Slashdot Mirror
Some 12% of Consumers 'Borrow' Unsecured Wi-Fi
alphadogg writes "Despite the fact that it's often considered an illegal act, a sizeable percentage of the UK/US internet-using population 'borrows' unsecured Wi-Fi access. This is according to a study conducted by the group Accenture. 'The Accenture study found that computer users are still engaging in some unsafe computing practices. Nearly half of all respondents said that they used the same password for all of their online accounts, and only a quarter of them have ever encrypted files on their computers.'" My guess is the actual figure is higher than that.
This just in:
People on the internet 'steal' stuff they should pay for.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
I am trying to connect to "Free Public Internet" but its not letting me.
Do I need a password?
liqbase
Had a lady bring her laptop into our computer repair shop. "I can't get the Internet any more."
.. that it was a godz-given fact that, anywhere she went, she'd have internet access.
.. more explanations.
After extensive questioning (using very small words), I determined:
Her expensive laptop worked fine.
Her TCP/IP settings, web browser, etc. all worked just fine.
The wireless components and setup worked just fine.
What was NOT working fine was her neighbor's wireless access point. Apparently that fine fellow had either turned it off, lost his own internet connection, encrypted his WAP, or whatever.
She never knew she was using his connection, connecting to his WAP. She thought that, since the stick-on on her laptop said it had wireless and could reach the internet
"But it works on campus."
Sigh
Half an hour of my life, gone. And I don't even want to think about the brain damage.
When you set up your wireless network you can choose whether to allow open access or not. If the network's owner has specified that anyone can use it, why is it bad to do so? I have my wireless router at home set up for open access and it does me no harm if others use it for occasional web browsing. The only flaw is that many routers don't have a way to prioritize or cap usage so that my work isn't slowed down by other people's Bittorrenting.
Yes, it's sent unencrypted - just like network traffic over those old-fashioned things called wires. We all know to use https and ssh for secure connections anyway.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
This is a pretty inane study- there is a huge difference between occasionally looking for an open wireless when away from home to browse and using a neighbor's open wireless as your main pipe. And the comments about identity theft are ridiculous, as most sensible people adjust their browsing/net use when using unknown networks to reflect their uncertainty in its security.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
But if they start borrowing and eating your already limited bandwidth and start choking your connection. Then just use some form of encryption and be done with it (AES).
It doesn't really matter whether or not it's illegal, they put themselves at risk if they transmit wireless on an unencrypted connection
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I have my doubts that more people 'borrow' Wi-Fi access. But as I couldn't find a link to the actual study, this is hard to confirm.
Personally I would guess that the result is much lower than in the study. None of my acquaintances have ever piggy-backed wi-fi, and that includes cosc (Computer Science) students, software engineers in the industry and of course plenty of people that know nothing about computers. At the same time only one person I know encrypts any hard-drive data (no not me).
I don't see why piggy-backing wi-fi is illegal, after all if someone leaves their gate open, they shouldn't be surprised if someone else walks through. (Note: If you misuse the network to steal data of your host, the stealing should obviously still be illegal)
Where exactly is this "considered an illegal act"?
How the hell do you "consider" something to be illegal? It either is, or isn't.
How the hell is 12% a "sizeable percentage"?
Someone's really trying hard to make an article out of nothing.
sic transit gloria mundi
Zonk doesn't read past the headline.
/ \
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
x
/ \
So 96 people, some in the US and some in the UK accessed unsecured wireless for an indeterminable amount of time from an unnamed source. New study just out! 100% of landline phone customers have service with companies that allow random strangers to access their phone records! How many of the 12% accessed the service accidentally? At coffee shops? Mcdonalds? Nice contrite study results. Not much reference data... 800? How many in the US?.. Plus if they were random, how many were on the no call list?
People actually share free things.
Collectively we're quite evil, but when it comes to free things, we can make the superhuman effort of sharing them.
However, this usually only works when it takes more effort to avoid sharing them.
