Slashdot Mirror
MD Bill Would Criminalize Theft of Wireless Access
Pickens writes "A bill presented by Delegate LeRoy E. Myers Jr. to the Maryland House of Delegates would criminalize purposely surfing the Internet on someone else's wireless connection. The bill would make intentional unauthorized access to another person's computer, network, database, or software a misdemeanor with a penalty up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000. The Maryland public defender's office has submitted written testimony opposing the specific ban and penalty suggested in Myers' bill. Noting that wireless connections are becoming common in neighborhoods, the written testimony says: 'A more effective way to prevent unauthorized access would be for owners to secure their wireless networks with assistance where necessary from Internet service providers or vendors.'"
You say "no," but your router says "yes."
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
...after all, who is to determine whether someone purposely accessed the wireless connection. I know I have been in neighbourhoods where there were many wireless connections, and while I thought I was connecting through my host's access point, it turned out to be someone else's.
So, who it going to determine whether the access was on purpose, or the more likely alternative, accidental?
Yeah, and I suppose that sitting in someone else's light, or perhaps walking on their lawn should be criminalized too?
Yes, we pay for the internet, but if you don't secure your network, and the pedestrian use doesn't impair your surfing experience... no harm, no foul. At least, thats what I think - but I'm still not running the world *sigh*
It's funny, because, the most pre-eminent security guy in the USA, Bruce Schneir, who wrote THE book on cryptography, actually leaves his home WAP open so that people can squat on it. He thinks that if we all had our own open WAPS, we could all sorta squat on each other's wans, be much more effective as a society overall. Really, what this law is is an attempt to criminalize a culture of sharing.
This is my sig.
The article presents all the necessary counter arguments to the proposed bill. What in the heck are we supposed to talk about now?
I know... Isn't Wil Wheaton awesome?
...in pre-XP windows, and pre-SP1 installations of XP.
Yey, my OS breaks the law for me!
Trackball users will be first against the wall.
The lesson here is that a sufficiently large corporation is indistinguishable from government. --ultranova
Given how silently Windows is able to connect to a wireless network, I don't see how this law would last. Computer novices with brand new laptops will just turn them on and start surfing the net without having a clue about what an ISP is, how the internet work, or even how they are connecting to the internet. They know there is this thing called the "internet" and that when they click on the big blue "e", they are accessing the internet. Where do you draw the line between the innocent bystander and the criminal?
The public defender is absolutely right. If you don't want other people surfing on your connection, it takes seriously five seconds to click a checkbox and enter a password on your router. If you leave your router open to all connections, that should legally mean that you desire to share your connection with others, since that is what will inevitably occur with such a setup. Leaving your router open like this is akin to bringing a box of donuts to work and leaving it open on the lunchroom tables.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
...and my wireless network is the only in the neighborhood.
That thing is locked down so tight that...well. Its locked down pretty tight. I don't need some weirdo jumping on my network to download kiddie pr0n or something of the sort. That alone should be enough reason for ppl to secure their networks.
That being said, when I set up my parent's network, I left it unsecured. Why? Well, two reasons. I didn't wan them calling about the password they managed to forget 100 times. Secondly they live out in the sticks, barely in range of the local DSL provider. To access the network youd literally have to be most of the way up their ridiculous 1/4 mile driveway.
Why'd I post all this? IM BORED NUB.
"Give someone a program, frustrate them for a day... Teach someone to program, frustrate them for a lifetime."
I was searching for the humor in this, and then I got to the part about three years imprisonment . I guess that's funny in a sort "your grandmother just died, but when she did her false teeth exploded into the air, what a hoot" sort of dark way.
I got a catholic block.
It's only a crime if they can prove you used the neighbor's wireless intentionally. My laptop loves to connect to random wireless connections instead of my own - hell, it tries to connect to wireless connections that aren't even there (such as the wireless at my workplace) instead of connecting to my home wireless first. How do you prove it wasn't intentional? How do they prove it was?
For every action there is a completely absurd lawsuit.
I don't think it's that funny. This is another example of an Orwellian society attempting to make everyone a criminal. I mean come on, THREE YEARS for doing something fairly innocent?
This is outrageous.
Not that I agree with the bill, but given that Sprint's WiMax is hitting Baltimore and DC, maybe Sprint has a vested interest in this bill being passed?
http://www.xohm.com/
Cheers!
Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
... we have someone who probably knows very little about technology attempting to pass laws about technology. Great idea, schmuck.
While they're at it, they should criminalize unauthorized looking at hotties, although accidental looking is fine. It is an important issue, because if too many people crowd around to look at the hottie it will not be able to move.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
Stealing someone's internet bandwidth (their porn came down slower than usual!) is now worth up to three years in the slammer? I always thought wardriving was a silly little crime like jaywalking, not something on the order of grand theft auto. Why is the punishment so steep in that bill?
I read the internet for the articles.
My SSID is broadcasted as "FreeInternet" It is firewalled from my real network and unless it gets in the way of my gaming, I have no problem with whoever using my broadband. I have a "click here" to accept that you are not going to do anything illegal (via DNS intercept), mac addresses are logged, and most known methods of p2p are blocked... but if you need to check your google groups and you are near my house, why the heck would I care if you do so? It took like 2 hours to set that up. So would it still be illegal to knowingly use my "FreeInternet" network?
I just keep a few files there for friends and family, and I certainly never explicitly authorized anyone else to use it, but nothing stopped Google from scanning and indexing it too. Be careful of which search results you click on; you never know if I'm the kind of guy who would send some curious websurfer to jail for looking at pictures of my cat without my direct permission.
Here in Toronto, Bell is already sending out wireless dsl routers with 128 bit WPA-PSK pre-configured, and the key printed on the base of the router. Hopefully, that'll soon be the norm everywhere.
Once everyone is using WPA, this is a non-issue. Even if an exploit is discovered that makes cracking WPA trivial, breaking encryption on someone else's network is clearly illegal, and it will be safe to assume that any unencrypted network is intended for public access.
I, for one, will not mourn the passing of a thousand light/water/keyhole/car-left-with-keys-in-ignition/radio/tv-through-window analogies.
Yet, warrantless searches of my laptop is still perfectly reasonable, right?
And it is also okay if a private company did something like this if government directed, too, right?
"Hang 'em that will stop 'em. Dam Hackers. String 'em up, tall tree and all that."
More ignorant clueless congressmen running for office with nothing better to do with their time (like fixing healthcare, balancing the executive office, rebuilding infrastructure, etc...). Let's all be sure to vote for this genius in the future.
Does the punishment fit the crime? Router manufacturers should force you to secure your connection before enabling it? I could see 3 yrs in prison (hopefully longer) if you were piggy backing surfing child pr0n.
~Vexed and loving it!
Hi,
Microsoft is fixing unsecured wireless access just like they did viruses and spam.
Thank you
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
The issues with this type of law are simple but apparently difficult for politicians. I think there should be laws about obtaining access to networks that have any sort of security measure in place. If you are running some type of wep wpa or other type of security then is should be illegal. It would be just as if I had a fence around my house with a lock on the gate and you jumped the fence.
However if you do not have any security because you are to naive to configure it or you just don't care I don't see where you have the right to complain. If you leave your house do you lock your door?? If not your just asking for someone to break in.
On another note I thing that wireless vendors should default the use of some type of security. This might make it slightly more difficult for the end user however would prevent the need for such laws.
