Wi-Fi Piggybacking Widespread

BaCa sent in this article about stealing network access that opens, "Sophos has revealed new research into the use of other people's Wi-Fi networks to piggyback onto the internet without payment. The research shows that 54 percent of computer users have admitted breaking the law, by using someone else's wireless internet access without permission." Of course, online polls being what they are, the results are hardly a plank for a full investigation, but a good share of the answerers did 'fess up to it as well.

Comments

I agree its wrong

[Lord Byron II]

but how is it illegal?

Re:I agree its wrong

[betterunixthanunix]

I don't agree that it is necessarily wrong, as long as it doesn't disrupt the service of the person who owns the Internet connection. What harm is done by me piggybacking on a neighbor's wifi connection at 2AM while they sleep, to check some email? As long as I don't mask crimes by it or interrupt the neighbor's ability to use their equipment, I fail to see what harm is done, and therefore, what is wrong with it.

Re:I agree its wrong

[somersault]

It's hardly even 'wrong' if someone sets up their network openly. In fact I'd say if there is blame anywhere these days it's on the part of the person making their network open - somehow Windows decided to piggyback onto one of my neighbour's newly setup and unsecured wifi network. My internet access was really slow so I decided to reconnect the router, went to my bookmark for checking the internet connection status, wondered why the admin password had been reset to 'password', then realised that I was actually not connected to my own router.. *sigh*

Re:I agree its wrong

[QuantumG]

Don't make me make a car analogy.

I actually agree with you.. mind you, I also believe squatting laws in the UK are awesome.

Re:I agree its wrong

[diamondmagic]

Does anyone who buys a wireless access point seriously believe that they are the only ones who will be able to access it? The only way to tell if an access point is open or not depends on if it is broadcasting and if it is encrypted (the name, maybe, but I can imagine that being disputed in court too). The problem with default settings needs to lie with the manufacturers, and not the people who are setting them up or looking for public access points on the go.

Re:I agree its wrong

[Lehk228]

broadcasting the SSID is offering access. the purpose of the SSID is to say "hey i'm here, connect to me"

Re:I agree its wrong

[goldsend]

The problem is the legality in most states is very murky. While one resident in Minneapolis won a civil lawsuit with the argument that the radio signal was in his house and unsecure so he could therefore use as he wish(this prompted an immediate rewrite of laws in Minnesota), another man in Florida was arrested because he was sitting in the passenger seat of a car in front of a residence with a laptop illuminating his face. The article clearly states that it is illegal but the whole question is really a gray area legally speaking. Stating it is illegal works for such broad statements, but saying law-makers declared it explicitly illegal and judges have built precedents for the arguments is pushing it. While content on the internet is fairgame and free to access, unless secured it is equal to putting the info on a billboard next to a freeway, this does not mean that an open access to the internet is neccesarily fair game also. Anybody who operates an access point with it being unsecured is acting foolishly, nobody disputes that. But what are the morals of taking bandwidth that is not charged in cents per mb, but in monthly rates? Can you really steal bandwidth late at night if the subscriber has gone to sleep and left his wifi on? He isn't using the service is he? He isn't being charged extra because you are useing the service. Does he pay an extra penny for every megabite you down load? Does he get charged extra for additional service in the same way that he would if someone stole electric from? The law on this subject is murky because these moral/ethical questions are not answered clearly for anybody.

Re:I agree its wrong

[JackHoffman]

The key difference is that the possibility of an openly accessible network is designed into the wireless network standard, and that option is in widespread use. The same standard also includes means to keep unwanted users out, an option which is also in widespread use (which means that laymen can do it, because at least 2/3 of all wireless networks are encrypted and there aren't that many computer professionals. Also, you'd be surprised how legal it is in many places to eavesdrop on unencrypted communication in public frequency bands. For your own good, buy a modern phone.

Re:I agree its wrong

[dwater]

> Anybody who operates an access point with it being unsecured is acting foolishly, nobody disputes that.

You're kidding right?

Many businesses (MacDonalds and Starbucks, for example) operate open and free access points, and I like to have mine open and free too so my neighbours can access it if they so like. Heck, in some places, the ISP is encouraging consumers to have open access points (British Telecom, IIRC)!

