Slashdot Mirror
UK Police Cracking Down on Broadband Theft
dubculture writes "A 39 year-old man in West London was arrested for dishonestly obtaining free internet access" from an unsecured wireless router nearby. The article discusses a couple of other cases, including one where a fine of £500 (~US$1000) was handed out for, essentially, taking advantage of someone else's inability (read: apathy) towards securing their home network."
I have an unsecure network, and I really don't care if anyone uses it as long as nothing illegal is performed.
The bad part is that the person who had their internet access
borrowed probably did not get any help to secure their WIFI.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
if someone leaves their door open, does it give you a right to go into their house and drink their water?
If creativity is the field, copyright is the fence.
To paraphrase a quote: It's morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their Internets.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
If you were to sit in your house and read a book by the 1000 watt light on my house, would you be stealing? Now if I built an 8 foot tall fence and you hopped it, or broke it down, then yes you would be breaking the law. Otherwise it's not a crime if I do nothing to protect my light or wireless network.
If the person "stealing" the wireless access was actually breaking into it (eg, accessing a secured wireless router by cracking the password or hacking the router), than it might make sense for the law to get involved. However, in this case, using an unsecured wireless router amounts to picking up some money off the street and using it (not an exact analogy, but close). If you leave something where anyone can take it, without trespassing on your property (breaking in to your house, or computer), then there is no reason for someone to be arrested for taking or using it.
Everything is subjective.
Before anyone starts in with the "if the door is open, you can't go into someones house anyway" argument, I'm going to point out that most laptops these days auto connect to open connections, or at least do a popup that if the avg user isn't paying attention will connect them when they hit enter. Just like with property, than when rights aren't enforced long enough when people walk on it, it becomes public use land, the same is true of the wireless network. people leaving their networks with SSID broadcast no security is *not* the equivalent of an open, unlocked door on a residence, it's the equivalent of laying out all your stuff in the middle of the street with a sign that says "please take", or at least a path through their land that they never gated and never shooed anyone off of, it's for the public use at that point.
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
I've got mixed feelings about this issue. Part of me believes it the same as if it was an unlocked door to a house or car, just because it's unlocked doesn't mean you should be allowed to get away with "using" the resources inside.
How the hell are you supposed to know if you're allowed to connect to an available unsecured access point or not? Can starbucks arrest everyone in their shop using it if they decide on a whim that they didn't actually mean anyone to unlawfully 'break into' their unsecured wireless network?
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
...then why do hardware manufacturers design their products to automatically join unsecured networks by default? You could get cited simply for buying a laptop and turning it on. Some unsecured networks actually are intended to be used freely. How are you supposed to tell?
Seems to me that the law should clearly state the legal difference between an "open" and "closed" wifi network, presumably with password protection being the key difference.
in Germany, pretty much all access points are secured. In the UK, pretty much only those owned by IT people.
In Germany the owner is responsible for the traffic. In the UK, they're not. Perhaps the average British person is just dumber than the average German. Perhaps personal responsibility makes a difference.
Deleted
When you can get it legally at a great real-ale pub such as one of these http://www.individualpubs.co.uk/ ?
Then stop stealing my sunlight, ya daft bastard! ... what? Sunlight can't be stolen, but 2.4MHz EM signals can? It's all EM radiation.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Dishonestly obtaining free internet access is an offence under the Communications Act 2003 and a potential breach of the Computer Misuse Act
From the article, it wasn't quite like he just happened to luck into a network that wasn't secure. It sounds like he parked himself outside the house, and got caught. And there's a law against it in the UK.
Don't like it, oppose the law...or try to get it overturned. Until then, you have to live with it even though you might find it stupid.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
How do the people, who poach other people's wifi, get caught? My WAG is that the vast majority of them never get caught. The powers_that_be seem to make a big deal of catching a freeloader, but really ... Heck, most of those being poached probably never know it's happening.
Am I missing something here?
Bandwidth should be ubiquitous - as usual we are letting our fears drive our policies. I completely understand that the authorities want to be able to pinpoint who's using their connection to download child p0rn, send messages to known terrorist organizations, steal credit cards, or send spam. But the reality of it all is that the 'bad boys' already know how to protect themselves and how to obfuscate their identity. Add to this that 90% of all computers connected to the Internet are virus and trojan ridden (i.e. running Windows). So, this whole push to penalize people for using Internet connections wherever they are available is tantamount to the RIAA's effort to curb the proliferation of digital media, which thus far has proven to be an exercise in futility (since digital media inherently wants to be copied since it [most] always produces identical copies).
I see a huge opportunity here for some entity to encourage and drive the proliferation of [low cost] ubiquitous Internet access. Obviously in some way or fashion the wireless and mobile industries are working towards that goal, but it's far from being universally available. Again, the wrong paradim is being applied - we should encourage bandwidth to be used, not prevent others from accessing it. If I am able to share my bandwidth with my neighbors, and vice versa - we all win in the end and enjoy higher QoS. Also, the more we spread out the last 100 feet Internet access points the more efficient we are using our infrastructure as a whole. I know this sounds anarchistic to some extent, but right now we are moving into the exact opposite of the spectrum: bandwidth scaling, packet filtering, access restrictions wherever you turn. Is this how we imagined the Internet to turn into? If we let this trend continue, how is it going to wind up 10 or 20 years from now? Are we all going to be monitored/analyzed/profiled and at the same time 'herded' into tightly controlled pipes managed by large consolidated corporate monopolies? I hope WiMax will come to the rescue at some time - it's been promised for a long time and the roll out has been extremely slow.
Doesn't matter what the signals owner did or did not do.
The law says you cant do it, then you CANT do it. It's not like the wireless router is forcing you to use that network.
You should have enough sense to not connect to it.
The guy was (from TFA):
1) Sitting outside the owners house.
2) Admitted to using it without permission.
If you were in your own home, you might have a point. In that case, I don't see a real problem. But going out of your way to find someone's access point, seeking it out, etc. seems to me somewhat different.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Unless you arrest the real customer, the router vendor, the store the router came from, and the ISP as accessories, this is silly.
The real customer, for enticing someone to commit a crime.
The router vendor, for making that the default configuration.
The store for selling such a product without warning the customer in big red letters to change the configuration.
The ISP for allowing such a thing on the network.
Obviously I'm not seriously suggesting holding "everyone" or for that matter "anyone" responsible. I am suggesting that unless the person up up some kind of gate, such as even the simplest of non-default passwords, he effectively created a temporary public easement on his bandwidth.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Share your networks and secure your PCs that is my philosophy. I could care less if my neighbors use my connection, I would prefer it because then they will not be asking me to come over and fix theirs every day ;)
If you post a newspaper article on your door, and I walk by and read it, did I steal your newspaper? If you stand in your yard naked and I see you, am I a peeping tom? If your music is too loud and I listen to you play your CDs am I stealing music?
Leaching is not stealing, since nothing is LOST. If you don't want people leaching, then stop them from doing so.. involving the government just makes things mroe rediculious for everyone.
A $1000 fine for using a signal that someone else is irradiating you with is silly.
:-p
I guess the simplest answer is to dummy-proof wireless routers. Make it the law that all wireless routers are shipped with "security" turned on and an access key is needed to connect. If the dumb user doesn't like it all they have to do is plug-in an Ethernet cable (or USB cable) and go the the router's web page and click on "disable security".
If you are sophisticated enough to buy and setup a wireless router you are probably sophisticated enough to be able to use a web browser
You are giving away the ISPs services for free. All this freeloading removes money from the industry.... and who's going to whine when there's insufficient bandwidth for everything you want to do?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
'inability (read: apathy)' is editorializing. Which, fine, that happens on slashdot. But the idea that people have that 'if the damn users would just learn aboud WEP versus WPA, duh' is moronic. People USE computers, and may not know every detail or security concept, and they shouldn't have to. We 'techno elite' should provide the simple tools to work with confusing concepts. And we should default to good security. Which is not always possible, if you want your product to just work with the rest of yoru network.
But blaming the users and callign them apathetic? Get over yourself. Not everyone should have to or needs to know dirty security details or how to configure their router. If you MUST sustain your ego by blaming someone you can call an idiot, at least blame 'The Geek Squad' or whatever other support people set up the layman's network. Not the layman.
If you post a good one, someone from the other side of the argument posts a better one. Especially if there is a house involved.
How 'bout we just discuss the problem itself?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Rubbish law. When you log into a network, so long as you're not hacking it, you politely ask the router "may i use this network and have an IP address?". The router says "yes", on behalf of you, the owner. Therefore it is authorized.
Its NOT the same as leaving your front door open in your house, or your car unlocked.
It IS the same as leaving your front door open in your house, having a visitor stop at the door and ask "may I come in?" and you replying "yes". You can't then turn around and sue for trespassing.
-J
This metaphore is deeply flawed. It doesn't contain any cars.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Why should he "police" anything. The copyright holder has to prove you did something wrong. Policing it their job and there's nothing wrong with sharing internet access.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If I download the source code to the GNU Scientific Library and quietly use it as part of a statistics package which I sell as closed source (since I don't want scumbag competitors freeloading off my hard work), am I hurting anybody? Who am I hurting? What has been lost? So I guess this should be legal?
In this case, the owner was probably freaked by having someone sitting in a car parked outside his house.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The 1000W light is just waste and using it does not use up anybody's resources. However making a connection to their wifi uses more than just wasted resources.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
You may want to rethink your example given that this happened in the UK. There are public footpaths that (in some cases) have existed for hundreds of years, and that can and do pass across private land.
No, unless you can not read, in which case I would not be thrilled to use your software anyway...
It's 'leeching'. As in 'leeches'. Blood sucking primitive organisms.
From wikipedia.org:
Leech (computing), in computing, someone who uses others' information or effort but does not provide any in return.
Depends on how the BB is payed for. If User A (lets call them WankerThatDoesNotSecureWireless, or User A for short) pays £10 for a fast, but capped at 5GB connection. Beyond this User A pays £5 a gig. User A actually uses around 4GB a month, and so never cares he is capped.
Then User B comes along and leaches from User A. Should User B use over 1GB of data User A has lost £5.
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
What do hardware manufacturers have to do with it? It's a software implementation detail, and in Windows XP SP2 and Windows Vista you can't connect to an unsecured network by default. You have to acknowledge the fact that the network is unsecured and that you'd like to connect to it before it will do so. I have no idea if Linux or OS X behave the same, but I'd be very surprised if they didn't. The last thing you'd want to do is to connect to an unsecured, unknown network by default, as it's a huge security risk (you don't know what is happening on that network).
Suppose I set up my mom's laptop to connect to her home router. I'm in a hurry and don't have time to change the router, which is still in its wide-open setting with the default SSID. I'll fix it all up right tomorrow.
Mom visits her sister across town and opens her laptop to play solitaire. My mom doesn't realize it, but the background email-checker program picks up the neighbor's connection. The neighbor is using the same brand of router with the same SSID and also wide open. My computer thinks it's at home.
Mom gets arrested.
Yeah, it's contrived but it's worth considering.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Awifi connection does not use internet resource if nobody uses it. Thus, a better analogy would be an extension cord in the street. Is it wrong to take someone else's electricity if you just happen upon their extension cord?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I know with cable television, in many jurisdictions, if you let your neighbors hook up to your cable, both you and the neighbor could be charged with a crime. Just because it's okay with you that random people use "your" bandwidth, doesn't mean it's okay with your ISP. My analogy probably isn't perfect, but just because someone opens up their wireless router and doesn't mind if people drive by and use their access point doesn't mean it's legal. I'm not sure what the law says about this. There are laws about stealing computer services, but whose are you stealing? The ISP or the owner of the access point? I think it would hinge on that question. It would probably depend on whether you pay by the gigabyte, or have an unlimited rate. If you are eating at an all you can eat restaurant, you aren't allowed to share your food with a non-paying friend. Generally, however, you can share if you pay for a fixed size meal.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
If this poor sod used DHCP then one could argue that he asked and was granted permission to join: Request -> Offer -> Accept is valid contract.
It is different if he had to actively sniff the network in order to figure out how to join.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Since when is dishones illegal? Allmost all politicians would have a major problem if it were...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
A friend of mind transferred to town to do video editing for Hustler. They gave him a Mac laptop with Final Cut Pro and a place to stay (new condo for doing shoots). He never used a Mac before and wanted a little help to come up to speed. When I got there he said his internet was also not working sometimes. I poked around the computer a little bit and then asked him where the internet service was from, Cable? Bell? I laughed since I found out there was no internet in the house and he was unknowingly connecting to a neighbours router. He just assumed as he had access at work that he would have access at home and that the internet came with the computer.
:-)
Should he be liable or charged? He was definitely downloading and uploading porn
If you deliberately share your bandwidth allocation within the limits of your agreement with your ISP then it is not theft.
If, however, the ISP says you are not allowed to share it but you do then that is theft.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The house metaphor is bad. To get to the open door, one has to enter the persons property, which is trespassing. To get the unsecured wireless, you don't have to trespass.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
But that EM radiation is converted into a signal that travels along their wired internet connection. And if you use X bandwidth, that's X bandwidth that they can no longer use. It would be akin to your neighbour setting up a giant sun blocking shield (ala Mr. Burns) so that you could no longer use the sun that would regularly shine on you property. Just as a reference point, I agree that they shouldn't be charged. If someone leaves their connection wide open, there is no way to know that you aren't allowed to access it, and with the ubiquity of free wireless internet, it's a valid assumption that you should be allowed to connect. People should be allowed to leave their connection open, and anybody should be allowed to connect to these networks.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
One of the several differences would be that there's no such thing as "your" sunlight.