I don't think there will ever be a clear cut answer to this issue though. Radio signals are imposable to control.
...because somebody used your wirelesss connection and got caught by the RIAA, or worse by the FBI for something like child pr0n and all the authorities have is YOUR router's IP address?
Say you manage to get off scot-free, proving you're an innocent (and stupid?) victim, but who's going to pay for your legal fees? Most people would probably want to go after whoever used their connection in the first place. I think you would need *some* sort of law that would permit you to sue the unauthorized user over damages.
Telecommunications companies are asking for this bill because by criminalizing squatting, ppl are more likely to pay $$$ for their own connection.
This benefits the very people who are demanding retroactive immunity for illegal domestic spying.
I mostly agree with you, but I expect the case will be made comparing accessing your neighbour's wide-open wireless network to be as bad as walking into your neighbour's house if he left the door unlocked, or using a found cell phone to make long-distance calls.
I guess there is some kind of theft going on, so there should be some kind of penalty - a fine, nothing more - but three years imprisonment? Here in Canada we can't even lock up drug dealers convicted of multiple offences for that long. Give me a break.
In a perfect world router manufacturers would set the security to "on" at the factory, but that would require consumers to understand a bit more about network setup than just "plug in, and pr0n".
How many people leave their network names unchanged from the defaults? I don't think you can go into most neighborhoods and not find a "linksys" or "belkin54g" or something to that effect, especially one that's open.
You know what Ayn Rand said about the government eventually having to make criminals, right?
At least the public defender's office mentioned understands something of the nature of the thing. Unsecured WiFI APs are the "VCR flashing 12:00" for the 21st century, and the other half of the equation is how any WiFi interface will by default connect to the first AP it can do so with regardless of who ows it. Also how are they planning on differentiating between businesses and individuals that purposefully leave their APs open for customers or neighbors to use at will, are they planning to make them criminals as well? Stupid.
From a politician who doesn't have a clue.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
That's the final straw. I'm pressing charges. You know the name of my connection, linksys, so YOURE the one that's been on _MY_ internets! Who else could it possibly be?
if someone is dumb enough to not have their wireless protected, then they deserve to have their connection leeched.
better idea would be to legislate so that router manufacturers are required to enable wireless encryption by default. Then make it a criminal offense to crack someone else's encrypted network without their permission.
The last I heard the FCC has exclusive authority to regulate the wireless spectrum and wireless devices. I've not heard where congress gave anyone else a slice of that authority other than the military.
They need to prevent, or at least slow down the concept of community wireless mesh. So if they can scare people out of connecting to convenient access point, mission accomplished. It's the reasoning behind the attacks on P2P. And aren't there some who want to criminalize leaving your wireless open for others to use and hold you liable for possibly "illegal activity? It is necessary to dumb down the internet into TV as quickly and completely as possible... before desktop manufacturing of electronics becomes a reality and takes the hardware companies, who work with the authorities to censor and track people and impose their DRM and clipper chips, out of the control loop.
humor... where?
What?
If someone has a wireless connection and is broadcasting it with no any password or any other access control, can you really say accessing is unauthorized? In that setup, it is your computer seeing the wireless signal and asking, "Can I connect?" and the wireless network replying "Sure!"
How is that different to a property owner having a bouncer, and someone asking the bouncer "Can I come in?". If the bouncer says yes, would you be trespassing? However, if the owner had given the bouncer a list of people allowed, and you forged ID to get in, then you could be, even if you got a yes, but that's comparable to hacking a wep password.
Any legal bod want to hazard a guess whether estoppel could be used as a defence for cases where open networks are used validly? i.e. your advertised network settings gave me explicit permission to connect, which was relied on, so you cannot in person retroactively make the previous access unauthorised (but you can request not to connect in future)
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
He probably left his own wireless connection open because he didn't know any better, and his "neighbor" was surfing porn on it.
Caps as in the original bill, emphasis mine.
"A person may not intentionally, willfully, and without
authorization access, attempt to access, cause to be accessed, or exceed the person's
authorized access to all or part of a computer network, computer control language,
computer, computer software, computer system, computer services OTHER THAN
WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE, or computer database."
"A PERSON MAY NOT INTENTIONALLY, WILLFULLY, AND
WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION ACCESS, ATTEMPT TO ACCESS, CAUSE TO BE
ACCESSED, OR EXCEED THE PERSON'S AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO WIRELESS
INTERNET SERVICE WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACCESS IS UNAUTHORIZED
AND PROHIBITED BY LAW."
As I'm reading this, it seems like the most reasonable interpretation of the bill is: 1. You need authorization EXCEPT for wireless internet service, 2. When using wireless internet service, you may not access the service if you know that it's unauthorized and prohibited by law. It doesn't actually prohibit the access itself, it provides the fines for doing so if another law has made that access illegal.
Can any lawyers comment on this reading? Because it seems actually to be somewhat counter to the headline and summary, and actually somewhat benign.
Can this be used against MediaSentry for their unauthorized (who in their right mind did authorize them) access to computer systems? Love to see a few of them in jail right about now.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
... I'm piggybacking as we speak!
:) Venlig hilsen!
But this is Denmark.
Hey, I live in this Bozo's district and have a theory about why he may be offering this bill: Do a Google for "Maryland Delegate Robert McKee" - a friend of Myers. McKee is under investigation on a child porn charge recently resigned his seat. Perhaps Myers is helping to establish an alibi? BTW, Maryland just instituted a new tax on IT Services which may or may not get repealed before it takes effect this summer!
1. It puts outsiders inside the protections provided by your NAT, and possibly hardware firewalls.
2. If you're on Comcast, other users can push you over their unpublished usage limit (on their all-you-can-eat "unlimited" broadband service) and get your account shut off.
3. The RIAA/MPAA sues the ISP account holder, not the actual infringer (even though they still claim to have identified an individual.)
4. Your own broadband seldom runs at more than 20% of advertised speed as it is. Other users are capable of slowing you down significantly.
5. We don't need to encourage a culture full of freeloaders.
6. If you're not encrypting, then they're reading all of your own browsing and file transfer activities. (Yes, this is possible on shared cable loops as well, but not other point-to-point connections e.g. DSL, FiOS.)
Aren't these enough reasons to think before you share?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I mean come one sure we have room in the court system for more nonviolent crimes that could be prevented. I mean we the people can expect you the people to RTFM!
Not using WEP, or better, on your router is giving permission for anyone to use it.
Conversely, putting even the weakest of passwords on it is marking it as private.
A good comparison is a bankroll. If I keep it in my pocket, that shows that I want it.
If I wander around handing people money, it shows I want to share it (assuming I am of sound mind).
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
I expected the standard arguments of physical trespass onto the house to litter the comments, but it all boils down to whether an access point gives me a DHCP lease or not. I don't crack WEP/WPA and never have or will, nor will I try to crack SSH on the VPN that sits behind the access point. Unfortunately, the technologically proficient are not part of the process of making laws or setting up all access points.
The real tragedy is that it will create more law breakers out of people who might not otherwise be. After all, when I go through the Las Vegas airport and see the "MCCARRAN" access point, will I know it's set up for public use the next time I go through because of a change in the airport's disposition on use, or will the police come haul me away for me leaving my radio switch on?
Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
While it is definitely unlawful to trespass where there is an obvious attempt to limit access, there is some question of the legality of using access points that are intentionally left unprotected. While nobody is going to go to prison for this, it opens up more legal questions than it answers.
