be of the opinion that the owner of the computer equipment just *might* be responsbile for how it is used. What a fucking crazy thought.
Now, lets put some specifics down:
first, because permission to use the Internet services wasn't what was given, only that a connection to a private network was established
Debatable. Your DHCP server gave me a lease that identified a gateway server. Again, this is implied permission. As I said though, it's debatable and I'm willing to debate the point.
second, "permission" can't be granted or implied by devices interacting with each otehr in the absense of some other agreement.
Debatable again, based on what I posted before about someone having to explicitly set up a device to allow public use.
I'm just glad that you aren't trying to use stupid physical analogies and actually want to debate this in a logical fashion.
Slightly off-topic, but in Britain at least, trespass is now a civil not a criminal matter. IANAL.
Once in a while my 11G access point screws up, and windows dutifully connects to my neighbor's open access point, and I didn't discover it until I went to look at my samba shares on my network server - hey, where the hell is it? Oh, I'm not connected to my own AP... Doh!
Imagine a neighbor who knows next to nothing about wireless lans, they seriously may not realize that their own AP needs a reboot...
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
I don't need any of that as this is really a matter of simple morality not legality.
I understand private property just fine... since I am using services that you may have not wanted me to use, but unwittingly allowed me to... could a lawyer potentially argue this point well enough for a judge or jury to agree that it's not a violation of private property? That's where I'm looking for expert analysis.
Doesn't matter if it's illegal, it's still wrong -- and you sound like you apparently know that. "Expert" analysis is not required. As I've said before, the world would be a better place if people did what is right, rather than what they can get away with. Requiring a lawyer and/or judge in this matter would be an indication of the latter.
Right and wrong are independent of legal and illegal. Using something (abstract or concrete) that is not yours, without permission, even if it doesn't harm or deprive the owner of anything, is wrong. To argue this point further implies that you don't really get that.
I was interested in hearing from someone who might have done a bit of research on the topic and could offer some insight, not to be talked down to as if I were a ten year-old ...
Perhaps when you turn 11, we can discuss this further, and get you a pony. (I'm sooo sorry, I just couldn't resist.)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Most of the cbs and wifi cards that I see use omnidirectional antenna that have a signal strength readout, which means at any given point in time I can only guess where you might be. I thought triangulating a signal takes at least three recievers, unless of course you know for a fact that the transmitter is stationary.
Is making modified versions of other people's web pages and publishing them a copyright violation?
Actually, no. The thread is that many people feel it's OK for them to use someone else's access-point without permission, or with "implied" permission, simply because the access-point is unsecured.
Using someone elses (un-used) bandwidth is more akin to someone breathing the air that was just expunged from your lungs. Sure, you can make an argument that the air is yours...
Well, the air would be mine if I had paid for it, like my unused bandwidth.
Just don't come dragging with some moral compass stuff. Leave your moral at church or live by it yourself, just don't try to make it seem like it's the only way and most cetrainly don't use it to justify how others should behave.
The moral compass allusion is perfectly appropriate here. This has nothing to do with church, or what I personally feel or believe. Some things are intrinsically right or wrong and arguing that they are not is moral relativism or wishful thinking.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Yes. I see someone is using my wireless network, and then decide to have some fun with them. A no, no. But, I think if I modified the content to popup a window warning that what was provided was a parody, my liablilty becomes a lot less certain, no?
I still maintain that if I were to originally deploy a wireless network that way, that I actually use, but with some "surprises" should outsiders try to freeload, it should be fine. Espescially, if the "surprises" are rather obvious. Copyright does allow for parody, you know.
Then again, that enters into the realm of a "digital boobytrap", the electronic equivalent of the rake left on the grass.
You could've hired me.
"The 'bits and bytes in the aether' are very relevant here. Those bits say "Wireless network here, without security, and here's a DHCP lease just to be sure you can use it!"
No, they don't say that. That is your interpretation of the activities of the devices. They don't "say" anything. I could almost agree with the physical analogy you are making, until you get to the last part: "just to be sure you can use it". Wher does the first part of your statement lead to the second part. Don't say "It's obvious", for it isn't obvious to me at all. Please explain exactly how knowledge of the presence of a wireless network without security and a DHCP lease grants permission to use those services.
