Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wi-Fi Piggybacking Widespread

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the five-finger-discounts dept.

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.

10 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. I agree its wrong by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but how is it illegal?

    1. Re:I agree its wrong by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:I agree its wrong by diamondmagic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Wonder what the public key field is for?
    3. Re:I agree its wrong by goldsend · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:I agree its wrong by dwater · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > 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).

      --
      Max.
    5. Re:I agree its wrong by djradon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

  2. Re:Stealing? Or Sharing? by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
  3. I leave my connection open... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  4. Re:Stealing? Or Sharing? by jc42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  5. Re:Encryption by WallaceAndGromit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555