If it is illegal to use an unprotected service unauthorized, then it follows it must be unlawful to invite people to use your Internet connection. Furthermore: What about those that make the name of the access point its key? What about those that use default key settings? They are certainly saying: "Use me, I'm free".
The spirit of the law is to prevent abuse, so there is some question for those that need a quick portable connection and have no intent to abuse. A user with any technical knowledge would simply encrypt their channel, something that is virtually transparent on Unix systems. Due to short term use and reflections, such a law is not enforceable. This is not an area for politicians to play with as their technical knowledge is normally about 'point and click' level. Then, what about passive monitoring? I was told that the Internet has no real legal protections in that area, let alone unlicensed spectrum most of these devices operate on.
If I worked at an ISP and they told me I had to support other people's equipment, I don't think I'd keep that job too long. It's not hard to secure a simple wireless environment but where would this stop? "Oh I have 3 more laptops to do...just hang on! Then we'll get my PS3 and my refridgerator secured too!"
The analogy is not good. An unlocked car == unlocked door. Unsecured wireless ap != unlocked car. Unsecured wireless AP == car radio turned on, windows down. Your wireless AP is transmitting. If you use the default settings, it may be difficult for many regular windows users to know if they are on YOUR AP or their own. they will quit fiddling with it when they see their browser is working.
Why not listen to a radio that is playing for free. If the guy that owns that car wants to turn it off, I'll go listen somewhere else or get my own radio, but as long as he is playing it for free where I can hear it... well, I don't need my own. I'm only listening to the sound waves that he isn't using, so no harm, no foul.
Now, if you go into someone's AP, change the config, lock them out of it. That would be roughly equivalent to the unlocked car.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
WiFi access points, whether at 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz, use the ISM (Industrial Scientific and Medical) frequency bands, which are controlled by the FCC and designated for unrestricted use subject to power output limits (or similar; am not an RF expert). Therefore, in my opinion, any assumption that communications in that band are "secure" or legally enforcable are probably without any merit. Certainly, I think any state's attempted control over use of wireless spectrum would be overridden by FCC jurisdiction.
This is precisely my thought on the matter. Tangentially, I believe credit card companies should *require* pin numbers for their cards. I'm noticing less and less people checking for my id. I'll even HAND IT to them and they're like "oh, you didn't buy any liquor or smokes so what's this for?"
FTA:
A Fox News story says the man parked his truck in front of the shop during lunch breaks and checked his e-mail on his laptop computer.
When a nearby business owner got suspicious, police talked to the man and ruled out that he was spying or stalking someone. However, a prosecutor filed the charge of stealing the wireless connection, the story says.
The charge was a felony punishable by up to five years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.
His other choice was a jail diversion program, which involved paying a $400 fine, doing 40 hours of community service and being on probation for six months.
Combining idiotic laws with the proliferation of access points, how can I prove that I'm using the (paid for) T-mobile access point at the Starbucks and not the business next door? The guy in the article may have admitted using the coffee shops inet access, but that doesn't show that there's not a bigger problem with laws like this.
Before my laptop self destructed (heat issue), I had a Verizon phone card that I used all the time. In fact a few times when on-call, I would pull in to the nearest parking lot and do what I needed to do.
If I had chosen to park in the parking lot near a coffee shop like this and the owner called the cops, how can I prove that I was using my own internet connection and not hijacking his? The few people who saw my Verizon card assumed it was a wifi card and had to be explained in depth how this wasn't wifi and would generally operate anywhere you could get a cell phone signal. I can only imagine explaining this to a cop.
Remember that he was elected by people who are dumb enough to deserve the consequences of his actions; just as Bush was elected by people who think a $300 tax rebate is enough to offset $2000 a year in fuel costs.
configure /etc/interfaces -- give an ssid to the wireless card. Will always try that one first.
Possibly slightly insecure if you forget you did it, but it is a quick setup.
The choice to press charges is the owner of the computer, network, database, or software. Some of us are OK with sharing wifi.
I would assume that the detection or tracking would have to occur in the router in question. If so, would the typical router even log usage/activity by default, or even be capable of it? Second, anyone knowledgable enough to enable said logging, I would not expect to leave their router unsecured. Therefore, who is going to start the ball rolling, as far as making the charge? Do the 'wireless police' have the ability to detect or even log authorized vs unauthorized use of a router by their 'neighbor'? Also, to the poster about Vista nagging you to death - very few of the offending users are likely to be using Vista, simply due to the real number of users of Vista vs XP or earlier. (Need coffee, I'm rambling a bit ----)
V for Vendetta: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
Sasktel does the same thing with their wireless gateways, though they use WEP as they were getting unending complaints about WPA as various pieces of old/stupidly designed hardware would only work with WEP.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
If people aren't smart enough to protect their wireless routers, how are they going to know anyone used them at all, let alone know how to track down who did it for prosecution?
I have a feeling that WEP and this law is going to end up being like the DMCA and encryption--the fact that it's poor has nothing to do with the fact that it's there.
You had to break the encryption to connect, no matter how laughably trivial. A bicycle locked with a cable-lock is still locked, even if you can open it with a ballpoint pen. It's still illegal to steal the bike. The law is trying to apply that concept--they just don't have it correct yet.
I wish that there were a middle ground between total lockdown and free-for-all on my home network. Generally, I'd love to let other people use my internet connection. We've all been in situations where you're not at home and need a tiny bit of connection to do a quick lookup -- check a map, your email, do a quick fiscal transaction. You're surrounded by wireless networks that are all locked, even though you know that most of the owners wouldn't notice or begrudge you a couple MBs of data transfer. But finding the owners and asking for permission and getting authorized is prohibitively difficult.
I'd love to leave my network open. The problem is that when I do, other people start using it heavily and it impacts my own use by hogging bandwidth. I want my router software to recognize my MAC addresses, and when one of them comes online, it restricts everyone else's bandwidth to something like 10% of the available throughput. (I admit that I don't know much about how bandwidth is shared or if this model is possible...)
I suspect that this proposed law is attempting to address the case of people who don't realize they can password-protect their router and have other people snitching their bandwidth. Sadly, this law would also affect people who willingly share their bandwidth. That's a problem, and it's why this is a bad law.
I think the problem could be solved with better router software. Router software needs to be productized and abstracted: someone at Apple and Linksys need to productize their admin software to provide a much better user experience than the current nuts-and-bolts technical configuration sheets that both systems currently offer.
You want to enable people who own the router to (1) easily tell who is using the router (2) tell their router to differentiate between computers (3) easily kick off / ban other computers. Routers should have a user-friendly handshake procedure: when a new machine asks to join the network, the router automatically remembers it (by MAC and with a prettyname and contact information). The router's owner can periodically review usage requests and make permanent authorization decisions if necessary.
This also adds a personalization and community aspect to router sharing:
New user [to router]: I'd like to use your network.
Router: Okay, I have your MAC address. I have a policy that you have to provide your email address and a comment to my owner about what you want to use the network for.
New user: Okay. My email address is blah@meh.com. I'm a friend of someone in the building and I wanted basic internet access while i'm here.
Router: Okay I will log that information. I have to warn you that if my owner gets on the network, you'll be kicked off, because my owner encrypts all her traffic and wants all of her bandwitdth.
Obviously there are corner cases where this becomes undesirable, but I think in a lot of cases, better software would enable behaviors that better reflect actual human desires.
