Unlocked networks/unlocked houses

[dean_shan]

It also seems a neighbour of mine has a Wi-Fi access point -I'm trying to resist the temptation of using it.


Go for it. If it's not a secure network then it's fair game.

[Pony99CA]

It also seems a neighbour of mine has a Wi-Fi access point -I'm trying to resist the temptation of using it.

Go for it. If it's not a secure network then it's fair game.
<SIGH> So if you leave your house unlocked, it's fair game for people to enter, eh? :roll:

Unless you know the network is intended for public access, assume that it's not. If you want to use an insecure network, try to determine who owns it (sometimes the SSID can give you a clue) and actually ask if it's OK.

Steve

[dean_shan]

It also seems a neighbour of mine has a Wi-Fi access point -I'm trying to resist the temptation of using it.

Go for it. If it's not a secure network then it's fair game.
<SIGH> So if you leave your house unlocked, it's fair game for people to enter, eh? :roll:

As a matter of fact I do leave my house unlocked.

[Pony99CA]

It also seems a neighbour of mine has a Wi-Fi access point -I'm trying to resist the temptation of using it.

Go for it. If it's not a secure network then it's fair game.
<SIGH> So if you leave your house unlocked, it's fair game for people to enter, eh? :roll:
As a matter of fact I do leave my house unlocked.
So anybody is welcome to just come in?

Steve

[dean_shan]

It also seems a neighbour of mine has a Wi-Fi access point -I'm trying to resist the temptation of using it.

Go for it. If it's not a secure network then it's fair game.
<SIGH> So if you leave your house unlocked, it's fair game for people to enter, eh? :roll:
As a matter of fact I do leave my house unlocked.
So anybody is welcome to just come in?


If they want to, there is no way to stop them.

[spacerace]

however your house isn't transmitting electronic messages that your front door is unlocked !

[dean_shan]

however your house isn't transmitting electronic messages that your front door is unlocked !

No but everone where I live keeps their house unlocked. Eveyone knows they could get in if they want.

[Pony99CA]

however your house isn't transmitting electronic messages that your front door is unlocked !
No but everone where I live keeps their house unlocked. Eveyone knows they could get in if they want.
But I bet nobody does. Why not? Because people realize that trespassing is wrong (and, I bet, because lots of people up there have guns :)).

The same goes for computer networks -- don't go into somebody else's unless you have permission.

Steve

[dean_shan]

Wow this went way OT. I have a feeling the a mod might move this network/house lock talk to it's own thread.

[Steven Cedrone]

Wow this went way OT. I have a feeling the a mod might move this network/house lock talk to it's own thread.

Your feeling was correct! Posts split from this (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=217734#217734) thread...

Steve

[spawn_x]

its on your property (the signal), so use it.

its one thing to tap into his physical cable connection, its another to simply "accept" the signals being broadcasted through your house.

its not like you're going out of your way to spy on him..

[Pony99CA]

its on your property (the signal), so use it.

its one thing to tap into his physical cable connection, its another to simply "accept" the signals being broadcasted through your house.

Wrong again. While discovering ("accepting") the unsecured network is not illegal, if you actually try to use it, you've gone beyond accepting to exploiting.

If you find out your cordless phone handset picks up the neighbor's calls, would you place calls for free on that phone line, or switch to a different channel to make a call? Try it and let us know what happens. :twisted:

Steve

[Ed Hansberry]

It also seems a neighbour of mine has a Wi-Fi access point -I'm trying to resist the temptation of using it.

Go for it. If it's not a secure network then it's fair game.
<SIGH> So if you leave your house unlocked, it's fair game for people to enter, eh? :roll:
Not the same. Your unlocked house is not spraying electronic rays into my house. once those rays are on my property, I'll use it, just like if an apple from your tree falls into my yard, it's mine. MMmmmmmmm MmmmmmMMMmM! Yummy!

[karinatwork]

Ok, this might lead this thread to somewhere else, but how can I make sure that nobody uses my wireless network without my permission? Is there any software that I can get? I do lock my door, and I even use an alarm system at night. Now I feel like I should make my wifi network secure, but HOW??

Thanks for any advice!

Karin

[Janak Parekh]

I'll use it, just like if an apple from your tree falls into my yard, it's mine. MMmmmmmmm MmmmmmMMMmM! Yummy!
It's more complicated than that, though. It's like eating the apple and spitting the core back into the neighbor's yard, right? :lol:

--janak

[c38b2]

Karin, Read David Beauvais' reply in this thread:
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4343&highlight=warchalking

[Janak Parekh]

Ok, this might lead this thread to somewhere else, but how can I make sure that nobody uses my wireless network without my permission? Is there any software that I can get? I do lock my door, and I even use an alarm system at night. Now I feel like I should make my wifi network secure, but HOW??
When you set up your wireless network, did you go through the router's configuration? In particular:

1. Turn off SSID broadcast, if the router has such an option;

2. Turn on WEP encryption (you can also use WPA if it has it, but many still don't);

3. Some people also do what's called MAC filtering, where they enter the unique hardware addresses of each wireless card into the router's table so that it only accepts connections from them.