Not yet, anyway...
The pertinent questions in cases like this are: Was there a victim, i.e. was the alleged victim harmed by the alleged perpetrator? If yes, then the victim should be punished. If not, then what is the basis of the complaint? Was the alleged victim aware of what was happening as it was happening, and did they take any steps to stop it? If not, why not?
It ultimately doesn't matter whether or not the damn thing is secured or unsecured, only whether something bad happened, and whether it was malicious or not.
If you do leave your door open, and someone puts a foot in your doorway and asks "anybody home?" does that make it criminal trespass? If not, then no crime was committed even though someone entered your house. On the other hand, if your house is locked and bolted but there's a guy who stands outside, on the sidewalk, 24/7, staring intently at your door, that could be considered harassment, stalking, etc. A crime has taken place even though there was no entry into the house.
These matters should always be judged on their merits, not stupid technicalities like whether or not the router was setup with encryption.
These days you can Wardrive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardriving) with a Nintendo DS. You can even access the internet through that said Nintendo DS using the information gathered. Granted, it is quite limited on the scope of what it can do, but the point is it isn't as hard as one would think.
/ 05/1428250
The analogy of someone leaving the door open is quite correct in a way. However, the technology makes the door more like an unlocked door of a giant mansion with many entrances that are all unlocked. People, especially the common person, would probably never know that someone was using the internet.
Even with encryption, it has been proven it isn't hard to break anyway: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04
If you keep your house looking like a McDonald's then you shouldn't be surprised when someone drives through your yard and wants you to make some hamburgers.
So... because of the crazy way the RIAA et al do their lawsuits there is a big incentive to leave your wireless unsecured. This in turns causes confusion as to if it is legal or not to use it, which gets us this stupid situation. Siiigh. So many of these cases would be so much simpler if the judge would just say "don't be silly, case dismissed".
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
My mom came to visit and brought her laptop with her. We have a small home network with only wired ethernet (no wireless at all) and I have an extra cable ready for visitors who want to check their email. She has wireless at home. So she sits down in the room, opens up her laptop and checks her email. I notice that she's forgotten to plug in the ethernet cable, so I ask her how she connected to the net. She had no idea. It just all happened automatically, and she has no idea who or what she connected to, and as far as I know, we have no way of finding out. Evidently, some neighbor has their wireless completely open.
If these were fines dealing with a secured network, I could understand the fines being charged. Through an unsecured network though, not so sure.
The way I have always looked at it, is its up to the owner of the wireless network/home/car/etc, to make sure its secured, or deal with the consequences. Car isnt locked, it gets broken into, things messed around, taken, or the entire car stolen. House isnt secure, it gets broken into, things messed around, possibly stolen. Wireless network isnt secure, people will use it, using up ones bandwidth, downloading items that may violate ones ISP TOS policies, or other activities that could get traced back to the wireless owner instead of the person using the wireless connection that isnt supposed to.
So what do we do to stop this, security. Cars have locks, and some security systems that alert when someone has tried breaking into them. Houses, same thing. Wireless networking also has its form of locks(encryption, MAC address authentication, etc), and break in notification(logs), and are great tools.....IF they are used.
Im no legal expert, but with all the book stores, coffee shops, and other places offering free unsecured wireless access points, I could see someone getting off by using the defence 'I thought it was public'. If there isnt a wall, door, lock, or other obstruction in the way, the average person is going to think that its ok for them to walk through a given area. How can we expect anything different of the average wireless user? How else can we expect someone to know they shouldnt tread in a certin area without obstructions blocking their path, or signs stating such? How can we punish someone for going into such an area if they have not been made adequatly aware that they are trespassing?
For those not running a business that wishes to have a publicly accessable unsecured wireless network, go ahead. Just be careful of the problems that can occur from having it unsecure. People will use your bandwidth, people will use it to download things you dont want them to, and people will use it for activities that you may not want them to that may be illegal and/or immoral.
If you dont want the above to happen, or other things that I am not thinking of, then secure your networks. Someone getting into a secure network that was never given access is doing the electronic equivalent of breaking and entering at that point. Anything they do at that point outside of that, as far as I can tell, is also illegal and can and should be prosicuted due to their breaking encryption and entering the network without permission.
In short, locks arnt any good if not used, are only as good as the person(s) that designed them, and arnt 100% secure; IE where there is a lock there is someone that will be able to pick it. If your not using your locks, your to blame, if you are and it gets broken, its the person that broke it thats to blame.
Call me a troll, but all the people saying it is ok to use an unsecured wireless signal are full of crap. It's not. No matter how you slice it, what analogy you want to use, whatever.
The point is that you are using someone's bandwidth without permission. That someone is not only the person actually paying for it, but also the ISP providing it (who is also paying for bandwidth).
If someone did not give you permission to use their access point, you do not have permission to use their access point. What about that is so hard to understand?
There is not implied permission and there is not legal permission. There is not permission.
Can the person who leaves their access point unsecured be held responsible for other people's illegal activities? Yes. That has also been settled in a court of law. The person who leaves their access point unsecured and who does not take reasonable steps to secure it is guilty of aiding the illegal activity through negligence.
Is the person who does not secure their wireless network also liable for the extra bandwidth a leech uses? Yes.
The take home message is that people need to learn how to secure their wireless networks. If you don't secure it, you are partially responsible for any illegal activity over it and for any bandwidth that is lost because of it. But the people who leech bandwidth and/or do illegal things are also guilty and will also be held responsible.
That is just how it is and how the courts have decided it. And it is fair.
It's not like he had a drinking fountain that willingly shot drinks past his property line directly into the thirsty peoples' gaping maws. Nothing like that.
Actual transcript:
router: "HAI WELCOME 2 INTERNET"
dishonest guy: "KTHX"
I still use WEP on my home wifi network. It's set up and it works. MAC address whitelist ftw. . . .just gotta be sure there's end-to-end encryption whenever I log into anything. //Yeah, yeah, upgrading the security is on the list. . . .
I would imagine any apartment owner should be arrested if they don't turn on their heat in the winter and allow adjacent suites to vicariously heat their unit. Damn heat pirates!!!
we drop a bomb on the Brits? They believe in monarchs, they have bad teeth, and now this?
I think they need another good ol' Yankee ass-kicking.
Hope is the currency of fools
It isn't theft, but it is ethically analogous to trespassing in an unlocked house or on unfenced property; let me tell you why.
This wireless internet use has at least the following ethically significant properties:
- The resource owner paid and contracted for the resource
- The access is unauthorized by the resource owner and is not authorized by any other agreement
- The access is undesired by the resource owner
- The access violates the owner's expectation to exclusive use of the resource
- The resource is limited at any point in time - unauthorized access deprives the owner of concurrent use of some part of what he or she has paid or contracted for
- The resource is effectively self-replenishing - unauthorized access does not deprive the owner of full and exclusive access once the unauthorized access has terminated
Even in the best case in which the authorized user uses the resource only when the the resource owner is away from home and not using it, the situation is still ethically analogous to the following activity that most would agree is clearly unethical:
Entering a private unfenced property while the owner is away and sitting down in a vacant yard chair to enjoy the nice view afforded from the property.
The owner of the property may never know of the trespasser. The trespasser leaves few if any traces. The trespasser's use of the resource never deprives the owner's use of the resource.
And yet most people would certainly consider this use to be unethical, at least in a petty sense. Clearly it is within the rights of the property owner to have this activity stopped. And clearly it is within the rights of the rest of the property owners in the community to have the expectation that an individual who trespass on their property ought to be punished or corrected by the legal system in place.
Now, if the trespasser did not know that he was committing the act - not that he did not know it was wrong - such as if his computer connected without his knowledge, that would be a fair defense, but that is not the case here.
Knowing how DHCP and SSID broadcast work doesn't make you immune to the law of the land, and it shouldn't.
The scenario was hypothetical. My mom may or may not have an aunt. My mom may or may not play solitaire. My mom may or may not have a laptop. I may or may not have a mother. I may or may not exist.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"taking advantage of someone else's inability (read: apathy) towards securing their home network"
This is an awfully arrogant assumption, and hopefully sheds some light on why many Slashdot commentors apparently see nothing wrong with this practice.
How would you, you should ask, tell inability from apathy? What if the person running the router really does not know how to secure it? I know plenty of people who have no clue at all how to secure their wireless routers. Do you think that if they knew you were using it they would be alright with that? That doesn't seem very unlikely.
"Mrs. Smith, we found this man outside your house access your home wireless network." And you expect us to believe Mrs. Smith would be fine with this and tell the officers to let the creepy guy parked outside her home continue? Seriously. That's just bullshit and you know it.
It's no wonder we keep seeing more legislation cracking down on these sorts of activities. It's precisely because people don't accept them, and precisely because they don't know how to protect themselves against them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
'taking advantage of someone else's inability (read: apathy) towards securing their home network'
This is ridiculous. Simply because Joe Sixpack doesn't know how to secure his wireless does not mean he doesn't care about whether or not it is secure. Most 'techs' can't secure a wifi network properly. Further, even if we assume that caring would automatically mean the network would be secured (not a safe assumption) we certainly couldn't assume that Joe has any reason to believe his wifi isn't secure out of the box. After all, Joe bought the middle priced unit, not the cheap crap.
Even if Joe both cared and knew his network was insecure that doesn't mean Joe is technically literate enough to resolve the issue himself. Anyone who has conversed with Linksys tech support knows they can't help Joe. If Joe can't afford to pay a technician to secure the network (IMHO all setup of wireless networks, computer networks, internet connections, computers, printers, and software should be performed by competent technicians but that is another story) then Joe is basically stuck having an unsecure network or no network. Now, choosing to have an unsecure network over no network might be called a degree of apathy but only by a purist.
> That being said, the owner of the access point is entirely within their rights to both improperly
> secure it, and to attempt to pursue those who improperly use it. The analogy of the home with the
> door left open applies somewhat well here.
No. If I go into your house it is reasonable to assume that I know I'm doing something wrong. But if I light up my laptop and use the first available signal it really isn't the same thing. Perhaps if the access point vendors added a splash page option for every new association so the rules of access could be displayed, but at that point why not just make them stop broadcasting an ESSID by default. When a laptop or PDA can associate by default with no intervention it is really hard to say the user should divine the state of mind of the owner of the AP. An unsecured access point is indistinguisable from an OPEN access point.
I have used 'available' WiFi before and don't consider myself a thief. My Thinkpad+Cisco350 just refused to associate to my brother's D-Link AP, instead jumping on one of his neighbor's AP regardless how I tried telling it NOT to do that. So I finally said screw it, it's only a 2Mbps link but I can check my mail and read slashdot. By the same token I have told my neighbors I don't care if they connect to mine, that if I ever cared they wouldn't see it anymore. I do know HOW to secure an AP, I choose not to. (I loaded HyperWRT-Thibor14 on it. I can certainly click the button to supress broadcasting the ESSID or enable one of the real security options.) If we all lightened up a bit we could have WiFi signal darned near everywhere.
That said, if some idiot started leaching GBs of bandwidth running BT on my DSL line I'd block em. But my default is to share a resource I have in relative abundance. I don't keep a BT client going 24/7 so most of the time my circuit is idle.
Democrat delenda est
"Bandwidth should be ubiquitous - as usual we are letting our fears drive our policies. "
Translation: I want someone else to foot my bandwidth bill.
Dude it isn't about porn, or children, or any of that other stuff. It's about one person taking unfair advantage of another. You can't do that repeatedly in a society and have a viable society for long. RTFA if you can pull yourself away from your crusade long enough.
"I know this sounds anarchistic to some extent, but right now we are moving into the exact opposite of the spectrum: bandwidth scaling, packet filtering, access restrictions wherever you turn. Is this how we imagined the Internet to turn into?"
Dude. Cry me a river. The society sanctioned means have been in place for decades. Your failure (intentionally or otherwise) to use them is your fault. If what you're asking for is socially acceptable then it will be accepted. Otherwise it will have holes poked into it, and left to sink.
"I hope WiMax will come to the rescue at some time - it's been promised for a long time and the roll out has been extremely slow."
Uh huh. Do you know anything about WiMax or about geography, or even economics for that matter? There's no magic technological bullet that's going to obliterate your civic duties. Taking the lazy way out gives you lazy results.
It is generally not a crime to trespass unless you are asked to leave (either by a person or sign) or it is implied (e.g., by a fence). Or more accurately - you are trespassing if you have permission, but you won't get charged with trespassing until you are asked to leave. As always, trespassing laws vary by jurisdiction, and IANAL.
Brought to you by the numbers π, e, and 0x1B.
Secret Buildings...
No photographs please. We own the light.
Grr! Arg!
The water coming from the hose can't go back in, therefore taking the wasted water has no affect. The wifi connection however is a 2-way transmission and can be abused by parties connected to it. For example what if it was later found that the man had been purposely been using the connection for illegal activity. Is the owner of the wifi access point truly at fault?
"Sharing is good, OK?"
Moral lesson number one: Ask permission first!
"No money is removed by people who would never have bought the service anyway."
Physical fact number one: Electricity isn't free, and there's a relationship between that and bandwidth. The customer has also lost the use of some of his "unlimited" bandwidth for his own uses.
"If you want to lose customers and really remove money from the industry, just try telling them they HAVE to "secure" their wireless and fine them for not doing it."
As opposed to the alternative? Are you certain you're not a spammer, or a pedophile? Anyway RTFA.