At the federal level, and to my knowledge, almost always at the state level, penalties that exceed $1,000 or 364 days of imprisonment are by definition not misdemeanors, but felonies.
The quoted portion of the law seems unremarkable--U.S. Code already prohibits unauthorized access and provides much more severe penalties.
This is a thinly veiled attempt of isp's, corporations and the like to get get more money and have more control of the public.
We need an equivalent of the locked door test for this. IIRC, criminal responsibility for intrusion changes based on whether or not the door is closed, and whether or not it is locked.
In other words, if the door is open, it's reasonable to expect that perhaps the general public was invited in.
If the door is closed, but not locked, it's still possible that the general public is invited in, they're just trying to keep the heat in or the flies out.
If the door is closed and locked, clearly the general public is not invited in.
As for the "default router settings are open" argument, that's kind of like saying "newly installed doors are unlocked." As for the "flashing 12:00:00" argument, if you aren't competent to lock your front door, there's a problem. Manufacturers of wireless equipment need to do a better job of explaining this. They need a BIG RED PAGE when you open the box, explaining how to do the basic security, and how if you don't, you could have legal problems because you're responsible for ALL access through that wireless connection. As far as I can see, the directions are very little past, "insert the Windows driver disk."
By the way, so the instructions tell you as a minimum key to use your name, address, and phone number, and the street address for the SSID. Ain't much of a lock, is it? But it's is still most definitely a lock, and it takes deliberate action to open. No default-configured computer from anywhere will automatically crack even a trivial key and automatically make a connection.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I've always broken this down to 3 categories. I think most people will agree on 2 of the categories the 3rd is usually where people disagree.
1) If someone has secured their network then it is wrong and should be illegal to access it. I know WEP is easy to break. I know it's easy to spoof a mac address etc. It doesn't matter. These are clear indicators you are not welcome to use this wireless network. No computer or device will automatically connect to these networks so if you access it you've clearly broken in and displayed intent to do so.
2) Unsecured network with clearly customized settings. If your network has been renamed or had any other obvious settings changes and it still unsecured I consider it an open invitation. You clearly knew or had someone who knew how to change the settings and yet still left it unsecured. You had the knowledge and opportunity to secure it and didn't. I would still consider it under reasonable usage restrictions even with out specific restrictions stated. EG no using it as your primary internet connection for extend periods of time or doing things you know will drastically effect the usability of the connection for the owner like streaming video or torrenting. Abuse or violating stated usage policies should be punishable.
3) Unsecured network on default settings. This is where you will see the most disagreement. Here I will assume you didn't know how to change the settings and probably didn't know there was any reason to need to change the settings. This does not imply intent to allow others to access the network. I will not intentionally use a network with default settings. The problem is many devices will automatically find and use these types of networks. Unintentional usage of unsecured networks like these clearly can't be made illegal.
iPhones automagically associate with open wifi access points. This would make everyone with an iPhone a criminal. How do you know which access points are intended for open use and which are not? Around here, many restaurants specifically offer free wifi to attract customers!
Not that I actually want to spend currency on it, but I'll blow some kara to get that kind of critical thinking process up to +5 insightful.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I live downtown with a high capacity internet connection that I typically don't use to its full extent, so I've QoS'd everything to allow excess bandwidth I'm not using to be available to anyone who wants to connect to my wide open wireless internet. Many people use this, and I've also had some students and neighbors thank me for it... I've also heard of others doing the same and I've been to many coffee shops and other such places where they freely offer wireless internet.
That being said, how will the end users know which networks are free to use, and which are ignorant people who can't configure technology (that they should know how to configure if they're going to try to use it)?
This sounds more like large ISP's paying someone kickbacks to the people in charge to prevent people from using 'free' internet, than it does protecting the children.
"Daddy, why doesn't my Nintendo DS do online play?"
Whoops, some consumer devices don't support WPA.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
none, nada, ziltch. Even with everything done right, it takes less then 5 mins with software that can be downloaded quickly, and for free from the internet.
'A more effective way to prevent unauthorized access would be for owners to secure their wireless networks with assistance where necessary from Internet service providers or vendors.'
This can't be for real?!?! There is no way this law holds up. The shear logistics of trying to enforce this are ridiculous and arguments trying to prove a persons guilt could get very gray. There is no way this law holds up. Countless amounts of taxpayer dollars would go to waste and countless hours of court time wasted. If you're bored check out the funniest video ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0ZaEU9GlLY
That is a good point. I don't know why that never occured to me. I have always been dumbfounded when a bill like this comes in, that might have an adverse effect on a handful of people (all of whom are the victims of an actual orchestrated ATTACK, where information is gleaned off their local network, not just some guy parked in your driveway browsing the news). I would love to talk to this schmoe and find out where the idea for this bill came from (not that I'd expect to get a straight answer).
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
Does this mean that we can sue for people intruding on our airspace or the public airwaves?
Technically when someone broadcasts a signal on my property they are trespassing.
Doesn't the federal government own the airwaves?
We're allowed to capture/broadcast signals through the public airwaves. Arn't we?
To me theft of wireless means that you're sitting there, snorting traffic and running a decryption utility to process packets and ascertain a WEP or WPA key. Not really hard to do, but still akin to breaking and entering since the owners have obviously chosen to close off the network. I don't see a problem with breaking into such a thing a crime. BUT if someone gets pressed for using an open wireless access point the owners are going to have to prove malicious intent especially since windows doesn't mind hopping from access point to access point.
I wish I could rescind my own posts... I should have RTFA- there is an exclusion for "Internet Access". This mostly applies to people trying to use other network resources, like trying to crack a database or steal media.
Still- it's a matter of personal responsibility. If one leaves their wireless router open- it's an invitation for use. You are essentially just leaving something out on the front yard for someone to take.
While I agree with everything you said, I can't help but feel that we're both wasting our time discussing this.
It's sad that people will go to such lengths to rationalize taking something they didn't pay for (and didn't ask the owner permission to use, that little tidbit always gets ignored) and try to make it seem like it was someone else's fault for not locking them out.
I mean, seriously, when you see arguments modded to +5 that say "it's legal because your access point gave me permission" you know that the discussion is going nowhere.
I think this analogy is better:
1) I see that my neighbor waters his lawn every week
2) I post a sign on my lawn saying "Please water"
3) My neighbor waters my lawn
Did I steal his water? Then why would this be stealing:
1) My neighbor broadcasts availability of wireless access
2) I broadcast a request for access
3) My neighbor provides access
The device comes with instructions on how to secure it, and how to prevent it from just broadcasting SSIDs and hooking up anyone who asks with IPs and DNSs. The law would be just a duplicate of the technology.
To me, the bigger issue with this kind of legislation is not that it tries to achieve via law something that is already possible via technology (at worst opening up a can of unintended consequences). It is that if this law passes, there's no easy way for me to provide free wireless to anyone who asks. Let's say I want to have an open access point as a community service to my neighbors. How do I do this if anyone who connects to what I want to provide for free gets prosecuted as if I wouldn't want to provide it for free? Would there be a special SSID I'd have to broadcast? Would I have to get a license? All alternatives are open for abuse, not to mention being completely impractical.
If I would be any more cynical, I'd say that the inability for anyone to provide free wireless access to anyone else under this law is an INTENDED consequence, devised by telecoms who want to sell more wireless 3G plans. Surely, telecoms couldn't possibly be this evil. They are? Crap. We're boned.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
My guess is, most people wouldn't care whether you shared their internet access or not. Not unless you ran so much traffic over it 24/7 that you caused their access to be degraded. At that point I'd think they might want to kick you off.