I usually do #1 and #2 and find it sufficient for home environments.

--janak

[c38b2]

1. Turn off SSID broadcast, if the router has such an option;

2. Turn on WEP encryption (you can also use WPA if it has it, but many still don't)
Two questions: what's WPA, and is MAC filtering necessary for home environments where the router doesn't allow not broadcasting the SSID?

[Janak Parekh]

Two questions: what's WPA, and is MAC filtering necessary for home environments where the router doesn't allow not broadcasting the SSID?
WPA is the successor to WEP. I haven't used myself (yet). As for MAC filtering, it's just another line of defense. I personally find #1 and #2 sufficient, so I don't do MAC filtering. Personally, I find MAC filtering to be the least important of the three.

(If one was truly paranoid about security, i.e., in a high-security corporate network, all these three are rather insufficient anyway. 802.1x or even IPsec would be far more useful.)

--janak

[Ed Hansberry]

I'll use it, just like if an apple from your tree falls into my yard, it's mine. MMmmmmmmm MmmmmmMMMmM! Yummy!
It's more complicated than that, though. It's like eating the apple and spitting the core back into the neighbor's yard, right? :lol:

Of course! What else am I going to do with the core? ;)

I agree with Janak on security. Disable SSID and enable WEP. there is another thing some routers allow that I do - Set how many wireless IP addresses they will lease. If you have 2 wireless devices, set the DHCP server for two and set the lease expiry really high.

Just remember all you do because you have to disable all but WEP to easily set up a new machine on the WLAN, and then re-enable it.

[Janak Parekh]

Just remember all you do because you have to disable all but WEP to easily set up a new machine on the WLAN, and then re-enable it.
Actually, I leave SSID broadcast off all the time. Both XP and WM2003 have "advanced" screens where you can manually punch in the network name, and I find that to work perfectly even when broadcast is off.

--janak

[c38b2]

Oh, and this may sound silly, but change the administrative password on the router from the default one. :wink:

[Ed Hansberry]

Just remember all you do because you have to disable all but WEP to easily set up a new machine on the WLAN, and then re-enable it.
Actually, I leave SSID broadcast off all the time. Both XP and WM2003 have "advanced" screens where you can manually punch in the network name
I said "easily." Your way, I actually have to remember what my SSID is. ;-) By the time I look it up on the router, I just click ENABLE. :mrgreen:

[Dave Beauvais]

There are three main things you can do to secure your wireless LAN from most potential hackers: Disable SSID Broadcasting
Your SSID is the name of your wireless LAN and is needed in order for wireless clients to connect. By default, most wireless routers and access points just announce this name to anyone who will listen. To use the house analogy, this would be like leaving the key to your locked door hanging from a hook outside next to the door. If SSID broadcasting is disabled, the potential hacker has to work harder to see that your WLAN even exists. The one unfortunate down side to this is that Windows XP's and WM2003's so-called "Zero Configuration Wireless" depend on SSID broadcasts to find new networks. This means that you'd have to manually enter your network info since it couldn't be discovered automatically. Not a big deal, though.

Enable WEP Encryption
While not the most secure form of encryption mankind has ever developed, WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy) :roll: will stop casual hackers who don't want to take the time to capture the few hundred megabytes of data required to crack your encryption key. If all your wireless devices support it, use 128-bit WEP encryption.

The down side to this, of course, is that 128-bit WEP keys are rather long and it's easy to make a typo, especially when entering them into the Pocket PC. (Definitely use the keyboard.) Once the key is entered, however, you only have to enter it again if/when you change the key on your router or access point. I change my encryption keys every two months at the same time I change all of my important passwords, but that's unnecessary for most people.

Enable MAC Address Filtering
While not 100% secure -- it is possible to spoof a MAC address with some network cards -- MAC filtering will restrict access to your wireless LAN to only those clients you have added to a list. A MAC (Media Access Control) address is a unique number assigned to every Ethernet device in existence. In theory, no two devices -- even if they came off the assembly line together -- will have the same MAC address. Using this fact, you can make it so your router or access point will only allow authorized MAC addresses to associate with it. This way, even if the hacker figures out your SSID and cracks your encryption key, they'd still be unable to connect since their device's MAC address is not in your list of authorized devices. (Yes, I know there's a flaw in this logic... if they can't connect, how did the capture the data required to crack the key... I don't want to go back and rewrite this.)
Anyway, those are the steps most consumers can/should take to secure their WLANs. Corporations will want to take additional steps such as requiring user authentication, security certificates, etc., but this is not something most home users have the ability or need to do.

Edit:Karin, Read David Beauvais' reply in this thread:
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4343&highlight=warchalking
I forgot all about that one. By the time I finished this post, there had been a ton of replies already. :lol:

[dean_shan]

Oh, and this may sound silly, but change the administrative password on the router from the default one. :wink:

That's not silly at all. That is a must. Although it does no good if you change it to 'password' or somthing stupid like that. Make sure you choose a strong password.