If I were charged in such a way that it costs me more, and that bothers me, then I'll stop people using it. It's exactly the same as if I were running a web server (especially if it were at home).

Many of these open and free access points are simply 'Linksys' or something. How is anyone to know the difference what the intention of the owner is, or even where the owner is, let alone what their billing is like?

IMO, this issue is all about 'the norm'. Is it reasonable to expect an open access point to be used by anyone? Where I am living, it most certainly is.

Perhaps there should be a law to have Wifi routers labelled with a warning that anyone can access it unless they secure it. Then it's clear who's at fault (which, IMO, is the owner's fault for being ignorant).

Re:I agree its wrong

[djradon]

Some people might choose to purposefully share their wi-fi. I'd do it if I could easily limit the bandwidth of unreckognized guests and guarantee theu were was isolated from my network. Wouldn't it be cool if everyone in the world could donate a little chunk of their internet pipe to the public? Isn't that what the OLPC is going to do?

Re:I agree its wrong

[Shakrai]

I'd do it if I could easily limit the bandwidth of unreckognized guests and guarantee theu were was isolated from my network

There are ways to isolate them and limit their bandwidth. Whether or not you'd call them "easy" is up to you.

Re:I agree its wrong

[hernyo]

I feel very strongly that if my neighbor sets up an open access point called "netgear" and broadcasting it into my house, they're telling me that they don't care if I use it. I agree, but if you leave your car in the parking lot with doors open, does it mean you're telling others that they can use it? Let's say gas is expensive, so not starting it, just sitting inside for an hour while it's raining damn hard?

Re:I agree its wrong

[tha_mink]

Is there a WRT firmware somewhere that has that stuff already set up? Yep. dd-wrt can do it with some of their QoS stuff. I use it for hotspot throttling. Also to do some porn filtering. (NSFW is NSF[public_hotspot] too.)

I don't see why this is a problem

[mcsqueak]

I fail to understand why this is illegal. I know that there is the argument that "you wouldn't go into their house if it the door was open and steal something!". Well no, I wouldn't. However, this being a technology issue (and a fairly recent one at that) I think it needs to be held to a different standard.

If you fail to secure your network that tells me you don't care if people access it, and I think you should be allowed to share your access if you feel like it. I'm no computer genius... I couldn't get Ubuntu to run on my laptop (I can't believe I just admitted that on Slashdot, please don't stone me), but I was able to secure down my network just fine without any problems at all.

Now, if you do something illegal WHILE accessing someones network, then yes you should be held accountable. But just accessing an open network to browse the news or check emails should be a non-issue. Don't we have drunk drivers and murderers and such to deal with instead?

Re:Stealing? Or Sharing?

[Joe Tie.]

Seriously. I leave mine open. If I see someone abusing the privilege I'll kick them off, but if someone wants to check google maps real quick then I'm happy to have been of help. There's been a large number of situations in my own past where an open network was of immense help, and I like the idea of being able to return the favor in some sense. I really hate the idea that the default way we're supposed to approach anyone is under the assumption that they're both too stupid to secure their connections, and too selfish to want anything but that.

I leave my connection open...

[Newer Guy]

I leave my connection open and my SSID reads "Use but dont abuse". At any given time, there are 10 MAC addresses in my DHCP log (I have 4 devices total). From what I can tell, NO ONE abuses the connection. One person (my elderly neighbor) uses it to email her kids and grandkids. What's wrong with that? I always have the bandwidth I need, and will continue to leave it open. By the way, only one other AP in this area is open. It's SSID is: Linksys.

One other closed AP has the SSID: "Free Ride Is Over".

I live in a community. Leaving my AP open benefits others within my community without adversely affecting me.

Re:I just read that news article with permission.

[Lumpy]

Here in Michigan they will throw you in PRISON for a FELONY for using a wifi connection without explicit permission. The corrupt police of Sparta Michigan even did so this past summer after he spent a week going through the law books in order to find something to slap on the dangerous man checking his email in front of the coffee shop.

In order to keep it quiet they simply made the man pay a $500.00 fine and 30 days community service but he still has a FELONY conviction on his record for checking his email.

