Slashdot Mirror
Confessions of a Wi-Fi Thief
Michelle Shildkret from Time wrote in to tell us about a story about "the ethics of stealing Wi-Fi. Many of us been guilty of the same crime at one point or another — according to the article, 53% of us at least. But how guilty do we really feel? As it is officially a crime to steal wi-fi (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47 of the United States Code, which covers anybody who 'intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access')."
"intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access")."
Then, I have never stolen WiFi. I have never accessed without authorization; as I have never cracked a WEP or WPA password scheme.
Everytime I use an available wireless network, I instruct my computer to ask for permission to connect to the router and enter to the wireless network. And most of the time the router gives me such permit and assigns my router an IP. When it does not happen, then I assume the owner has instructed the router to give permission to specific machines (as in, machines with a specific MAC adddress) and hence I do not use such networks.
Seriously, someone must create an interface in which a person is able to send the commands manually to the router (like the AT commants in a modem) to ask for connection permission (i.e., DHCP protocol). That way, when you are in court, you could use that program along the court's wifi to show them how you are indeed asking for permission and the software is granting you the permission.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Could you clarify, a wifi hotspot is classified as a computer? It's intentionally accessing a network for sure, but don't know about a computer.
Sigger than your average
But then again, I'm not a lawyer.
Open routers have a policy of allowing authorization by default. As such, using an open router is not illegal under this act. If you have to crack anything, then it is illegal. But a simple open router is no different than an open anonymous FTP site, web server, irc server, etc.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
How guilty do I feel when my computer/phone/whatever connects to a wide-open wifi signal without even prompting me to do anything? How about, "not at all"?
...that I may or may not be using yours or someone else's unsecured wi-fi access point, Definitely maybe not, to post this response.
Bearded Dragon
WiFi hotspots are all over. I've connected to dozens of them. That's what they are for.
So the only way a person *knows* it's not intended to be a public network is by having someone complain about it after the fact. Lots of people leave their WiFi open at home as a "public service".
It's different to intentionally circumvent protections that are in place, like WEP or restriction by MAC address. That's prying open a locked door so to speak.
Sometimes I think these article summaries are intentionally worded to get slashdotters cranked up. Okay, it worked on me.
Fresh horses and more whiskey for my men.
Routers/Access Points are computing devices more sophisticated than the computers of the early 80s.
I came, I saw, She conquered.
But how guilty do we really feel?
Although I think the answer to that depends on how much (and how) we use it, I'd say that most people don't feel at all guilty about using any convenient access point for short, low-bandwidth activities.
If I need directions while out and about, I'll find an open AP and pull up Google Maps. No guilt whatsoever, and I wouldn't mind if someone used my AP for the same; In fact, I'd consider this one of the greatest side-effects of ubiquitous open WAPs, the ability to share a small trickle of a resource I never need all to myself (and to use it when I similarly need that small trickle of data).
Now, regularly using a neighbor's wireless to avoid needing to pay for your own ISP (unless you have an agreement to split the cost - Of course, the ISPs hate this, but I see no ethical problem with it) or downloading kiddie porn or sucking a large portion of the available bandwidth... That gets into abusive territory, and such people should feel guilty.
If your LinkSys router is running some flavor of Linux, is it not a computer? Even your microwave is a computer.
In this case, you aren't accessing the computer, you are communicating with it.....you are accessing the NETWORK without (human) permission.....which the law (as stated in the summary) doesn't cover that situation.
Layne
Windows is, by default, configured to automatically connect to new networks. Which means, it is configured to silently break the law, without your knowledge. The 53% of people who admit to stealing WiFi is probably really higher - many people don't know where thier bits are coming from.
The power went off in my house the other day - and nobody noticed. The four or five laptops in use all silently switched over to a neighbour's network. I can't see that being considered a crime.
At home I've got a completely open wifi access point for all my neighbors to use. Since none of them are all that tech savvy I don't need to worry about them hogging bandwidth through bittorrent and the like. I figure that as long as my own access to Internet is unobstructed, why shouldn't I let others partake in it for free?