Check for your natural sharing instincts in this situations:
You have to take out the garbage. You'd rather:
A. Take the garbage out yourself.
B. Share the garbage with the neighbor.
C. Pull out your own eyeballs with a rusty wooden sock.
You have to set up your network. You'd rather:
A. Configure it securely with a complex password you'll have to remember.
B. Not give a shit. At all. Not even to understand what a network is.
C. Cowboy Neal.
I have a Speedstream 6-series-something (6200?) router, and it has this problem where if you disable the wireless, you have to do a hard reset to enable it again. Long story short I was running an open wireless network for a while, and there was never less than two leechers on the network, in a well-spaced neighborhood full of old people in a third world country. I'd hate to see what would happen to an open wireless network in a crowded metropolis.
Other interesting fact: Me and a friend were wardriving with just a regular laptop, no special antennae, speeding down the highway, and we picked up a LOT of networks, often with a good signal. Some of these were in places with no buildings in sight. When I get a working laptop again I plan to implement a setup that leeches off open networks as I drive (mainly for a Google Earth-based navigation system, anything sensitive will either have to be encrypted or left out), and I have no doubt it will work nicely.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Stuff I vaguely care about, gets better passwords, and regular changes.
That's not 'insecurity' that's 'too many places insisting on registration'.
"Nearly half of all respondents said that they used the same password for all of their online accounts..." I have statistical evidence (sample size of a little over 5000) that proves that says that the percentage is MUCH higher...more like 80-85%. We talk all the time about privacy, net security, identity theft, etc., but this something that is VERY often overlooked. There are many LAMP projects out there (mostly put together by high schoolers or ambitious university freshmen) that collect an email and a password for their own user authentication and then don't encrypt their users' passwords in database. Dishonest 15 year-old admin + one select query on his own database and then approx 80% of the time you have access to the users' email account. From there, the sky's the limit. Online banking, university login accounts, etc. Troubling to say the least. We need a LOT more education of stupid kids that don't know how to encrypt passwords safely in their DB. Furthermore, we need to remember good old fashion ethics in this stuff.
It always seemed odd to me that this was illegal, when in reality you are asking for and getting permission. That is, as everyone here would know, your laptop (for example) has to ask the wireless router for permission to connect. The router then grants permission and allocates an IP, all within its normal operating process (i.e., no trickery or hacking involved). It is not a passive process, like, say, entering an unlocked home, in which the house is passively exploited.
if you dont want your community to use your wireless, but you want the ease of unsecured access, use mac address filtering on your wireless router. most all 802.11b/g/n integrated service routers come with that feature in an easy to use package. if you CBA to keep people off your network, it WILL be used.
it makes it a bit harder to add devices to the network, but once again, tis still easy.
i keep mine unsecured simply so that if there is ever a disaster in the area, the cisco NERV (i got to tour it the other day, was awesome) can override it and add it to the disaster mesh. i think of it as community service.
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/11/video_ciscos_network_emergency.htmlI came across an unsecured network with strong signal a while ago. Turned out to be someone across the street. They had 4 Windows systems attached, with C: drives shared, unprotected. I also found a shared printer on their network.
I warned them by printing a page on that shared printer, identifying myself and describing the problem. Next day the access point was secure..
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
in chengdu, china. wep key: "apple"
I'm guilty of using the same password on a lot things online. Several forums, throwaway email addresses, "register to read the rest of this article" news sites, etc. Basically, the stuff I don't really care about, and I don't give two hoots if it gets h4x0r3d.
I don't particularly see that as an "unsafe" practice, since none of it really matters.
Things I actually care about (personal email, anything work related, etc) get real passwords, and things that can really cause problems (banking, etc) don't get done via the internet at all.
IF its open I use it. If you don't want me to use it put a password on it.
When I set up my WiFi I know full well that if there isn't a password, other people will use it.
I lived in a large apartnemt complex that was mostly college students. I could see about 20 open wi-fi systems.
Frequently they would be unprotected and often they were stepping on my frequencies. I did them the favor of configuring, changing the channel and passwording the systems for them.
I share my WiFi with anyone within range. It hasn't been a problem, I'm happy if a neighbor can make use of it.
Living in an apartment, I was actually surprised with the opposite. It appears that there are 20 or so wireless networks with good signal strength in range, and I am in a corner of the building. However, there is not a single network that isn't using some form of encryption. I don't know if this is typical, but all the supposed luddites living in this building (a combination of college/university age couples and 50+ year old singles) have obviously figured their wireless routers out.