[Pony99CA]

It also seems a neighbour of mine has a Wi-Fi access point -I'm trying to resist the temptation of using it.

Go for it. If it's not a secure network then it's fair game.
<SIGH> So if you leave your house unlocked, it's fair game for people to enter, eh? :roll:
Not the same. Your unlocked house is not spraying electronic rays into my house. once those rays are on my property, I'll use it, just like if an apple from your tree falls into my yard, it's mine. MMmmmmmmm MmmmmmMMMmM! Yummy!
I guess Ed is the mean old man who keeps kids' baseballs if they land in his yard. :razz:

I still maintain that there's not much difference between using an unsecured network and somebody coming into your house and watching TV to avoid paying for cable. They arguably aren't damaging anything, so why would you object (he asked rhetorically)?

Anyway, your tree analogy isn't the same, either. I suppose if you just watch the network traffic, you may not be doing anything wrong. However, if you actually use the network, you're broadcasting back into your neighbor's yard. More than that, you're also using his router or computer. If you connect to the Internet, you're using his modem; if you access files on his computer, you're probably breaking computer trespass laws.

You also didn't refute my cordless phone post, which involves a clear theft of services. Using somebody else's bandwidth could easily be considered theft of services, by your neighbor's ISP, if not by the neighbor himself.

I don't see why there's any debate about this. If you don't know that you have permission to use somebody else's property, don't use it. Don't they teach this in kindergarten?

Steve

[Ed Hansberry]

Anyway, your tree analogy isn't the same, either. I suppose if you just watch the network traffic, you may not be doing anything wrong. However, if you actually use the network, you're broadcasting back into your neighbor's yard.
That would be the apple core that goes back over the fence. :-)
I don't see why there's any debate about this. If you don't know that you have permission to use somebody else's property, don't use it. Don't they teach this in kindergarten?
They also taught people to play nice with one another in kindegarten. It was the higher grades that they taught people to listen to and respect others opinions whether or not you agreed with them. Lemme know when you have that class.

[Pony99CA]

Anyway, your tree analogy isn't the same, either. I suppose if you just watch the network traffic, you may not be doing anything wrong. However, if you actually use the network, you're broadcasting back into your neighbor's yard.
That would be the apple core that goes back over the fence. :-)

Yes, it would. Now, would you care to address my more technical points about using my router and modem, or my analogy about cordless phones? I realize quoting out of context can be fun, but you deleted the most important parts of my argument.

I don't see why there's any debate about this. If you don't know that you have permission to use somebody else's property, don't use it. Don't they teach this in kindergarten?
They also taught people to play nice with one another in kindegarten. It was the higher grades that they taught people to listen to and respect others opinions whether or not you agreed with them. Lemme know when you have that class.
Sorry, but there are some opinions that can't be respected. While people certainly have the right to express them, and I support that right, don't expect me to respect those opinions. The issues will vary for different people (racism, abortion, property rights, etc.), but they exist.

As for the other part -- listening -- I have listened to the "if it's unsecured, I can use it" side. I just remain unconvinced.

I'm sure someone can construct a scenario where using somebody's WiFi connection would be OK ("I saw a bad accident but didn't have my cell phone, so I used my WiFi to instant message somebody to call 911."), but those same scenarios could apply to breaking into someone's house.

It's very similar to downloading (copyrighted) music or warez from file sharing networks. We all know it's stealing; some of us are at least honest enough with ourselves to admit we're thieves. :D

If someone would admit they're a thief when they do that, I'd at least respect them for that honesty. If they try to rationalize it as being OK, then they get no respect.

Steve

P.S. This Web site locks threads discussing warez -- and rightfully so -- without "respecting" the person's opinion that it's OK. Maybe I'll see you in class, Ed. :rotfl:

[karinatwork]

Great, now I am even more confused. :oops:

I really don't have a network at home. I only have a wireless router from Netgear, that I plugged into my cable modem, then from this router goes a cable to my desktop upstairs, and downstairs on my laptop I have a wireless network card. The computer upstairs and downstairs are not connected in any way, I wouldn't even know how to do that. They only share internet connection (same with my pocket pc).

Of course it makes sense, as my pocket pc picks up the signal two stories lower in the back yard, anyone passing by can get a signal and get onto the internet as well.

Is there any website where I can read some really, really EASY tutorial (for someone as network impared as me??) I like to be able to just switch on my computers and I'm online. But this whole APPLE story really scares me... :roll:

Thank a bunch!

K.

[Ed Hansberry]

Great, now I am even more confused. :oops:

I really don't have a network at home. I only have a wireless router from Netgear, that I plugged into my cable modem, then from this router goes a cable to my desktop upstairs, and downstairs on my laptop I have a wireless network card. The computer upstairs and downstairs are not connected in any way, I wouldn't even know how to do that. They only share internet connection (same with my pocket pc).
Congrats. You have a network! :mrgreen:

keeping it simple.

Enable WEP
Disable SSID broadcast if your router allows it.

The Netgear manual or website will tell you how.

