Slashdot Mirror
Jailtime For Leeching Wireless?
jginspace writes "A 17-year-old from Singapore is is facing three years' jailtime for accessing his neighbor's wireless network.
His neighbor complained and now the unfortunate Tan Jia Luo is facing charges under the computer misuse act and is scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday."
The problem is that while some people are clueless and don't secure their wireless, other people have a sharing nature and leave theirs open on purpose. How the heck do you tell the difference?
On my work trip to Singapore, I knew that chewing gum was not legal there. So I went to the local convenience shop, and of course there was no gum, but a large assortment of legal candies. As an internet tech goon, I was drawn to the little plastic box (similar to TicTac) with little purple sugar pills labelled "I Love Flash". Oh and those Singapore immigration landing cards are a hoot, with large red friendly letters "possession of drugs is punished by DEATH'. Of course the US is not THAT bad...
You know what? Fuck you.
I will be continuing to run my intentionally "unsecured" wireless network.
How come every random carrier gets to run a wireless network that anybody can use for $10/hour (and, yes, that can be paid anonymously in cash), but I should be punished if I choose to do the same thing for free? For that matter, how come the backbone ISPs get to carry traffic for everybody, everywhere, without asking any questions, but I shouldn't? How come (I suspect you think) they're not responsible for what their users do, but I am?
If you don't like freedom of communication, then get off the Internet.
Oh, and the kid was in the wrong only if he was somehow on notice that the network wasn't intended to be public. Otherwise my right to run an open network would be compromised.
Here's some more rediculously stupid headlines:
Man wakes up, runs three miles, reports fatigue afterwards
Clam chowder eaten in Maine. Witnesses report "extremely tasty!"
American tourist in London says "These people have a funny accent."
Birds all over planet still flying.
I mean, come on guys. This is Singapore. Their legal system is so draconian it makes the Patriot Act look spectacular.
Says who? Do you own a provider that stands to profit from selling EV-DO service?
I have a (firewalled) access point that has the SSID "UseMe". I *want* people to be able to get free Internet access. They aren't able to jump onto my personal network, just use the Internet for free. Sometimes handy if you're driving, have a laptop, and need to pull up Google Maps for directions.
-b.
I'm sorry; I missed the second part.
In fact, I am just the "keeper of the pipe" in the same way that my upstream ISP is. I AM a service provider for my wireless users, and all the protections applied to service providers apply to me. I have as much legal right, and certainly as much moral right, to act as a service provider as does any large, for-profit corporate entity.
The basic moral truth here is that I have an absolute right to provide any communication service I want to anybody. Where I am, the law doesn't forbid that right now. Changing or reinterpreting the law to forbid it, or to make it impractical by loading on a lot of stupid administrative and data retention requirements, would be evil and illegitimate.
Technically, functionally, you may be right. Morally and ethically might be a different question.
The main question is..."if it is unsecured, is that a specific invitation to use it?"
Morally and ethically, if I buy a yard decoration that has "Dulces Libres Aqui" painted on it, I don't then get to turn around and sue a bunch of hispanic kids for trespassing because I don't know Spanish. We wouldn't have a problem if judges understood that internet protocols they've never heard of like SSID and DHCP broadcasts are languages in which offers can be made, just like Spanish and just like protocols like HTTP they have heard of.
Seriously, if you don't don't trust those "technical, functional" protocols to grant you permission to use network resources, you just shouldn't use the internet at all. You've probably got written permission to use your ISP's routers; how much other "moral, ethical" permission do you have? Are you sure Slashdot's owners want you hitting their website? HTTP servers are configured to be open-by-default just like wireless routers, you know - perhaps Malda just never got around to disallowing your IP block. You could mail him a letter to ask, but that'll get pretty tedious if you have to do hunt down the owners of every computer that has only given you "technical, functional" permission to access it. At some point you just have to trust that when the network service says "please take this (web page|IP address|etc) you asked for", it's telling the truth.
Easy. I don't trust my neighbors not to download kiddie porn on my network. Maybe it's because there are registered sex offenders near me, maybe it's because I'm paranoid, but I like avoiding the FBI thank you.
When 42 guys in suits go walking, someone's gonna die.
:D
Once upon a time, Al "Scarface" Capone was arrested for tax evasion. But that isn't why he went to jail. '42 guys in suits' is the name of a song written about the accountants who were used to prove this case.
For someone to be arrested for such a small crime, his neighbor had to be annoyed to the point of calling the police (cause they don't go around looking for war drivers) and the police had to of had an interest in this guy for some other reason. (More or less, don't quote me on this)
So I would infer that this is not the case where someone was logging into an unsecured wireless broadcast, as people are complaining about. He probably hacked into his neighbor's wireless and refused to stop when his neighbor found out. Even at that point, the police probably wouldn't arrest him (do people get arrested for noise complaints?) I suspect he was also doing something illegal which he was masking using the wireless access, and the police did not have enough evidence to prove it was him. So they grabbed him using what they could.
Though the alternative is funny. One day Cedric's laptop which is turned on in his backpack connects to an unsecured wireless network as he is walking through the park. The SWAT team jumps out from the surrounding bushes and trees and throws him groundward at gunpoint. He is sentenced to one year hard labor at the local quarry and his laptop is confiscated. Sadly the locker which it is stored in is adjacent to a coffee shop with unsecured wireless, and thus Cedric's sentence increases to the point where the government decided to send him to the gallows. Cedric's will then bestows the laptop to his mother...
No. The AP is sending packets explicitly asking if anyone wants to connect. The laptop then sends packets explicitly asking the AP if it ok to connect, and the AP responds explicitly that it is. This isn't a case of expressions like "leaving a window unlocked" meaning "Come on in!", it is the meaning that one gets from following the protocol. Windows automatically connects to APs that do this, and it is very simple to configure APs to not invite everyone like this. It is unfortunate that they do so by default.
This is more like hiring a guard to be outside your front door. Unfortunately, you make a mistake in your instructions and so the guard tells everyone to come in. When people ask if they really are allowed in, the guard tells them that they most certainly are. This probably isn't what you wanted the guard to do, and people may suspect that, but it still holds that someone who you gave authority to do so did tell the people that they could come in.
I visited relatives in Spore and switched on my WiFi PDA. I immediately got on line. Problem was I suddenly realised i wasn't using my relatives WiFi. I did some quick research and found 3 strong and one week network was available (all open for me). I had to go and ask my relatives which was their network. Basically houses and apartments in Spore are pretty close together. I would think the need is more to educate the people, who open up the networks, to make them difficult to enter, b4 prosecuting users. Of course we don't know the background to this incident and how much and for what prupose this person used the open network.
This is NOT breaking into someone else's airwaves. I am sorry, but if you send unsecured packets through the airspace in my home then I feel completely free to use them as I please. Either: a) use encryption or b) a low intensity signal. The supposed equivalent of breaking into someone's homes just because the door is locked is wrong, the correct analogy is someone leaving stuff inside your kitchen and you taking it...
This is a country where when the oposition is campaining they are sued for defamation if in their opinion a government official is not doing his job.
I leave it to you to guess how many cases has the oposition won.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.