Slashdot Mirror
UK Man Convicted For Wi-Fi Piggybacking
CatrionaMcM tips us to a BBC story reporting that Gregory Straszkiewicz, a UK resident, was fined £500 and sentenced to a conditional discharge for 12 months after being caught using a laptop from a car parked outside somebody else's house. '[H]e was prosecuted under the Communications Act and found guilty of dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service.' A separate BBC story notes that two other people in England were arrested and cautioned for sharing Wi-Fi uninvited.
How does one figure out if the AP is for public use or just someone who forgot to set it up properly?
Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you have the right to.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
So accepting people's invitation to use their Wifi (by not securing it) is a crime...
It is the same as accusing someone of copyright infringement if they listen to their neighbor's CDs because their sound system is too loud...
PS: I still need to RTFA
I sure get tired of not being able to move the darn laptop around! I may just end up doing it for the ease of use and depend on the latest of firewall and WEP (or whatever).
...when you don't require a minimum of understanding before people can use technology. You get people who trample on public spectrum and demand that the state protects them from something that they could much more easily, efficiently and thoroughly prevent themselves. That frequency band is mine, too. If you don't want your computer talking to mine over public spectrum, don't fucking let it, you morons.
The black-hats rely on the fact that no one can see what they are doing to succeed. In many cases, they are still capable of keeping their illegal activities underground. But a guy sitting next to a building with a laptop is kind of obvious. Kudos to the cops for challenging his existence there. I'll even put up with some nosy cops myself to see guys like the one they got go away. Now if only there were an electronic cop that would bring those cowardly, anonymous, SSH phishers and spammers to the surface...
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
Now mod me down.
What about when Windows auto-connects to an open AP? Sure you would probably never get arrested for it, but its still technically illegal isnt it?
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
There are other countries besides yours.
If you leave your access point open, you are inviting people to use it. If you don't want people to use your access point, put a password on it.
I wouldn't be surprised if his being arrested had more to do with him sitting in a car outside someone's house than piggybacking on someone's wireless Internet connection. If he'd been in a bedroom next door, it wouldn't have resembled stalking, and I bet he wouldn't have been prosecuted.
These are some of my favourite network names...
His computer sent out a DHCP *REQUEST*. His computer said: "Can I have an IP address on this network? Can I have the information I need to get online from this access point?"
To which the access point replied: "Yes, you can have X.X.X.X. You can route your traffic through X.X.X.X."
He *asked* to use the network, and the network said *yes*.
First of all, punish people who break into closed networks not open ones. I have accidentally connected to an open network a time or two. Sorry, I meant to connect to the Linksys network, not the Linksys network. Secondly, if DLink and the like would default to a more secure configuration out of the box instead of pandering to the wanabe power users, this problem would be largely eliminated. The computer industry seems to want to make computers so easy anyone can do it. They can't. Take your car to a mechanic, take your clothes to a tailor, take your securely configured router that you can't figure out to me.
How long till some kid with a NintendoDS get's arrested for playing Animal Crossing using an AP the software autodetected?
I know that the story is from the UK but I can't help but notice the similarities to the current state of affairs in the US. No matter which country this is in how can anyone pretend that these standards won't be selectively enforced as a matter of convenience? It's quite obvious that there's no way to detect authorized vs. unauthorized users of unsecured networks. Are we returning to the assertion that one should also be criminalized for not taking steps to secure their network? What about not taking adequate steps, as we know that weak security is little better than no security? What about failing to apply patches which interfere with the proper functioning of other, more business critical, considerations? "There have been incidences where p43d0philes deliberately leave their wireless networks open so that, if caught, they can say that is wasn't them that used the network for illegal purposes," said NetSurity's Mr Cracknell. Oh, there you go, that makes everything better. The situation is wishy-washy at best but we'll certainly sway public opinion by playing the p3d0phile card. If we get real lucky on the spin we'll be able to make it plausible that anyone who doesn't secure their network is necessarily a p3d0phile. While the evidence may not play out in court it'll be a convenient RIAA/MPAA strongarm tactic to keep political opposition in line. Someone think of the children!
Once the line is crossed then it's on.
...city wide free wireless access?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Technically, the structure of the internet is built on a 'Default allow' schema. Essentially, if you don't say 'no' then I can. I don't have to get permission to use your web server, your anonymous FTP server, or route over your backbone. If you choose to, you can of course block all of those, but you have to choose to disallow me access.
Add to that the facts that public 'hot spots' are more & more common & XP will sometimes jump from one network to another without asking and you have a recipee for legal chaos when incompetents leave their AP's open.
Do it all the time - I don't actually remember the last time a business had someone out front asking me to come in.
I think that the courts are likely to take reasonable public access into account. If you just stumble across an AP that does not make it public any more than if you happen to find an unlocked door on a house.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Have a mobile data card handy just in case. Problem solved. "Officer, I'm using my mobile data card. I pulled over since driving while surfing isn't a great idea."
So, the Parabolic dish I use for the connection I use across the street is illegal?
I really don't understand how someone who is smart enough to figure out when someone is borrowing some broadband, just leaves their WiFi open? Granted, if you don't want to use WPA, WEP is better than nothing, right?