[Ed Hansberry]

Sorry, but there are some opinions that can't be respected. While people certainly have the right to express them, and I support that right, don't expect me to respect those opinions. ---snip---
P.S. This Web site locks threads discussing warez -- and rightfully so -- without "respecting" the person's opinion that it's OK. Maybe I'll see you in class, Ed. :rotfl:
•Stealing software is clearly illegal.
•"Sharing" music with your closest 1,000,000 friends is illegal in my view, but I can understand well reasoned legal arguments based on the law (US law anyway) that says it isn't stealing.
•Using an opan WiFi connection, IMHO, does not rise to the level of these other two. I can see arguments on both sides and respect well reasoned arguments for both.

[spawn_x]

its on your property (the signal), so use it.

its one thing to tap into his physical cable connection, its another to simply "accept" the signals being broadcasted through your house.

Wrong again. While discovering ("accepting") the unsecured network is not illegal, if you actually try to use it, you've gone beyond accepting to exploiting.

exploitation itself is not the problem, its the charges/damages to the other party. in this case, by simple using his connection you are not causing any harm (unless he is getting charged per megabyte but we're talking probability, not possibility). not sure if i'm being clear, still in bed and may have trouble putting thoughts into words.

no harm was caused, nothing was down, no extra charges were made towards the owner of the network, so where would the problem come from?

no harm no foul, this wouldn't even make it to court. and if they did, the judge would dismiss the case and tell the other party to put at least some security on the network..

[spawn_x]

If someone would admit they're a thief when they do that, I'd at least respect them for that honesty. If they try to rationalize it as being OK, then they get no respect.


there are certain responsibilities that apply to owners.

scenario:

you have a house with a swimming pool.
a little neighbor kid runs from the street into the swimming pool because you have no sort of fence or gate seperating the two and is accessible to anyone.
kid goes in the water, realises he can't swim, drowns.

now common sense would be "well i'm sorry that happened but this is my property and he had no reason to be here", but in court it will not fly and you will be charged with something since there's actually a code on "protecting" the access into the pool.


The reason this discussion exists is because there is no law for it, and until there is, all we can do is just express our opinions. Eventually the FCC will get into it and make some sort of law, but until then there IS NO right or wrong, just opinions.

Another scenario:
guy comes home with his new wireless setup
starts setting it up and on his PC he sees he has Linksys and linksys (linksys is the default). Not knowing much he clicks into Linksys and internet starts working and he starts using it.
Weeks later he realises/understands that Linksys is actually a DIFFERENT wireless network than your own linksys, and you have been basically using somebody else's internet account.

Now tell me, do you see that as "wrong" as well? Probably not. Why? Because you were not aware of it.. But just because you're not aware of something, does it make it ok? And if you think that IS ok, then is it ok to do something wrong because you didn't know its wrong?

[Ed Hansberry]

Great thoughts spawn_x.

[spawn_x]

inspired by your posts. :lol:

[Jon Westfall]

New Scenario:

Neighbor kid notices your open WAP and begins downloading massive amounts of illegal material. Kid knows a thing or two about network and sets himself up a static IP, so he doesn't appear in the DHCP lease list. Cops trace back to your IP and network, and suddenly, you have to explain what's been coming to the address of your router.

Nasty situation, so whatever the debate is - lock down your WAPs.

Oh, and as a side note, if you then lure neighbor kid to your swimming pool that you've accidentally placed some hungry sharks in, remember to plant a lock pick on his body to prove he broke into the pool area.

[spawn_x]

New Scenario:
Neighbor kid notices your open WAP and begins downloading massive amounts of illegal material. Kid knows a thing or two about network and sets himself up a static IP, so he doesn't appear in the DHCP lease list. Cops trace back to your IP and network, and suddenly, you have to explain what's been coming to the address of your router.

Nasty situation, so whatever the debate is - lock down your WAPs.

i agree 100%, lock the WAP and make it secure the best you can.

However the discussion at hand is NOT if you perform illegal activity. We are talking about a "harmless" use of neighbor's unprotected network. I agree that performing illegal activity or causing havoc is not right, but that's not really the discussion at hand (at least in my opinion..)

Oh, and as a side note, if you then lure neighbor kid to your swimming pool that you've accidentally placed some hungry sharks in, remember to plant a lock pick on his body to prove he broke into the pool area.

no offence but i couldn't understand what you mean...

again, lets not all forget that there is no actual law for this, its a very shady and grey area where right and wrong is not defined on paper, so until then we can/should all just grab a beer, kick back, and enjoy a discussion.

:mrgreen:

[dean_shan]

However the discussion at hand is NOT if you perform illegal activity. We are talking about a "harmless" use of neighbor's unprotected network. I agree that performing illegal activity or causing havoc is not right, but that's not really the discussion at hand (at least in my opinion..)

Exactly, that is not what I ment by "If it's unencrpted, then go ahead and use it".

[Kacey Green]

these are the kinds of discussions that led me to like this ed charachter ( that was a compliment ed)

[Ed Hansberry]

these are the kinds of discussions that led me to like this ed charachter ( that was a compliment ed)
Thanks. I have to be told these things sometimes. ;-) :mrgreen:

I too love these gray discussions. Black and white is easy and boring.

