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'
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
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.
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
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...
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
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
Sorry I'm not at 127.0.0.1 right now, please leave a message... (beep)
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
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.
Indeed. I think there may be no way at all to differentiate between a router left open deliberately and one left open purposefully.