The other premise upon which people base a lot of paranoia regarding network and personal computer security is the assumption that they possess something worth stealing. There are many effective credit card fraud methods in use that don't require any sort of computer exploitation, but rather involve "social engineering." What other information does the average person have on his PC that is of value? Of course I would be disturbed if somebody managed to obtain my entire photograph library, but that is of so little value to somebody else, I doubt very much that any significant effort would be put towards obtaining it.
In my neighborhood I can see 8 access points. Every one of them encrypted. Granted 6 of them use WEP...
I keep my ipod touch's wireless on, and not only on, but to auto-associate with any open wireless it finds. I do this for a couple reasons. 1) My last fm song information can get scrobbled as I walk around. 2) I can get my mail delivered to me away from my home/work computer. Since all my mail is ssl, it's not a big deal. And who cares about my lastfm account information. I've thought about many times creating a public wifi hotspot around my house that limits connections to http only, although I'm not sure how that opens me up in the legal sense. It's bad when you're trying to be honest and help people and you get burned.
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm borrowing my new neighbor's wifi to post from my new house. Unfortunately my ISP hasn't yet gotten my Internet to work. Oh wait, I am the ISP! My bad.
For fun, go to a local mall and turn on a wifi sniffer of your choice. Our local podunk mall had no less than 30 unsecured wireless networks, almost all for stores which held servers with financial data. And thats what I found with a smartphone using totalcommander and wififofum.
Nearly half of all respondents said that they used the same password for all of their online accounts
Like newspaper registrations? Rather than bother with bugmenot, I just register using bogus data. My password is 111111. Because I really don't give a shit about a newspaper registration. It has nothing whatever to do with security. The Chicago Tribune has no CC#s, SS#s or any other real, personally identifiable information about me; I don't even know why they bother.
Yet this is somehow deemed a "Security risk." And I don't send encrypted data; if it's sensitive information I'll send it snail mail.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Yeah, my neighbors just got a laptop & have been using my Wi-Fi from their front porch. We're good friends so it doesn't bother me. I'm pretty surprised it can reach them being 802.11b & over 300 feet away. Not too big of a deal as no one else lives within at least 1000 feet of my router. If I lived in the city I'd have that shit locked down tight.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Like me, when I am working in my bedroom, I must check if I am connected to my neighbor's wireless network, because his network is way slower than mine.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
My own access point is secured, but I do use unsecured ones from time to time (there are a few in my neighborhood). It's an advantage when I'm having problems with my own wifi--I can check to see if other connections in the neighborhood are working (if not, it's probably a problem with the cable company) and I can access the internet to look up troubleshooting information, etc. All of that is much quicker than calling Comcast.
I don't do anything *important* while I'm using someone else's wifi, but it is convenient.
And I don't encrypt anything on my home hard drive. Frankly, I don't think I have any files that are that important. I do encrypt many of my work files, but that's because they include medical data....
I've always found the word "consumer" to have a sinister connotation. It implies hierarchy and control, and implies that there are people in society who do, and then there are those who just receive. It's offensive.
Dammit, we're "citizens", "people", "internet users", and a million other terms. I never want to be called a "consumer".
The Upside-Down-Ternet (*evil grin*)
reminds me of a comment my roommate's sister made. She came to stay over in our apartment building and was shocked to find that she could log into this linksys network. "It must be huge! I can log into it everywhere i go!"
I would like to start by saying thank you to "Ryan" who has been broadcasting his SSID and glorious wi-fi to me at a my home. I do not have any internet access - well, that *I* pay for. And this seemed like a good time to thank "Ryan" - at least I am assuming his name is Ryan, as that is the SSID. You're the best! See, now it's not stealing, I said "thanks" so I am assuming it's a gift. I mean - it WAS put into my home w/o me asking for it...
if it's unsecured, that means either two things, the owner intended it to be used, or the owner is blatantly oblivious to security and the notion that you have to turn it on.
if the oblivious owner had intended to deny access, he would have sought a way to do it.
either way, open use is implied.
They're using their grammar skills there.
A startling 99% of people have had a drink from a public water fountain.