"The vast majority of people would drop the service if they could not use it as they please or it became a pain in the ass."
Dude, read the F***ng article for once in your life. See if you can keep the actors straight.
I doubt very much that many people steal/borrow/accidentally connect/fornicate with someone's wireless connection from inside the owner's house. Put another way:
These people with these unsecured access points, their networks are intruding into my home. So is it trespassing? Vandalism? Illegal dumping? Public disturbance? Since we're making (bad) analogies. If someone put their things into my house without my leave to do so, unsecured or not, then would I be a thief to take those things? This isn't so clear cut in any case (IMHO), but especially considering an unsecured AP.
Uhm, shouldn't the guy using someone else's network connection first do something bad with (i.e. not just read his email or access Google maps to know where he is) *or* the owner of the connection call the police to stop the abuse? Is the police in the UK wandering around and randomly arresting people with laptops on the streets? What if the wireless connection is part of some community open WLAN project that the police does not know about?
Since the police can't tell from the outside what you're doing, this basically means that whenever you're using your laptop in your car, UK police may stop and question you, and may insist that you show them what you're doing on your computer.
Even if using open wireless access points should be a crime, that strikes me as completely unreasonable.
This is silly.
Everything you've said here just amounts to saying "the law is the law."
This might be your opinion, but it is neither an argument, nor terribly "insightful."
Drink It Up! Otherwise some kid or animal is gonna wade (or worse) in it , then it runs down the street and into the sewer, practically wasted. If it's running free in the street, feel free to pick it up and drink it. If you want the lead in your system. But seriously if you're going to set up a wireless router and leave it OPEN then it's OPEN and you're stupid. Even the instruction manuals that come with wireless routers will practically tell you that.
Your computer politely asked the router if you could talk to the network and have an IP address on it, and the router said "yes, use this one".
If the owner of the router doesn't want other people using it, he can VERY EASILY change it to answer "no". Its not our fault if people are too ignorant or stupid to do this.
This law punishes the wrong people! It punishes people who ask permission and have it granted to them, which is ridiculous!
If you want to pass a law that makes sense, pass a law that vendors of consumer wireless products such as wireless routers, must ship them with security enabled and force the password to be changed before it can be used.
If the local legislature enacts a statute imposing a fine for unauthorized access to an unsecured network, and you get caught doing it, you can be fined. It doesn't matter in the least what network access is "like".
Well, I don't know what kind of police state the UK may be, but in the US, that's not true. Many laws get struck down in the courts for many reasons. Many other laws end up being unenforceable for other reasons.
This law strikes me as unenforceable because police simply have no way of determining whether you are using an unsecured access point without searching your laptop, but merely seeing you sitting in your car is not sufficient cause for that.
The way I see it, and I know it isn't the law. If you get an IP address from the router then that is authorisation from the person that owns the connection. I'm not saying that it is right to connect to unsecure networks but as many people have said a lot of devices automatically connect to unsecured wireless networks. How can it be stealing if this persons wireless signals are virtually bombarding me and my OS by default wants to connect. Surely the OS vendor, the router manufacturer, and the person that set up the connection are to blame as well. I bet there would be a case if you got prosecuted for "stealing" broadband to sue all of the above.
and in Windows XP SP2 and Windows Vista you can't connect to an unsecured network by default.
Every Vista machine I have got connects only to unsecured networks by default; you have to go through several obscure dialog boxes even to mark a network as secure and requiring a password.
I have no idea if Linux or OS X behave the same, but I'd be very surprised if they didn't.
All of them can connect to unsecured networks by default simply by selecting the network from the list of available networks. OS X and Linux also connect to secured networks simply by asking you for the password, while Vista requires more work to connect to secured networks.
... the bottom line is that if you are deliberately using a broadband connection that you don't own, and don't have permission to use, you can be charged with "broadband theft".
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Doh! Yes, "Giga" is, in fact, not abbreviated with an "M".
I shall go flog myself forthwith.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
No such thing as "your" signal in an unlicensed band, either.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
"and my bandwidth isn't shaped (except for Cox's transparent port 80 proxy, but that's another issue)" ...Really?? You haven't tried to set up a mail server then, have you? Have to go through their proxy for that too - they also block a bunch of other ports by default. Try a port scan from outside and maybe you'll understand. We've got several companies set up through COX business - there are many ports blocked you have to work around.
Given the circumstances of the arrest and the description of the law, there is no way this is (or should be considered) an illegal act.
If the fellow was wealthy enough to this to a high court, or possibly the European court, they would win hands down and the law would be struck off the books. As an English person myself I can tell you that the UK has a strong propensity for these kinds of knee-jerk fascist laws that often stay on the books for years both because of the tendency of the average Brit to knuckle under to the cops and because rich people are rarely charged with such offences.
The law (as described in the article), says that "Dishonestly obtaining free internet access..." was the crime. Yet it's a long established legal principle that merely adding the word "dishonest" in front of something does not actually make it a crime. You can't just say that driving a car is alright but "dishonestly driving a car" is a crime. This is patent nonsense.
The crime should be correctly defined as "stealing broadband access," and stealing requires both knowledge of wrong-doing and an intent to deprive the victim at a bare minimum.
There is no deprivation here, and nothing has been lost. The man in question seemed to have no way of knowing that the owner of the broadband connection did not want people to access it. Some people have wireless and leave it open on purpose. I know at least four of my neighbors do this.
To top it all off, when the police saw him sitting on the wall and asked him what he was doing, he freely admitted it and apparently didn't see anything wrong with the practice. A good argument could be made that he was "Honestly obtaining free internet access" and not being dishonest at all.
Unless there are facts not in evidence in this story, like the broadband being secured with a password, there simply is no crime here at all. Unfortunately the way the justice system is both in the UK and in North America, this unjust, ridiculous law will hang around bothering people for ages before someone with enough political power or money decides they are tired of it.
"But that EM radiation is converted into a signal that travels along their wired internet connection. And if you use X bandwidth, that's X bandwidth that they can no longer use"
Certainly true, and I'll buy the (somewhat dodgy) argument that deprivation of (possibly unused) bandwidth could be theft.
However, it becomes a very hard argument if an unauthorized user connects to a securable but unsecured access point, then gets a DHCP response with a default route, and then the default router passes traffic. The host network computers act in every meaningful way as if the intruder is allowed, so why should the unauthorized user assume differently?
It's quite another thing if one breaks a security layer (even WEP) or manually sets their IP without getting a DHCP response, though.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
But how do you know it's carelessness, and not permission?
The computer says yes...
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
At work, have to AC.
It isn't theft, and it is not ethically analogous to trespassing in an unlocked house or on unfenced property; let me tell you why.
- The undesired user did not cross physically into the owners property
- The undesired user likely did not deprive the owner of use of his resource
- The owner made no steps to prevent the undesired user from using his resource
The third point is the strongest here -- in many, many areas of law, you are required to make a good faith effort to prevent an action from occurring in order to have legal recourse.
My gf just graduated law school, and we were discussing this the other day. As an example, in trademark law a company who wants exclusive use of a brand name (very similar analogy -- other companies are not depriving the original owner of anything, but kind of "diluting" their brand or hitching off it) is *required* to show that they enforced their patents.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
From the article:
>Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual use of the trademark. >These rights will diminish over time if a mark is not actively used. In the >case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark, or to >enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the >registration itself to removal from the register after a certain period of
>time.
The concept here is that if the owner puts no effort into preventing something, then the law should not either. Here, clearly a small amount of effort would have prevented this "crime."
I'm partially being a devil's advocate -- I familiarized myself with the case, and the guy parking his car was being somewhat obnoxious and excessive, and hence the court action, but there would have been much more common sense ways to handle this.
Hitching off my network connection (which you are welcome to do in reasonable doses, i.e. no DOS attack) is perfectly moral and legal if I take no steps to stop you.
You walk by an automatic door at 2am and it opens for you. The lights are off inside and the open sign isn't on. Do you go inside? The door seems to think you should. If you go inside, will the jury let you off the hook because the door was looking for infrared and you walked in it's path*?
You sit next to the window in your apartment. You open your laptop and there are 12 access points available to you and 2 are unsecured. One says "prince" and the other says "98102". You connect to "prince" and the server gives you an IP address. You proceed to go about your internet business. Assuming you get caught (and that is really the difficult part), will the jury let you off the hook because the wireless router for "prince" gave you an IP address?
You sit next to the window in your apartment. This time there is an unsecured access point named "freewifi". You connect and it gives you an IP. Will the jury let you off the hook this time?
Using someone's bandwidth (so that they can't) is a lot like parking where you partially block their driveway.
This isn't blockage - it's theft. You've exposed the owner to embarrassment and potential civil and criminal liability - depending on how you have used and abused his connection to the net.
I think that flame'n freeloading brit should have to pay back EVERY POUND that he stole from the owner of the wireless router!
... how much was that again?
um
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
So when I drive around town and use the map feature on my iPhone, I'm a criminal if the iPhone automatically chooses a wi-fi spot over the Edge network? Or..does the "Do you want to join the wireless network suffice as adequate warning that I'm about to break the law (potentially)?"
The justification for this is really one of the "think of the children" arguments. The argument goes that if you leave an unsecured wireless connection open, any person could download illegal porn using the IP address your ISP has assigned your
connection. Therefore by virtue of this argument, anyone who attempts to use somebody elses wireless connection is potentially
up to no good. Therefore, it must be made a crime to "dishonestly obtain free internet access".
The same argument also applies to downloading terrorism manuals and visiting fundamentalist websites.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
By default many (most?) Windows installations will look for any open access point if it cannot connect to the SSID specified in the network setup (secure AP or open AP.) If the person who owns the wireless router is assumed clueless, why should we not also presume that the person using the computer that accessed it is clueless? How do you you prove mens rea unless you apply a double standard?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I get a lot of calls at work from people who don't realize that you're supposed to have an access point. And wonder why suddenly their wireless wants an encryption key.
My favorite had to be the one that was trying to connect from the middle of a Wal-Mart.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
The water ain't running until you turn on the tap.
"then I take the liability myself"
Warning: US law ahead. UK readers can translate into UK-style justice.
Kinda. Your homeowners insurance will surely call you an idiot and refuse to cut you a check for any damage or stolen property. Odds are good "forgetting to lock the door" was in your contract somewhere. You can still probably try to sue the guy who broke in for damages but the outcome would depend a lot on the circumstance.
The police, however, will still arrest the person who broke in for trespass. The guy is a criminal regardless of you forgetting to lock the door.
Now lets make it interesting:
1) Guy connects to your unsecured access point named "joefamily". Guy just browses slashdot. Guy only does this once. Is he committing a crime? If so, what would be the sentence?
2) Guy connects to your connects access point named "freewifi". Guy just browses slashdot. Is he committing a crime?
3) Guy connects to your unsecured access point named "joefamily". You discover he has been using your access point for over a month. Could he reasonably be found guilty of criminal trespass? If so, what would be the sentence? Would this sentence be different than #1 or #2?
Add a twist:
- If your ISP explicitly disallowed resale and they knee-jerk terminated your service, could you take them to civil court and restore your service? Would your outcome be the same for all cases? Could you sue the person who connected for damage?
- The guy copies a word document on your computer that was confidential to your employer and was than leaked to the press. You are fired. Could you sue your employer? Could you sue the person who leaked the document for damage?
- The guy used your connection to download copyright music from a torrent. The RIAA hauls you into court. For each case, does the fact that the access point was insecure make you liable for his doing?
Double time:
- "You" are not a computer person who lives in an assisted living facility. You bought the access point from Target and plugged it into the wall. Assuming the guy using your access point is on trial for criminal charges does this fact change her case? Assuming you try to sue the guy for civil damages, will it make your lawyers harder or easier?
- "You" are a professional network engineer. You should know better than to leave your access point open. Assuming the guy using your access point is on trial for criminal charges, will it change how the prosecutor handles her case? Assuming you try to sue the guy for civil damages, will it make your lawyers case harder or easier?
I hope this makes it abundantly clear that the world of justice is not black and white like some here seem to treat it.
"Assuming the guy using your access point is on trial for criminal charges does this fact change the prosecuting attorney's case"...
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_200300
Now whether the law is sensible or is auditioning for A Midsummer Night's Dream here is another thing entirely. Clearly also the Met must have cleared up all other crime in London as well first...
Worst case the guy might get arrested for connecting to "UseThisWiFi" but no prosecutor on earth would try the case. Good luck taking him to civil court for damages either "Your honor, the guy connected to my access point named 'UseThisWiFi' and downloaded 1GB of warez".
... A more interesting case would be if the guy used 'UseThisWiFi' and over the course of a month saturated your bandwidth 50% of the time and downloaded 12TB of warez. Assuming you could find him, I bet you could haul him into civil court..
If he got hauled for connected to "smiths" they'd probably decide to push charges based on if it was a one-time thing or if he was on it every day for a month. You'd probably have a civil case if it was worth it.