I just can't believe someone would go through all that trouble of getting someone arrested, and they were too lazy to do some simple security measures.
It's like sitting $100 bucks on the road in front of your house, expecting nobody to pick it up, then arresting the person who picked it up. It's not theirs, of course, but morals run thin when it's that easy to attain.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Oh that's a watertight legal opinion. So if I left my keys in the car and someone stole it, I'm responsible for the people they kill? And if I watch someone's TV through their window, that's theft? Or I read my newspaper by the light coming out of their window?
You should all note that the law these people have been accused of breaking is one designed to stop people stealing cable TV using hacked decoders. It was not designed for "theft" of Internet access. There is a defence to the accusation that the service was made public. However, in the recent cases the accused didn't get to make a defence, and probably never received legal advice anyway: they admitted "guilt" to the police, who are neither impartial nor independent, in order to have the case dropped.
But in New Salem (formerly known as Great Britain) anything that could possibly be construed as possibly putting possible children at possible risk by possible pedophiles is treated as a priori evidence of guilt of child abuse.
How does one figure out if the AP is for public use or just someone who forgot to set it up properly?
YOu can use the word 'Free' or 'Open' in your SSID -- or use a URL like I do. My SSIDs are all 'pghwireless.net'. Although it is tough to get to a URL when aren't sure you have permission.
If you're an AP owner -- make it obvious for the random stumbler. Use the built in encryption to keep people out, or use the words 'Open', 'Free', or something to try to make it obvious.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
The second article says that the people providing the unsecured networks were "cautioned", but it doesn't say they were arrested. I don't think it's a crime to have an open network, though it might go against the TOS.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
If Alice's wifi extends into Bob's house, what happens when Bob doesn't notice that his computer automatically joined Alice's network during startup (before it detected Bob's network)?
(IANAL)
Just as well otherwise there'd be nowhere for them to invade and undertake regime change
The second story (the new one) concerned two people who were cautioned for using people's wi-fi broadband internet connections without permission.
You are saying that if you leave your door open, that is an invite? If you don't have a fence around your garden, just anyone can use it? God forbid you leave your car unlocked for a sec while loading/unloading. People will be borrowing it in a sec! What about simply dropping your wallet by accident. Obviously you didn't want it anymore, so I can just take it?
Perhaps I am just old but I still think that you don't take what belongs to someone else. Don't give me the crap about not knowing the difference between a public access point someone created to share his/her connection with anyone passingby and a private wifi connection that just hasn't been locked up to the point it becomes unusuable. Surely you can tell the difference between a private house door and a shop door?
And no, this is NOT like listening to their music OR even like listening in on their wifi transmissions. IF you transmit data into my space you could argue that I therefore have permission to receive that data. It is sorta sensible, don't accuse me of eavesdropping if you are shouting out a conversation into my ear.
HOWEVER, wifi is two way communication. This person was NOT just receiving the data they "played too loudly" he was happily sending data back and interacting with the system.
This would be like the neighbour listening to YOUR music, using your system, from his own house, uninvited. Perhaps you find that okay, prove it, and post your address.
The entire problem is in the two-way nature of wifi communication. This turns it away from "your apple tree overhands my garden, so any apples over my part belong the me" type of law, into "I am planting apple trees in your garden AND taking the apples" type of law.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Indeed? Good thing the VT shooter went with your version then.
How long till some kid with a NintendoDS get's arrested for playing Animal Crossing using an AP the software autodetected?
NintendoDS/WiFi MP3 player/Wii network abuse arrests in 5... 4... 3...
Sitting in a car with a laptop is a bad idea. Bring a friend. Sit outside. Be very obvious. Politely answer questions when posed, and remember that uninformed people will think the worst first.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Person fined for using MacDonald's toilet without being a customer.
Still, "dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service" sounds like the act of a dreadful bounder, what? It simply isn't cricket, old boy.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
What about South African laws? ;-)
Then would he be ok? Or could I still go after people who accepted my invite.. I don't know the law either if there was a sign in my yard that said "EVERYBODY, COME ON IN" and people obeyed it
"Nude women! Nude women! Clowns welcome! Clowns welcome! Nude women! Clowns welcome!"
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
That's a pretty nifty idea actually. BTW Pittsburgh is wonderful :) use to drive there every other weekend.
The article doesn't say it was, in fact it notes the details are extremely sketchy.
Furthermore, if I drop my wallet, does everyone here just assume that I don't want it anymore and you are therefore free to take it?
I had at one time a public access point, it was identified as "Free basic web access, be nice" or something and was run through a linux box wich filtered and limited access quite a bit AND logged everything. I did it mostly out of curiousity. Just what would people access through a connection provided by someone they didn't know?
The answer was suprisingly mundane. Mostly email and light browsing. The location was in Amsterdam in an apartment near the "kalvertoren" a few years ago. For the non-dutch this is in the heart of amsterdam, yes within walking distance of the red-light district. This is holland, everything is in walking distance.
HOWEVER I have also found in more recent years that if you leave an AP open for general use, some people WILL not automatically limit themselves to minimum use. Cue the by now old trick of simply filtering a specific users access to replace all their image requests with tubgirl (if you think goatse is bad, google for it).
Still simply securing your network ain't always enough. At least some wifi security can be easily bypassed. At what point do we say "this is secured enough, you are now commiting a crime".