It's my bandwidth, I paid for it, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Hell if I open my base station to all and some poor person uses it I'd like to be able to take that as a charitable donation as a matter of fact. The real problem here is that the last mile is controlled by a bunch of people that know for a fact that the end of their business model is neigh. Cell phones? Well the advent of WiMax and VoIP means that a great many of them are totally fucked. In fact as a owner of a Nokia e61 with Fring and a Wifi antenna living in a city with MetroFi I can already not use a cell phone a great deal of the time. Peer to peer mobile phones combined with Merkai type mesh base stations could be the beginning of a true free nationwide cloud. Buy alarm lines to your neighbors and run Ethernet over unlit POTS. Run your own fiber from the edge of neighborhood to the next one.
Hell why not go whole hog and make most of the spectrum into one open cloud. Then we use peer to peer mesh handsets, towers and base stations that have wide bandwidth fractal antennas that can use any part of the spectrum. If you want access you give the devices the ability to buy and sell redirection in a free market system. So I have a handset and want a very large file quickly, in my area there is low use and it is two hops to the nearest fiber, My handset negotiates with the people around me to rebroadcast from the fiber to me. I pay them the agreed upon rate for the retransmission. We could wipe away massive amounts of garbage and open up a huge vibrant pervasive ultra high bandwidth world. You can give military, EMS, and aviation fixed spectrum or just make them pay drastically lower rates when needed.
The current system is being crippled by the fact that it is easier for Verizon to buy a congressman or a local assembly then to fix their business model.
Cars have maintenance costs caused by use. If I use your car when you are not, I am costing you money. If I use your bandwidth when you are not, I cant see how that really affects you in any way. Not saying it's right to do so. Just saying the analogy is flawed.
A neighbor has a tree, and that tree's shade extends into your yard. Is it illegal for you to sit underneath that shade and enjoy it while it's available to you? I think not. How is wifi different?
I used to work in office supplies and we sold networking hardware. All the time people would be shocked that they needed to pay for internet service and not just use a wireless card.
that 12% of access points worldwide are free :D
The problem with this is that YOU are not Joe Consumer. The average internet user might write to blogs, buy products, check their insurance, email, etc. They might have as many as two dozen or more sites that all require them to have an account. Sure, some people might use throw-away info on a few, but I wouldn't bet the majority do. And do you really think those same people are going to memorize a purposely non-intuitive, unique, alphanumeric password for each site? Not a chance.
...in the area.
I set my parents house up with secured wifi 3 years ago... Last year my parents got a new laptop, and went about using wifi. 6 months pass. They get a new printer... I tell them that they can print from their laptop, over the network, and try to talk my dad through setting it up... After much confusion, I realize they are not on the wifi network that I set up for them, but one of their neigbhors...
My parents are smart, they just didn't grow up using computers, and don't think about the kind of things that most slashdot users think about... typical boomers... I bet 12% (or more) of laptop users steal wifi, without even knowing it...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
2. For things that really need a password, I suggest the following method. Instead of coming up with a single password, come up with a pass word RULE SYSTEM. Example: Last letter of website name (before .com./.org/etc.) plus 2nd to last letter of my username, plus their numbers in the alphabet plust the nonsense phrase C8t_f1re
So using that rule, my password for slashdot.com would be tpC8t_f1re. My password for fark would be koC8t_f1re
This way, all you need to do is remember a single rule, and let the web sites remember your username for you. Someone that learns your password (like say the sys-admin for work) will not know it for anything else.
P.S., no that is not my rule.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I live in a townhouse community, and I can pick up seven wireless networks besides mine. Of those, two are secured. When my Comcast is out, it's nice to have some backup access through one of my neighbors' DSL or satellite service. I don't abuse it, but I do connect for a quick POP mail check or such. I wouldn't dream of doing anything financial over such a link.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
You're using her as bait, Master!
Securing your router means putting an admin password on it. After that your network can be either open or not.
Silly iPhone and its promiscuous wifi habits!
Even the article writer paints the picture that it is 'ok' to hop onto someone elses network. No Mr. Article Writer - they are not 'free' networks. They belong to someone.
I do think the onus is on people to learn more about securing wireless networking instead of just a plug-and-go approach.
Why don't people understand that it is their responsibility for what happens on their computers and network? That one thing is enough to compell me to lockdown my wireless connections.