[Aerestis]

It's the same as asking, in most cases, if you'd steal that apple that was discussed earlier from a blind man. A lot of these people would be downright pissed off if they knew you were using their signal. They would say "This is mine, go get your own, and why didn't you bother to ask me? Or let me know that my signal was open?" A lot of these people just don't know. You're doing this against peoples will, I'm sur ein over 80% of cases.

That's my opnion. Go ahead and use an open signal, IF the person who pays for the signal gives you the ok.

[spawn_x]

securing your network is a pretty known thing if you spend a couple minutes reading the manual.

i believe half of it comes down to your morals. to me, if a person does absolutely nothing to protect something that can be simply used without harm or any illegal acts to him or anyone one else, then let it be so..

[Aerestis]

Do you realize how many people in the United States don't even know how to set the clocks on their VCR's? I'm certain that these same people will be insanely confused by a wireless router, no matter how simple it is.

Oh well, I can't deny that I would use the signal. I am a huge hypocrite. But I do realize that's it's immoral, heh.

But I have to admit, I would gladly share a signal with a neighbor. I really see no problem with that. Still, people who don't understand this stuff would be really unhappy with being stolen from.

[Pony99CA]

Do you realize how many people in the United States don't even know how to set the clocks on their VCR's? I'm certain that these same people will be insanely confused by a wireless router, no matter how simple it is.
Yes, that's an excellent point. I think spawn_x seriously overestimates the technical competence of most people. :-) I'll deal with his posts shortly....

Oh well, I can't deny that I would use the signal. I am a huge hypocrite. But I do realize that's it's immoral, heh.
OK, I can respect your self-honesty (as I promised I would). :D

Steve

[Pony99CA]

I really don't have a network at home. I only have a wireless router from Netgear, that I plugged into my cable modem, then from this router goes a cable to my desktop upstairs, and downstairs on my laptop I have a wireless network card. The computer upstairs and downstairs are not connected in any way, I wouldn't even know how to do that. They only share internet connection (same with my pocket pc).
Congrats. You have a network! :mrgreen:

To expand on what Ed said, if all of your computers connect through a common point, you definitely have a network. A network just means that the computers can somehow talk to each other, and it sounds like you have yours set up so that they can.

You may have to turn sharing on so they can see each other, but that's not really that hard to do.

Steve

[spacerace]

there is no current law defining use, so yes ultimately it comes down to peoples morals (oh dear !)

When I drive around my local town (which is only medium sized not a large city) with my Dell X3i seeing what signals are available. I am amazed by a) the amount of WiFi signals detected and b) by the amount that are unencrypted..

over half (55%-65%) must be unencrypted and a much higher % use what I would consider to be the default name of the device.

many many people are jumping into WiFi comms. in their home / small business without having a clue about the potential security issues. I do this as a matter of interest, I don't connect to these networks, but there are lots of people out there who would.

at some point something damaging will happen (see the downloading of illegal material e.g. in a previous post) at some legislation will most probably appear. till then it is very much down to the owner of the network to implement the appropriate security.

[Pony99CA]

its on your property (the signal), so use it.

its one thing to tap into his physical cable connection, its another to simply "accept" the signals being broadcasted through your house.

Wrong again. While discovering ("accepting") the unsecured network is not illegal, if you actually try to use it, you've gone beyond accepting to exploiting.
exploitation itself is not the problem, its the charges/damages to the other party. in this case, by simple using his connection you are not causing any harm (unless he is getting charged per megabyte but we're talking probability, not possibility).
The point is that you don't know what his plan provides. You have no right to assume you're not doing any harm.

As for harm being done, let's look at an analogy. You leave your house unlocked. Somebody enters your house and watches TV on your cable system. He doesn't use pay-per-view, doesn't eat any of your food and doesn't steal anything.

If you came home and found him there, would you have the right to call the cops and have him arrested, even though you weren't harmed?

no harm no foul, this wouldn't even make it to court. and if they did, the judge would dismiss the case and tell the other party to put at least some security on the network..
Would the judge dismiss trespassing and entering charges against the man in your house and tell you to at least lock your door? I don't think so.

If someone would admit they're a thief when they do that, I'd at least respect them for that honesty. If they try to rationalize it as being OK, then they get no respect.

there are certain responsibilities that apply to owners.

scenario:

you have a house with a swimming pool.
a little neighbor kid runs from the street into the swimming pool because you have no sort of fence or gate seperating the two and is accessible to anyone.
kid goes in the water, realises he can't swim, drowns.

now common sense would be "well i'm sorry that happened but this is my property and he had no reason to be here", but in court it will not fly and you will be charged with something since there's actually a code on "protecting" the access into the pool.
Your scenario misses on two major points. First, as you even admitted, there are laws in most states requiring swimming pools to be fenced. That's for the public good. However, I don't believe there are any such laws about wireless networks.

Strike one...