Personally I think it is bad sign if a bike stolen from an open garden gets a response from the police that you should have a 1 meter high fence, that is locked and the bike should have secured to something. Perhaps some people like to live in a world were everything has to be secured, I prefer to just lock up those that cannot understand the difference between something you own and something someone else owns. Either way, it seems we need an awfull lot of locks in this world.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Really come on I think we only need one locked/unlocked door analogy here people. And as for the guy it's pretty clear that he knew he was using a wireless network he didn't have permission to be on and I think he got what he deserved. Unfortunately this is opening the door for plenty of cases where it isn't so clean, I know I have plenty of trouble getting windows to not connect to the neighbors network even though I explicitly tell it to connect to my own.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
Between a locked door and unlocked door,
The handle for the door does not extend some 90-60 feet outside your property line; unlike of course WiFi.
Unless you are told/informed/read other wise, a network is NOT public.
When a base station is broadcasting it's SSID, without a request for authentication, that is informing me otherwise. The base station is broadcasting an invitation, and instructions, to any receiver on how to join the network.
Computers can negotiate access rights between themselves, and do it all the time. For example, BGP negotiates between routers over who will carry others' traffic. Another example - how to you know you have permission to retreive a given document on the web? Is not the HTTP server's response to your inquiry implicit permission?
Important point.. Before he sent the DHCP request he likely received a veritable FLOOD of SSID's inviting him to DHCP...
"If you leave your access point open, you are inviting people to use it. If you don't want people to use your access point, put a password on it."
Hmmm. You know this was on Oprah a couple days ago. Something about women should avoid guys who always blame others for everything, and can't take responsiblity for their actions. I believe she told them to run away as fast as possible because they will do the same thing in a relationship.
When your access point screams, "Hey, look! Here I am!" and then tosses me an IP address, that is an invitation. It's far different from me having to figure out your SSID and IP range, or worse, breaking the encryption.
Having a router which broadcasts SSID and hands out IP addresses is more like having a sign on your door saying, "Come on in! Help yourself to anything in the fridge." Don't give me the crap about not knowing the difference between a public access point someone created to share his/her connection with anyone passingby and a private wifi connection that just hasn't been locked up to the point it becomes unusuable. Surely you can tell the difference between a private house door and a shop door? Not always, actually. In some small towns, people virtually run businesses out of their homes.
But regardless, the analogy fails. Storefronts look different from homes. All you have to go on with wifi is the SSID string. Unless there's some case law that I don't know about, there is no legal precedent establishing what constitutes your "shop door" (SSID). The front door analogy just does not work. HOWEVER, wifi is two way communication. This person was NOT just receiving the data they "played too loudly" he was happily sending data back and interacting with the system. This is pretty interesting. Is 'interacting' the line, then? Because your wifi is interfering with my wireless devices when you broadcast it into my house.
BTW Pittsburgh is wonderful :) use to drive there every other weekend.
Hopefully you were just driving through!
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
You're clearly going for the reductio ad absurdum approach. However, you didn't drive it far enough. Let's say that people follow your advice, and IP acceptance of a request is not legal authority to access that resource. Let's assume also that we go the route advocated by the people with the private door analogies, and we require personal authorization by the resource owner to access said resource. So..... exactly how do you access slashdot.org? Cnn.com? Well, I'm sure email would be enough. Send an email to Ted Turner or CmdrTaco. They'll reply and say, yes, you're ok to connect to our network and use its resources. Or they'll say no. But it can't be an automated reply, otherwise, how do we know that you actually do have permission, and didn't do something like cracking a password? Yeah, I'm sure the Internet will still be a vibrant community with that kind of permission scheme in place. *snicker*
Cleverly hiding behind badly thought out analogies makes me question your motivation, intelligence and work habits.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The BBC page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/herefor d/worcs/6565079.stm is quite clear that residents called the police because this man had screened off the windows of his car with cardboard but the light from his laptop was still visible in the early hours of the morning.
Goodness only knows what he could possibly have being doing in there but I guess the local constabulary decided to charge him with a crime that they had evidence of.
So less a story about those brave wardrivers liberating the net from the bourgeoisie and more a story about someone wierdo having a wank.
If that's a slashdot word.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Technically your rights end at the edge of your property, at that point it becomes municipal. Therefore shouldn't your right to convict somebody who is trying to leach WiFi in the street public domain? And even if the signal is strong enough to reach onto you property cant you blame them for breaching your security with their signal?
Why is it law enforcements job to hunt down someone for using your network when you didn't even do the most basic attempts to protect it? People need to take responsibility for their actions... this includes the people who are hosting the network. You lock your doors right? You don't leave your keys in your car when you go in the store? Why the hell would you leave your network open if you didn't want someone to bumble in?
Then they should keep their steenkeeng radio signals off my property!
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Apparently, whether or not it's legal depends on which side of the law you're on. According to "P2P pinball lawyers say ignorance is no defence" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/17/davenport_ evidence/, if my wireless access point is open, I'm the one responsible, NOT the person who's using my network. Of course, if I just happen to be the easier target to catch if I'm the one USING the network, as opposed to hosting it, then who knows!
Well put. Discussing things in terms of analogies will always be inaccurate.
