Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jailtime For Leeching Wireless?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the thats-gotta-suck dept.

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."

4 of 587 comments (clear)

  1. open on purpose or not? by magarity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:open on purpose or not? by ranton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your ISP gives you a set amount of bandwidth. If you don't use it, give it away.

      Your ISP is not giving you a certain amount of bandwidth that you can give away if you arent using it. I worked at a small ISP about 7 years ago, and we had about 4000 users but only about 8 actual T1s for their connectivity. There was only enough bandwidth for about 190 users at any one time to be using a full DS0 line. The reason that our users only had a pay a small price was because we could assume that the average user would not be using their connection more than 5% of the time.

      If all of our users started sharing their connection, we would have had to charge more. Same goes for your ISP. I get a 6 Mbps connection from my Cable provider, but it is only about $50/mth. At work we have a T1 that is dedicated for us at 1.5Mbps, but it is about $550/mth. See the difference?

      Sure I get much better upload speeds with the T1, but the real difference is that with the T1 I actual own all of that bandwidth. With my cable connection I am only guaranteed a 6 Mbps when "I" need it, not all of the time. And if someone else is sharing it then I am breaking my user agreement.

      What's the difference if you friend uses your computer or brings over and plugs in his own?

      The difference is because once my friend brings over his computer he is within my household and therefore is not breaking the user agreement. If I can successfully argue at court that we like to picnic across the street at the park while using my wireless network, then it would still not break the user agreement. But if you just have your network open for anyone to use it at any time for any reason, you are breaking your user agreement.

      It is usually pretty easy to tell when something is wrong, but most people will try to justify anything.

      --

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  2. Re:Pretty open and shut by Hizonner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    ... and I'm sorry you can't learn to configure your computer properly. Sucks to be you, I guess.

    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.

  3. Re:Pretty open and shut by Hizonner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.