I'm trying to focus the debate on whether the implied permission that the network devices dish out (aka broadcasting the availability of a service) should extend to show legal permission. I'm sick of stupid physical analogies that don't fit."
Well, you are stuck with them. People have tried to say "this situation is different, so the existing rules don't apply". If that were true, we'd still be living with only the Code of Hammurabi (sp?). Laws change to adapt to new situation, while being informed by the old - it's called precedent. Morality works the same way, too.
"You, the owner of that computer equipment, have set it up explicitly. How you set it up is VERY relevant to this debate. If you explicitly allow public access and you are the owner of the equipment, how does that impact the implied permission? You set up the equipment to broadcast those electrons, so to say that what the boxes do with those electrons is irrelevant is absurd.
Funny, I happen to be of the opinion that the owner of the computer equipment just *might* be responsbile for how it is used. What a fucking crazy thought."
The word "explicitly allow" presumes that the Owner knew what he or she was doing, and had to do something active to grant permission. For most of the users of this equipment, neither is the case. You want to be using the term "implicitely", which is more passive.
I'm not saying that all moochers should be drawn and quartered - there's a reason judges and prosecutors have leeway to make rational judgements on severity and punishment. But it is wrong to draw the conclusion that using an open WIFI connection without the owner's explicit (and I use that word intentionally)permission is correct just because a trivial use would be considered harmless and not prosecuted (legal) or condemned (moral).
Let's look at this another way. Let's suppose you are using your neighbor's connection, and he calls you up and asks for advise. He doesn't want people using the device, but mentions that he won't be securing it, because he doesn't really understand how.
Do you:
a) Stop, because he has explicitely said he does not wish to grant permission for others to use it.
b) Ignore him, because his explicit denial of permission is overridden by his implicit granting of permission in allowing his WAP to remain unsecured.
c) Tell him to fuck off, you'll stop using his connection when he figures out how to keep you out. He's a technological idiot, he gets what he deserves.
Let me give you a hint - the answer should not depend on whether he called you or not. That's what morality is about - doing the right thing when no one is looking.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
The bandwidth part is easy to handle, assuming you've got a Linux box between the WAP and the gateway. Amonth the various iptables modules are ones that do rate-limit matching and per-IP queueing. You could easily give each poacher access to the internet without restricting the available ports but at a rate that resembles a 4800 baud modem. That way they would have enough bandwidth to download email and surf essential web sites but not enough to get you into trouble with warez traders.
In law there is kind of negligence called an "attractive nuisance". For example, if you have an un-fenced swimming pool in your backyard and the neighbor's kid drowns you will be held responsible even though you didn't specifically invite the kid into your yard.
If you have an unsecured WiFi access point and the neighbor's under-age kid gets caught downloading porn then you are very likely to be held responsible even if you didn't invite him to use your network.
FWIW, where I live it is specifically illegal to leave your car running when unattended. I guess the law-makers didn't want people arguing over whether a running car was an attractive nuisance or not.
No, they don't say that.
Except that they do.. Your wireless card says to the AP 'may I associate with you?' and the AP says 'sure thing, you are now connected to the physical layer'. At which point, your PC says to that physical layer 'hey, is there a DHCP service out there for me to use?', etc.
Please explain exactly how knowledge of the presence of a wireless network without security and a DHCP lease grants permission to use those services.
Because my wireless gear asked nicely to associate and wasn't rejected. Request/response. There is implicit permission there.
Let's make a realistic analogy: knocking on port 80 at slashdot.org
I don't have explicit permission by the owners of slashdot.org to access the data contained on their servers. Yet, I can go to any PC, anywhere and type in http://slashdot.org/ and access that data. I do NOT have explicit permission from anyone to do this, but noone debates the morality and legality of it. Ask yourself why.
Then, remember that the wireless AP is doing *more* to make itself known that slashdot.org does. It is actually broadcasting an SSID, announcing itself to the world.
As for the 'using my neighbours connection' thing, a few points to make:
#1. I wouldn't use it in the first place. For at least two reasons: morality and security.
#2. If he asked me nicely, I would help him secure it. If I was actually in that position, I might even ask nicely to be able to use it (with his permission) since I helped him secure it.
#3. That person is ultimately responsible for securing their equipment. Ignorance doesn't get you out of most legal situations, and being ignorant about your default config'd wireless router is the same.