Come on, people. There are plans to have free w-lan access across entire states for chrissake..how the hell is some crackhead with a laptop supposed to know the difference between a free "Linksys" and a neighbour's "Linksys" if the two are open for usage? If you want to protect your network then at least show an effort that would require technical skill to overcome. At least then you have a case that a sane court can judge upon, because your effort is then analogous to warning against trespassing.
I can't believe they charged the guy $1000 for something his adapter's Windows client probably did on it's own. Hell, my *Linux* wrapper drivers catch on to the open network with the best signal automatically. I have had to intervene manually several times to stop this piggybacking, or humping as I prefer to call it. And not many people know enough to do this. In particular, you can't expect people to click cancel on an OS that requires a confirmation every time you want to scratch your balls. Wake up, Britain.
Leave your network open, strangers are welcome. Period. Say what you like but I actually helped my neighbor by securing their Linksys router (thanks for the default password, Mr. LazyUser) after attaching myself and my network to theirs, of course. I got free DSL/speed networking for about a year before they decided to change providers and got a new router, and HAHA on me, secured it! So, in essence I helped them to become aware of their network and to properly secure it, and all it cost them was the sharing of their bandwidth they were not using anyway. Stealing? Not even close. I never attacked or even scanned their boxen, nor did I interrupt or block any of their access upstream or otherwise misuse their connection. I did them a service, and would do so again. No one is going to see me scanning my neighbors from *inside* my own home. Good luck trying to "call the police" then. Seriously, good luck and good forensics to you!
If your network is going to broadcast into my home, secure it, or don't, but the use of those airwaves in my airspace gives me more than enough permission to connect, or snort.
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
Can someone please translate the story into American? Google translate doesn't seem to have the option. My simple mind is confused (befuddled as the brits would say) by all the "English" words. Thanks.
I believe the whole reason that an AP can be set up to broadcast it's SSID is TO MAKE IT VISIBLE AND ACCESSABLE TO ANYBODY. That's the whole point of broadcasting SSID's!
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
The effect of this precedent is to break the network.
A legitimate request for network access is made to the wifi router broadcasting the availability of a service which responds with an IP address and access to the network.
There is now a new part of the handshaking protocol for wifi on which carries heavy legal penalties for getting wrong and has no agreed protocols, messages or transport and more importantly nothing assessable by a machine.
What shall we call this new protocol? Certainty of legitimacy ?
Will this type of law over protocol spread to other parts of the network.
+1, Enlightened.
"and sentenced to a conditional discharge" ..I wish got a conditional discharge
I once walked into the local grocery store on a Sunday morning. The door was open, and all the staff were there -- cleaning, stocking, ... -- but for some reason, I was the only custumer present. One of the brighter staff members eventually noticed me, and asked WTF was I doing? It was ~9:30, and the store did not open till 10:00. After some hilarity, the
manager decided it was an honest mistake (on their part and mine), and I
was not charged with trespassing. However, I did have to leave my half-filled basket inside the store, and wait ~15 minutes to re-enter the store (legally) to complete my trip.
Bet it was because he is addicted to blogging, and just had to pull over when that access point popped up...
Hi bloggers and friends.
I just had a thought and I know you wanted to read all about it, do piranhas fart more than other fish? When you think about what they eat, they must do, right?
Hang on, someone is knocking on my car window.
Carbon based humanoid in training.
Did he ask to have the radio waves beamed into his car? I'd sue the AP owner for illegally entering his vehicle. Trespassing!
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Negative reinforcement is very important in horse training. For innstance you teach a horse to give flex laterally by pulling their head to the side with a rope halter or snaffle bit, keeping the pressure steady until the horse moves their head towards the pressure rather than pulling away from it. Then you instantly reward them by releasing fully. There are variations on this: some people favor pulsing pressure for instance. But the basic idea of introducing a negative stimulus and rewarding the subject by removing it is ubiquitous.
There are almost no circumstances in which I would recommend punishing a horse. But you can't train one without negative reinforcement.
Just thought you'd be interested. Plus I am pedantic.
This is a serious gray area. On the one hand, there are plenty of people that keep open WiFi links for public use. On the other hand, there are plently of "users" that don't know how to setup their WiFi. So... use it without problem... or go to jail. So far, it seems like discretion is the key. I haven't seen a story yet where someone got into trouble for humping their neighbors WiFi. Sit in your car like a stalker and you get busted. The legal system hasn't seemed to figure this one out yet and it depends on your particular judge and jury. What should have been added to the WiFi standard is a marker of some kind to indicate whether or not it is free for public use. The SSID is just not enough.
Hey, did anyone notice the date attached to this 'story'?
Last Updated: Thursday, 28 July 2005, 08:51 GMT 09:51 UK
Was this submitted as a joke, as a troll or what?
Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try. ~Yoda
If you don't have it require username and password, then you are giving people defacto permission because the systems asks for permission to gain access, and is your router allows them access they have permission.
another bad front door analogy:
If I yell at your house and say "Can I come in!"
and you say "OK"
I have permission.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"You can only charge someone for trespassing after you tell them to leave..."
Slash-lawyers strike again.
"Same should of course apply for wifi."
In your opinion, counselor?