If this was wikipedia, "stealing" in this context would be a weasel word...
If a router is handing out IPs, how is that stealing?
Unless we are talking wpa/wep encryption cracking, or possibly abusing the connection, I don't see what the problem is.
Some people actually do live outside the US. This may come as a surprise to you, be we even have electricity and computers.
Also, in many places, the law is quite a bit more reasonable. Where I live, it is only illegal to access a system when a reasonable effort has been made to protect it (so an open access point doesn't count), and even then, they have to prove you intentionally did that.
Indeed. I don't know how the law is interpreted, but I cannot imagine how anyone who broadcasts an unencrypted radio signal can complain if someone else picks up that signal. It would be like a TV station claiming that you are stealing their content because you tuned into their channel.
You could say that a wifi router is different from TV because the activity is two-way: but the wifi router chooses to respond to me. If the owner of the router never bothered to tell their router not to respond to me, then is it my fault that it does? Am I guilty if my computer merely pings their router because it created a response on that router? They are the one who initiated the communication by broadcasting hello packets.
It depends from country to country:
Ahh.. the logic of law.
Here is a link to the actual law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-.html
In addition to "intention" there seems also to be a requirement for damage or fraud, or revealing atomic secrets. I don't think it is obvious that using a wi-fi router based on a DHCP reply is improper under the law, although the syntax of the law is complex. Walking up the front walk of a home to ring the doorbell isn't necessarily trespassing, even without permission.
Encrypt your signal or expect people to use it. It's that simple folks
I leave my access point open on purpose. Anyone can connect, and I even named my router "Open Access Point". If someone connects, I don't think they're stealing from me.
At some point, I think society would be better served by everyone leaving all of their access points open. I love the idea of mesh networks and eliminating the need for everyone to have a wired connection to the internet.
It's not well thought out. Otherwise you wouldn't have this issue in the first place.
If I want to share my WiFi it isn't easy to make it known of my wishes and my terms and conditions - after all, though I share it, I might say I log access, (mac addresses, urls etc) just in case someone does something illegal, so that if the cops come, I could throw them that bone to chew on, instead of them chewing on me.
If it were well thought out, it would be easy to have secure encrypted _anonymous_ connections:
1) no need for people to enter a password to get encryption
2) people cannot see each other's traffic - snooping is possible in some encryption modes, for example if everyone knows the WEP key, they can figure out each other's traffic, so you'd need some WPA mode, but these require username and passwords, you could give everyone the same username and password, but there's no standard for Windows, Linux, Mac to try "anonymous" usernames and passwords ala anonymous ftp.
And also there would be a standard way to get info about a wifi zone, and to prompt the user if the info/T&C changes, say when you computer connects to a different AP.
So the tech still needs a fair bit of work.
We'll today'll be the last time I heat my burrito in the microwave in "Executives Only" lounge, lest I be charged under Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47...
What's the cost of leeching of someones wifi? If you're not downloading a season of The Office with bit-torrent, or watching high-definition streaming video with your neighbors unsecured wifi then I cant imagine that you'd have any great impact on them. I have a cable modem connected to a wireless router at my apartment -- and I leave it unsecured intentionally for the sole purpose of helping someone out who needs to get online. For everyday browsing, emailing, and use of aptitude (I really don't do much more than that I guess) I'm fine with two or three guests in my routers DHCP table. I think the lesson we should take from wifi leaching is that for general purpose internet use, what most of us do, everyone having their own cable modem and paying a media-mega giant 60 bucks a month isn't necessary. If we got less up-tight about trusting our neighbors, it's another area where things could be cheaper.
Depending upon where you are and the local laws, if you are parked in front of someone's house you could be cited for loitering. There is almost always a way for cops to detain/ticket someone if they want.
