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.'"
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.
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!
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.
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?
You say "no", but your window says "yes" - please, do mankind a favour and shut your curtains next time you undress!
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.
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.
So what your saying is if the child molester outside looks at the kiddie porn in his car and he gets traced. Your fucked. All you have is a mac address, all the District attorney will say is you threw the computer out. There are things worse then p2p.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
How is this criminal? This is like a perfect example of a civil offense.
Easy,
If you ask for permission (DHCP Request) and the equipment says (to paraphrase) "absolutley, come on 0:0c:fa:a8:gc:bb hear is where I keep the gateway to the internet, I will make sure to send you data that comes for you, and direct any data you send to the correct place.", than absolutely the have permission.
If you have to monkey around setting up static addressing, or finding keys or what not, than it enters a gray area.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
If the guy doesn't want you to breath clean air, or teach illegal immigrants (after all, being literate obviously wouldn't help them at all..), then this seems pretty much par for the course. The in-state tuition bill is not about keeping illegal immigrants out of school, it is about charging illegal immigrants the same tuition at State colleges that legal residents would pay.
TODO: Insert witty sig
You mean like DHCP?
Look, it's really simple. If you don't want other people using your wireless network, don't disable the encryption. Notice I said "don't disable". Most access points these days are shipping with encryption on by default, so the trend is moving towards the point where we'll be able to automatically assume that every unencrypted point was intentionally set that way. In ten years, the proposed law will be completely unnecessary and will just be a broken relic of days gone by.
Laws like this annoy the heck out of me, as they are caused by technological neanderthals trying to come up with ways to appear that they are doing something useful, all while creating a body of unnecessary laws that bog down the legal system. In any case, I can say right now that I won't be traveling to Maryland if this happens. Life's too short to put up with getting arrested for sitting in your car outside a hotel checking your email for a couple of minutes. The law is a blatant abuse of power, and ultimately, the FCC needs to put a stop to this by creating policy that trumps it. Unencrypted Wi-Fi should be considered free for public use, period, at least until the owner explicitly asks you to stop.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
Why does stuff like this get modded up? If someone downloads illegal material over your link, so what? The parent has already said that they block most p2p programs so the chance of this happening is pretty low. Besides, unless I'm wrong (IANAL) posession of said material is what is against the law. Does AT&T get charged with a crime when someone downloads illegal material over their network?
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.
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!
Now the owner of that router might say, "But I didn't know it was doing that on my behalf!" I suppose it's a little like coming home to find that your kid has been inviting people into your house who you'd rather not have there. But that's an issue to be settled between you and your errant kid, isn't it? Law enforcement generally isn't interested.
Since there is no groundswell of outrage from people who are providing bandwidth to their neighbors - unwittingly or not - you have to assume that the "victims" here are the ISPs: Comcast, Time-Warner and the like. That guy who checks his email or the weather using "free" wireless is, in their eyes, $50 a month in lost revenue. Not that they could possibly influence legislators in a state like Maryland, of course...
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.
Sounds like you need to take 2 minutes and put on a WEP key. I for one believe in sharing my connection (with the proper safety precautions in place of course). The problem with this law is that it assumes that if you access an OPEN network, you are nreaking a law. A law that makes more sense is one that states if you actively seek to break into an ENCRYPTED network, you are commiting a crime. Which is, as I understand, the way the law is already written. I don't think the guy who wrote this bill really has much of a technical background. More likely he is trying to make a name for himself by introducing new technical legislation, which is all the rage right now. It's an unfortunate state of current events. Most technical legislation is introduced by people who are either acting on behalf of lobbyists, or news blurbs on CNN/Fox. There are only a handful of lawmakers that have demonstrated that they have even a remote clue what they are talking about. It bothers me that these people are left to decide the fate of things they have no real grasp of.
I try to write letters to my elected officials any time something like this comes up for a vote. I've even made some phone calls when it's either highly technical or highly important.
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
Why would you go about discounting prices for illegal immigrants before discounting for legal residents? Sorry, you're from out of state, you have have to pay more than the out of country guys -- except the ones that applied properly -- of course.
t
If you CHOOSE to plead guilty, for whatever reason, that's your own problem. When charged with anything ALWAYS FIGHT.
The problem here is that there is an ambiguity of intent. SOME people (and it doesn't even have to be a large number) keep their wireless connection open on purpose. To assume that it is automatically an unwelcome act to enter an unsecured network is flawed logic. As is to assume that either AP owners or laptop users are all ignorant or devious.
While not the easiest solution to implement, the most logical solution would be to simply require AP manufacturers to default routers to a closed network. Either using a default WEP/WPA/Etc. key, or with a mandatory setup upon installation (a la the runonce screen you get in IE the first time you open it). This takes the ambiguity out of the equation and allows all users who do not want their networks open to lock them down, even in the face of computer illiteracy. Then, if a network is open, it is set that way by choice, and conversely, if a user logs on to a closed network without authorization, there is a clear intent to trespass.
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >>
What happened to American independence? A few generations ago, people would rather live on beans and potatoes than accept money from the government. John Maynard Keynes and FDR have ruined the federal government. It happened to Rome, and it will happen to us. When people believe there is such thing as a free government lunch, we are ruined.
The government can't save you.
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?
It should only be a criminal offense if you "hack" into the wireless network. And by hack, I mean circumvent the owner's attempt to secure their wireless network. If you enable WEP/WPA on your wireless network, and someone cracks the keys and uses your wireless, that should be a criminal offense. If you buy a wireless router and don't put on the encryption, then it's your fault.