The world would be a better place with no wifi security.
Just Imagine. Going anywhere you want and being able to get onto the internet.
And please remember. Encrypting access to one's internet does not make one's internet traffic any safer. SSL please.
So Accenture did a survey and we should trust their results because they used to be part of Andersen Worldwide and (when they were known as Andersen Consulting) they were sister companies with Authur Andersen--the beloved and well-trusted accounting company with a bullet-proof reputation.
Bigtime Consulting - "We're the best because we cost the most"
1. Leave my wi-fi open to you. 2. Net X-Ray filter for www.tjmaxx.com 3. Get your credit-card numbers. 4. Profit!
"The Chicago Tribune has no CC#s, SS#s or any other real, personally identifiable information about me; I don't even know why they bother."
The same reason magazines practically give away subscriptions for usually less than 25% of retail. To get a high number of subscriptions to increase circulation totals to provide to advertisers.
All this "stealing wifi" nonsense will be completely moot when we finally establish free-for-all wireless networking. It might take us a few centuries to get over this petty greed, but eventually the concept of each individual having their own private phone, internet and TV connection will be a funny paragraph in a history book.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Consumers purposely leave wireless unsecured to allow 12% of consumers access.
So how is it stealing if someone is aware that their wireless is unsecured and want to allow guests to access it? Of that 12%, at least 50% of the host networks likely fall into this category.
On the same note, despite repeated calls to the cable company I find that my cable modem goes down quite a bit, but my neighbor's doesn't because they never buried their cable...its an eyesore that runs down the side of my property. So given that I'm paying for the internet service, but its unavailable, and that my neighbor purposely runs an unsecured wireless access point on the same cable network, where is the crime exactly?
That is the gate, the walls that surround your property for your wireless network.
Without even that (the encryption equivalent of a bit of string wrapped around fence posts), there's no way to tell the difference between the common highway (deliberately open WiFi) and private property (intended to be private WiFi).
And IRL, if I were to walk along the public highway and along your road, past your house and back to the highway on my way to work or whatever, I am NOT trespassing until you tell me where your road starts and ends and even then, if the shortest way back to public property is to continue on, I get to continue on.
How many of those "unsecured wireless" connections are run by criminals bent on grabbing your personal info in transit or injecting viruses into your non-ssl web browsing sessions?
I can see it now:
2010, 6 months after the Thou Shalt Not Steal Wifi Act of 2009 went into effect.
Joe Victim complains he's a victim of identity theft.
The police investigate and find he's regularly steals WiFi from his friends and neighbors. One of his neighbors' network got taken over by the Russian mob. He goes to jail for WiFi theft and his neighbor goes to jail for not taking adquate steps to protect his network.
It makes the news.
A month later, throughout the country, people start getting blackmail letters from the Russian Mob saying "We just emptied your bank account. If you go to the police you will go to jail just like Joe Victim a month ago. Have a nice day."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
when they are 'stealing' wifi access. My former neighbor was very tech savvy and he said that every now and then his laptop would pick my access point to join instead of his. I didn't care, it is my responsibility to secure it if I don't want others on it. But the point is, I am sure that less tech savvy people don't even know a lot of the time when they are using someone else's network. BFD. It's like someone that has a big cannister of oxygen on their property and you get arrested for breathing when you walk by.
I live in an apartment and depending on what time of day and weather conditions there are at least two neighbors and a coffee shop around the block which will give me a better signal than my own router. And if all I'm doing is checking my webmail I can honestly say I don't bother to check whether or not I'm hooked to my own or someone else's router. If it works I'm happy. I can't imagine someone like my sister even knowing to check, if her laptop is surfing she would consider it "working" and that would be the end of it.
And while I have no problem with them busting guys like the loser that parked in front of McDonald's for 12+ hours leaching Wifi, expecting a non-technical laptop user to understand and check EVERY single time they use their laptop whther the signal they are using is theirs or a neighbors is just crazy. So unless they intend to change the default behavior of EVERY single consumer laptop sold in America this is just a waste of time and another club the government can selectively bash you with if someone doesn't like you. But that is my 02c,YMMV.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Working in tech support - I can easily attest to this.
"My wireless internet is not working."
"Ok, have you powercycled your router?"