I think the immediate question centers on how people (meaning society) interprets what the technology is supposed/expected/meaning to do. In particular what does a wireless router operating in "open access" mode, mean. Technically it means any computer can connect and route packets, much the same as a door is intended for anyone to be able to work through it. Some people may interpret this as an open invitation to use the resource, but most people will not and so the legal interpretation will likely follow to support how most people interpret it. In the long run I guess technology will have to include a specific flag to indicate whether the network is "open to the public use" or just "open to use for those who have prior permission". What this amounts to is that it is not legally necessary to have electronically enforced authorization in order to legally prevent someone from using your wireless router. And it would follow then that if people use a router for which they do not have explicit permission from the owner then they will be liable. Laptops/OSes will have to prompt users to remind them of the possibile consequences of connecting to an "open" network. The long term question is (as I posted on another thread) one of semantics. If I have a (human looking) robot that is programmed to greet people and invite them into my house, and someone comes to the door and the robot invites them in, and they enter, then are they tresspassing? If I forgot to turn off the greeting for general public, and have it only for family members, then is it my problem? If I couldn't figure out how to do this, is it my problem? Can I delegate my legal decision making to a machine?
You can't. IF it was automatic and there was no intent to break the law then you have comitted no crime - there has to be both the actual act and the intent for a crime to occur in English common law (with the expection of some offences of strict liability like speeding)
peacefinder: Yes Ma'am
Prosecutor: Are you aware that you were trespassing on Mr. Smith's access point?
peacefinder: Yes, but your honor, their router gave me an IP address, how was I to know?
Prosecutor: So you were aware that connecting to an access point regardless of it being secure is criminal tresspass, yes?
peacefinder: Yes, but your honor... blah blah blah
Prosecutor: I rest my case.
Now, make the access point name be "FreeInternet" and see what happens.
Not my problem the FCC is a bunch of idiots. You are still stealing my internet. Besides, even if it was a licensed band like cell phone bands or clearwire, you'd still be stealing my internet.
The people who came up with the crappy WiFi standards and implemented them have a lot to answer for. It's just too hard to secure stuff even reasonably.
Most people would probably want their WiFi APs private with a small proportion wanting them public/open However you end up with the opposite- most people not locking down their APs and only a small proprotion doing so, all because it's "too hard". That's quite a poor situation.
AND, just because it's public/open for everyone to use, doesn't mean it has to be unencrypted and insecure!
After all anonymous users can use https sites without having to get certs, enter passwords etc. And even nontech users can manage to use https, even if they may choose not to check the certs and ignore the warnings messages. Believe me with the current standards it's not easy to setup an https-like wifi experience.
IIRC the WiFi standard came after SSL (or the mess that's IPSEC, don't copy the implementation copy the idea). So what's their excuse?
The WiFi standards designers and implementors have really made things pretty bad for the users.
So he connected to the WAP and proceeded to access the net at 0bps, thereby not depriving the owner of any of their paid bandwidth? I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.
(as seen here)
"There is no deprivation here, and nothing has been lost."
I don't know about you, but everyone I know has to pay for X amount of internet usage. If this guy used his neighbour's internet, then he deprived him of y amount of that internet usage, thereby either costing his neighbour, or making him hit his pre-allocated cap earlier than he would have.
You have a tap in your front yard, mind if I use it to water my plants next door? You do? Well, same principle here.
Just because the person with the wireless internet was foolish enough/didn't know better than to not secure the network, doesn't give people a right to just use their access.
now womens rea is something else. For clarification wait for legally blonde 3
**Life is too short to be serious**
Whats it with the in your home argument. He was on a street a public right of way. He has every right to use anything on a public right of way. In fact he should probably sue the owner of the wireless router as to why his signal was leaking out to a public right of way - who knows what kinds of cancers are caused by leaking wireless signals. If the law is going to ignore the pollution of public land by the owner of the wifi router the least the wifi router owner can do is share the resource. in fact encrypting wifi connections should be illegal. You should encrypt your own computer but if your signal is crossing my airspace you are harming me with excess electromagnetic radiation and need to compensate me either monetarily or by sharing your wifi. Alternatively if you want to encrypt access to wifi you should be required to install shielding on your entire house to prevent the signal from leaking out and causing interference on public right of ways and other people's houses.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Imagine if you left your bike outside, unlocked, and someone took it while you were gone at work. BUT... after riding it around town, they brought it back undamaged before you came home, and you never even knew. Did you actually lose something? I'd say not. Of course you may not want strangers using your property. But if so, why don't you lock it up?
This concept doesn't quite work with what we have here. When you use someone elses Internet Connection, they are forced to sharing their bandwidth with you. I.e. you download a large file while they download a large file, their file downloads slower because the capacity of the connection is limited. Go back to the water analogy, and the only point that you could use that water is once it has left the persons property, making it non-recoverable by the owner (At least, not easily nor cheaply recoverable). Shared Bandwidth is not the same as Leftovers. Parallel vs Serial. ;)
Arresting someone for accessing wifi is like arresting someone for brething the second hand smoke from a smoker's cigarette. Sure the bystander is getting his nicotine high for free but is it his fault or the fault of the smoker for not secluding his smoke. Before you go off the deep end saying wifi is a beneficial resource I would like to say noone has made a real study of what all the excess EM radiation is doing to our bodies. A number of places nowadays I can pick up like 15 different wifi signals (this near the UT campus). If my computer is picking the signals up the em waves are passing through my brain. Who knows what damage they are doing. People who use wifi are using a public good - the airwaves - without paying the public or asking permission. Its not technically infeasible to install shielding so your wifi signal does not leak out of your building but people dont do it to save money. The govt should be fining people who install wifi without shielding their buildings just like it fines the smokers not the bystanders for smoking in public places and the street is definitely a public place. An alternative would be to make it illegal to have encrypted wifi. If you are using a public good - the airwaves - for free than you need to pay back the public by sharing the access point.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Classic /. response:
He has to auth with the router to be able to use the internet. This could cause cancer.
Help Me! I'm trapped in the tubes! Oh noes! Here comes a internet!
Good ones, even if a bit abstract.
Your weakest defense would be "did not physically cross into the owners property". As a prosecutor, I'd argue that the physical location of the suspect does not matter. Assuming there was little case-law for unsecured wireless access, I'd probably be able to connect the act of connecting to the access point using case law surrounding almost any of the analogies you see here on slashdot but I'd probably really go for case involving other types of computer crimes. Bottom line, I could probably demonstrate to a judge that the fact that you did not cross into my physical property is irrelevant. If I nail this bullet point, I'm 75% done with my case.
The undesired user likely did not deprive the owner of use of his resource This kind of argument doesn't matter as far as guilt - you either commited a crime or you didn't. It sure as hell matters for sentencing though. "Your honor, in the entire year my client has been connecting to this access point, he only used $15 worth of bandwidth". Unless the defendant did something besides browse slashdot, which probably would translate into other more severe charges besides just "trespass", any reasonable judge would have a hard time giving him anything more than a small fine.
The owner made no steps to prevent the undesired user from using his resource This only matters in a civil case where you are the owner of the access point and you are suing the guy who jacked your internet. In a civil case were the defendant could show the owner knew the risks he was taking, it might get the defendant off the hook. If the owner did *not* know the risks, the case would get more interesting and beyond what I could predict since I'm not a laywer.
Those damn developers, they always forget to install the Faraday cage don't they?
Whether it is ethical to use the bandwidth, or whether the law is productive for society or not, the real crime is ignorance - on the part of the accused.
We all know a myriad of ways to use willing wireless network appliances to signal our ideas and the ideas of others (or patterns of bits, or the motion of electromagnetic fields, or whatever realistic description of what you're actually doing by interacting with a wireless networking device - not consuming someone's water or walking into their house - both of which are unrelated and inappropriate scenarios to compare the act of communication with.)
We also know a myriad of ways to do this at a distance, without detection, and without drawing undue attention to ourselves. And that is fine, and well, and good, and righteous - for it is never a crime, or a sin, or an immoral act, to know how to do something.
The gentleman arrested for "theft" or "unlawful access" or whatever they'll settle this as is guilty of ignorance. It is unlikely he was aware that a statute on the books prohibited operating his computer in this manner - a manner which consumes nothing but electromotive force and the materials used to invoke that force. The imposition of arbitrary or calculated "quotas" on service consumption is an arrangement entered by the owner of the networking device, and probably ill considered when paired with the promiscuously behaving software that runs inside of it, allowing anyone who to manipulate the bits in the *standard, accepted, and published method of signaling in response to an advertisement of service availability known as the SSID and beacon*.
The second act of ignorance, other than ignorance of the statute (which is assumed in this case, but only partially used to justify this point,) is the ignorance of practice which would have placed him outside the attention of both law enforcement and the equipment owner. This would involve, but is not limited to, sitting out of the range of attention of the owner, sitting on his own property in range of the owner, using an arbitrary Media Access Control (MAC) address which would not uniquely identify his machine after a reboot, or using an antenna which would make it impractical to locate his computer in a neighborhood of many computers where triangulation of the signal would require more resources than are justified by the contrived "damages" of the so-called "crime."
I say that his crime is of ignorance, because had he been informed of the statute and the methods above he would have been able to continue communicating with other computers or individuals without being persecuted for his actions - which do not appear on their face to harm society or another individual.
The point in making this lengthy post is to stake a flag of reason in a sea of irrational thought. The analogy that communicating through a network is a form of "theft" is irrational and does not on its face make sense. If there is a resource constraint due to the implementation of the technology or the imposition of an artificial resource "quota," than the unfortunate act of leaving the access point in a promiscuous state is the liability of the owner, not of those who may use the access device to communicate patterns of grouped binary values with others.
It is further complicated by the belief that one can "trespass" on any device that is capable of automated signaling, doubly so if that device is capable of signaling wirelessly, and at a distance which might permit such signaling to take place from your own fixed property. Indeed, if I am able to, as I am now, lie in my own bed, in my rented apartment, and yet have the ability to cause to be signaled a pattern of binary values from my personal computer to a network device that I do not own and that does not exist on my own property, then I must assume - from a sound mind and rational position - that this is both harmless to society and to the individual who, through action or inaction, makes this service available to be signaled. That it is construe
Wait a sec. To connect, the wireless card must attempt to connect to the router, and then the router responds with an ip address.
So, isn't the laptop ASKING for permission from the router, and then the router giving permission to connect?
It seems to me that all the analogies are wrong and that this is simply a case of permission required and permission granted.
Money for nothing, pix for free
It is a little archaic to apply metaphors such as "house left open" e.t.c to this instance since the item in question is ubiquitous. Although not legally established, setting SSID's or securing one's wireless network should be deemed as establishing proof of ownership. I'm persuaded by the argument where two unsecured wireless networks occupy the same space, one is free [e.g cafe] and the other is a private unsecured network. Without any access control, a "reasonable person" (read non-tech-savvy or your grandmother) would not be aware of the alleged trespass offense if they connect to the latter. Ignorance is not an admissible defense, but any punitive measures should be mitigated by the fact that the 'culprit' was unaware of their culpability.
"Seems to me that the law should clearly state the legal difference between an "open" and "closed" wifi network, presumably with password protection being the key difference."
Maybe a mode could be added where the base station doesn't continually broadcast "Hey, there's an open connection here with the name LINKSYS". Oh wait, they already do, the user just has to enable it! Never mind, let's just make it so instead of being able to open one's laptop within the range of a WiFi access point, you instead have to look around and find where it's located, find the owner and ask permission, then be sure the one you're looking at is the same one you're trying to connect to. (just agreeing with you and ranting further)
I take it you don't live with water restrictions where you're from? Where you are meant to time your every shower so you don't waste water, where you aren't allowed to water your lawn at all, where the small amount you're allowed to water your plants is only on certain days of the week?
Tell me you wouldn't have any issue with some guy popping over, plugging his hose into your tap and using your water supply for a few days without asking?
No problem?
You espouse this utopian view of the world where you just let people come over and use everything of yours, and that's very noble... but not everyone has unlimited usage allowed on their internet. Not everyone can afford excess water usage... and it was just a damn analogy.
The point is, there is SOMETHING you wouldn't like if someone just popped over and took of yours... the fact that you may have some wonderful unlimited internet usage and so don't notice other people using it is besides the point... there are many of us who have to manage our usage to ensure we don't go over our limits lest we be throttle to worse than dial up speeds. If someone were nicking my internet allowance, I'd be miffed.
It's no mistake at all - it's completely about control. We cannot have people sharing access to the internet willy-nilly and inviting anarchy! We must create a cultural norm that it is wrong to partake of things that may be offered free unless we ask for them first even if they are sitting in front of a sign that says "take one."
We cannot risk having pedophiles sneaking into our homes through the internets and raping our babies in their cribs and terrists communicating secret demolition plans through unsecured and anonymous communications channels! We must send the clear message now that no one dare connect to the internet without being clearly accountable for their dangerous data packets!
Media articles are notorious for under-reporting the full context of a situation. Even with that knowledge, though, from the way the article reads, this guy parked himself outside a residential property and knowingly leeched off someone's badly secured home connection, probably in full knowledge that it was likely to be a private network that he wasn't supposed to be allowed to connect to, and costing someone money that they probably didn't wish to pay.
Say what you like about people running insecure networks. As soon as you get into an area where there are known to be lots of intentionally free networks, and it's easier to accidentally connect to the wrong one, it becomes more ambiguous. But just because someone leaves their stuff outside accidentally doesn't make it ethical to knowingly and consciously come and use it.
User A has lost £5.
This is exactly to the point. User A should have to show damages. If it's the ISP that's lodging the complaint, then they should require their users not to share bandwidth as part of the terms of service.