"No, you aren't personally inviting people to drink from your internet bucket, but it's there, it has a sign on it, and it's open. If your intention was not to share, don't you think you're sending a bit of a mixed messag"
Depends. Do I live in a society that's trying to take advantage of me any chance it can get? Or a society that respects me even when my back is turned?
The former will be perpetually confused. The latter will always ask before drinking.
SSID advertises YOU!
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Oh that's not the most frightening aspect. The most frightening is that these people are employees, and positions of control and trust. I've mentioned this in the past when discussing piracy, and this open WAP issue really isn't any different. It's really a simple question. Would you trust people with these morals with anything of importance knowing what you know about their behaviour? And even if you trust them with the office supplies, where does it stop? And when?
http://www.fon.com/en/
love my fonera.
You wouldn't be allowed without planning permission and in most domestic environments I bet that wouldn't be given.
On private roads - because it's hard to tell them from public roads - there's usually a sign, I'd expect a wifi point to have a "sign" of some sort if I wasn't allowed to use it.
There are other countries besides yours.
And we're dearly hoping he'll move to one of them.
-The Citizens of the USA
P.S. Please don't feed the trolls.
don't the police in UK have better things to do than arrest wi-fi piggy-backers? Of course, it must all be part of the "war on terror"!
OK folks, before you all get worked up dont forget that this is the UK with no first amendment and radio recievers require licensing.
With that said...If I wanted to set up a public access wifi spot how would I do it if people were barred from logging into anonymous access points?
The guy wasn't trespassing was he (no I didn't RTFA)?
So he was in public space, so your analogy would read something like.
>>> You're in a public park and you see a play area that someone has put up, you wouldn't just go in and use it would you?
Now just cause some dumbass but there play park in a public space instead of in their yard shouldn't mean I get prosecuted for using it. Now if the play park has a sign up saying no entry and/or a lock then yeah OK throw me out _and_ move the play park!
You would see a sequence like this:
Access Point: There is a network with the name $SSID on Access Point $MAC_ADDRESS. (repeated about 10 times a second)
Piggybacker: My MAC address is $MAC_ADDRESS. May I join the network?
Access Point: Request acknowledged, you may join.
Piggybacker: May I have an IP address on this network?
DHCP Server: Yes, you may use $IP_ADDRESS. Use $GATEWAY for external traffic, and $DNS_SERVERS for name resolution.
Ie, on your average open access point, two requests to use the network would be made by the piggybacker, and two confirmations of permission would be given. Clearly, permission is explicitly granted to use such an AP.
I think the problem with your analogy is that the hose isn't in public space. The wifi is being broadcast into public space - the owner doesn't have to provide this service in the public space around his house.
Several requests to use the network are made by the client which must be either acknowledged or denied before the client is attached to a network. The access point explicitly grants permission to use the network. There is no reasonable objection to this point.
Now, that may not be what the owner intended, but that is not relevant.
The client sends an association request, and access points respond with an acknowledgement if they are public. You have as much right to connect to them as you do the http server on slashdot.org.
They "victim" is choosing to broadcast radio waves. Loudly. Past the boundaries of his property, taking no precautions. Not encrypted, no filtering for ip address or mac address. It is in no way different than having him playing his radio too loud, and then complaining that his neighbors are listening. Except clueless cops charge someone for listening to his unencrypted unlocked radio when he doesn't want them to. The victim is a lazy incompetent jackass.
The law might be to deter criminals from using another connection without being tracable. I'm talking sexual predators or something. I sure as hell wouldn't want the police knocking on my door accusing me of doing something I didn't do. On the other hand, it might be a good alibi for the media downloads...
It (generally) depends on your state's definition of what constitutes a "secured premises." If you enter unallowed a place that meets the definition, you've already committed trespassing, and no one needs to have seen you or said boo. Generally speaking, an area will be considered "secured" if it has a fence, or a lock, or signs saying no trespass. Basically, if it looks like you obviously aren't supposed to be there.
Having said all that, I think you are probably incorrect on your assessment here. I suspect that a jury would come down on the side of it being obvious that you aren't supposed to stroll into the houses of others. Maybe if the door was open and you heard talking inside, you could claim you thought it might be an open party or something. But it'd be a dumb idea anyway because even if you won the criminal case, you'd probably lose the civil one that followed it. The "they have to tell you to leave" line I think is a little over used. It might apply to someone's unfenced lawn, but certainly not their actual house, and probably also not their electronic equipment.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
>>> you deprive them of a commodity that they have paid money for
So what if they just use it when you're out? You've not been deprived of anything.
The car analogy is bad (as I'm sure you realise) - it's closer to the car being a shopmobility-scooter in the centre of town (as they are commonly available for public use, like Wifi, whilst private cars aren't), when I get on to use the scooter - rather than telling me to get off (eg via WEP for the wifi case) you hand me the scooter keys (give me an IP address and access to the net).
Even this isn't close to the situation as with the mobility scooter I deprive you of its use whilst with your wifi that is unlikely to be the case.
"Either way, it seems we need an awfull lot of locks in this world."
And we blame the lock companies for making us the way we are to boot.
It's not ethical to piggyback on someone else's wifi, but it being illegal (provided you haven't actually hacked in) is a whole different story.