My guess is follow the money. Look to see if Comcast or Verizon are sponsoring the bill so everyone has to buy their own connection instead of leaching off a neighbor.
Pardon me while I adjust my tin foil hat. It keeps getting in my eyes.
The truth shall set you free!
Dumb. It is better to deal with current crimes with current laws. Don't create some new law that gives Joe Schmoe a 30 year sentence for leaving his router open (yeah, I know, not in TFA, just pulling out random, non-real world examples) or an 10 year sentence for accessing said open router. All that does is trigger an arms race that only blows the whole thing out of proportion.
If you create a law to protect some of us from the few, pass a law that deals with the few, don't go for a blanket mandate on all or else everyone will retaliate. Anything beyond that is a whole different argument on civil privileges -er rights.
The DA doesn't want to enforce this and it would be very difficult to do so as people have pointed out. But, it gives the ISPs something specific in writing that they can hold against people for sharing their internet connection.
For the sake of argument, lets say your neighbor has a splitter on the back of their house for their cable TV and there is an open port. If you walk over and plug in a coax cable to it for free cable are you breaking the law or is your neighbor for leaving the open port available? How about if your neighbor actually runs the coax up to your property line and just leaves it there for you to plug into? Either way the person getting the free cable has to consciously do it and is most likely aware that it is illegal.
Wireless makes it so easy to share a licensed service most don't even think about if it's legal. However I bet most ISP contracts say it is only for their own personal use. This law, even if not enforceable, will give ISPs the ability to spout off about "illegal internet sharing" and suggest that they can drive around neighborhoods detecting who is doing it, just like cable companys used to do searching for people getting cable illegally.
"Well I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
TFA was posted by Pickens.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
If you lived in an apartment with utilities included would it be OK to let your neighbor fill his pool from your tap?
This law will never fly, then again Martin O'Malley is a douche bag; so, it has hope. the scarier law is the 6% IT tax. Either way not to be all 2003 in he heah' but War driving in Maryland, specifically Downtown Baltimore, or even the majestic suburb of Columbia, MD used to show a ridiculous amount of open access points, that included many many businesses. I laud the attempt to be progressive, but, its a poor attempt.
Well, considering you just 'authorized' access to your wifi, then that pretty much rules out any chance of it being 'unauthorized' access doesn't it?
How do people know which bathrooms they can use when walking down the street and which ones they can't? Do you just randomly walk into someones house and piss, or do you generally look for businesses that would be more open to that sort of thing?
Use common sense much?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Whoops, some consumer devices don't support WPA. It's easy enough to switch from WPA to WEP. The point the GP was making is that routers are starting to ship pre-secured.
Would this have implications for young kids who got an OLPC for Christmas through the BuyOneGiveOne campaign.
When you switch it on, the OLPC tries to build a mesh network out of any wireless access points it can find.
In my apartment, I pick up 11 wireless networks (even though there are only 8 apartments surrounding me), two of which apparently were set up by numbskulls (i.e. not set up at all. They just plugged the router in and left their network name at the default "linksys") and were left unsecured. My Windows Vista laptop will automatically connect to one of those networks if my router happens to puke and lose connection. If I'm away from the computer when this happens, I don't even know what went on while I was away, and I could surf for hours using someone else's connection. If "hijacking" someone else's wireless is made a crime, buying a Windows Vista machine will be like buying a car that automatically robs bank vaults while you're away at work.
This bill turns people into unwitting criminals because some people are idiotic enough not to protect their router, and Vista will automatically connect to these routers without asking. So, if it gets passed, the one question here is: if Vista forces me to break the law by automatically "hijacking" an unsecured wireless network, can Steve Ballmer be charged as an accessory to the crime?
I can only image that the bill submitter believes they'll enforce this law by following the tubes back from the wireless router to those dastardly stealers-of-other-people's-bandwidth. Shouldn't be a big problem.
I've had an iPod touch for about two weeks now, and the device is essentially designed to jump on open wifi networks. It acts as a nice little stumbler and makes it trivial to just try every open wifi network that shows up in the list. Once you successfully connect the iPod touch remembers that network and will automatically reconnects to the network if it can.
So yeah, make using open networks a crime and then let's see how well that works out with evolving technology.
I live here legally. I pay taxes, pay for my health insurance, pay the hospital to deliver my kids, raise my kids. My kids go to the college one state over. I get raped for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ tuition.
Asswad from Mexshitco comes up. Has a bunch of kids (free on the public dime by giving a false name or just not paying the hospital). Enrolls their kids in every free-public-money scam thanks to the Democraps, uses up MY tax money. Has his kids sitting around shitting up the school system to the point where all the non-spanish-speaking teachers are run off and my kids have to wait for the brainless shitheads to catch up before anything else can be taught, or else I wind up spending MORE of my money to send my kids to a decent school because his kids have fucked over the school but good.
Now we hit college time. His kids are supposed to get all sorts of "minority scholarships" for "underpriviledged minorities", and they're talking about giving his kids in-state tuition????
WTF IS GOING ON HERE.
No, seriously. Enough is enough. I've run the numbers and no longer want the mooching illegals around ruining the schools, ruining the health care and emergency rooms, running up the costs in insurance (I have to pay an extra %1000/year for uninsured/underinsured coverage thanks to all the mexshitcans around here), and all the rest of the trouble they cause. Enough is enough.
But arguments are like puppies, and Slashdot is like a unlocked car being driven by thousands of lunatics simultaneously. Both need crazy analogies like a fish needs a a radio!
I agree about the routers though.
Rather than legislate from the end of the buffet line like this, why don't they instead require hardware manufacturers to enable security in the installer unless the user specifically turns it off?
I've often wondered what would happen if some creep in the next apartment gained access to my network (hypothetically, mine's secured) and managed to sniff my shopping activity or worse, was doing illegal stuff that could be tracked back to me.
It would seem like a more sensible way to go about this - if you wanted to.
So if the door was not locked, or the lock wasn't as good as you thought, you weren't robbed - good luck with that Dumbass...
"if this is the case, how can I tell people that they are actually allowed to use my unsecured wireless access point? "
You name the access point "open for public use" or something similar. There's your sign.
"The sign is out there, but you're arguing that the sign is not valid"
What sign is that? Not being encrypted? That's not a sign that says "use me" it's a sign that says "not encrypted" and those aren't the same.
Here's my problem with this "open AP = permission" lie, that is, people trying that argument are assuming the most favorable possible scenario in regards to the ambiguity of the situation, that is, "if it's not actively preventing me, that means it's ok". That line of reasoning is nonsense, because not being prevented in no way implies permission to use.
it's worse than that. If you're on the default settings or even setting up a new one to lock it down, you could just as easily wind up catching someone else's by honest mistake.
Should they come pre-locked down? Good luck, you have to have defaults for setup purposes or a hardware reset. Should you leave it open? I know I had to MAC-address lock my stuff (stupid Wii wouldn't recognize Cisco WPA-PSK properly, PS3 barfed on it too). If I were less tech-savvy I might have simply turned off security to get it running.
And then there's so many devices that grab any un-secured point by default - you could be "hijacking" an open WAP without even knowing it.
Hell, do you think Joe Schmuck who's used to flipping open his laptop at Starbucks will notice which connection he's on if he randomly flips it open somewhere and sees a running connection? Nope, he'll just start checking his email.