Unencrypted radio signals that enter public space should be presumed to be for public use. That being said, the correct answer when the policeman asks is *not*, "I am connected to this open access point." If they actually have to prove you were connected, they may not bother, or they might not be able. It does not pay to be honest to a cop.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
If my wallet slips out of my pocket with all my ID and has $10 in it, is it morally right for you to take the money if you find it? Now granted it is my fault for loosing my wallet in the first place but I highly doubt taking the cash is the right thing to do. You are essentially taking advantage of someone else's mistake. That's wrong. If you believe that wireless should be secure then go ahead, knock on their door and warn them of a problem. If they're stupid enough to say they don't mind you using their network then you've got yourself a free pass to it. Personally I think this one's tough to enforce thou and it should probably be just a fine unless something more serious happens. My thoughts on folks who argue it is their right to take advantage of others just want to keep their "free" Internet.
I am also British but I do not agree with your analysis. Firstly, because "Dishonestly obtaining free internet access is an offence under the Communications Act 2003 and a potential breach of the Computer Misuse Act." The offence is specifically stated in the law as it is currently written, although not using that particular phrase. The use of the word 'dishonest' does not make a law valid, but it is the correct usage to indicate that a crime is believed to have been committed when the charge is being written. After all and as you have pointed out, without the word dishonest then it appears that there has been no crime. Unfortunately, TFA has not used the specific wording from the act but has quoted what the individual has been charged with. The case could, I suppose, fail on this technicality but I suspect that the judge will accept it. Secondly, any unauthorised use of someone's computer equipment, which includes a network, is covered by the Computer Misuse Act. If the owner has not given specific permission as required by this Act, then an offence has been committed. Of course, we will not know until the court case is heard whether the owner had given such permission but the accused did admit to "using the owner's unsecured wireless internet connection without permission" so it looks quite likely that the Act was contravened. Thirdly, if the ISP account allows x Mbs to be downloaded and this individual was downloading y Mbs, then deprivation of that bandwidth did take place. Whether the owner would have noticed it is not relevant in law. Just because you are not driving your car at any particular time does not give me the authority to drive it. Furthermore, if the account was capped, then the legal user of the network has also been deprived of a specific amount of data that now cannot be downloaded during the relevant download period. Fourthly, you might leave your network open and free to all users but, unless you have advertised it as such, then no-one can use your network without your 'specific permission'. That is why airports have the signs announcing that a wifi is available. It is the legal authority for others to use it. Simply leaving it unsecured does not fulfil this requirement as far as I understand it. The law in the UK, rightly or wrongly, does not accept that an open network implicitly grants permission for anyone to use it. You might like it to be so but it is not currently what the law believes to be a correct interpretation of the appropriate Acts. The police have reasonable grounds for suspicion that the law has been contravened and have thus acted appropriately.
Despite my analysis, the judge may decide that there is insufficient evidence here to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt or there may be, as you have already acknowledged, further facts that have not been included in TFA. We will all have to wait to see whether the judge or CPS (although I do not think that they will be asked for a judgement in this case) thinks that the police acted correctly and whether the case leads anywhere. Regardless, the outcome could well clear up any misunderstandings that might currently exist as to what it, and what is not, permitted by law in UK with regard to unsecured networks.
Finally, I do not agree that this is an 'unjust' law - but IANAL. It addresses a specific problem, in fact a series of problems, and I personally support it. The title of TFA is, in the usual Slashdot fashion, a gross exaggeration of the truth - a single person has been charged, there is hardly a 'crackdown' on broadband theft.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
bandwidth, first make sure they want to share.
A message from our sponsor
Money for nothing, pix for free
Please mod this comment up, it far more informative and insightful than the grandparent.
Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
You should have enough sense to not connect to it.
Common sense tells me that unless you are doing this from the street, you won't get caught. Connect away.
Given that using someone else's wireless Internet access without permission is illegal in the UK, what is missing is a general protocol for obtaining permission. It is not as simple as knocking on a front door and asking, as there's no way of determining easily which front door to knock on, and no guarantee the owner or authorised agent is in. There's not enough space in an SSID field to impose terms and conditions on use, so an altruistic wireless Internet access owner cannot (currently) indicate how permission can be obtained: an SSID of "Free for reasonable use for legal purposes only, leave contact details at no. 19 Acacia Avenue" is a bit too big.
I completely agree.
Having to type a password on a clients computer when prompted, or tell clients the password when they are prompted is so annoying and difficult.
It is so hard to filter out stray people accessing your wireless against your will like this.</facetious>
What's wrong with a password or password? It at least shows token resistance. Or change your SSID to "DO NOT USE." You're probably just looking for plausable deniability.
I'm gonna need a spec.
:P
You have a tap in your front yard, mind if I use it to water my plants next door? You do? Well, same principle here.
Of course I don't mind. Help yourself, within reason. Watering your plants is fine. Hooking up a firehose isn't, unless you're on fire.
Why on earth would I mind someone asking to use my garden tap?
... wow what a bunch of badly educated illiterate yobs. You're the mob that herald the fall of nations, all clamouring for someone else's property. If there's an agreement between two people, the broadband provider and the broadband user, what on earth makes some of you arrogant thieves think that it has anything to do with you? The broadband provider is paying for the money it receives with the service it provides, the broadband user is paying for the service it receives with money. Why should a third party have any claim of the payment the broadband provider makes for the broadband users money?
So called "democratic" countries foster this idea of a nebulous society that we all have a claim from. This is trickery so that the rulers can claim a mandate to suppress anyone they like. This idea isn't challenged in state education and is the corner stone of the modern tax system. This is why you find it hard to comprehend of a transaction between to people you've never met has nothing to do with you.
Umm, did I understand correctly: the user who connected to the open network got arrested? What about the illegal AP provider who obviously are stealing customers from their ISP? At least my terms of delivery prohibit me from sharing my connection with strangers.
FON sell cheap routers called La Fonera with dual SSID. One is secure and for your own use, one is open and for the benefit of other people who share their bandwidth with a Fonera router. Guests who don't share their bandwidth can also connect for $3 per day. There are a few other permutations including a revenue sharing model, go read about it. Most ISPs in the UK don't let you share your bandwidth, however Fondoo.net do.
Jorge
when someones steals my CDs out of my car because I didn't lock my door or put a large padlock around my CDs.
Don't be surprised when you get punished for doing dishonest things, even if they are trivial. although I suspect the amount of the fine is a bit excessive. I'd rather it were small and the perpetrator could just be shamed into not doing it again.
I'm sorry, but the responsibility and blame falls on the person doing the stealing, not the victim.
Why not sue the router company for not securing the router out-of-the-box. Lets just spread the blame around.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Did he do anything wrong? I do not think so. If the router did not require password it probably means, that the owner wished to allow free access to it. That's all. When you leave your router without password it is a message for everyone, that your router is a public AP.
Quite frankly violent crime and yobbish behaviour seem to be rising at quite an alarming rate where I live and commute. The local off-license has been hit 3 times this year, there have been 2 local murders, I personally saw an assult in broad daylight last month and someone threw a punch at my bus driver this morning. This is in an area where 250000 pounds might just get you a 2 bed flat/house. On top of this we see news today of an 11 year old shot dead by some youth on a bike. Celebs constantly getting away with drug or dangerous driving offenses. So then someone was using someone uses broadband wifi without their permission - simple solution - just give the victim a weblink showing them how to secure their connection (overall cost £10 max), give the guy stealing bandwidth a talking to and then get on with some real police work - dumb solution - Arrest the evil doer and drag him through the courts (Overall cost - Thousands) Actually this reminds me of when I was living in South Africa, 1 day there were 2 stories on the same page of a national newspaper, in 1 story someone bizarrely got away with a 500 rand fine for killing someone, in the other someone got a 1000 rand fine for not having a TV license. The obvious joke then did the rounds - If you don't have a TV license and the inspector comes - just kill him, its cheaper.
I agree that unauthorized access to a wireless network is illegal and must be punished. Jet I consider that authorization happens on the router side, i.e: User: May I use your bandwith? Router: Sure thing! It is up to owner of the router to secure it properly, same as securing your land with a fence/sign in order to prevent people to walk on it. Car analogy is bad, a car is material and solid anf if someone steals it, it's not there anymore. Land analogy is better when speaking about bandwidth: if someone walks through your private ground you take no damage. If someone uses your bandwith while you have a flatrate (and nowaday most router owners have one) you take no damage. You may also like to thare your internet connection for one reason or another. Of course, it might be unconvenient if you experience internet slowdown due to someone else's torrents. Worse, one may do illegal things from within your network i.e child pornography, but if you don't want this to happen - just secure your network. If you can't do it yourself - there are enough your ISP provider's technicians to help you. If they refuse - you can sue them and make them responsible. Ignorance is not an argument. By leaving an open network you authorize just about everyone to use it. If a crime is commited using your open bandwith, it's your fault. Same as if you leave a gun laying in the open and someone will be killed by it - it's partly your fault too. If you wish to set an open network, you may setup squid properly to prevent crimes, because you have to deal with the fact that you are giving an authorization to use your bandwith to anyone, including thieves and pedofiles. And it will be (at very least partly) your fault if people steal or download child porn for you were the one who gave them instruments to do this. But there is also a way to avid this: just secure your network. Call tech support if you are unable to do it yourself. Even WEP with a simplest password is a better protection for if someone uses this poorly-potected network without permission then it is still a crime. An open network is public and you are responcible for it.
I doubt there's any really good analogy that can be made to squatting on someones open wireless router - typically, UK broadband is capped at a monthly download maximum, but it will depend on your supplier. Under *most* non-geek circumstances (i.e. home use is purely web browsing and email, no downloading of "linux ISOs" via bittorrent) the home user will get nowhere near their bandwidth cap, so IMHO this person may not have been depriving the owner of anything. Would be interesting if the owner of the router in question came forward and said "it's open because I like sharing" - although then the think-of-the-children-brigade may behead them when someone d/ls kiddie-porn via their router.
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
Reduce, reuse, cycle
A person who--
- (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
- (b)does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
is guilty of an offence.It is not an offence under this section to obtain a service mentioned in section 297(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (dishonestly obtaining a broadcasting or cable programme service provided from a place in the UK).
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable--
Here's the relevant section of the Computer Misuse Act 1990:
A person is guilty of an offence if--
The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at--
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
Well it's quite simple. You own the laptop and you know that the law forbid you from accessing unauthorized wifi. Now, if you laptop connect to a wifi that YOU KNOW you have no explicit authorization, you should be smart enough to turn it off instead of keep using it and blame it on the laptop or ignorance
"If the local legislature enacts a statute imposing a fine for unauthorized access to an unsecured network, and you get caught doing it, you can be fined."
It doesn't. The legislation in the UK was intended to outlaw those watching satellite TV with a black market decryption box. It was never framed for wi-fi. The police in the UK are pushing the law into new areas, and it hangs on the word "dishonestly". If you honestly thought it was a free open wi-fi then you're not guilty.
You don't want people looking in, then close the curtains, dipshit!
If you stand in your window with your willy hanging out, you can's sue people for looking at your doodle. You WILL be sued for showing your flapper in public. Even though you're in your home.
What you display from your house is displayed to the public. Decency laws have already decided the issue.
You quote the law but you did not perhaps read it:
(1)A person who--
(a)dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
(b)does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
In this instance, there was no intent to avoid payment of a charge, because there was no notification of a charge being applicable. It is obvious the person had no INTENT to avoid payment.
The first person convicted of this offence with relation to wireless internet access was Gregory Straszkiewicz in 2005. He was fined £500 and given a 12 month conditional discharge.
In fitting with Slashdot tradition, I'll give my own analogy. (Hopefully this fits a little better than some of the useless "house/front door" or "car/keys in ignition" ones.) :-
Imagine you have a water tap on the wall bounding your property (so people have physical access to without trespass or any illegality). You pay a bill for your water supply, which may or may not be metered. If a passer-by takes water from this tap, are they "stealing" it? They may or may not be costing you money. If you put a lock on this tap it'd be obvious it was private, but by not putting a lock on it -- it came like that when you bought it, but is constructed to accept a padlock -- are you implying that it's free to use
Stretching it beyond its fit, say that the water from your tap had a unique mineral content that allowed it to be easily traced back to you. Now say that someone created a poison using that water, or some other heinous crime (think of the children!), would you be in some way liable for this crime, provided that water in itself is harmless and supplying water is not illegal (though maybe against the terms of service of your water provider)?
£500 = ~US$1000
According to Yahoo Finance, the USD is currently worth just a hair more than half of the British pound.
Has the dollar grown so weak?
--- We are not in the 8th dimension. We are over New Jersey.
Here is the relevant piece of legislation:-
Communications Act 2003
Offences relating to networks and services
125 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services
(1) A person who
(a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
(b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the
provision of that service, is guilty of an offence.
(2) It is not an offence under this section to obtain a service mentioned in section
297(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (dishonestly
obtaining a broadcasting or cable programme service provided from a place in
the UK).
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six
months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
five years or to a fine, or to both.
126 Possession or supply of apparatus etc. for contravening s. 125
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with an intention falling within subsection
(3), he has in his possession or under his control anything that may be used
(a) for obtaining an electronic communications service; or
(b) in connection with obtaining such a service.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if
(a) he supplies or offers to supply anything which may be used as
mentioned in subsection (1); and
(b) he knows or believes that the intentions in relation to that thing of the
person to whom it is supplied or offered fall within subsection (3).
(3) A persons intentions fall within this subsection if he intends
Your machine sends out a request "Can I connect?". The router says "yes, you can connect and use these connect parameters" or "no, you may not connect" or even "you must tell me the secret password".
What seems to be confusing you is that the computers aren't talking in English, so the above conversation isn't a literal translation. But the handshaking is "can I access" and only after a positive response is access used.