Second, the reason those laws exist is because somebody could be harmed. What harm is my unsecured WiFi point doing to anybody? It doesn't emit any more RF than a secured point. :lol:

Strike two...

The reason this discussion exists is because there is no law for it, and until there is, all we can do is just express our opinions.
There aren't any laws for this? Care to cite your source? There are plenty of laws covering unauthorized computer access. It doesn't seem like a stretch to believe that they also apply to WiFi networks. The issue isn't how you got into the computer, it's that you did.

Strike three!

For example, the Adrian Lamo case may have illustrated some of this (he may not have used WiFi, but the method of access isn't important). After he broke into computers, he would tell the places he broke into how he did it, figuring this made everything OK. Some companies were even grateful for this information. Too bad he's going to jail.

What he should have done is asked to speak with someone in charge of computer security for the company and offered to perform penetration testing for free. If they accepted his offer, he'd be free to do what he wanted; if they declined, he should have kept out of their computers.

Another scenario:
guy comes home with his new wireless setup
starts setting it up and on his PC he sees he has Linksys and linksys (linksys is the default). Not knowing much he clicks into Linksys and internet starts working and he starts using it.
Weeks later he realises/understands that Linksys is actually a DIFFERENT wireless network than your own linksys, and you have been basically using somebody else's internet account.

Now tell me, do you see that as "wrong" as well? Probably not. Why? Because you were not aware of it.. But just because you're not aware of something, does it make it ok? And if you think that IS ok, then is it ok to do something wrong because you didn't know its wrong?
No, he didn't do anything wrong. There's a well-understood legal principle of intent. He legitimately thought he was using his own network, and therefore had no intent to be using somebody else's network.

If you find an open WiFi point that you know isn't yours, and you don't know if you have authorization to use it, your use of it indicates intent to use somebody else's network. That's a huge difference.

Wow, strike four. :D

Steve

[Pony99CA]

there is no current law defining use, so yes ultimately it comes down to peoples morals (oh dear !)

You must have posted as I was writing my last post. Again, I'll challenge your contention that no law exists. Does England have laws prohibiting unauthorized computer access? If so, don't you think they would apply?

When I drive around my local town (which is only medium sized not a large city) with my Dell X3i seeing what signals are available. I am amazed by a) the amount of WiFi signals detected and b) by the amount that are unencrypted..

over half (55%-65%) must be unencrypted and a much higher % use what I would consider to be the default name of the device.

many many people are jumping into WiFi comms. in their home / small business without having a clue about the potential security issues. I do this as a matter of interest, I don't connect to these networks, but there are lots of people out there who would.
Finding a WiFi point isn't illegal, just like seeing somebody's open house door isn't illegal; using either is illegal.

And you're correct that there are people out there who would exploit things. That's why we have door locks and laws and police and jails. It would be nice if we didn't need them, but this is the real world, so we do have to look out for ourselves.

That's why my WiFi network has the SSID changed, 128-bit WEP encryption and MAC filtering. My router doesn't allow disabling SSID broadcasting, but changing the SSID will minimize any claims that somebody "thought" they were using their own network.

That's also why I lock my house doors and even lock my car in the garage at night. There are lots of dirtbags out there, and I see no reason to make it easy for them to steal my things.

However, if I lived in a place where nobody locked their doors, that wouldn't give somebody any more right to enter my house than if I had my door locked.

Security is for my protection, not theirs.

Steve

[spawn_x]

The point is that you don't know what his plan provides. You have no right to assume you're not doing any harm.

you're right, i don't know what his plan provides. now please show me some plans that charge you by megabyte. i've set up several t1s as well as countless DSL/cable connections and have yet to see one that charges you per megabyte ;)

Strike one!

As for harm being done, let's look at an analogy. You leave your house unlocked. Somebody enters your house and watches TV on your cable system. He doesn't use pay-per-view, doesn't eat any of your food and doesn't steal anything.

ok, lets look at that analogy. house = computer, you're right, browsing the house wouldn't be right, but again - THAT'S NOT the issue at hand. The issue is gaining INTERNET access. Yes, if you were to go and even look around at his computer it wouldn't be the right thing to do, but again, that's NOT the issue at hand. that being said its not tresspass, so the argument isn't valid.

Strike two!

If you came home and found him there, would you have the right to call the cops and have him arrested, even though you weren't harmed?

refer to previous statement. ;)

Would the judge dismiss trespassing and entering charges against the man in your house and tell you to at least lock your door? I don't think so.

again, getting into the house/computer is not what is at hand.

Your scenario misses on two major points. First, as you even admitted, there are laws in most states requiring swimming pools to be fenced. That's for the public good. However, I don't believe there are any such laws about wireless networks.

you are right, there are laws for the fence, and i used that as an example because the theory is more or less the same. its funny but i could picture this.. "hi. i was browsing my neighbors computer, and got infected from a virus he had on it, so i'm suing him for damages to my computer".. sad thing is, it might actually fly.. :roll:

Second, the reason those laws exist is because somebody could be harmed. What harm is my unsecured WiFi point doing to anybody? It doesn't emit any more RF than a secured point. :lol:

Exactly my point! what harm is done with an unsecured wi-fi and using it for access to the net? none!

