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.
...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.
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!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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.
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.
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
Nah, just mandate that configuration is done through Ethernet or serial connection.
My Phillips wireless router came default with the wireless functionality switched off. That is also a good solution: You have to access the router to enable it, and the wizards you go through can advise you to turn on security.
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
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.
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