So it's like coming up to your house when you're away with the door unlocked and a recording of your voice "please come in, help yourself to what's in the fridge". And if that's illegal then you're guilty of entrapment.
How about..
If you were preparing salmon, and your neighbour's house was on fire, and the smoke caused the salmon to become smoked salmon which is a bit tastier, so you put up a tubing system to enhance the path of the smoke to the salmon, but the salmon actually came from your own land, but fished with your neighbour's rod, and it's not friday and your neighbour is jewish, and you called the fire brigade anyway, are you guilty of stealing your neighbour's smoke?
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
If we are not held responsible for securing our own networks, we might as well leave them open, commit as many cyber crimes as possible and blame them on someone else. No one can prove otherwise.
Closer (but not really analogous) would be if having found your wallet, I turn up at your house, meet the person there (it's your brother)
"Mr SMith?"
"Yes"
"I've found your wallet"
"Cheers. Here, take $10"
"Ta"
You get the police to arrest me for stealing your money.
If I was the CPS I would certainly argue that both (a) and (b) apply in this case (this isn't the first time that an example like this has come up). It'd be an interesting argument in court though, if someone had enough money to fight it.
Why not have some security and unique password preconfigured in each device? They usually already have unique SID and a sticker telling it. Just add the password on the sticker and quick start guide to tell the user to type it in when asked for. Simple enough.
Previously it had been considered this was not illegal, since under the Computer Misuse act 1990 section 1.1, the misuse has to be "unauthorised"; which has been tested in court to mean that there was an authorisation system and that it was circumvented, for example using a username and password for which the perpetrator was not authorised. With unsecured WiFi, there is no authorisation system at all, it does not ask for a username or password, and so using it did not fall under the Computer Misuse Act.
Now the police have quoted the much more vague and untested Communications Act 2003 section 125.1 "dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service" for this new charge. "Dishonestly obtaining" hasn't been tested in court so far, and it will be alarming if it turns out that this is weaker than "unauthorised".
The problem is that many people run unsecured wireless internet hotspots deliberately for the benefit of the community (such as my free public hotspot), whilst others run them accidentally and unknowingly due to their own ignorance. My deliberate public hotspot does not ask for a username nor password, it is just open. It is impossible for a passing user to determine in advance whether an unsecured hotspot is deliberate or accidental.
My free public hotspot in the Cotswolds, Gloucestershire, UK: www.nam-vets.org/frampton
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
"Just because you don't understand how everything works with something, doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to use it"
No. But it means you should EXPECT to familiarise yourself with its workings.
Use power tools while standing in a half-filled bathtub and you are running a RISK that RTFMing will probably have clued you up on.
Didn't familiarise yourself with the microwave oven manual and got burnt? I have no sympathy.
Didn't RTFM about securing your wireless? In this case you have someone harmlessly leeching a bit of bandwidth. It could be equally easily someone sniffing the traffic of the owner, which could lead to actual harm/loss to the access point's owner. In either case, the *owner* is at fault for not learning how to use the equipment correctly.
Ignorance is no excuse.
Perhaps the AP manufacturers should make things 'easier to understand'. I'm not so certain myself. IT systems are a difficult and unforgiving discipline, and trying to wrap the actual workings of a system in fluff does a disservice to the (possibly elite) customer who wants to understand what's going on, and to the people that have to pick up the pieces when a muppet has failed to understand what they were doing or why they were doing it.
Personally, I'd like to see a definitive test case on this subject as it seems it is a grey area.
Hope you don't mind me leeching your mains electricity.
What about NTL/virgin media ? Does their inability to prevent *people* from using their network -known to be expensive- allow them to sue *people* for theft of service? One doesnt need to attack anything to get free fast enough broadband.
The open door metaphor may be a classic, but it appears that it just doesn't work for the internet. When I type 'www.johnswebsite.com' into my browser and press enter, can I now get sued by John because I accessed his server without permission from him? On the internet, not attempting to secure a resource is like saying it's public. Please keep it that way, or we're in for some more crazy lawsuits.
If there weren't such people that have no idea of making more secure their wireless networks, do you think I'd have a job now? No. And if there weren't such people that use your bandwidth without asking you, there wouldn't be a need for mac filtering or any other security measure. And again there wouldn't be a need for me.
QFT. The article states that "To do so potentially breaches the Computer Misuse Act and the Communications Act". I can't speak for the Communications Act, but the very first item of the Computer Misuse Act states that:
Emphasis mine. So unless he knew that his access to the wireless network was unauthorised, the Computer Misuse Act doesn't apply. From the detail in the article, we don't know if he knew or not.
The question of stealing broadband access is a different one. The Computer Misuse Act doesn't make any reference to resources used, i.e. broadband download limits. There may be a case to answer here under the terms of the Communications Act, I don't know.
Hope you don't mind me hacking into your computer. What? It's all just voltages down the ethernet wire.
One need merely google the phrase "our way of life", "war on terror",and "9/11". If your god is not money, get familiar with Gitmo or the newly built domestic K-camps.
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
If you watch TV through a shop window or someone's window I would expect them to be able to ask you to move on, but not fine you £500
Ignorantia juris non excusat.
However, I would love to see someone fighting in court with the argument that the Wireless provided IN FACT did give permission to log into the network, and to backup such claims with the DHCP logging information on their computer. The truth is that the default state of most commercial routers is to allow anyone to connect it that way. If the person buying the service does not acknwoledge with such behaviour she can always instruct their router to do otherwise. Or, if users do not like the default behaviour, they should press companies to provide the routers with a "closed" state router by default.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
From my home I can access two open AP's. Have been able to for years. What's great is that for whatever reason if my AP has a problem, Windows is AUTOMATICALLY set up to access the nearest open AP. That's the default behavior. So I could get arrested for not crippling the default behavior of my client OS.
NIIIIIIICCCEE!
"That's the answer these days isn't it? Any doubt? Let's make it illegal! Let's protect idiots from themselves. Let's circumvent evolution and allow them to breed."
I see you got an interesting. So let me ask you this. Have you ever made a mistake in your life? Should you be punished for them? Think carefully before answering. Remember no one's perfect and they do make mistakes. Calling others "idiots" because they're not perfect and implying they deserve some terrible fate is both arrogant and short-sighted.
Now as far as the stories concerned (for those that read it). Both the law and the "goldenrule" tell you that he should have asked permission from the owner of the AP. Not the AP itself. The fact that some of you justify your actions under the "I can't be bothered"* excuse speaks of lazyness and apathy. The very traits you accuse the AP owner of having. Maybe a little "evolution" for you "idiots" would be OK?
*And why didn't he ask the owner for permission in the first place instead of camping outside his house?
Everyone I know has no set cap, other than bandwidth. If I'm not saturating my connection (1.5 Mbps) then it doesn't hurt me at all for you to use up some of the difference. Sometimes I'll saturate it for a few days at a time, but most of the time there's plenty of room.
I have never talked to anyone around here who has a bytes per month limit or anything like that, just a bandwidth cap.
I really don't care if someone uses my bandwidth, but I lock down my WAP because I've gotten a C&D for torrent use before, and if someone sponging on the WAP starts grabbing Simpsons eps from Pirate Bay or something, I could get my 2nd C&D, which my ISP says will cause me to lose my connect, and I have no other options for broadband, which I need for work.
So what happens when you get someone who is techno illiterate with wifi and and someone else who is techno illiterate with a new laptop who logs into techno illiterate's A's insecure wifi and illiterate B gets charged over this crime. The nice license you get for a car assumes you know the road rules and ignorance isn't acceptable yet it is when it comes to the internet.
Ignorance is what causes spam bots and the spread of crazy viruses. If you can be charged over illegal use, possibly unknowingly then the spread of viruses etc uknowingly should be as well.
Most replies here are arguing from the point of view of the person "stealing" Internet access. I'm more concerned, though, about the affect this will eventually have on those who are intentionally sharing Internet access.
An implication made in the article is that if you leave your access point open you are responsible for anything sent over your Internet connection, even if it's sent by other people. This concerns me for a number of reasons. The most important of these is that this does not seem to be the case for any other sort of network connection: ISPs, libraries and commercial wireless access points are not held accountable for activity of their users, so why should someone providing Internet access in their home be held to a different standard?
Additionally, with this decision I'm unsure what one is supposed to do in order to "give permission" to use a public access point. Should I display a sign on my house saying "I give permission to use my wi-fi"? What happens if someone's laptop inadvertantly "roams" into the unsecured network of one of my neighbours?
The assumption by the police seems to be that everyone must be selfish with all of their property and never share with others. I shant add another ridiculous analogy to the pot, but I would like to live in a world where everyone shares alike: I offer you the use of my Internet connection in the hope that, if I'm ever near your home, you will let me use yours as well. It's a shame that the vast majority are too selfish to see the benefits that this would bring.
Intent in this case is difficult to prove. I carry a laptop everywhere as many people do, so this cannot support intent to steal access. I OFTEN connect to open networks as I travel all the time, I often pay to connct as well. If I find a free one, I just use it. This does not make me a TRUE criminal.
We are losing the distinction to regulations and crimes. Everything is becoming a crime.
The reality is that most computers automatically connect to a network, so it becomes difficult to not connect. The reality is very few people set out with true INTENT to steal access.
Intent must be proved in this case to convict. It should not be that difficult to show lack of intent. Any rartional judge should allow leeway in obvious lack of intent.
It's arguments like this that turn the law against the geek. You are not using an unmodualated carrier wave - a natural radio beacon - as a source of power. You are tapping into a privately owned communicatons network.
He used their internet while parked outside. Very different from searching for a cafe with (neighbors) wireless.
Otoh it's simply stupid for any cafe or restaurant to not offer free wireless. If I'm travelling, I site in cafes & restaurants, but leave if they don't have free wifi, and I often explain my reason to the server.
Just today I spent $35 on lunch but passed up like 6 places first. If just one traveller walks out of your buisness every three days, your losing 10 * (average purchase) per month, which is way way more than wifi cost. Never mide all those local who'll become regulars for the wifi. Or all the non-computer owners who'll start coming because they see a hoard of regulars. Or that laptop users will attract more afluent customers.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Maybe you're not on a water meter, like any new house in the UK is
I'm in the UK, surrounded by new houses. None of them have water meters.
What kind of third-world country uses water meters? It's *water*, ffs.
In some areas, a meter can be enforced, but this is in areas where they are decided to be "water scarce". A water company can apply for an area to be designated with this label.
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
We're not going to get anywhere with regards to figuring out where culpability lies until we abandon all these analogies that simply don't work. So far, I've seen it compared to an open door of someone's house, a bike sitting in front of a house, a toilet on someone's front lawn (that one was just plain weird), harvesting corn cross-pollinated from another field. You can't adapt any of these analogies to work with this. You have to treat this as something separate and come up with its own set of ethics and etiquette.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Correct. The standard that any court would use is the "reasonable person" one, ie, would a reasonable person conclude that the access was likely unauthorised, or could he reasonably have thought that it was a public network (which exist up and down the UK). If you're in a Starbucks, or whatever, and the SSID shows up as "STARBUCKS", as well as there being a "Wi-Fi Hotspot here" sign on the wall, any reasonable person would conclude that this was a public hotspot. Similarly, if (as seems to be the case here), the connection was made in a residential area, a reasonable person would not normally consider that available WiFi association == "Use my broadband".
The tricky bit comes in when you've got people who leave a Linksys in a pretty much vanilla state in what could be a public access area. Would a reasonable person conclude that access was prohibited? If there's reasonable doubt, then any jury should acquit. This is, after all, a criminal charge.
Any computer equipment, even so much as a bluetooth dongle, is covered under the CMA. If you didn't buy it, and you don't have permission to use it (or could reasonably think you do have permission to use it), then it's an offence to use it.
--Ng
This is (one reason) why I hope the next Wi-Fi/WiMAx/Why-Your-Mama specs include a bit more broadcast information. Information such as cost per minute use, public or private, a contact for tech support, a web address and passwords that expire would all make this technology more useful in the real world than just a random name floating in space.
wow, I forgot about metered lines and bandwidth caps... yet another reason not to live in a 3rd world country like the UK.
I'm all for limited resources being metered, even if the charge isn't that high. When you give someone the idea that something is unlimited, they don't feel the need to conserve. Until fresh, clean water/power/etc. just shows up at my door from the natural resource fairy, they should be charged for and metered.
I'm assuming that section 125 of the Communications Act is the relevant section... somebody else further up the page posted it.
Whether or not you are avoiding a charge seems to be the important point, and makes the difference between connecting to, say, an anonymous FTP server on the internet (where there is no charge), and the internet via a home wireless network (where there is a charge for the broadband connection being avoided).
Not arguing that the law doesn't allow for prosecution. I'm arguing that it's a pretty stupid law. :-) Unauthorized access should be illegal, yes. But it would make more sense for "unauthorized" to be defined such that the user is only in violation if they actually break a security layer.
If I am in a public place and my laptop is receiving a broadcast on unlicensed spectrum using a public protocol that includes SSID from an access point, and if the protocol tells my computer that the AP is unsecured, and if a connection attempt grants me an IP, a route, and net access, why is it unsafe to assume that it is in fact an intentionally shared AP? And if I don't want to assume that, how do I determine whom to ask for permission?
The AP owner has got to take some responsibility here.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
what's next? are they going to charge me for 'stealing' electricity when i'm able to read via my neighbors light? "stealing" his water as his sprinkler mists my yard? "stealing" music as i listen to his music from my house? "stealing" food as my neighbor hands me a burger from his grill?