The problem is due to the WiFi "consortium" getting things wrong from the start, and continuing to get things wrong later.
.com" TLDs like .biz and .info.
Because of their bungling it's hard to:
1) Have authenticated users + secure wifi connection.
2) Have anonymous users + secure wifi connection (a bit like anonymous https - only the server needs to be validated).
Anyway years ago I proposed a TLD (.here) to ICANN and IETF.
One of the benefits was people could have a standard way to find out more about the local network they are using. e.g. http://here/ http://whats.here/ etc.
But I guess the ICANN was too busy approving "yet another
But what if i leave mine open so people can leech off it? Are they still in violation? If not, how am i to know the guy down the street somewhere also didn't intend on the same thing? Its not like i can find his house to walk up and ask....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You're not allowed to resent any of those things, it makes you a racist.
We'll just pretend like your post never happened.
I would argue that my neighbors Wi-Fi signal was tresspassing into my home, therefore it was mine to use as it was on my property. If my neighbor had an apple tree haning over my fence any apples that fell on my side of the fence would be my fair game as well.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Could this be a legal roadblock to prevent wireless mesh networks? I remember a couple years ago when a lot of local governments began suggesting that they use public money to build public wireless access for all to share and enjoy. Sort of like public roads, bridges, sidewalks, etc. A lot of laws very quickly got passed that explicitly prohibited these cities from doing this sort of thing. I dont' believe it was an issue of government competing with the private sector--there's already laws about (IANAL; chime in if you are one). Hence the necessity of a new law to prevent the service.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
A year ago 3 of 6 Wi-Fi setups I could get from my house were unsecured and could be used, although only one of them had a strong enough signal to be reliably useful. Now 1 of 10 are unsecured. I live in a poor neighborhood with many retired renters, it seems like if they are figuring out (or stumbling across) how to secure their router than anyone can.
Unauthorized access is prohibited by Public Law 99-474 "The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986".
This law is nothing new, just adds the possibility of a state penalty to the existing federal one. Its been around since before Kevin Mitnick was arrested.
Its worth noting, since very few people seem to be able to read the complete summary. The purpose of the law is to provide a punishment to those who are INTENTIONALLY accessing WAPs without being AUTHORIZED.
That means when your Windows machine, iPod touch, iPhone, iPaq, Macbook Air, switchs over to an open public network on its own, and without your knowledge, it wouldn't be considered intentional it would be accidental.
Second for those of you saying 'What about my open WAP that I don't mind people using!?' Then you would be Authorizing them to use it, which means they could not possibly be effected by this law since it applies to UNAUTHORIZED use.
And the public defender is right, people SHOULD secure their WAPs as that would be FAR cheaper than going after those who use then without consent. However, the law should exist as well (even if possibly redundent with the existing federal laws) because it serves as a punishment for those who take advantage of weak security.
To use the over used car analogy:
Doesn't matter if I leave my doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition, if you take off with my car without permission, its still theft. We cut down on automotive theft by:
A) making laws against it (and games that capitalize on breaking that law)
B) Educating the public to lock down that resource (don't leave your keys in the ignition, lock your doors, and enable encryption on your WAP)
The law and the public defenders idea of better router configurations are BOTH required in order to cut down on abuse of WAPs, not just one, they work in tandem, just like most other things, we use laws AND education to accomplish the goal, not just one or the other.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
If somebody has enabled their router to be open to all connections, THAT IS ALL THE AUTHORIZATION NEEDED. If my handheld sends a request for association with their router, and their router accepts my request, THAT IS ALL THE AUTHORIZATION NEEDED. If somebody leaves the door of their store open, I should expect to be able to enter the store. If they lock the door, then, that lets me know that I shouldn't enter.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
1. Get totally ineffective and largely unenforcible law outlawing theft of wireless access passed
2. File metric assload of file sharing suits
3. Testify that it's impossible for anyone's unsecured wireless networks to be hijacked to use P2P applications, because that would be illegal
4. Profit!
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
"Do you want to live in a world where you must get consent from a human before doing anything?"
Not at all, and I hate straw men like that, dump the logical fallacies if you expect people to listen.
What I do want is a world where people ask ME for MY permission (my access point is not me, nor an authorized representative of me, nor a proxy for me, nor have I signed over power of attorney, so the AP doesn't count) before they use MY stuff.
Why is is that you people think that's too much to ask?
So he voted against some feel-goodly named bills. There are often things unrelated to say, "clean air," in such a bill.
Next they will propose a law, charging people parked on an expired meter with "stealing of a parking space", punishable by 3 years in jail.
...is to fine people who listen to music that their neighbor is playing, proceeds split with the RIAA of course.
At least in my state, the proposal for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants ONLY applied to illegal immigrants who had graduated from one of the state's public high schools.
The problem is that the parents / family comes to the U.S. illegally, then the child is enrolled in public schools. Then the child graduates from high school and wants to (reasonably enough) attend college like the rest of his or her classmates. But, since his or her family is in the U.S. illegally, he or she is intelligible for in-state tuition rates, making the attendance at such an institution basically impossible.
So, if these individuals are going to be in the state anyway, we might as well have them be highly educated and productive (instead of the opposite). And, generally, one of the best ways to become highly educated and productive is to attend college. In the end you will end up SAVING your tax dollars by ensuring that the high school graduates of your state can become well prepared for earning a good living.
And before you go spouting off about "your tax dollars," how about some evidence for what percentage of your tax dollars go to provide these services for illegals?
Don't we already have laws against "intentional unauthorized access to another person's computer, network, database, or software?" What the hell does the fact that it's wireless have to do with it?
"Insofar as "public education" is financed by the government, no, I'm not sure that I am aware of that. "
No guy, you're parsing it wrong, because you're making a faulty assumption.
Public
education campaign.
Education campaign of the public.
For instance, PSAs from MADD, the Humane Society, or any other PRIVATE institution.
You assumed something that wasn't there. It's not hard to understand (usually...)
There are some consumer routers that take you through a when you first plug them in you have to go through the wizard. Tt won't let you even access the internet because it'll route ANY request directly to the setup screen.
The only way this law could ever be considered realistic is if every router were regulated to have to have a feature such as that one- namely that you have to explicitly say "yes" to enable an open router.
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
My guess is RIAA is sponsoring this bill.
I agree. The last 3 apartments/houses I've lived in, my neighbors didn't really mind me using their internet (I usually let them know if I've been using it for more than a month). Most people use the internet just to check mail and browse the web, so they didn't care if I used some of their bandwidth. And for people like me who have a gypsy-like tendency to change homes every few months, its very convenient to find the neighbor's wireless unlocked :).
I went to a coffee shop the other day that offered free wireless. I sat down, fired up the laptop and saw two open wireless networks with very strong signals. One called "Default" the other called "Linksys". Thinking the coffee shop was lazy as they had told me that the wireless was "just there" with no password I connected to the stronger of the two and worked happily away for a few hours.
On the way out my curiosity got the better of me and I asked, "what is the name of your wireless network?" "It's Organica" they replied, saying the name of the shop. When I informed them that I didn't see an SSID by that name they said "Oh, it must be down, it does that from time to time."
So I had unknowingly been surfing for hours on someone's private router but in a location where I had a reasonable expectation of an open wireless access point. How would the law deal with that?