I partially agree with your statement, that it should be the responsibility of the wireless AP manufacturers to enable some security by default, even if it is only WEP. You should make the user have to disable WEP, if they want an open network.
The manufacturer's argument to that, would be that the common user probably does not know how to use WEP. This would therefore cause an increase in support calls when their new wireless router does not work. The manufacturer should have to deal with that, or make it extremely simple and obvious to the user how to use the security features.
WTB [sig], PST!!!
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
I dont care how its done; the government has no place in telling us what to do with the internet access we pay for and on routers we pay for. If you don't want someone using your router thats your problem.. If they crack your encryption; obviously that falls into many already existing anti hacking laws (or make that the law)
adding any CRIMINAL or CIVIL law for someone connecting to your UNENCRYPTED access point only encourages stupidity, lack of reponsibility and negligence. If you left a hose running plugged into your house that extended to the driveway, and i was running by and was thirsty, I'd pick it up turn on the spiggot and drink some... if you dont want me to then do one of three things: turn the damn thing off at the end of your house; put the hose away; or waste money on some crazy lock on it lol. Suggesting that the government take on the problem is an exercise in futility; it will only waste our time and money and rights.
Furthermore suggesting that the "makers of the devices" do anything differently has a similar net result. It is not their problem; it is yours. Do with it what you want. If you are too unintelligent to push the "EZ Security" (re crappy unadjustable settings" button on a linksys; or follow the extremely basic guide in the instructions, and are also too unintelligent to either ask a friend for help, call tech support, or find help elsewhere then you have to deal with the consequences. There are a lot of reasons you probably dont want wep or name your security method enabled by default; namely setting the damn thing up. What do you do when your device is having a problem or you forget the password?
There are other interesting a better ways to go about the problem. MAC address filtering can work well, as can limiting the number of leases allowed.
The bottom line is that this is an area that the government has absolutely no business talking about, getting involved with, or passing laws regarding. Especially the federal government. They've got plenty of important things to waste their time on that ACTUALLY matter and should be decided by them. Lastly, how is being fined or sent to jail even remotely not get categorized as excessive punishment worse than the crime? If you pay anything at most it should be some factor of the cost of the fee for internet service paid by the place you stole it from.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
I bought a router, plugged it in, and it starts broadcasting as Linksys. I go to my computer and there are 3 unsecured Linksys APs visible. How do I know which one is mine? If I pick the wrong one do I really need to go to jail?
I go visit my next door neighbor and he says "Yeah, I have an unsecured Linksys router. Go ahead and use it, that's what it's there for!" How do I tell which one of those 3 I have permission for? Again, if I pick the wrong one do I really need to go to jail?
Let's simplify. There is only one Linksys AP. I have permission from the owner. A 2nd person sets up an AP the same way - my computer will automatically connect, and will look the same to me. I will have absolutely no idea I'm using one I don't have permission to use. Do I now go to jail? For something someone else did?
Man, you really need that seminar!
Thank you. No, really. The more people who hear this and who actually understand it the better.
I will never, EVER understand how the following counts as "stealing wireless access":
1) I broadcast my SSID. (Here's a wireless connection world! LOOK OVER HERE FOR IT!!!)
2) User asks, "Can I connect?" (IP address requested.)
3) I say, "Sure you can connect." (IP address loaned.)
4) YOU STEAL MY WIRELESS!!!!!!!
Ok, I guess I should do it as a car analogy:
1) I put out a sign, "I will let you borrow my car."
2) You ask, "Can I borrow your car?"
3) I say, "Yes, and here are the keys."
4) YOU STOLE MY CAR!!!!!
There is no difference. If you think there is a difference, you are either stupid or ignorant, or trying to apologize for someone else who is either stupid or ignorant.
If someone hacked into my wireless and used it, that's a crime. If someone stole my car, that's a crime. If someone asked to borrow my wireless and I let them, or my car and I let them, that's not a crime. If I'm either so socially ignorant or technically ignorant that I don't understand what I'm doing, then I need to suck it up when people do what I am INVITING them to do. And the rest of society should backhand me for complaining about it.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Yeah, no doubt. Just yesterday, in fact, I unplugged my router for a sec to let it reboot and forgotten to plug it back in. I started my laptop (in the other room), started using the internet, and *boom!* there I was, "maliciously stealing" somebody else's wireless bandwidth because my computer automatically connected to their unsecured router!
OK, so I didn't read TFA. So I'm probably completely off base here. I mean, I get the idea behind the law - internet access is like any other consumable utility (gas, water, electric). But to contrast how different this is from that, when's the last time you turned on the shower and accidentally stolen water from your neighbor's water pipes?
You've obviously never been uninsured. The emergency rooms are only required to provide emergency care. Once you are stabilized (or sometimes if you're not) they send you away. If you need prescriptions, further tests, or (ha!) physical therapy, you can forget about it. If you have severe asthma and you either need an inhaler or to go the emergency room every week, then you're going to the emergency room every week (they only have to provide emergency care, not preventative) until you either get the money for that inhaler or you have an asthma attack too far away from a hospital and die. If you have a degenerative spine disease, you can go to the emergency room for some lame painkillers and they'll tell you what kinds of tests and therapies they'd give you to keep you out of a wheelchair, if you had any money (this actually happened to a friend of mine). God only knows what would happen if you developed cancer or a terminal illness while uninsured. No other developed country lets its citizens go without health care.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.