In other news a man was convicted of stealing oxygen which could be clearly traced to a neighbors beautiful garden. The man had paved over his lot and was not producing any oxygen at all from his property. His neighbors all were producing a net surplus of oxygen and he was clearly producing none and consuming quite a bit himself. Oh yeah this is news from 2050. Nevermind.
I've recently surveyed a sample of wireless networks in my city. 74% of the 3000 or so networks in the sample used at least WEP. The general public can and does set up basic security in most cases. Sure, 1610 of those encrypted networks were basic WEP, but we're not talking about cracking into wireless networks, we're talking about legitimately connecting to them.
As a human making the ultimate decision whether to use the http server at slashdot.org, what human visible indication do you have that it is public before you connect to it.
Is it possible hack a router to eavesdrop on a WIFI-freebie? Has it been done?
Every time I read a story like this, first in the US, now in the UK, I get the feeling the guy should have gotten a better lawyer. I know most judges are technically handicapped, so it's the case of the defense lawyer to explain the situation. IMHO it goes like this:
a) my laptop opens, opens its network 'eyes' and sees addresses. Compare this to a street you're driving through: you can see all the houses.
b) it sees the network 'linksys bladibla' and asks for permission to connect, this can be compared to knocking at someone's door.
c) the wireless router's dhcp server responds by giving me an ip number to use for the connection, including ways to connect to the outside world, dns servers and everything. This is like opening the door, saying hello, enter my house, there is the TV, make yourself at home, have a cookie.
Now, if any person in my house would commit a crime, break a glass, not flush the toilet or something, I would have the option of showing him out the door, calling the police etc. But the next time anyone knocks at the door, it's my responsibility to keep the door shut and not inviting him in.
Is there something seriously flawed in my comparison to DHCP and inviting someone in?
which is available from http://www.fon.com/ and is basically a little WiFi router which provides two SSIDs one is for your private use and is encrypted, one is for sharing and is not encrypted but you do have to authenticate with your FON ID to use it. If you have a FON hotspot which you share for free you can use anyone elses FON hotspot for free, or if you want to charge people who don't do the same you can collect a portion of the revenue they pay to FON (they pay 3 euros or dollars and you get about 1 euro or dollar per day after tax) If you are in the UK and think that sharing your bandwidth is in breach of your ISP terms and conditions then you should check out http://www.fondoo.net/ which explicitly permits FON hotspots in the T&Cs.
An open access point is a literal invitation. The protocol is exceedingly polite and quite explicitly offers, grants and renews both permission to use and the means of use--and it is a trivial matter to shut the electronic butler off and erect the equivalent of a fence complete with No-Tresspassing/Private-Property signs and keyed entry.
Barring that, it is effectively like leaving your house unlocked with a gigantic visible-from-space "Open House" sign...and then pissing and moaning when you find random strangers traipsing across your lawn.
So if you do not secure it, why should one need further invitation?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
His computer sent out a DHCP *REQUEST*. His computer said: "Can I have an IP address on this network? Can I have the information I need to get online from this access point?"
Exactly. His computer asked for and received access, at a technical level. Unfortunately his computer is not legally a person and neither is the router that granted access. Legally your router can no more give your permission than you car can give its permission to be driven.
... you'd have a point. But then laws are usually written to cover cases where common sense fails.
An open access point is a literal invitation.
But only at a technical level not a legal one. Why is this distinction so hard for people to grasp? An inanimate piece of equipment cannot grant your legal authority to someone, even if it can automatically grant connection to another piece of equipment. Because you are a human being with rights, responsibilities and legal standing. Your router is not.
"My WAP is open. It is intentionally so. My neighbours or anyone just generally passing by are free to share it. And people frequently do, according to my router's logs. It's not that I'm constantly needing those 6 MBit myself, so why would I mind anyone else using them".
Wow, what subversive pinko commie ideology is that? Sharing things free of charge with your neighbours, or - still worse - with total strangers? That's the kind of behaviour that troublemaker Jesus Christ was executed for advocating! No wonder the law comes down hard on it. Next thing you'll be suggesting we should start sharing source code with complete strangers, for Pete's sake.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
If my argument holds in the case of the rubix cube, then, by analogy, it refutes your assertion of the unproductive nature of analogies in the general case (you only need the imagination to come up with a good analogy). If we're using more brittle logic, it's a counter-example (so that the original assertion is false).
You argued that if I don't know how to control the behavior of the technology I bought, then I'm still at fault for the results. So if someone's client connects to my AP because they don't know how to modify its default behavior, why are they not at fault? I submit that this is a double standard. Not so. A presumption of freedom supports someone who is connecting to open wi-fi, before issues of knowledge come into play.Wikileaks, no DNS
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/07/22/ 020722opcurve.html
For all his success at bringing Microsoft's warring constituencies together, there are still things beyond Bill and Steve's control. "I was in a hotel in Sun Valley last week that was not wired," Ballmer recalls. "So I turned on my PC, and XP tells me there is a wireless network available. So I connect to something called Mountaineer.
"Well, I don't know what that is. But I VPN into Microsoft. It worked! I don't know whose broadband I used," he chuckles. "I didn't see it in Bill's room. I called him up and said, 'Hey, come over to my room.' So soon everyone is there and connecting to the Internet through my room."