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
So, the original poster presents only the names of the bills as sufficient evidence that the guy makes bad decisions. If they can't bother to find out the reasons why he voted against those bills, why can't I suggest that perhaps, as is often the case, there were things in the bill not relevant to the names of the bills.
I'm allowed to be suspicious of people saying things like, "you voted against the Save our Children bill?! you're bad!"
How in heck would you prosecute this? Especially with that "purposely" clause?
All anyone would have to do is lay out a scenario like above and there is reasonable doubt.
Why have an unnecessary law on the books, especially one that is impossible to enforce?
Man, you really need that seminar!
Nintendo DS. Just about the only reason I can't use WPA right now. And I don't think switching AP configurations often is fun.
Let's minimize criminalizing behavior unnecessarily.
People have suggested criminalizing leaving access points open, or holding the owner of the access point responsible for what happens through it; let's not do that.
People have suggested criminalizing using an open access point, let's not do that either.
AT&T's network (as a telecommunication service) may be a common carrier, but their Internet service (an "information service") is not a common carrier (at least, according to this).
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
No one cares whether or not you want random people using your wireless network. What they're upset about is that people are using your internet connection for free when they ought to be paying your ISP for their own connection. In their minds, this is the same as stealing cable TV- something they've been telling us is bad for years. Is it a fair comparison? No, not really since I'd venture to guess that most squatters are paying for internet access at home so I don't think the ISPs as a whole are really losing money by this, though I'm sure they think they are.
"hokey religions and taking a nap are no match for a stab in the head" -- Black Mage
IANAL, but I have been looking at this bill I have just come to the same realization that you have. Practically every post in this discussion has COMPLETELY misunderstood the bill.
First, people need to read the actual proposed bill, which they can do here (NB: PDF). Note that the CAPITAL parts are being ADDED to the existing law.
Next, people need to understand that under existing Maryland law unauthorized access to a computer network is already illegal. This clearly includes wireless networks. This means that your iPhone / XP / Vista / whatever that automatically connects to an insecure network is technically breaking EXISTING law. The current law reads:
A person may not intentionally, willfully, and without authorization access, attempt to access, cause to be accessed, or exceed the person's authorized access to all or part of a computer network, computer control language, computer, computer software, computer system, computer services, or computer database.This delegate wants to amend that section to exclude wireless internet access. It would instead read:
A person may not intentionally, willfully, and without authorization access, attempt to access, cause to be accessed, or exceed the person's authorized access to all or part of a computer network, computer control language, computer, computer software, computer system, computer services OTHER THAN WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE, or computer database.This would mean that your device that automatically connects to an insecure network would no longer be breaking the law. But in order to keep purposeful, intentional access to a wireless network (or "wireless internet service") illegal, they have added this section to the bill:
(4) A PERSON MAY NOT INTENTIONALLY, WILLFULLY, AND WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION ACCESS, ATTEMPT TO ACCESS, CAUSE TO BE ACCESSED, OR EXCEED THE PERSON'S AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACCESS IS UNAUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED BY LAW.THIS PROPOSED BILL MAKES FEWER THINGS ILLEGAL. Now I know a lot of people think that unauthorized access to an insecure network, even when purposeful and intentional, shouldn't be illegal, but it already is. This bill would simply decriminalize unintentional unauthorized access.
PLEASE, SOMEONE BEAT THE /. GROUPTHINK AND MOD THE PARENT POST UP, OR THIS ONE.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Seems to me that a crime that's considered serious enough to get you up to 3 years in prison would rate a fine of more than $1000. I don't understand how these amounts are set but I would expect both the jail term and the fine to be proportional to the offense.
Speaking of the crime, could we stop calling everything "theft" please? This is a product of recording industry PR that was meant to recast the hazy concept if infringement in black and white terms. Once you define something as theft it puts the other side in the position of trying to say that stealing should be legal. If we're going to discuss whether unauthorized wireless access should be legal or not, let's talk about it for what it is. As crimes go, it would be closer to trespassing than to theft. In fact, accessing an unsecured wireless router is kind of like walking on a rug that somebody has rolled out into the street. But putting it in the same category as breaking into a house and stealing a TV makes it a lot easier to get the public to accept legislation.
Despite the hundreds of ill-informed comments to the contrary (yours included), this bill does no such thing. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Despite the hundreds of ill-informed comments to the contrary (yours included), this bill does no such thing. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
While that sort of nonsense will get you modded up, it's complete bullshit. First, cite your source. I bet you don't have one, because you just pulled that out of your ass. Second, what you fail to realize is that "squatting" (using a wireless network without authorization) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER CURRENT MARYLAND LAW.
Despite the hundreds of ill-informed comments to the contrary (yours included), this bill does no such thing. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Of course you can't say either way, because it's complete bullshit. What you fail to realize is that "squatting" (using a wireless network without authorization) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER CURRENT MARYLAND LAW.
People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
No. Just no. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail. The "three years" you state is ALREADY IN THE CURRENT LAW - this bill doesn't add it.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Sounds like you need to take 2 minutes and READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it.
The problem is not with this law, the problem is with the current law. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.
BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
This bill would make it a crime to operate an open wireless access point. The AP's broadcast of its ssid and open status would be solicitation.
Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
First thing I'll do if any legislation like this passes is to get a cellular Internet card (Sierra Wireless et al) for my laptop and drive by the lawmakers' houses with my wifi connection shared and see how many of them I can send to prison.
The delegate is in serious need of dismission. People don't deserve to ear such idiocies from officially elected people and should be able to fire them!
For instance I have set up several FON access points at various location with the intention of sharing WiFi. So I doubt that to share wifi is illegal, even remotely unlawful it may be it's my right! http://www.fon.com/
Don't waste time reading the article, which is completely misleading. Instead, read the actual bill.
You don't at all get the idea behind the law. This bill is SPECIFICALLY designed to address what happened to you - when someone connects to a network without authorization, and without knowing that they were unauthorized. Ignore the /. groupthink, and read my other comment that explains the bill in detail. Ignore the summary, and the title. THEY ARE ALL WRONG. Unauthorized access to a network is ALREADY ILLEGAL, and this bill simply tries to add an exception for when that happens without you realizing that it is unauthorized.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
ok... i don't get it. Why does Delegate LeRoy E. Myers Jr. give a rats ass?
Why has our government been involved in this issue so much?
let me put it this way... what if i *want* to allow my neighbors to use my wireless access point? I consider it being polite and friendly, why is my neighbor guilty of a crime? (I'm always happy when I'm someplace I want to use the internet and I find an open router so I want to return the favor.)
Now the question is, why does LeRoy care?
The only thing my only thing my mildly paranoid brain comes up with is that they want to track you on the internet. Truly, is there any other reason? This is about as tame as tame gets when it comes to "crimes". Nearly victim-less.
Oh... i came up with one more reason, to force you to get cell phone based wireless internet. If everybody was friendly with their internet access points then the need for you to buy a cell based wireless internet account would be significantly reduced. (actually this sounds much more likely. I bet Leroy has a nice fat campaign contribution from AT&T in his bank account?)
d
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
Should something like this go to court, then you can feel free to ask my AP to appear in court as a witness. If it confirms that it authorised you to use its service when asked by the judge, then I'll admit that you are right.
No need. The AP was run by you, and you are there. We'll just get you to confirm the following:
Your AP broadcast its presence to your neighbor's property (advertised).
Your AP provided an IP address for connection to your network (enabled).