Physical analogies should be used sparingly and carefully. This isn't different than anything before it, legally, you just have to be careful not to make bad analogies and create legal precedent based on them. Request/Response = implicit permission. This is a true legal precedent, and that's the angle I'm debating from.
The problem with that analogy is that it only applies instantaneously. In the case of bandwidth there may be a monthly quota, and using *today's* unused bandwidth results in less usable bandwidth later (or higher costs). While there may be available bandwidth at the WAP, that doesn't mean that there is available bandwidth all the way to the remote connection, either. At some point the freeloader is using bandwidth that was purchased for someone else.
An analogy as contrived as breathing my exhaust air could be countered by an equally contrived situation where I am in a closed system with CO2 scrubbers and a limited supply of supplimental O2 (think of spacecraft). If something or someone starts consuming the residual O2 in my closed system then they are forcing me to use the supplimental source that much quicker.
The only time it becomes acceptable to use someone else's property is when there is an unrestricted free supply. Then we only have to worry about the tragedy of the commons...
Attempt #1: Property is a legal construct in the first place. Without the strength of force of something like a police force, there's really nothing saying that something is "yours" in the first place. You went to a store and bought it? All you did is make a contract with the previous people who had possession of the object that they will no longer claim it is theirs, and will let you leave the store with it without detaining you. Not that this is a good argument; just that property is an immoral construct to begin with, being based in greed and fear of loss.
Attempt #2: You say that using something that is not yours, without permission, is wrong. But you left out one important detail. If it is not yours, who's is it? In the case of an physical object, there is precedent that the object is considered to be owned by the person who last claimed legal possession of it. However, this is a service. To use what will probably be another very bad analogy, consider a water pipe. A water pipe, like a network, has bandwidth, that can be temporarily depleted while it is in use by someone "upstream" of you. Likewise, the pipe, or network, can be polluted by someone putting large amounts of garbage (useless data) into it, ruining it for everyone. In this case, the "water service provider" has said that the data will flow through an underground channel, past your house, to theirs, bypassing you entirely unless you also choose to pay the WSP. However, the neighbour has a sprinkler, sending particles of this water into the very air. This sprinkler waters plants whenever they request it, not minding the distinction of who's property the plant is on, as long as it is in range of the droplets. You have plants, and they are dry. The WSP has a very large pipe, with plenty of leftover water bandwidth for you, and is instead letting it go to waste in complete disuse. So, instead, your plants request your neighbour's sprinkler to water them. And it does. This says something about the planter, yes--but also about the neighbour, who doesn't notice where his water goes, and about the WSP, who would "rather let rot than feed the poor."
Attempt #3: In modern society, we feel detached from our sense of community. We no longer no those living close to us--we have apartment buildings full of strangers, who keep their doors locked to each other even though the foyer door on the first floor prevents burglary. These people would sooner assume that these other people are numbers in an equation, "human resources," than real people that are actually affected by things they do. Our cities have outgrown Dunbar's number. That is the only reason. We can only feel actual, human empathy toward a limited number of people; past that, we have to either group them (this is where stereotypes emerge) or consider them ephemeral "people" that we don't know. If you ever wondered how telemarketers, con artists, and soldiers can get through the day, knowing that they negatively affect thousands of people as part of their jobs, this is it: they consider then "thousands of people." Not individuals.
The courts have repeatedly ruled that radio waves passing through your property don't belong to you and that you don't have a specific right to detect or demodulate those signals. The most common case where this defence is tried (and fails) is when someone gets caught with a radar detector in a place where their use has been banned. It has also been applied to radio scanners and counterfeit television descramblers.
I've never noticed this before but when english sentences are turned upside down it looks a little like russian! (to me, anyway)
..BUT! I don't rely on separate ip ranges as security. This aproach is in my view pretty risky - If someone in the know would stumble upon this WLAN, they would certainly be intrigued. Then the ip range thingy would pretty soon be spoofed as soon as someone sniffs a couple of his packets. On my network I have a firewalled interface to the wlan, presenting DHCP, OpenVPN and a thttp server running a blinkenlights MOTD (all traffic redirected to this) :) Offcource the thttpd is an added security risk, but I like to have some sort of feedback on this not being OK with me :)
Doolittle :
Bomb no.20 : To explode of course.
Best. Revenge. Ever
K Man
A car left idling with the door open advertises itself. Stealing it would still be wrong. I'm sorry, but your moral compass is flawed.