"Router?"
"You know, the box with the little antennas sticking out of it."
"Oh, I don't have one of those."
"Okay, who do you pay for your internet?"
"Oh.... Oh. Uh.. Okay I found the 'router' and unplugged it and plugged it back in. It's still not working. It used to work but now there's a lock on the connection."
"Heh, what lights are lit on the router?"
"Lights? They're flashing but i can't read them."
"Ah. I know exactly what the problem is then. Call your isp. Thanks for calling."
I don't care that are getting free internet - hell the internet should be free - but lying through your teeth b/c you're too stupid to figure it out yourself?
Yes, it must be said. Accenture sucks... big time. Expensive solutions, without the solutions.
> Where exactly is this "considered an illegal act"?
There have been several arrests which were reported on Slashdot. Florida and Michigan are at the top of the list, but why don't you do your own damn Googling? I'm sure the UK was in there somewhere, too.
> How the hell do you "consider" something to be illegal? It either is, or isn't.
You get arrested by a cop who is trying to push the boundaries of the law. Sure, they may have difficulty figuring out which law you broke, but you can sit in a nice holding cell while they figure that out.
> How the hell is 12% a "sizeable percentage"?
It's sizable because it's too many to arrest. Then again, 1% of US adults are in prison, so what do I know? If we build border fences to keep people *IN*, can we consider everyone to be under arrest and end the farce?
> Someone's really trying hard to make an article out of nothing.
It's more important than you think if it gives people any pause in supporting laws criminalizing wi-fi access. Even if you believe that it's wrong, there are enough mitigating factors that it would be better to encourage people to secure or responsibly manage their access points. Because otherwise, "unauthorized access" can cover all kinds of crap, including browsing the wrong web page. And that could become a big problem.
But you haven't been paying attention to the news, have you? Because I sure didn't have any trouble remembering the previous stories.
After all one-in-four /. readers surveyed now this already, that's 25%.
Sig this!
My Wii, DS, and Xbox all have quirky issues with my own secured wireless router (which only works with Windows and Linux after many late nights of driver tweaking). They only work if I leave mine unsecured, which I won't do (since I also "share" my music across my house computers as a "virtual jukebox")
They all connect automatically to my neighbor's (don't know which one) unsecured signal however, so I admit that I leech on them for Mario Kart and CoD4 sessions.
----- And all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks, with one word...UNLESS.
I also walk across lawns when I don't even know who owns them. It could be public land, or it could be someone's private property and I'm stealing time on their grass every time I do it! I'm utterly unrepentant about this, too. Someone should arrest me, and soon, who knows how many lawns I'm going to step on if I'm not stopped.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Sitting by the window at my local Starbucks (where currently, connectivity would cost me $10 a day or whatever T-mobile charges) I can get a powerful 3-bar signal--for free (no wait, 2-bar...now 4).
Conclussion:
'linksys' = "Here, free WiFi. I'll probably never know but complain to my ISP about sluggish downloads"
-AC (joined by 'brad' and 'acer9302')
Moral blinders are for folks who are too stupid to lock down their wireless. They get what they deserve. But, if you are broadcasting to the world that you are there and insecure, it's like handing your car keys to a transient and saying "just drive" (ie. seinfeld show).
These insecure wireless users are ASKING others to use their service!
I'm at the doctor's, awaiting my appointment. we all know how long that takes. so, to amuse myself while waiting, I get out my mobile device to see whether there's any free wifi floating about so that I can read /.. lo, there is, the signal is strong and the WAP's SSID is the doc's name. it's totally open, so I "naturally assume" it's being provided to me as a convenience, kind of like the three-month old US Weekly's in the waiting room (I didn't ask, though). imagine my amusement at finding this article on the front page.
soupy twist
Exactly. Who paid for this study? It wouldn't surprise me if the U.S. Government wanted to know the stats and gave the contract to Accenture. 20 million dollars over budget and 2 years after the deadline this is what they produced
-Dipster
Actually, it depends on the manufacturer of your device. I bought an Acer laptop that automatically connected to a neighbor's unsecured WiFi access point without asking, even though I had my own access point which had a stronger signal -- thing is, my access point was secured with a password and WEP encryption, but my neighbor's access point was running wide open. The Acer laptop was running Vista, but had quite a few custom applications supplied by Acer, including their own custom WiFi management tools.