With a easy to use access provisioning system, these people would be:
1) Able to prevent the strange guy sitting in his car from getting into the network
2) Able to make money if the guy sitting in the car decides to buy access.
Theft gets converted into business.
The strange guy moves on
The government (if it wishes) can track down someone who completed a business transaction (buying access with intent)
Everyone is happy (except the strange guy who wants to pile on)
Services like Amazingports (http://www.amazingports.com) and FON (http://www.fon.com) provide such services targeted at different types of users. It's perhaps just a matter of time before people will cease talking about wifi hijacking... and start talking about highly customizable wifi sharing, trade and commerce.
A WEP protected router is clearly telling you to go away. If you crack it you clearly are contravening the wishes of the owner of the router and should be prosecuted for it (no matter how easy it is to crack the keys).
An unsecured router is clearly saying, by means of the communication protocol, that you are welcome to have a free lunch. It should be none of your concern how mush it costs to your nighbour, he clearly is giving you permission, so it is a non issue to you.
The onus should be in the owners of non secured routers. The protocol is widely known: unsecured means anybody can connect, secured means only people with the key can connect. If you obtain the key by deceit you should be braking the law.
Why is this simple, clear logic, failed to be understood on this website?
What is next? Suing people for connecting to an open ftp server?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
We are talking about your wirless router that you did not secure in accordance with well publicized standards.
The standard clearly states that if you don't encrypt your connection, well, guess what, every body can connect.
That people without a clue do not get the above is depressing enough, that people technologically savvy press the issue is frankly despiriting.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Open access points generally send out beacon signal periodically saying "I'm here", which I'd construe as an advertisement. My laptop has several times connected to my neighbours access points rather than my own without any intent on my part because my laptop looks for open APs and my neighbours are advertising themselves as such.
It took me a little while myself to see that this was happening. I'm not sure that most non-technical users would be able to determine which AP they're connected to. If the law says that this is illegal, then the law is unreasonable: the technology is designed to work this way, and client devices can and do connect to any open access point they find in the vacinity without descrimination unless the user intervenes and selects a particular one. Most users wouldn't know which one they should pick even if they were asked to choose.
In any multiuser system you can't blame one of the users for the problem detected.
The logs would probe if it was the router's owner who downloaded stuff or some other people.
With that evidence (time, location) police would need to try to find who did actually downloaded stuff.
Look, as long a it does not become illegal to have an open router, you can't blame the owner for any activity going through its hardware.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'd say it's pretty simple. If my bog-standard Windows box will automatically associate with your wireless access point without my intervention, it's an open AP and therefore fair game. If you change anything that prevents this from occuring, such as disabling the SSID broadcast or enabling any kind of encryption, you're clearly not inviting anyone in.
ok
Is it because you leave your door unlock that someone has the right to open it and walk into your house?
Same thing should apply to wireless communication.
you cant say "well the door was open so i went in and ate, not my fault they left their door opened" Sounds dumb but it's the same with wireless, people dont think it is but YA!!! it's not because people cant see you invading that it's legal.
If I find $100 on the ground and no obvious owner in the area, then guess what. Drinks are on me, meet me at the bar. Seriously, who even thinks this is a moral issue? Get off of your high horses people!
I could easily have someone arrested for using my wireless network... It's completely open because I want any of my customers to be able to use it without any annoying setup, but I have physical security in place... For me, it's very simple, My home/office is far enough from neighbors and public roads that the signal doesn't extend that far, so a person has to physicaly be on my property to use the signal. Because of that physical limitation, a client or guest is perfectly welcome on my property, but anyone who parks to use my wireless network that is not a guest or client has no invitation,and is therefore tresspassing.
Why should WiFi access points be different from any other resource on the Internet? Do I have a right to access Google's bandwidth or electricity? They didn't send me a singing telegram asking me to. Or what about peoples blogs? Do I have a right to read it if they didn't ask me to? The Internet has methods for controlling access to resources. If you circumvent security to gain access to resources that is a crime. WiFi routers have methods for controlling access to their resources. As per the rest of the Internet you should legally be allowed to access resource that are configured to allow access. Anything else breaks the Internet.
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
And geeks complain about managers and others not trusting them. Wonder why? Just look at all the BS attempts at self-justification (you all aren't fooling anyone else and society isn't going to change it's stance on the issue). Go ahead and make your excuses, the only one's getting hurt are yourselves when you don't get telecommuting privliges because you can't be trusted to do the right thing when others aren't looking. The boss will forever be looking over your shoulder because you just might walk off with a box of office supplies. And they most certainly aren't going to put you in any position of control over the corporate jewels, because once again you can't be trusted to do the right thing when everyone elses back is turned.
This is great for the likes of vodafone who charge outrageous amounts for 'mobile data' since its now illegal to just use the wifi on my phone to connect to a nearby house and get my emails. IF they send out the message that it is illegal to use open wifi I'm sure plenty of law obiding suckers will sign up with vodafone for a data plan.
If I use someone elses bandwidth, they don't have a download limit and their line wasn't saturated they havn't "lost" anything. so what are they complaining about? Its unlicensed spectrum. if my signal falls onto their router they can't complain about it.