These are the laws bought and paid for by your local telephone and Cable companies. They will be coming to all the other states soon so the rest of you can feel as safe as we do here in Michigan.

Re:Is this really breaking the law?

[fred fleenblat]

now imagine if a city has 5,000 unlocked cars (with keys in the ignition) that have a cost to their owners of about $1/day. And the cars don't just sit there passively, if one is within 500 feet of you it pops on your OWN LIST OF YOUR OWN CARS helpfully asking if you'd like to use it. And if you do use it, the actual owner of the car can still use it too plus he can kick you out any time if he wants. and in fairness you might have a car that you let everyone else use too.

this isn't theft, it's the first functioning commons.

Re:Stealing? Or Sharing?

[YU5333021]

I can see over 50 wireless networks from my Brooklyn apartment (very high density population here). Almost all of the networks are protected. My own router would crap out every once in a while, and my only point of access was this network called 'Salvation'. Salvation indeed! Whoever ran this, I assume, did it as public service. I took the idea and ran with it. My open network was called 'freebeer!!!', and I kept the router next to the window. I'd have about 5 people logged in at any given point. Never felt a performance hit on my end.

The netgear router eventually died, and my linksys replacement is also run unprotected, except it's named after my band's name. Only rarely do I see people logged on to the network. They know the music sucks without even listening to it!

That being said, as someone who willingly shares his network connection, I have no issues logging onto any available wi-fi point I can find: regardless if it's open intentionally or not. My only complaint is that most people choose to have their networks closed off. I guess to most users it is only an issue of security. Spirit of sharing? blah. Even though you are paying for something that you only ever use sporadically, sharing is a no-no. IPs must be very happy about how human nature interprets this particular topic.

Imagine is EVERYONE shared? ha! We'd have a full blown democracy! Or communism, if you are a pure capitalist.

Re:Stealing? Or Sharing?

[jc42]

I leave mine open. If I see someone abusing the privilege I'll kick them off, but if someone wants to check google maps real quick then I'm happy to have been of help. There's been a large number of situations in my own past where an open network was of immense help, and I like the idea of being able to return the favor in some sense.

Hey, who let a socially responsible person post to this discussion? Didn't we ban such people from slashdot? ;-)

As a few others have pointed out, the wifi spectrum was intentionally made open for everyone to use. The intent was a Public Good: a wireless network capability that was available to anyone (or at least anyone with standards-compliant equipment).

But it seems we have a lot of people here who are profoundly anti-open-communication, and think that people who caught communicating openly should be punished. This strikes me as a rather perverse misinterpretation of what the wifi spectrum was all about. In the US, it's also against the whole idea of the First Amendment.

We should be arguing: If you don't believe in using the wifi spectrum for free, open communication, then you shouldn't be using it. Pay for a license to use your own block of restricted spectrum. Go away and don't bother those of us who want a small chunk of spectrum to remain a Public Good.

We also need more people complaining that they want their AP open, and they object to official harassment of people using the wifi spectrum as it was designed to be used. Would that get the message across? Or would the officials just start harassing those of us running open APs?

Re:Encryption

[WallaceAndGromit]

Well, if you find you've connected to someone else's access point, and are worried that the cops may throw you in the poky as a hacker for using someone else's bandwidth, you could always do yourself a favor to make sure you don't violate the law again in the future... Log into the access point (http://192.168.1.1, likely login:admin, likely password:password), turn off Broadcast SSID, enable encryption, change the key to some obscure number by just hacking at the keyboard while your eyes are closed, save the settings, log off. Problem solved. You don't have to worry about being labeled a hacker because your system used their bandwidth without permission. Finally, if they reset the device, and still leave it open... wash, rinse, and repeat.

Re:Is this really breaking the law?

[Bartab]

When their WAP provides you an IP address, you have express permission.

WHY is is still illegal?

[mnemotronic]

If 54% of adults admitted that they regularly used marijuana, or cheated on their taxes, or ran stop signs, you can bet your rusty router rules that the laws (or the "leadership") would be changed - in a hurry. Maybe the laws wouldn't be revoked ("yea, running stop signs is bad..."), but at least relaxed ("...just a warning").