When I returned the Acer (due to keyboard problems) and tried an HP laptop which also ran Vista, I believe the HP required user action before connecting to anyone's access point for the first time.
So, the GP was at least partially correct -- some Windows laptops will automatically connect to any wide-open access point without asking.
Comparing against OS X laptops: My old iBook running OS X 10.2 would connect to any access point indiscriminately until I changed this behavior. (That was the source of a huge headache, as one of the access points I connected to was set up illicitly by a Honeywell employee... and Honeywell eventually tried to go after me for writing a blog entry about their security lapse, although I didn't know it was a security lapse at the time.) My new laptop, a MacBook Pro running 10.5, will ask the first time it can't find any preferred networks but finds a wide-open access point that isn't in the preferred network list. If you say yes, the wireless networking stack will automatically connect to that access point forever after whenever it sees it (unless there's a preferred network connection with a higher priority that's visible).
In my area, everywhere you go there are signs that say "free WiFi". The library, hotels, coffee shops, hospitals, the lobbies of many businesses, some retail stores, etc.
With so much free WiFi, how is the average individual supposed to distinguish an unintentionally open access point from an intentionally open access point? There's rarely any difference in the SSID; many free WiFi seem to leave the default manufacturer identifier.
When people are commonly giving something away, the only way to let them know that you are not giving the same thing away is to lock it up. It's simple and it's common sense. We don't need special laws.
Perhaps the solution for those that can't be bothered to read the instructions is an actual key? Put a real key lock switch on the access point with a small display for a randomly generated software key. Turn the lock and now your access point is secure; to use it you need physical access to read the software key on the display. Turn the key the other way, and the display indicates "free public access". Then we really can blame the person with the access point for allowing access they didn't intend.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
To continue the analogy, the wireless thief makes a sign that says "Ride yourself to the bike shop, sell yourself, and send me the check." Photons from the Sun bounce off the sign, encode the message, and transmit it to the bike. If the bike then follows the instructions, is that also stealing?
Anyone else think this isn't such a bad thing? I'm not using all the bandwidth, so what if my neighbors can access it? I share mine (and lock down my computers) because I'm thrilled when I'm able to leech off other people's when I'm away from home. Of all the nasty things my neighbors could do, hacking my wifi is not one that keeps me up at night. It's a karma thing.
If there's going to be a law against me sending packets to an access point, there better be a law against them sending me a beacon in the first place.
Should I just ignore the beacons? Then why can't the access points just ignore the packets I send them?
The law can't have it both ways and remain consistent. Either owners of access points need to secure them to ignore unwanted traffic, or they need to stop sending beacons so they don't cause unwanted traffic on every listening NIC within range.
Heh, a lot of people I encounter will buy new laptops and just "expect" the Internet to automatically work on theirs. Most of the time it does... when they move their laptop to the right part of their house. These people have no ISP, nor are they even aware that they should have one.
Seriously, this is very common these days, especially for newer people that are just getting connected.
With smart phones and mini computers becoming popular, borrowing wi-fi is going to become more and more common. I know a guy with an iPhone who connects where ever he can. I don't have a problem with this. He's not downloading gigabytes of data and he moves from one signal to the other frequently.
I think 100% illegal is the wrong way to go. Your neighbor downloading movies on your signal is bad. A guy passing by on the sidewalk checking email is harmless. And each case should be appraised.
At sometime in the future, for a metropolitan area to be considered modern, it will have to have some degree of free wi-fi. Until then, we have Fon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FON
If this practice is so frowned upon, why are routers still being shipped with a default unsecured configurations with the same stupid network id, and why do my wireless devices constantly ask me about (or just proceed with) connecting to unsecured networks? NMP, biznitches.
Zonk's guess is higher than the actual study done. Hmmm, which could be more accurate?
Accessing a wireless network you're not authorized to be on is considered a felony terrorist act, punishable by 30 years in prison. (Even though it should be just a misdemeanor B&E at best if you do no damage.)
IMHO it should not be a crime at all for some configurations.