There aren't any laws for this? Care to cite your source? There are plenty of laws covering unauthorized computer access. It doesn't seem like a stretch to believe that they also apply to WiFi networks. The issue isn't how you got into the computer, it's that you did.

There are laws against accessing computers, but using a wireless router as a gateway (which does not even GO through the computer) is HARDLY computer access, and no, there are NO laws against that.

Again, using the router for net access and to access someone's computer are two ENTIRELY different things. ;)

Strike three!!

If you find an open WiFi point that you know isn't yours, and you don't know if you have authorization to use it, your use of it indicates intent to use somebody else's network. That's a huge difference.

yes there is, but using someone else's access is using someone else's access.

you haven't brought up any points regarding actual internet use, more so just accessing his computer which isn't the subject and in which case i would agree with you, its wrong. but in this case it has nothing to do with anyone's computer, just access to the internet.

STRIKE FOUR! OUTA HERE! :mrgreen: ;)

[Wiggster]

STRIKE FOUR! OUTA HERE! :mrgreen: ;)

Remind me to never play baseball with you ;)

As for the topic at hand: everything I could say has already been said by someone with a more vehemont or thoughtful tone than I care to come up with. My personal feeling is that hijacking someone's internet access on a semi-regular basis is wrong. However, when I was stranded in NYC a few weeks ago trying to meet up with someone, I was standing in front of the Metropolitan Art Museum eating a hod dog and wondering what on earth to do. My girlfriend suggested I try to get some internet access right there. I pop in my SanDisk, and notice there are two unsecured networks with over 40% signal quality. I use one (labelled "linksys") and check my e-mail. Nothing. I hop on IRC and someone happened to be on the phone with the person I was trying to meet up with, and we got direction from there. Stealing net access helped me greatly.

But my next-door neighbors have their own wireless router hooked up. Whenever I pop on with my iPAQ, I see their SSID listed. Am I going to use their connection? Of course not. I equate that to using your neighbor's hose to wash your car. Just because using their WiFi isn't illegal doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. I don't equate lack of laws as right of way to doing something.

I should really knock on their door and tell them to set up WEP :mrgreen:

[Ripper014]

Sorry all ... I just came across this thread and I admit I am to lazy to read through all the arguments... I think some of the anologies are not valid...

For me this is a lot like the issue of satelite TV... I am not tresspassing on their property... it is more the other way around... it is they that are beaming signals onto my property and for all I know it is causing me physical harm... in the way of cancer etc... My thinking is that TV signals are public domain...

I know this is not exactly like Wifi... and the anology that I am going into someone's house and watching their TV I do not feel applies... since I am not on their property... I think maybe it's a little more like a stream running off a lake on his property... am I wrong to use the water...? If he wants to prevent it he should dam it... and ignorance should not be an acceptable excuse... so I don't feel I would be at fault for drinking from his.her stream...

Ok... I do have some qalms... with wifi... so I really only use access points that I have authorized access to...

[spawn_x]

If he wants to prevent it he should dam it... and ignorance should not be an acceptable excuse... so I don't feel I would be at fault for drinking from his.her stream...

i agree. tech savvy or not, if you are setting something up then do it right. if you are not doing it right then pay someone to do it right, if you can't - then don't do it. and if you are still going to do it, and give access to everyone, then don't complain that they're "stealing".

i like freebies. Usually if someone gives me wrong change or charges me a lesser amount i WILL mention it to them and pay the right price, but in this case there is no money being lost and no harm to anyone, so let it be.

I guess i just don't like "ignorance" and if i see someone is being ignorant (sorry, if you don't know a damn thing about wi-fi then you shouldn't be setting it up yourself in the first place, and if you are - then ACCEPT the fact that you're basically letting everyone else use it. Or just don't do it.) then i have no problem using that ignorancy in my favor.

wi-fi is NOT a must, its a luxury. This is not the same as a mechanic tricking someone into saying they have a defective part when they don't, no, there is a big difference between the two..


STRIKE FOUR! OUTA HERE! :mrgreen: ;)

Remind me to never play baseball with you ;)

LOL Hey, i'm Russian.. back in my country we don't even have that sport.. I mean hitting a ball with a stick, come on.. LOL :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

anyways, again, just my opinions.. and as i said, i think it just boils down to your morals and principles, and believe me, i have more than probably anyone on this board.. but in a case where nothing is harmed and is accessible by anyone without any effort, then let it be.

:mrgreen:

[ctmagnus]

Isn't having an unsecured WAP illegal in one (I believe in the N.E.) state?

I used to frequent the NetStumbler forums before they stagnated and iirc I read that there.

[dean_shan]

Spawn X you have the same views as me on WiFi access. I agree with you all the way.