I don't see what's the drama with open access. I leave my AP open on purpose, with an essid starting with "free_" to reinforce the idea, and a simple QOS setup to give me priority over my neighbors. I can't even notice when they're using the net, and I counted more than 10 different MAC addresses so far. More people using the net == good. It's not like I need all my bandwidth 24/7...
in b4 "but pedophiles will get you jailed, think of the children!!" -- I'm no more responsible for that than the hot dog vendor in the corner would be if ninja terrorists employed his hot dogs as lethal weapons.
Prescriptive grammar:linguistics
Accessing a hotspot without authorization may be a crime, but so is smoking pot. Is smoking marijuana "thieft"?
You are correct, TFS is wrong. If I steal your truck you don't have access to your truck. If I hide in its bed and ride downtown with you without your knowledge, it may be wrong and it may be illegal but I didn't steal anything.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
They rob me of quiet and peace. i never make noise. They gun their 50cc twostroke scooters at 2am. i spent 100 bux (70 euros give or take) to fix my car's muffler so it is SILENT where they PAY to make them louder. they toss their garbage wherever they like. i try to recycle. the rest of the apartment block is drenched in tobaccosmoke stench. when/if i smoke i make sure to neutralize the smoke.
/torrenting as we speak
i don't feel guilty at all and don't you dare start with the "two wrongs don't make a right" crap.
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
I thought that law was unenforceable, since the RIAA violates it routinely and it is never enforced against them.
Contrary to anything anticipated, a German court just ruled that someone did a criminal act connecting to an open wifi.
The DHCP package you take as an invitation was interpreted by the court as a telecommunication message not intended for the recipient and thus illegal to read.
My blog
And if the neighbors ain't neighborly, it's time to padlock the workshed.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
For fuck's sake, do we have to go over this again? Stealing means that the perpetrator takes something away and the victim doesn't have it anymore. It doesn't apply to accessing someone's wifi, it doesn't apply to unscrambling a pay-TV channel, it doesn't apply to copying a digital file.
If you're going to cast "unauthorized use" in terms of robbery, then don't cry about how your rights are being taken away when you get prosecuted as a robber for making use of something that someone else couldn't be bothered to secure properly.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
When I use WiFi signals that are in the air somewhere that I've got a right to be myself, like in my own home or office, I feel the same way about using it as I do when I use an electrical ground wire. Or reading a newspaper in the incident light.
If those electrons or photons are trespassing in my private property, whoever sent them there is fortunate that I don't take countermeasures, in court or with a lethal focusing reflector.
--
make install -not war
You ring the doorbell, a ticket drops from the mail slot that says "You're free to enter the house and watch some TV", and the door swings open for you, and a lighted path to the TV illuminates on the floor. Valuable objects may be in plain view, but messing with them in any way wouldn't be ethical, since they are clearly personal, whereas access to the TV isn't.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I bet drinking fountains ruin your day.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
What if you're standing exactly on the border between Germany and Singapore?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I know where you live, I have your traceroute.
Being 'forced' into XP due to my love of games, my primary machines have always ran it since SP1 release, even then, I used pre SP1 xp, and gradually upgraded from there. I have been using wireless since wireless B hardware became cheap enough (the 70~ dollar CAD for a NIC range) for my then after school job would allow me to afford. Never once, has windows automatically connected to the most powerful random network unless I had the AUTOMATICALLY CONNECT TO NON-PREFERRED NETWORKS box selected under the advanced properties for wireless networks. If there is no preferred network, it merely tells me some are in range, and asks me to select one if I choose to. This is how it's been since day one, that box has never been checked by default after any fresh installation either.
Just for everyone's entertainment, the california statute that applies is:
California Penal Code Section 502(c)(3) and 502(c)(7).
And for all of the idiots stating that the "router" gave them permission, give me a break. The router isn't a legal entity, and only works in the way you interact with it. Just like the door knob.