"they" get away with it as long as there is no outrage over the stupidity of the claim.
"Not my problem the FCC is a bunch of idiots"
I wouldn't be so hard on them. If it weren't for unlicensed spectrum, you'd probably have no wireless network at all.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
The owner contracts with the city's water supply for X amount of water to be provided to their home. The owner leaves the outside hose on overnight and Y amount of water trickles down to the road where it eventually drains into a public drain. Your dog drinks from that trickle down to the public drain and you allow it do so, but only on public property.
The cops charge you with dishonestly obtaining the house owner's water.
The house owner in the wireless case should be charged with leaving their wifi router on 24/7 without securing the access by either turning off SSID broadcast or entering in a password. There should be more emphasis on getting these wifi routers secured seeing as these routers routinely trespass onto public property. Those who use unsecured access *from the street* should not be charged with 'dishonestly obtaining'.
With a spate of people being shot and stabbed to death recently in the uk, what do the police focus on?
Costless middle class crimes which they _can_ enforce.
Seems like the Uk will be type of place where you can stab someone to death, but god help you if the drop the knife.
You'll get done for littering.
"You are tapping into a privately owned communicatons network."
Well, sure. But when out shopping I use privately-owned drinking fountains and toilets, too, and benefit greatly from private lighting and HVAC systems. I even walk on sidewalks which are, by and large, on a public easment of private property. There are plenty of privately-owned services which are publically available, and you probably use them most every day. Just because something is privately-owned doesn't mean it can't be shared.
Of course, I respect "No Tresspassing" signs, and "Private Road" signs, and - unless incredibly desperate - I'd never even ask to use the toilet in a place which posts "No Public Restrooms".
So why is wireless different? I'd argue it's not. The access point owner can, in any of several ways, post metaphorical "No Tresspassing" signs or fences around their network; these things are even included in the AP software. (Whereas "welcome" signs are not.*) These signs and fences - if posted - will be automatically respected by all devices attempting to casually connect. If the AP owner does not erect any of these barriers, why should a passerby not assume the network is provided as a public courtesy?
I understand fully that this argument is a political problem for geeks, by the way. But that doesn't preclude the possibility that the geeks have got this one right. We shouldn't be too quick to roll over in an attempt to be inoffensive.
[*: Although it's arguable that a broadcast SSID is itself a welcome sign, as it acts in every respect like an invitation.]
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
"Most replies here are arguing from the point of view of the person "stealing" Internet access."
That would be the modded up replies.
"I'm more concerned, though, about the affect this will eventually have on those who are intentionally sharing Internet access."
I'm sure you are and here's a question for you? Why can't people simply ask permission first? That takes care of any questions of "can I or can't I?". I see no indication in the story that the one arrested did so.
"An implication made in the article is that if you leave your access point open you are responsible for anything sent over your Internet connection, even if it's sent by other people."
There is no such implication. And even if there was. Why shouldn't one be held responsible? If I loan my car to someone else, and they cause injury or damage, I'm held responsible.
"The most important of these is that this does not seem to be the case for any other sort of network connection"
Rendered irrelevent since there is no such implication in the story.
"The assumption by the police seems to be that everyone must be selfish with all of their property and never share with others."
A reasonable assumption and more so than your assumption that everyone should share what's theirs without permission or question. Or as the old saying goes "good fences make good neighbours". Now why didn't the arrested respect those again?
"It's a shame that the vast majority are too selfish to see the benefits that this would bring."
And it's a shame that people use the grade-school "sharing" argument. Once you become an adult you realize that blanket sharing is a fools endeavour and leads to a world of hurt. I hope you're not making your argument from a "selfish" position either?
I suspect that those using the "hardware gave me permission" argument haven't thought things through and the can of worms it opens.
We've already had the "effective" argument and now the present argument. All which will lead to this being defensable.
Just shows you what happens when one self-rationalizes what should never be rationalized in the first place.
Every time this sort of thing comes up, we all get up in arms and raise the same points over and over.
That the AP is open. That it can safely be assumed to be open on purpose.
That you, your friends, and everyone you know do this deliberately so random passerby can leech off your connection. (You altruist, you, always looking out for people wandering by your house / apartment who just happen to have a laptop.) And therefore any open AP must be run by someone with the same mindset.
That the laptop asked permission from the AP to connect, and the AP gave it, therefore everything was kosher.
Guys, it's tiresome.
I am a huge believer in the "no harm, no foul" viewpoint when it comes to law, also known as "no victim, no crime". I therefore think the law is stupid if it regards leeching a bit of network access as a crime, because 99% of the time it is not harming anyone or anything.
But give me a break. I'd like you to step back from the world we live in, where technology makes sense and we control every aspect of our networks.
Put yourselves in the shoes of the hapless technoweenies you deal with day to day. The users. The Aunt Mabels and Joe Nobodys of the world, to whom "a computer" automatically means "Windows", who routinely tell you "my email doesn't work" because they typed "doofus@aolcom" and forgot the period. The people who can use MS Office only because someone like you or I showed them how over and over, not because they were able to figure it out on their own. The people who complain that "my internet is down" because a single site couldn't be reached. The people who take their computer to Geek Squad to "fix the viruses" and blindly trust anything a first-tier helpdesk joker tells them, because they don't know any better.
In short, the majority of computer users. Leaving aside the hows and whys for the moment, and all the philosophical pontifications of how people should be ashamed to be so ignorant, let us just accept that the majority of people are not computer literate, even in this day and age. They're getting better, but most people still don't know jack about jack.
You know who I'm talking about.
My point here is that most people don't know how to secure their wireless networks. Many of them don't even know it can be done, or why it matters. All they know is they bought this "thing" at Circuit City, plugged it in, and now they have "wireless internet".
A few of them get as far as being able to change the ssid, but not many. Even those often don't bother changing any other settings, because they don't know they exist, or are scared of them, or it's a hassle, or they don't understand how to use keys in Windows, or whatever.
It's a foolish, utopian fantasy to assume that these people want (or don't care) random passerby to be able to connect to their network. If you brought it to their attention they'd probably be annoyed, but they're blissfully unaware.
Understand: I am not condoning a ham-fisted, idiotic law that punishes you for connecting somewhere for a little while and screwing around online. And I am not saying it's okay for people to be ignorant about network security, or making excuses for their inability to learn / care / be bothered.
But I am dealing with reality, and the reality is that just because an AP is left open by some ignoramus who doesn't know any better doesn't mean that's what they wanted. And their router handing out invitations and broadcasting its existence to the world doesn't mean that's what the network owner wanted. For us to pretend this isn't the case is naive.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Secondly, any unauthorised use of someone's computer equipment, which includes a network, is covered by the Computer Misuse Act. If the owner has not given specific permission as required by this Act, then an offence has been committed.
Damn! I'm never visiting theregister.co.uk or bbc.co.uk again without asking first. Do you have a phone number I can call to request access, or do I need legal permission to access their private computerized phone network before I dial their phone number?
The law is not unjust. You don't know why the man was using the network. Was he simply downloading his emails, or pron, or trying to sniff passwords and bank account details, or trying to set up a bot? The law is intended to make all of these things illegal without having to specify each and every one of them. If you want to use someone's network in the UK (wired or wireless, the law makes no difference) then you need the owner's permission. It might not be your law, but it is ours. You also don't know how the man reacted when approached by the police. Was he cooperative or did he try to hide his actions? Each will tell the police something about the man's activities and whether he knew he was breaking the law. So the police have charged him. They can now inspect his computer using forensics to find out more about what he was up to. In turn, the courts will decide whether he is simply misguided and should be acquitted or whether he had criminal intent and should be punished accordingly.
The reason that the law exists is, in part, that anyone who cannot secure their network is also unlikely to have secured each computer on that network. But there is no legal requirement for him to do either. It is his equipment. It would be relatively easy therefore to misuse his computer or to steal personal information. So the law states, quite simply, that without the owner's permission you cannot use his computers or network. There is no implicit approval in the eyes of the law. Simple - but effective./p>
If you don't like our law, well, hard luck. We will not tell you what to do. Please don't presume that you can say that our laws are unjust and should be changed. If the original poster that you referred to doesn't like the law, then there is a process that can be followed to try to get the law repealed. If he doesn't even try to do this then he simply has failed to persuade anyone of the validity of his argument. If he tries but subsequently fails then he has be unable to persuade the majority of the validity of his argument. That's how it works in a democracy. The majority of us like it that way even if a small number of individuals do not.
Just because people do not think the way you do does not make them arseholes (that's the English spelling, not the American). However, those that presume that they have the right to judge others who think differently have, themselves, fully earned the title in all respects. Have a nice day. :-)
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
So youre using your neighbors wifi and they call the cops. How do they even catch whose using it? I guess if you live out in the country and you have one neighbor, but for those of us who live in the cities it seems impossible unless you put some obvious identifiers on your system. "john smiths windows box"
---------
No matter how thin you slice it, its still baloney.
- (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
- (b)does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
There is no charge for using a free wireless access point.A person is guilty of an offence if--
He was only trying to access the public Internet, which he is implicitly authorized to use, and not any program or data held in an unauthorized computer.
As I see it, the most straightforward defense is that unsecured access points implicitly authorize their use by broadcasting an SSID and replying to DHCP requests, no access to private data or programs was performed, and without a separate agreement for use a public access point implies free usage, hence there is no charge to avoid. No violation of either statute.
The problem (for owners) is that by default every access point is unsecured, making it no different than a public access point open for free use. There must be some common law by now built around the idea that any web server on the Internet can be accessed without prior authorization simply because it's on a public network. Likewise, access points use the public radio spectrum, so asking if unauthenticated access is possible should be equivalent to an initial connection to a web server. If the web server returns documents without requiring authentication, it's public. Wireless access points go one step further and actively broadcast their existence on public airwaves, and then reply to a single initial request with implicit authorization to use the gateway, ip address, and dns servers they provide.
If anyone wants a new law, they should just extend the consumer protection laws to wireless devices and mandate that they ship in a secured state and inform the owner about how to use them properly. By secured, I mean anything as simple as requiring the user to set a particular SSID. Even if the default SSID was "private network" I'm pretty sure the courts would throw out any arguments by freeloaders who used it. Maybe the 802.11b standard should just be extended to include a "private" bit that is set by default. Anything along those lines would be sufficient to make the law much less ambiguous in light of common usage.
The point is not expectations. The point is legal culpability. Should the law protect those who can't be bothered to learn how the equipment works?
If you don't put up No Trespassing signs and monitor your land, you can actually lose it under US law under very specific circumstances. You must exercise vigilance to protect what is yours. Why do we need government nannies to protect wireless access?
Er, are you intentionally being stupid or are you just trying to raise a laugh? Accessing their website is not the same as accessing their network. And I thought that this forum was for geeks....
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
I live in the USA, leave just a privacy lock on the door to my house (defeatable by a credit card (or library card for that matter...) I Have an amp and subwoofer in plainview in my car parked in the driveway. I live in a neighborhood where the avg house price is 40K below the mean for the area.
I have never had anything stollen. I did have some kids smoke in my house when I first moved in about 8 years ago while I was gone once, but they didn't take anything of value. (they were caught by a neighbor too!)
Hell, I left my wifes car unattended overnight unlocked with cd's in the passenger seat.
Not everyone in USA is a criminal. Most people are not. Some are. Same as anywhere. The problem is that someplaces are not safe. New York City, LA, etc. are examples of HUGE cities. But crime happens in small towns & countries too. Theres just less because there is less people. Publick policies and education may make a differance, but it will allways be based on population.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
So, by the same logic, I could set up a web server, put it on the public Internet, set up a DNS entry for it and -- as long as I know in my secret heart of hearts that I don't intend for "unauthorized users" to access it -- they're in violation of the law if they connect to it? No need to secure my server in any way or even put up a warning on the index page?
That is the exact same interpretation of the Computer Misuse Act of 1990 that is being used to prosecute individuals using an unsecured wireless access point.
No, I have a different interpretation. For example, the individual used the network to access the internet - i.e. he is accessing data held on any computer (the webserver) and he knows that is what he is trying to do. He also knows that he does not have the owner's permission (he admitted it to the police). The data does not have to be held on the same computer or network to which he has obtained unauthorised access.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
Did they also charge him with electricity theft for sitting in the light coming through the home's window? After all, the home owner does have to pay for the electricity to power the lights, and others had better not be using the light coming through the window to see at night!
The officer would reply with something along the lines of "Tell it to the judge". The judge would reply with something along the lines of "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
Ah, yes. *reads TFA again*. As he admitted that he was not authorised to access the wireless network then he could be prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act.
If he had claimed that he did not know that the connection was unauthorised (an easy claim to make with regards to an unprotected network), then the Communications Act could be used to prosecute him if he used it to gain access to the internet.
Of course the judge may still decide that he was simply misguided and that there was no ulterior criminal motive for his actions. He could well be acquitted or simply given a warning and suspended sentence. The problem with Slashdot is there are many who seem to assume that charged == guilty and that the poor man will probably be sentenced to death for his crime. The police have done what we pay them to do - they have enforced UK law as it exists today. The courts can now decide how best to address this case and what punishment, if any, is appropriate. If all he was doing was checking his emails then I hope that he is allowed to go on his way with a clean record. If, however, he was attempting something more serious then I have no sympathy for him and he will get what he deserves.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
My idea never seems to get traction, but I still think its a good one and will repeat it once again:
If you INTEND to make your wifi open access, then you should signify this by including the key word "[PUBLIC]" or [PUB]" at the start (e.g. "[PUBLIC] Joe's Wifi" or "[PUB] Megaboob, Inc").