An unattended, unlocked idling car is illegal everywhere I've checked the laws. Either because of air pollution laws or because it is illegal to create an attractive nussiance, places make that stupid act illegal. Also, the cars do not advertise. If there was a sign in the window "Drive Me" then they would be equal. Now, tell me, what does your moral compass tell you about driving off in a car that is running with the door open and a sign in it saying "please drive me"? Of course, the owner didn't directly talk to you, but you do have permission to be driving it, right? He even got it ready for you, warming it up and opening the door. So is it theft to take it?
How about the pamphlets at the checkout counter that say "take one"? Is it theft to take one because you didn't talk to the owner and negotiate it first hand? Or, when presented with a free item being advertised to you, do you rightly assume it is provided to you for your consumption?
Learn to love Alaska
Not under most systems of law. With some exceptions (Montana's open range law comes to mind) walking on another's property is trespassing. Period.
Crap, well I guess I break the law every time I walk up to the front door to ring the bell. And I should get a shotgun. I live in a corner house, and people cut across my lawn all the time. If I cut a few of them down, they'll be less likely to continue (plus I imagine that the body parts blown off would make good fertilizer).
Learn to love Alaska
Well, as soon as I can be sitting in my living room, on my own property, behind locked doors, and still have your garden within arms reach, then you will have an analogy. No one has the right to break into your property to use your resources. No one has the right to use your resources if you try to limit them through MAC lists or encryption. But if you are irradiating your neighbors, I do not see a problem if they use your broadcast signal which you are sending out to them. If you don't want your neighbors to eat the carrots from your garden, quit planting your garden in their yards.
Learn to love Alaska
To get away from the unlawful entry, burglary, and someone-stole-my-unlocked-bike OMG!'s, let use this analogy:
I install a drinking fountain at the edge of my property. Lets say it's at the sidewalk. Should I be surprised if people start drinking from my fountain?
If I notice people using my water, should I pump into it an alternate water supply - maybe mix in some sour milk, rancid cooking oil, pond water, or goat urine?
I guess if I really don't want people using my drinking fountain, I should probably either a) hide it, or b) disguise it as something else, or c) turn off the water supply and plug the drain.
Isn't this like "my bad"?
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
I recognize that these cases have been lost in court, but it still may be worth arguing that the *provider* (plaintiff) broke the law (if any), not the defendant.
The plaintiff's claims should be dismissed; as the defendant had no expectation that the plaintiff would take such action. Damages should be limited too by similar arguments.
IANAL, and courts are not necessarity logical either.
Your piece of equipment says, "Yo, can I connect?"
Theirs says, "Sure, have at it!"
No moral problem with using their connection.
But how can he possibly know that you want him to do that? You haven't even asked him to do anything! All you've done is string together a bunch of letters! How can you be sure that he'll understand what you're saying?
What's that? Because you both have a common, well-known protocol for communication using these characters in certain arrangements and patterns?
Wow, what a coincidence, the same thing is true for wireless devices!
I had someone come up on my access point, and also wrote it up.
My approach was a little different.
For anyone who is interested, my article info follows :
Tracking Wireless Neighbors
(Original Title: Wireless Neighbors Are Fun!)
http://iamsam.com/papers/Tracking_Wireless_Neighb
Anyway, it's a neat script he did for flipping the web pages...
You cloud paerhps hvae smoe fun by mnessig up the wdors too. You wloud need to edxclue HMTL tgas, but who cears if you msis a few?
#!/usr/bin/perl
undef $/;
my $data=;
$data =~ s/\b(\w)(\w+)(\w+)(\w)\b/$1$3$2$4/g;
print $data;
That's a nice bad analogy, but I think you forgot to put a car in there somewhere...
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
For some of these cases you refer to.
I'm legitimately interested in them, not just looking for a chance to bash you.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
My wife and I both have DSes, and I still protect our wireless. The DS supports WEP, and I have also restricted wireless access from the router to the MAC addresses of our DSes. In a college town, I wouldn't be caught dead with an open connection.
Cool, leaving the car primed for theft is illegal. How about actually stealing it? Any laws on that?
Also, the cars do not advertise.
