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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
'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.
The person whose base station this was either set it to public access or left it on public access. So no "borrowing" occurring. This was sharing pure and simple.
I leave my base station set to public access for precisely this purpose, to share my internet connection wirelessly over the public airwaves to the public nearby.
U.K. police and courts are being quite backwards in this situation (paralleling some U.S. courts and police) to mistake a wireless base station set to public access for anything but a wireless base station set for public access.
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?
Sharing is good, OK? No money is removed by people who would never have bought the service anyway. 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. There's not a lot between people who don't care and those who are copyright warrior about it. 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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Most wireless networks I've come accross (which is alot) are secured, currently from my bedroom in my house I can detect 8 secured wireless networks and 0 unsecured, if I travel through the city with my PDA which supports 802.11b/g it highly rare to come accross a unsecure network. 3 or 4 years ago you would have been right I still remember being able to walk from my house the two miles into the city centre listening to Radio 1 as my device hopped from one network to anouther. Today I can't do that there are only three unsecured networks (University, B&Q and the pub/bar wifi network) that I've found in my home city and all through require you to go through a VPN to gain web access.
Perhaps you should spend less time insulting British people and making snide comments, networks were unsecured because people didn't know what WEP and WAP were, they didn't realise people could access their network. Thanks to prosecutions like this and the news/papers reporting on it they know now to secure their networks even if they still don't know what WAP and WEP are.
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.
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
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.
"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
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.
Harsh? That is just how it is and how the courts have decided it. And it is fair.
BUT LIFE ISN'T.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
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.
"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.
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?
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
Money for nothing, pix for free
"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 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
Right now I can see 5 wireless networks, 2 secured with WPA, 3 with 104 bit WEP. In the evenings, I can often see up to 20 access points, all secure. Most of the non-technical users have APs labelled BTFusion-XXXX (WPA), BTHomeHub-XXXX (WEP) or SKYXXXXX (WPA), which come preconfigured with security on.
bandwidth, first make sure they want to share.
A message from our sponsor
Money for nothing, pix for free
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.
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.
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.
In this case; pretty much. The man was apparently http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6958429
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.
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.
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.