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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
The second story (the new one) concerned two people who were cautioned for using people's wi-fi broadband internet connections without permission.
"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?
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.
http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_artic le/article1668405.ece
£85 fine for using the bathroom at a filling station without buying gas.
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
You have set up a device that broadcasts its existence and nature in the clear, and that is automatically granting access to its resources to anyone who asks.
If someone sets up a stand with some brochures and a sign that says, "take one," am I stealing if I take one without first asking whoever put it up? Is it my fault if they just wanted something to put their brochures in, and didn't bother to look at what it said, and then ALSO decided to put it in a public place?
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.
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.
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.
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.