Why does it always seem to come to this? Yes, the wireless AP advertises it presence by broadcasting an "I'm Here" message, but that doesn't imply that usage is OK.
driving off in a car that is running with the door open and a sign in it saying "please drive me"? Of course, the owner didn't directly talk to you, but you do have permission to be driving it, right? He even got it ready for you, warming it up and opening the door. So is it theft to take it?
Theft? I don't know. I was talking about right vs. wrong. If you don't have or don't know if you have permission from the owner then taking it is wrong. Legality would depend on if you could prove you had permission. See, not the same thing.
Why is everyone bent on confusing legal/illegal with right/wrong.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Well, I'd just setup Squid facing the free wireless connect, reflip the images back and voila -free internet. Also, it' be a cheap torrent leech connect. That's always yummy.
Theirs says, "Sure, have at it!"
No moral problem with using their connection.
Ok, so you connect to the appliance, because you think access/availability equals permission. Do you have permission to use the rest of the network? How about their laptop share? You see a file containing their banking information on the share, Ok to access the account?
Accessing the AP and using "the connection" are not the same thing.
Let's say you see a box with a note that says, "Please open this box". Inside there's a pile of money. Ok to take the money? You only had permission "open" the box.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
No. Your garden is visible from the street. But no one can step onto your property without invitation.
If you want a more accurate analogy, it would be this:
You go to your neighbor, tell him your door is unlocked, and instruct him to walk around the neighborhood telling everyone about the house. Further, you instruct your neighbor to respond to all inquiries about the house with "please, open the door and go inside."
The router has instructions on how to handle connections. Instructions you provide. You not encrypting the connection is failing to lock the door. You allowing the DHCP service to assign IPs to all parties that ask is the invitation to enter the house.
Other people comparing it to stealing something are making bad analogies, too. If I steal a car, the owner of record is deprived of both possession and use of the car. If I hop on someone's unsecured access point, the owner retains both possession and use. And I have their mechanical agent's (and the owner's implicit) authorization to use it.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
Requests for each individual informational transaction are also sent.
The router routes when I send requests.
It doesn't have to. My sending radio waves over there is no different from my neighbor sending radio waves over here, and we're both free to have our equipment either communicate and cooperate freely with EVERYONE, or to tell it to ignore outside signals. I'm not "breaking in" to anything, I'm sending a polite request that's considered so innocuous that many OSs will send it and initiate a connection with no user interaction. Their equipment tells me OK, but is free to stop responding to or properly handling my requests at any time.
You're sending the waves into MY house...my gear is just responding...I know plenty of people who's computers connect to every insecure network named "Linksys" simply because the owners at one point connected to one of them. Are these clueless people stealing by attempting to connect from somewhere else on a connection they don't even know they made? You wouldn't steal someone's cable directly...but you'd damn sure think about watching it if they displayed it on your living room wall via a projector at the window.
Marky Mark Killed Jason Bourne!
Why yes, they are stealing, they just don't know it. In this case, I wouldn't accuse them on moral grounds unless they continued it after learning of their actions. Legally, they're probably humped ignorant or not.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
That depends on your moral compass.
One cannot assume that the router owner knows how to configure the device properly to either allow or deny access (not too wild an assumption, else we wouldn't be having this discussion).
Furthermore, one cannot assume that the box owner didn't write a note. Perhaps it was lost or stolen by a previous opener of the box, or the note said, please take this note, but leave the money and reclose the box.
What one does in situations like this defines them. Before my wife died earlier this year, she taught a unit on Heroism to her gifted students. I found the unit plan in with her teaching material. Among the usual types and definitions for a hero (like sports, military, religious, etc) was this:
How we are is all we are.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
So what would be perfect is to upload FIRMWARE for the Linksys (or other) router to make it work like one of those hotel systems that has a neighbor friendly introduction screen and disclaimer.
Welcome to my Free Internet Access.
So far this month, neighbors have contributed $X.XX to maintining my $50/mo connection.
If $75 is recieved, I will upgrade us to the 4MBPS connection speed. If $100 is recieved, $6 MPBS!
Please Click Here to Acknowledge That you won't do Anything Illegal, and start using the internet.
Regardless of implicit permissions, explicit permissions, and responsibilities, the law -- I am not going to argue morality here as we have been over this too many times already -- could surely stand to be more clear-cut in these situations. The law should be clear for those whose moral compasses do no govern their actions properly, to act as either a teacher or a deterrant (of course, law as deterrant is yet another questionable point that lies outside this discussion) in these cases. Does that make it perfect? No, but humans aren't perfect, and what's right isn't always evident at the time something happens (a point wholly irrelevant to this discussion).