I twisted the doorknob (initiated association with the accesspoint), and the doorknob gave me permission to enter by retracting the latch (allowing me to associate and giving me a DHCP lease). The owner of the door could have configured the door differently, by engaging the lock mechanism (using WEP or WPA), so since he didn't I'm free to enter and watch his HBO (use his broadband internet access). I'm not "stealing" from him, because it's not like he has less HBO (internet) now that I've viewed some of his HBO (internet).
A big part of what a lot of people are missing is, even if you had a point regarding associating with his wireless network because it is open (which you don't), that only gives you authorization to access his LAN. You still have no right to use his paid broadband internet services. You don't have that right, because you aren't paying the ISP, and because the owner of the access point doesn't have the right to share or transfer his right to use his internet service with all of his neighbors, just like I don't have the right to share my HBO programming with all of my neighbors. It's called theft of service. Even if you claim the right to access the wireless owner's network, you certainly do not have permission to access the ISP's network. And even if I run coax down my lawn, and put a coax jack at the end of my property so that people on the sidewalk can screw into it and watch HBO, that doesn't mean I have any right to share my HBO or that you have any right to leech service that you're not paying for.
Using someone else's wifi is a crime, because you're not just accessing their network, you're accessing their ISP's network without permission. Giving away your wifi by intentionally hosting open access points is very likely a breach of your contract with your ISP.
"Last year a man in Cedar Springs, Mich., was fined $400 for mooching off somebody else's wi-fi--a police officer spotted him laptop-surfing in a parked car."
My laptop has an internal EVDO Rev A card that has become my primary mode of connecting to the net outside of my home. I've only had it for a month or so. I use this laptop in cars or other public spaces all the time. It seems unlikely that I'd be able to convince a police officer that I do in fact own the connection that I'm using to surf in a parking lot. It's an easy assumption to make that anyone using a laptop out in the open is likely using a nearby 802.11 network.
So, assuming the cop doesn't believe me, how is the fine given out? If I'm spotted, does the cop write me a ticket? Does he arrest me? Do I have to go to court and prove that I am, in fact, using a connection for which I've paid?
Hopefully there's more to that story than the article lets on. Hopefully showing the officer the "TELUS" logo on my connection app would be convincing enough. Otherwise, it seems like this sort of thing is very guilty-until-proven-innocent.
5nd? It sounds more like it was written by a 3th grader.
Case 1: A university has a large sign out front broadcasting it's name and anyone can enter the campus. There are places you should know you shouldn't go on campus unless you are a student or teacher, and things you know you shouldn't do.
This is analogous to having a router with SSID broadcasting that assigns IPs to anyone automatically and gives them unrestricted internet access. You shouldn't access their computers or start printing stuff on their network printer. It's still assumed that you should use the router for legal purposes and it's polite not to kill it with bittorrent.
Case 2: A public school in a rural neighborhood has a sign out front, but you need to go to the front desk and get a nametag if you aren't a student. You need to state your purpose and leave when you're done. It would be trivially easy to go in a side door, but that would get you in trouble.
This is analogous to a cafe with a sign that says "Free wifi for customers." Sure you COULD access it out in the parking lot, but the legality of it is much more in the gray area, and it's possible they could attempt to bring charges.
Case 3: A private school in an urban area has no sign, and a large gate out front. You aren't allowed anywhere on campus without permission.
This is analogous to a wifi network with no SSID broadcasting and wep encryption enabled. It is clear that this network was not meant for your use.
I thought you were being the Pink Panther...
Pedant.... Pedant.... pedant.pedant.pedant...
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
Indeed. I think there may be no way at all to differentiate between a router left open deliberately and one left open purposefully.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
with a standard router you can name the SSID 'Please use me' - but that's about it. One vaguely interesting thing on the horizon are the dual SSID routers - the ridiculously over designed Belkin n router I understand allows you to have a private and a public/guest dual SSID thingie running. In my happy-clappy rainbow world all routers would be like that, with an option on setup for a 'non-LAN, throttled/low priority' public option available for easy selection on install. Think if people are given option to share without risk they'd click yes (well enough would).