That makes the intent crystal clear (some other key words could also be included to provide flexibility).
I agree that any open wifi spot ought to be assumed to be public in the first place, but since the law seems to disagree, I believe my idea is the next best alternative. Software that searches for hotspots could be updated to look for these key words to indicate if the hotspots are intended to be public or not.
Long term, it would be nice if the wifi standard were updated so that a bit could be toggled which would indicate whether the hotspot is intended to be public or not. In the configuration menu it could be right next to the "Make SSID Visible" checkbox.
It's a problem with the media as a whole, I'd say. To be honest, I'd be shocked if he received anything more than a slap on the wrist for this. The Computer Misuse Act allows a prison term of up to six months plus a fine, but that would be intended for more serious cases than this.
The article even mentions that a similar case led to the police giving a caution. I'd hope that that's what happens here.
The software in OS X was assuming, by default, that an open access point is giving tacit permission to connect. This assumption may have been changed in subsequent versions of OS X, but that doesn't change what already happened.
Fast forward to last week. I bought a cheap Acer laptop from Staples and brought it home. While setting it up, I decided to keep the Windows Vista partition and configure it for my use. I was shocked to see that the network stack detected my neighbor's unsecured WiFi access point and connected to it preferentially; once I had completed most of the Windows setup and realized the situation, I immediately changed the settings in two fundamental ways:
I'm not sure how much of this behavior was due to defaults built into Vista and how much was due to Acer's own network management software, but still, this product was designed to connect to unsecured access points by default.
If the police are going to start enforcing "theft of service" laws, then either manufacturers are going to have to change the built-in assumptions of wireless networking devices, or people running these access points are going to have to start getting slapped with fines for running unsecured WiFi.
The Acer laptop wound up being returned for other reasons, one of them being my inability to get WiFi working under Linux. It's a pity -- the Atheros chip and custom antenna that Acer used actually had good range and speed.
Nobody accidentally sets up a webserver. It takes effort to open a webserver. People accidentally leave their wifi open all the time.
Plenty of people want to set up a home network, and they're not interested in the details. They buy it, go home, plug it in, and try to make it go. If it works, great, they're done. If not, they futz with it until it works. Is it open? Secure? Who knows, who cares, they just want it to work for them. You can call them stupid if you want, but that's the reality of the situation.
Nowadays wireless routers are coming default-secure more, but it seems clear that 90% of the open-access wireless in your neighborhood has more to do with people being clueless than being generous. And that right there is why you have to assume that people don't want to share their broadband, even if it looks to you, as a tech-savvy person, like they do.
Communications Act 2003:
A person who--
* (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
* (b)does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
is guilty of an offence.
Clause (b) makes this applicable only where there is a pay service that you are bypassing.
Computer Misuse Act 1990:
A person is guilty of an offence if--
* (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
* (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
* (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
The application of clauses (b) and (c) in the wifi scenario is very debatable. For clause (b), it can be argued that you were authorised, in that the technology itself contains authentication mechanisms that were configured to allow free access. If this argument is not accepted, then you can still fall back on clause (c), and say that given the open configuration, you had no reasonable way of knowing that the owner did not intend to grant free access.
But, see, again... this comes down to you being well off enough that you can afford to share such things with everyone... and good on you for that, it's great, if everyone of wealth did so, it'd be a better world.
:)
BUT... not everyone can afford such luxury, and not everyone knows how to secure a wireless setup.
Most everyone can see a fountain and see that they might need to build a wall if they really don't want anyone using it... but your average Joe doesn't see that their wireless is insecure, so they don't know that others can use it... so the act of using it is more like someone sneaking in every night and stealing some of your cookies. You know you had 20 cookies there last night, now there's only 15... you have no idea where the other 5 went, but dang it, you needed them you were having a party with 19 friends, and now 5 people aren't going to get cookies because someone snuck in and stole 5 of them... and you don't know how anyone could have gotten in, or really that anyone has, you just know that 5 cookies are missing.
Still, if I'm in your neck of the woods, I'll drop over
I am glad the law is so clear then. This person committed no offense. A base station set to public access authorizes any wireless card to connect to it. In fact, the base station actually advertises to wireless cards in the vicinity, "Look at me, I am open, my name is SSID, and you may connect and use me as a wireless base station." The police are way off base to have arrested this person.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
It's a good thing you're not a lawyer. Consider this scenario: a person is walking down the street, notices a nice looking house, and casually notices a couple having sex. At this point, the couple might have committed a crime of decency. If the pedestrian moves on, he has committed no crime. If he stands there and watches, he's committing a crime too.
This isn't about sex, and it isn't about people looking in. Would you feel comfortable if someone was staring into your home, watching do your family do mundane yet personal things like eating dinner? Would you suggest that everybody close their shades when they're doing these sorts of daily, mundane things just to avoid the remote possibility that someone will stare?
People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes. If someone drives by and casually looks into your home, they are not acting unreasonably and they break no law. If they stop and stare at a scene in your home that doesn't concern them, they are acting unreasonably and are violating your privacy. This reasonableness condition goes both ways, as your decency laws "counter example" shows. If someone drives by and looks into your home, and sees you dancing naked like a gay man, they break no law. You do. If they stop and watch, you both do.
What you're describing is not a problem where we need more lawsuits against people "stealing" broadband, it's a problem where we need more people who know to either secure their APs or at least buy them from someone who has the skillset to ask if they want it secured or not and take 3 minutes to explain the difference. We are in a position to decide whether we want open or closed WiFi to be the norm and it looks to me like we're going down the wrong path in a big hurry with lawsuits like this. Still, if I'm in your neck of the woods, I'll drop over
Money for nothing, pix for free
Er, are you intentionally being stupid or are you just trying to raise a laugh? Accessing their website is not the same as accessing their network. And I thought that this forum was for geeks....
First of all, how can you access a networked device without accessing the network it's on? Magic? If the owner of the web server has it in their building, you have to access their network in order to access their web server. If it's colocated, you have to access the network of the colo facility. Neither access is pre-authorized unless being attached to a public network is implicit authorization for the public to connect to it. It's quite similar to having a phone number or living at a street address; nothing prevents anyone from dialing a phone number or mailing a letter to anyone they please, within reason (No DoS attacks allowed, basically). Junk mail and polling are both legal. It's silly that computer networks are treated any differently. If a network is public (which includes operating a wireless router using the publicly available radio spectrum and broadcasting SSIDs outside of the premises), then talking to that network should be just as legal as calling someone or sending them a letter. Whether they respond back or not is entirely up to them. If they have a telephone answering machine, talking to it is not illegal. Why should talking back to a wireless router be illegal?
If you were mislead by the sarcasm, too bad for you.
Usually when you try to access the network behind the server via the server it is called cracking or, more usually nowadays, hacking. That is also illegal under the same Acts in UK law. The exchange of data to which you have authorised access, via http, smtp or any other protocol is not considered to be direct access to the network supplying that data. If it were otherwise then all web page or email access would be illegal. This is obviously not the case. This interpretation is nothing new - it seems to be the accepted way thing are on the internet. But if you try to obtain someone else's emails or data stored on a server but not usually available through a public web page (i.e. to get data to which are you are not authorised) you are also committing an offence, not only in the UK but throughout Europe and I suspect in many other countries too. In the TFA he was not simply accessing a server but asking the network to which the wifi device was connected to to get data from elsewhere i.e. he was using the system to do his bidding. That is illegal under UK law with the owner's permission. Whether it was the network to which the wifi device was immediately connected or the 'network' belonging to the ISP does not matter. Without permission such an act is illegal. You can debate the technicalities all you like - it remains against the law whether you accept it or not. The fact that RF energy is emitted in all directions is also totally irrelevant. The same could be said of energy from your mobile/cell phone. It doesn't give others the right to free telephone calls on your phone does it?
I have tried to answer your question in a serious manner although I still get the impression that you were actually trying to make a silly point with your previous post. If you are British and wish to change these laws then please try to do so. I think that you will fail because most people agree with them. If you are not British - then our law is none of your business as anything other than a point for discussion. You have made you views known but you're not going to change it, so lets discuss TFA under the law as it is and not under some ambiguous law that you have just made up.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
Your being a bit ridiculous here. On anything approaching modern equipment the extra user on the line is not going to cause any drop in bandwidth as we are assuming (like any modern router), that some kind of effective switching is going on.
I'm sorry but this is all wrong.
Your argument here amounts to a blending of the "the law is the law" argument (specious and irrelevant), and the "water in the tap" metaphor used extensively above.
I won't even bother with the "law is the law" argument for obvious reasons, but the tap metaphor I guess is drawing a lot of people in despite it's own paucity of reason. While the internet is a sort of "pipe" and bandwidth issues are real, on the level of broadband access to a house, (especially ASDL instead of cable, but both if properly installed and routed), there will not be a real drop in bandwidth corresponding to the use of the guy on the wall.
Test it for yourself, it's probably a good test of what it is you are paying for each month.
In my house for instance, I can be using my laptop wirelessly to play Second Life lets say (a bandwidth hog that downloads gigabytes of stuff to give you essentially a commodore 64 type of performance in the game). At the same time I can start a download of a movie on another computer connected to Ethernet and usually I might have my regular compute open browsing the web. My wife often will play Second Life as well at the same time as me, also wirelessly in the living room. Even though I don't run any metres to find out the actual usage, there is simply *never* a slow-down of any of our connections when doing this. It just doesn't work that way. If the system bandwidth is properly deployed and the router in your house has minimal switching capabilities all users should be getting essentially the same speeds.
The "water in a tap" analogy is just not applicable in the way that people think it is. It's not like I am using ten gallons a second and the guy outside is "stealing" four of those gallons thus giving me a slowdown. This is nonsense.
The only way it works like that is if you are on a cable modem and the internet supplier has so crappily or incorrectly configured the network as to have you and all your neighbors sharing bandwidth. You should immediately complain and/or get with a different ISP if you have slow-down issues like these. It's generally considered a fault, not a feature of high-speed internet for it to behave that way.
Huh? My connection to my ISP is not affected by another user off my router using my bandwidth? How do you figure? What on earth has switching to do with it? (And that's apropos of the fact that /wireless/ LAN is /not/ switched (at least in the traditional sense).)
* (1)
A person who--
o (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
o (b)does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
is guilty of an offence. I saw this also, (after I posted my original comment), but it's almost the same wording as that used in the article and has all of the same problems in logic.
The illegality is defined in part "a" by merely putting the word "dishonest" in front which is unsupportable without further (or more likely *previous*), definition of what exactly is meant by "dishonest." The same argument applies as in my original post. You can't just put "dishonest" in front, you have to actually state what the law actually is and what constitutes breaking it. It should really say, "dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service by.. (x, y, and z).
The definition (sortof) of what they mean by "dishonest" is contained in part "b" but instead of listing part "b" as descriptive of "a" they put the word "and" in between. So "a" is not even illegal without also "b" but it's still unclear what "a" actually means. Worse, it seems to imply that "b" is not illegal without also "a," and with "a" being undefined, you are kind of stuck again as to how to know what is actually illegal here. The wording also implies that "a" is a superset of "b" and not the reverse. So there are things in "a" that are not "b," that define what "dishonest" refers to, but those are not listed. We must live in fear of what they are it seems, or wait for the prosecutor to tell you at trial.
This has to be one of the worst written laws I have seen for a long time and I am surprised that anyone has ever been convicted by it. The fellow must have just knuckled under and paid his fine in true Brit fashion without seriously questioning it.
welcome to our website: http://www.a-ok-nike.com/ We supply all kinds of new styles brand name sports shoes,Here are brief introduction of our company: Jordan Shoes 1-23,Kids Jordan shoes,Women's Jordan shoes,Jordan Clear shoes. Air force one (AF1),Nike Dunks, Air max 95, Air max 97, Air max 2003, Air max 2004, Air max 2005, Air max plus TN Shoes, Shox TL/TL2/TL3 Shoes,Shox monster Shoes,Shox turbo Shoes,Shox VCIII Shoes,Shox R4/R5 Shoes,Shox NZ,Shox OZ,Nike Kobe,Nike Rift, Timberlands, prada, bape shoes etc.
What obvious reasons? The post that I was referring to stated that the law had not been broken. I pointed out that it had been broken for the reasons that I gave. I was not concerned with whether it is a good law or a bad one - it has been contravened therefore the police are correct in their actions and the courts will decide whether the 'crime', if it is proven, deserves punishment. I have no interest in analogies, be they water taps, cars, or whatever. As you so correctly point out, they are not terribly accurate in relating to how the law actually works so they are second best; the law is the best way of interpreting the law. If 'it' is all wrong would you care to explain why 'it' is wrong? Does 'it' refer to my comments, the law as it is written, or something else? Under UK law you do not have the right to give away your ISP's capabilities because it is usually contrary to you agreement with the ISP (i.e. your TOS). Whether it will affect your own ability to use the internet is irrelevant. If someone uses your network and therefore your ISP's network without the appropriate authority or permission then the law has been contravened. If you do not like the law then you can either a: attempt to change it if you are British, or b: butt out if you are not British, it's not your country and your opinions do not count when it comes to deciding how UK laws should be constructed.
I'm sorry but this is all wrong.Thank you for your opinion. Now that you have made me aware of it, what would you like me to do?
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And you are entitled to yours. It doesn't make you right though....
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
Wow, I should not post when knackered.