I buy in to this idea more than you know. Doing the right thing when nobody is looking is the truest test of a person's morals and beliefs. I have always found it more immature for my friends to cheat in games or play unfairly around me simply because it's a lot easier than cheating or playing unfairly when everybody's watching. Two of them understand why I have said this to others in the past, and I've never had to say anything like that to either of those people.
He should secure it.
If people leave property unsecured, unttaged, elsewhere, and you find it, it is all yours. You are not obliged to bend over to return something to his owner that clearly he can't be bothered to claim as his.
Same thing should apply to WiFi APs. Every single one of them comes with instructions about how to secure them, so if you don't do so, well, what is other people to think?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
1. Pop over to http://www.fon.com/. 2. Sign up, and drop five bucks for a Fon-equipped wireless router. 3. Plug it into your net and secure your other WAP. 4. Make money off your formerly freeloading neighbors -OR- get free WiFi access in some 80,000 locations worldwide (and growing).
Parent is not insightful because the example is way off.
Your garden is not only visible from the street - the boundary of your garden is going into your neighbourghs property and on to the public street. Anyone can accidentally step on "your" garden (that is now partly on common property).
With a router you can (and should) limit the broadcast range of the signal. The same goes for your garden. Don't plant your strawberries on the neighbourghs lawn if you do not want him to eat them.
Probably true, but the law would be (even more) horribly complex and cumbersome. An alternative would be better education with an emphasis on Ethics and critical thinking skills.
True again. I would add that in the absence of information, the "right" choice is probably the more benign choice. In the box example, take or leave the money? Leave the money until you have further information to the contrary.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
But I could effectively argue that I should take the money (or better yet, the box with the money inside) until I find the owner and clarify the situation, replacing the money in the case that the owner wishes the money left, and taking the money otherwise; thus preventing someone with less scruples from taking the money without corroboration.
This is why leaving personal choices up to individual/societal morality makes me squirm -- your choice could be argued as apathetic by someone more pro-active, whereas my choice could be argued as too liberal by someone more conservative (I mean neither of these politically, just in terms of interpreting things liberally or interpreting things conservatively). We could go back and forth on this for days, surely. Dependence upon morality alone (even under educated circumstances -- a truly evil person could take ethical education and use it to exploit a society's code of ethics and morals) is just not enough for me given the lack of empathy that the average person has for those he or she is not personally connected to.
Hmm... Perhaps with better education there could be fewer, but more appropriate laws. For example, should we really need a law prohibiting a person from having sex with animals? The fact that such laws exist says a lot about our society (and individuals). I agree that "ineffective" law is not a function of a lazy, uneducated public, but the need for many laws is. A curriculum including Ethics and critical thinking would go a long way toward eliminating the need for laws we shouldn't really need.
This is why leaving personal choices up to individual/societal morality makes me squirm...
It's suppose to.
Dependence upon morality alone ... is just not enough for me given the lack of empathy that the average person has for those he or she is not personally connected to.
I agree. I would even go as far as to include the lack of empathy the average person has for those whon he/she *is* personally connected. We shouldn't, but sadly do, need the legal system.
I would like to see a legal system based upon reward rather than punishment.
[I'm sorry, I was daydreaming again.]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I'm sorry to rant, but come on... Did you not see the line in my original comment:
Note that as a Slashdot comment, this an extremely simplified explanation and not a complete picture.
The guy I was replying to thought that being in the same subnet enabled you to sniff traffic. I figured I'd try to help him out by responding with the basics. To such a person, are discussions of ARP poisoning, ethercap, dsniff, blah blah blah going to be helpful? No, they aren't. Why don't I just take a few hours out of my day and teach him about spanning a port while I'm at it?
Man, you guys really are nutjobs.
I'm a big tall mofo.
upside down, blurry, they are nice ideas, but i think i'd just put the entire page inside blink tags.
Supplies!
Here's the thing your garden probably isn't growing on your neighbours side of the fence. If it is I hope he helps himself to your tomotoes (or whatever).
Setup an open router, if it's single propogates off your property then expect someone to use it.