The computer-using community (pre-wireless) had a long history of using software as agents and protection settings as an expression of intent. (For instance: If a file was read-everybody, it was generally assumed it was OK to read it without asking. If it was read-protected it might be trivial for a super user to read it - but he'd generally ask permission first. Guest accounts with no password or password "guest" were assumed to be OK to use (providing you didn't hog the resources). And so on.)
Wireless routers have mechanisms to clearly express intent in this manner: They advertise their presence if that is enabled. DHCP explicitly hands out credentials when asked, again if it is enabled. WEP encryption is like the latch on a screen door: trivial to crack - but perfectly suitable for telling anybody trying to connect that they're supposed to ask a human for permission first.
The problem is that router manufacturers have been shipping routers configured so the screen door is unlatched and the welcome mat out - with no mention that there's an invisible screen door and welcome mat. So the legal system is (perhaps reasonably) ignoring the old convention and demanding explicit permission. Unfortunately it's also treating anybody who follows the old conventions as a masked and armed burglar, rather than putting any onus on the "property owner" to put up a fence, no trespassing sign, latch his screen door, or otherwise express that his intent is different from that advertised (at the top of its virtual lungs) by his WiFi access point.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
But you aren't being consistent. You can't say that I'm responsible for what my laptop does but that the router owner isn't responsible for what his router does. Either we are both responsible for what our respective machines do, or neither is. Either way, the person who connects to an open wireless system (that does not have the equivalent of a 'no trespassing' sign) is right.
People compare this to a house, though a building is better. Even better still (I think) is an open field. If you don't have a fence, sign, or other indicator that you can't trespass, then people can walk across it all day. Sure, you can tell them to get off your property, but then you have to give them a reasonable opportunity to leave. Until that point, they have not committed any crime.
An open wireless router is an open field without a fence or sign.
...were to smart enough not to admit it
If someone uses your car when you're not using it, you're being deprived of something: gas, mileage on your odometer, wear and tear on your car.
If someone uses your wifi when you're not using it, you're being deprived of nothing at all.
+++ATH0
You're ALWAYS better off going with your own router.
Just get a nice draft-N router and use that.
+++ATH0
"My parents are smart"
Compared to their kids? Maybe...
says that they are so full of sh$t, they publish studies stating the obvious. I think they never bothered to make the phonecalls... 12% sounds more or less accurate.
iPhone users are absolute whores about borrowing unsecured Wi-Fi. It's the only way to 'Fi'!!!!
I think there are a lot of people who set up unsecure Wi-Fi by design so that people can use it -- most of the WiFi scam come with an identifiable network name, like a restaurant or coffee shop.
"This condescending attitude of techies toward the "lusers" is a big part of the reason why people are still afraid of their computers."
Good, maybe they'll get rid of their computers and stick exclusively to watching "American Idol" and let everybody else the hell alone.
The internet used to be pretty good, until they let AOL connect to it.
I certainly hope you send it by encrypted snail mail. Paper envelopes are not a particularly secure channel.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I purposely share my internet with others, somewhat in gratitude to many unnamed strangers that have allowed me to check email or look at a map online far from home... My wired network is behind another router anyways, and anything I care about is done over SSH (or GPG).
If I notice abuse, I'll close it (hasn't happened yet), but the world would be a much better place if everyone just shared.
There is a really simple solution to this. Force all wireless router manufacturers to set a default password.
Although it would be trivial to use this default password it would make clear the fact that you are logging on to a secured connection that's not open for anyone to use.
If someone wants to open their wifi up for free use then they can remove the password. If they want it to be secure they can set the password to something else.
Paper envelopes are not a particularly secure channel.
It's not the paper that makes them secure, it's the strong laws against tampering with them.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
People who follow laws, and people who are bound by laws, are not the people you should be worried about securing data from.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I have a buddy who works for the post office. You can believe that your mail is safe.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Not from him.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Enough with the analogies already! Why does this discussion always go this way? It's not 'like' anything. It is 'like' accessing an open wireless AP, and nothing else.
www.madeofwinandawesome.com
I know Mike, you don't. Your mail is safe from Mike, and if it wasn't safe from his co-workers he'd tell me.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
It's still probably easier to rob a mail truck than break RSA. And I'm sure somewhere in the vast world of the postal service there are some people who can be bribed.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199