Look in at a door or a window at the front of a shop and what will you see? An "open" sign which gives you permission or a "closed" sign which doesn't. Just because something has a flashy front and is on a high street, doesn't mean you have right to enter.
We explicitly tell our clients that if they aren't using encryption, their connection will be used by others. We also tell them that if they are a DSL Internet customer of ours, they are violating their ToS.
For businesses who want to share their connections, they, of course, do NOT want it encrypted. They are paying for this to be the case. There is no splash screen on many of these because the client does not want it to be annoying to their users.
What differentiates a "hot spot" and private use is quite obvious. Because it is so obvious (whether LEGAL or not), it is not fair to assume that people are going to no better. You would be amazed at how many people who have wifi enabled laptops expect (for free) to be able to pop open their laptop and start surfing - everywhere.
They have no idea they are "stealing" - they think it's theirs for the taking. Their Windows or Mac PC cooperates quite explicitly in this fantasy. Since their computer tried to connect automatically (open SSID, no encryption), maybe Apple and Microsoft should do the time.
Finally, since WEP is so easy to crack, I see it only as a matter of time until someone writes a super-easy cracking service that "negotiates" a key for novice users.
My personal belief is, since it is unlicensed, it should be "wild west" rules.
You need to protect yourself as strongly as you can. I always use randomized SSID and keys under WPA2. For clients, I broadcast the SSID because they often wouldn't know how to use it any other way. I also strongly recommend turning on IMAP/POP3 and SMTP encryption when using any wifi. It's so easy to do, it's really stupid not to do it.
Spiritual Leader of Green Bay Net
Many software clients are configured to connect to whatever publically accessable networks with no authentication when those networks are in range. My PDA does it all the time and it drives me nuts.. I don't know how to stop it.
:)
The majority of Internet hotspots use the same approach with no network wep keys..etc and offer either free access or have captive portals to redirect browser to their signup/access page.
To me it seems reasonable to assume that an open system with no security which also gladly hands out an IP address to you is intended for public access.
There is no serious consumer access point in the world that does not come with clear warnings and instruction regarding security and configuration.
Precedent in the real world for having to to employ reasonable measures to protect ones property and access seem to follow the same theme. In fact in some states in the US you can actually loose possession of your property to tresspassers if they continually trespass on your property when you clearly know it is happening but do nothing about it.
When I open my AP to play mario kart on the DS I assume and accept that one of my neighbors either accidently (My signal is stronger than theirs) or intentionally... Their network is not working and really need to check their email will use mine.
What I find hard to justify is when someone takes measures regardless of how weak such as MAC authentication, WEP keys, 802.1x, etc... to protect their network and then someone goes and runs airsnort to break the key and get access or snifs the network for valid MAC addresses..etc. If I were to do such a thing I would assume that I was being "evil" and on the wrong side of the law.
One thing I'll say is that if someone was parked outside my house with a notebook going for a few hours at a time it would creep me out. You never know when a TLA is watching - they ususally come in vans
Look, the wifi router is *your* property. If you don't take responsibility for securing it, who will? What kind of public policy makes criminals out of people who accidentally connect to the wrong router, especially when they're both named "linksys"? Hell, by default under XP, you CAN'T tell the difference between the various "linksys" devices out there, even if they use different channels.
Thus, I must conclude that it is the responsibility of the owner, and not the public at large, to care for their equipment. If they're negligent, it's their stuff and their problem. You can't simply pass the buck onto the world at large.
As can be seen here everyones view is different. Some think an open WIFI is the same as a open door, some say wireless signals are free, some think satellite waves with own-home-rolled-decoder-sets are perfectly fine too; all because everyones opinions and views are differently towards eachother (mostly influenced in the greater good/protection of yourself and the household).
... "alien anal probing is niiice!" (don't even think anymore, just say up loud! those thin foil hats don't work anymore! they are so sixties!)
Laws are written as a guide to keep society up and running in normal parameters.
Currently laws are being enforced and used to run society instead of keeping peace and order.
More laws are introduced to protect the assets of the industries getting -our- money to gain more money...
Law is being abused even more than there are newborns by those which names should not be mentioned; because it is (so succesfully) enforced to run society; with loopholes which would make miss Cleo jealous; it's a never ending circle. Then you got those people who want to "lock-in" society even more to get a more perfect model; which will never work because of the diversity of people; countries got multicultural years ago which cannot be stopped/closed anymore.
Moral of the story:
Everyones opinion is different; some like the color blue, some purple, some like the colour orange; it's all the little differences that make the world a great world to stay in, or a nightmare when others are starting to push their terms and limitations upon others in such way you could say
There has to be a balance; which is clearly missing currently all in the name of terror, loss of sales and protecting the children; maybe our current "leaders" are not sufficient enough to follow technology as it goes and need to get with the program before limiting such?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Two different occasions. One was my private home link, that was free for me to use as I pleased and so I shared a bit of it.
The other was not, belonged to a non-profit club that a friend of my works for who I helped setup their network so they could use their laptops around the building without having to drill holes in a listed building (protected for being a monument meaning you can't just drill holes for new wires.
But basically you are saying that if you try my door and find it unlocked then it is okay for you to come in. Go ahead, try this in texas. They can shoot you there.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.