Thought this is slightly more extreme and broad sweeping. I'd love someone to test this in court. If satellite TV companies can't offer me a means by which to prevent their signals from propogating into my property then they should have no problem with me using what's there (I didn't ask for it).
The problem with comparing accessing someone's wireless lan to other forms of "tresspass" is that there are TWO things that need to be taken into consideration.
First, as you mentioned, the WLAN broadcasts into the air to advertise its presence, thus, in a sense, inviting users. Arguments can be made about whether this constitutes an actual invitation by the owner of the WLAN or not, since by default most wireless devices are always on and open. But that's beside the point, because:
Second, the owner's internet connection is a separate resource that he/she is paying for, and other people's use of that resource is not necessarily implied by the fact that it is accessible once you connect to the WLAN. To use the imperfect garden example: If, instead of a garden, we had an orchard, where fruit trees grow. Let's say it can be assumed that the owner of the orchard allows you to walk among the trees and eat apples. However, he has water piped into an irrigation system that he purchased in order to water the trees. Just because you can reach that faucet doesn't mean you are allowed to drink that water, even if you are allowed to be in the orchard.
What I'm getting at is, it's one thing to connect to a WLAN because your notebook did it automatically because the WLAN was open. But it's totally different to use that WLAN's internet bandwidth to download stuff for yourself if you don't know that you have permission to do so. You are an internet user, you should know that the internet is not free, and thus you should know better than to assume that someone's internet connection is free for your use.
As long as I have plausible deniability before the Powers That Be that I was not the sole utiliser of my connection, I'm golden from a legal perspective.
Or you're the ripe golden apple from some lawyer's perspective -- it isn't the final outcome you need to protect yourself from, it's the litigation costs and/or the inconvenience of having all of your computer, networking and cellphone gear being seized as a part of the investigation. Even when it all turns up clean, you've spent lots of money on a lawyer and lost a larrrrrrge amount of time on your part dealing with the whole process.
Sure, you may well have the moral victory, but the system won.
I'll gladly take a stand in a fight when the results are worthwhile but I fail to see what real principle is at stake here such that it'd be worth all that trouble.
Somebody compare Internet privacy law to hunting and fishing licenses
I know there's a "Dick Cheney" and "shot in the face" joke in here somewhere . . .
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Gotta love analogies. So I'll add my own.
Internet access is bi-directional. You SEND as well as receive. Wireless also uses electromagnetic radiation, the same as light. You are free to receive to your hearts content. If you choose to broadcast reflected light off of your naked person into my window, I may choose to receive said signal, depending on, uh, signal quality.
And if I choose to broadcast a "signal" in return you are free to block or receive my broadcast to your heart's content.
However, can I take recordings of your "signal" that cause you harm? Can I sell them online for profit? What if you "broadcast" images of your panties received by a receiving apparatus on my shoe that just happens to be under your skirt? You are, afterall, broadcasting publically and I'm free to do what I want with that spectrum right?
The hacker mentality that anything unsecure is a legal, open invitation to enter, co-own the property, and do whatever is ridiculous. Posts about signs and open invitations to enter...those exist in reality and all have implicit limits. Everybody knows that if you are a guest on someone's property, there are limits expected to what you can do there, regardless of whether they're spelled out, you *know* they're there.
Now does an electromagnetic wave/particle become your property once it enters your property limits? If yes, then the SID broadcaster, in turn, owns your TCP/IP req packets and is free to capture and do with it at will. The broadcaster is free to broadcast whatever she wants, whether inverting the content or whatever. You are free to receive and do what you will with that broadcast.
Are you free to take the electromagnetic particle that magically became yours to gain access to physical property that does not belong to you? If your neighbor accidentally leaves a plaintext bank password on his monitor and you use a telescope to zoom in, are you justified in using this signal that you now own to drain your neighbor's bank account? Here, you are simply stealing money and using your property(arguably the light particles that spell out the password) as a tool to do so.
The same applies to unsecured wifi - you are free to log on. When you start using bandwidth you are at least freeloading, but possibly stealing. You are stealing if your neighbor's account is cost-per-byte or if your neighbor's own bandwidth is impededed by your usage. If you steal, you are stealing and simply using your access to the unsecured access point as a tool to cause financial and possibly legal harm to your neighbor.