Your AP provided a gateway for connection to the internet (enabled).
Your AP provided an unencrypted connection (permitted).
You connect without authentication, and therefore know that others can also.
You can be expected to know the approximate range of your broadcast.
You own the AP and are therefore responsible for its configuration.
Therefore, you turned on the AP, and left it on, knowingly taking deliberate action that would advertise the available connection to your neighbor, provide the appropriate configuration to them and enable them to use it. To knowingly advertise and enable a service, broadcasting it to the homes of others, is to give them permission unless otherwise stated.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Sorry for the yelling, it's just really frustrating to have 95% of the comments in the discussion be totally oblivious to what the bill actually says. And the thing about iPhones was left over from a reply to someone else that I pasted. You're right, I don't know if that would actually count, but it's irrelevant to the current discussion anyway. The bill is written to address people who turn on their computer, and find they are on the internet, and unwittingly they are using their neighbor's open wifi. That's criminal under the current code. It's intentional, willful, and without authorization. Yet, they are still without knowledge that it is unauthorized access - this is the part the bill addresses, by adding a few lines to say that if you didn't have knowledge that the access was unauthorized (which would definitely be the case with the iPhone, but that's probably also unintentional and not willful), you're not a criminal.
That said, I still think it's way too conspiracy-theoryish to chalk this up to telcos. I mean, the delegate says exactly why he's proposing the changes, and they amount to a couple of lines that simply decriminalize something. I think telcos have bigger fish to donate to than random Western Maryland delegates, and if these changes are what they are paying for, they'd better be praying, too.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Second, the reason for the harshness of this is that people are using connections to commit illegal activities. It's basically a possession type charge. They didn't catch you with the pot, but they caught you with a used bong.
Thirdly the I'm an idiot and just let Windows connecto to what it did is covered by the "purposely" defense. It gets you one freebee if you can convince a judge that you're stupid. If you're out there in your car with an antennae on top wardriving you're screwed.
Fourthly, this is theft of service/trespass. Just because I leave my door open doesn't mean you can walk in, just because I leave my access point open(which I don't) doesn't mean you can use my connection. Doing either may be stupid, but it isn't consent. Consent is putting up a sign saying you can come in, or inviting you in.
In short, if it's not yours and the owner hasn't told you you can use it(and setting your AP to FreeInternet might imply consent), then don't use it. If you need to use the internet at a cafe, buy a cup of coffee, don't use someone elses, pay for your own stuff.
Yes, but what do you think is the best response: configure your router to require a password, making access illegal under current law, or write new laws making life a bit more difficult for many people.
Hint: people who will share child porn etc already break the law, and may not stop if you just add another law. You need to actually prevent access if this is your concern.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
The people who want to share leave it unsecured. The people who don't want to share use encryption, or deny access in some other way. Everyone gets what they want, no new law required. What is making it illegal is not sharers or freeloaders, its people who won't take reasonable steps to secure their router and would rather call the government for help than quickly and simply deal with it themselves. It shouldn't be surprising that if you broadcast a service that people will use it, neither should it be illegal.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
In the courtroom, though, ignorance is still not a defence.
I didn't know I wasn't authorised! - no excuse
I didn't know my router was inviting people to use my network! - no excuse
I've seen good arguments for both sides on this article, but it seems to me that the better position is that if the router is broadcasting an offer of a connection and enabling it without encumberance, then it is authorised.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
If you want a connection then you pay for it, and let who you want use it.
If you don't want to share your connection, don't send rf signals into my house advertising its presence, provide connection configuration (IP) and a gateway. If you don't put the slightest obstable such as a password to make it clear that the offer you broadcast is limited in some way, then why shouldn't I take that offer at face value?
Do I have an obligation to assume incompetence on your part? If you send rf signals with an offer of a connection, do I really have to assume that you're too stupid to use your own equipment properly and therefore the offer is invalid? If people need some special consideration because of inherent incompetence, just let me know, I don't discriminate or take advantage of the disabled. Until then, if you offer me something, I will feel myself at liberty to accept it.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Considering your post is based on you jumping to conclusions based on your own failure to correctly read what you were responding to.
The mods are retards, that really cracks me up that they thought modding up your demonstration of ignorance was a good idea.
"The open AP = permission is not a lie, it's the entire design and purpose of the device. There is no ambiguity."
Loodk at he boards guy, you think these argeuments stem from a lack of ambiguity? Look at REALITY, there is ambiguity and any article on this subject proves you're wrong.
"If everyone has to name their open access point the same, then there is no way for me to tell which one is the access point I want to connect to."
If they're all open, who cares which one you use? And why would you "have to" name it the same thing? "Neutron Cowgirl's ope AP" would work, why would someone else name their AP the same? Both of those arguments are crap.
"Another question: if you assume that an open AP does not imply permission"
I don't assume it, that's how it is. YOU are assuming that it isn't that way.
"what do you do when you want to connect to web servers? "
I ignore hastily constructed posts that rely on crappy analogies. If you can't tell what the difference is between the two subjects you don't belong in this discussion.
"Perhaps a better approach "
Here's THE approach. Don't use shit that you don't have express permission to use. It's not hard, stop making excuses.
First, I have multiple friends who have served hours of community service, spent nights in jail, and paid large fees JUST for using someones wifi. Officers pulled up to them infront of a school and arrested them for using its wifi.
Second, when I first got my wifi card, a realtek, I installed it, then the drivers and included software, the SECOND the installation completed, it automatically found the nearest unencrypted network, and connected me, I didn't tell it to, I didn't say which network to connect to, nothing, total automation. Under this act would I go to jail just because the card's software automatically does such a thing?
I can't mod, but thanks for bringing attention to this.
Yup, there IS a difference between open by ignorance and open by preference.
However, this law doesn't make forgetting to secure your wifi illegal.
So what does that difference have to do with the discussion?
There's also a difference between being told you can't and not being told you can't. You didn't specifically tell me I could not and the devices decided to agree between themselves to let me in.
PS: What if I opened up a wifi card as an AP with the same channel and SSID and sued directional antenna to make your windows machine connect through my machine? I then get
a) to read all your stuff you're sending over your network
b) sue you for trespass on my computer
I do agree that my ISP conspiracy theory was based on far too little information. I took TFA at face value - probably always a mistake. Trying to get some journalism major to understand tech is like trying to teach my dog algebra... he'll never make it past chapter 2.
That said, after reading the bill two or three times, I still have no idea what it says. In attempting to explain, you used two words in your last post that seem to be at loggerheads: unwittingly, and intentional. I don't see how anything can be both unwitting and also intentional.
Furthermore, I fail to see how any court could ever establish intent when prosecuting this "crime". If they had access to an email or instant message where I gloated about how awesome it was to be stealing my neighbor's access, that would be one thing, but how often can we expect such a smoking gun? And even if there was, what law enforcement agency would expend the type of resources it would take to bring such evidence to court?
The whole gosh darned mess seems pretty silly to me at this point. The main thing I am taking away from all this, thanks to you, is that the tech press must not be trusted!
instead, speaking the truth is enough to get labeled "troll" and "overrated" by liberal fuckwads.
I shouldn't be bothered to secure my network. Just let the person using my network be prosecuted using everyone's tax'es!
American F**KING DREAM!
Am I the only who noticed that the first part of this story talks about how Myers neighbor accidentally hooked up to Congressman Myers wireless network. Does anyone else see a problem with a US Congressman having an unsecured network?