Nearly impossible to set up unless you've deployed your own CA before, but uh, it's infeasbile to crack without obtaining an authenticated device (you do encrypt your private keys, right?)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I left my shitty Netgear AP open because all my computers were secure and I wanted to see if anyone would actually connect. I live in a crappy neighborhood, so I'd occasionally see a machine connected for a little while but nothing serious. One day the connection was going slow as hell. I figured with terrible Verizon DSL and a crappy Netgear router, someone was trying to download a bunch of crap. A bunch of hotmail stuff and downloading free ringtones. His machine's name in my network neighborhood was "ANTHONY WILLIAMS". I decided to secure my network. I enabled a MAC address whitelist and renamed the AP to "ANTHONY WILLIAMS SUCKS FAT COCKS". We looked him up, he lives on the other side of my block. My plan was to leave this AP named this forever so he'd always feel like a douche seeing how much of a homo he was every time he checked available wireless networks, but now I'm going to do something fun. Sometimes I really like this Slashdot place.
You used to have a really crappy sig, but then I stole it.
Just because my front door is unlocked right now does not mean you can just walk in...
In fact, if my front door is WIDE-OPEN, It doesn't mean you can come in. The mosquitos, flies and other bugs come in, and you know what happends to them?... ().
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
Walking through random fields as a child, I would on occasion stop and drink from the hose feeding a certain livestock trough. Right? Wrong?
Right. In a polite society, as most farmlands are fine examples of, taking a drink out of a hose and putting it back is not considered even noteworthy.
But not putting the hose back, that will get your ass kicked. Or taking so much water that the livestock doesn't get watered, same deal.
Checking your e-mail on someone's open wi-fi is not wrong. Using your neighbors wi-fi as your primary network connection is. Unless you have permission.
Just like you aren't trespassing unless it is posted, are aren't stealing wi-fi unless you make a point of cracking a wireless router.
However, as in using someone's land, if you break something, or try to use the land in a manner going beyond implied usage, you are in violation of not only law but of 'right and wrong'. E.g. just because the farmers field isn't posted as no trespassing, doesn't mean you can butcher one of his cattle and have a BBQ.
I'd rather send them this site
©God
A car left idling with the door open advertises itself. Stealing it would still be wrong.
The car being "taken" seriously impairs the original owners intentions for said car.
If you use (but not overload) someone's open wireless network, chances are they won't even notice. I find that using an open wireless network compares more closely to using the car's shade when it's sunny outside.
if i was the remote user i would just invert everything again
This is my sig.
If you use (but not overload) someone's open wireless network, chances are they won't even notice. I find that using an open wireless network compares more closely to using the car's shade when it's sunny outside.
Yes, these are very nice rationalizations. Very much inline with the popular thinking here on /., but how about this?
Say your neighbor has a swimming pool. Ok to use it without permission? After all, even if he's in it, there's room to spare...
Taking, borrowing, or using something that's not yours, regardless if it deprives or harms the owner, without permission of the owner is wrong. Simple as that. I don't really understand why people have such a hard time with this concept.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I said, if the bugs come in, I will swat them with a fly-swatter...
:-).
So, I'll leave my Wireless router unlocked (as you would maybe put it).. Go ahead, come on in and use it, Just see what happends next
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
Considering how little the average internet user even pays attention to SSL, one could very easily imitate a bank, ebay, paypal, etc...
And since you can be at the mercy of the open WAP users own DNS server, instead of being tricked by a bogus:
http://127.0.0.1/www.ebay.com/
or:
http://www.ebay.com.bogusserver.com.ru/
You'll see:
http://www.ebay.com/
and possibly be even less likely to notice it as being bogus.
Well that's the last time I do all my plaintext internet banking through some strangers open WAP!
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
That's completely wrong. The carrots and peas are still the property of the garden's owner. When I park my car along the street, legal ownership isn't just transferred to the first person to call dibs.
I live ~10 minute walk from sea water (downtown Vancouver), and I'll vote crows off the island any day.
You bastards!
Your ex-friend, Steve.
A car left idling does not shoot itself to everything that accepts it within a 100ft radius. If I were throwing pencils at you, you'd probably not think its wrong to keep them. This is precisely the case with wireless: you're not leaving something there for people to pick it; you're shooting it directly to them. Of course, we have those beauracrats who don't know physics called the FCC that want to put an end to all this...
Don't believe in miracles -- rely on them.