[c38b2]

If it's any consolation, I agree with you too Spawn X. If I'm sitting somewhere with my laptop and there is an open WiFi AP, I'm bound to use it. I'm not as desperate to hack WEP or MAC addresses -- that's for loosers with nothing to do, and it also sends the message that the owners of the WAP don't want it used publicly. Also, the stream analogy, Ripper, would be better suited if the stream actually ran into your property. :wink:

[spawn_x]

exactly.. i'm totally against hacking and unauthorized COMPUTER access..

but free web access with no harm to anyone.. all for it! :mrgreen:

[Ripper014]

I think the stream analogy works just fine as the stream is on public property...

[Pat Logsdon]

Isn't having an unsecured WAP illegal in one (I believe in the N.E.) state?

I used to frequent the NetStumbler forums before they stagnated and iirc I read that there.
I'm pretty sure it's Pennsylvania. I think someone (Steve?) made that comment a year ago in an identical thread (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8867&start=0)... :wink:

[Pony99CA]

The point is that you don't know what his plan provides. You have no right to assume you're not doing any harm.
you're right, i don't know what his plan provides. now please show me some plans that charge you by megabyte. i've set up several t1s as well as countless DSL/cable connections and have yet to see one that charges you per megabyte ;)

Strike one!

Wrong again. If you want me to contrive a scenario, I can. Suppose I have a WiFi card in my PC in ad hoc mode so I can use my Pocket PC. I have Internet connection sharing turned on, but my Internet connection is over the cellular network (for whatever reason -- my main ISP is experiencing an outage, I'm travelling, whatever). Many of those plans do charge based on data.

Strike five!

As for harm being done, let's look at an analogy. You leave your house unlocked. Somebody enters your house and watches TV on your cable system. He doesn't use pay-per-view, doesn't eat any of your food and doesn't steal anything.
ok, lets look at that analogy. house = computer, you're right, browsing the house wouldn't be right, but again - THAT'S NOT the issue at hand. The issue is gaining INTERNET access. Yes, if you were to go and even look around at his computer it wouldn't be the right thing to do, but again, that's NOT the issue at hand. that being said its not tresspass, so the argument isn't valid.

Strike two!
The issue isn't about gaining Internet access -- it's about your using something that I paid for without my permission. Get that through your head. Regardless of whether harm is done or not, using somebody else's property without their permission is wrong. You are using the router and Internet connection, and that's all there is to it.

Second, the reason those laws exist is because somebody could be harmed. What harm is my unsecured WiFi point doing to anybody? It doesn't emit any more RF than a secured point. :lol:
Exactly my point! what harm is done with an unsecured wi-fi and using it for access to the net? none!

That wasn't your point. Your point was that your use of my Internet connection didn't harm anybody (which isn't even accurate). My point was that my WiFi signal wasn't harming you, so you can't claim that you can use it because of that.

There aren't any laws for this? Care to cite your source? There are plenty of laws covering unauthorized computer access. It doesn't seem like a stretch to believe that they also apply to WiFi networks. The issue isn't how you got into the computer, it's that you did.
There are laws against accessing computers, but using a wireless router as a gateway (which does not even GO through the computer) is HARDLY computer access, and no, there are NO laws against that.

Again, using the router for net access and to access someone's computer are two ENTIRELY different things. ;)

Strike three!!

Wrong again, on two possible counts.

First, I believe the unauthorized computer access laws cover computer systems, which probably would include the network.

Second, the router is a computer. It's an embedded one, granted, but it's still a computer using fairly general definitions.

Strike (what is it now) six?

you haven't brought up any points regarding actual internet use, more so just accessing his computer which isn't the subject and in which case i would agree with you, its wrong. but in this case it has nothing to do with anyone's computer, just access to the internet.

STRIKE FOUR! OUTA HERE! :mrgreen: ;)
You haven't proven how Internet access is different from other types of property or services. I've cited both property analogies (coming into my house) and service analogies (using my phone line via a cordless phone) as real-world examples of similar things that are illegal.

The fact that my analogies don't map isomorphically onto Internet access is irrelevant; most analogies aren't exact. You need to show how Internet access is so different that you can use something I've paid for without my permission.

Forget the strikes -- you struck out long ago. :razz:

We do agree on one thing, though....

its funny but i could picture this.. "hi. i was browsing my neighbors computer, and got infected from a virus he had on it, so i'm suing him for damages to my computer".. sad thing is, it might actually fly.. :roll:

That person should not be allowed to sue. Unfortunately, you seem like you might be the type who would, based on your arguments. When you say that if somebody doesn't set the network up right, it's their fault if you use it, it doesn't take a stretch to see you complaining that their antivirus software wasn't properly set up to protect you and suing them for negligence. :twak:

However, let's make a deal. If I can give you an example that shows how your accessing my Internet connection can harm me or somebody else, will you agree that you've been wrong all along?

Steve

[Pony99CA]

My personal feeling is that hijacking someone's internet access on a semi-regular basis is wrong. However, when I was stranded in NYC a few weeks ago trying to meet up with someone, I was standing in front of the Metropolitan Art Museum eating a hod dog and wondering what on earth to do. My girlfriend suggested I try to get some internet access right there. I pop in my SanDisk, and notice there are two unsecured networks with over 40% signal quality. I use one (labelled "linksys") and check my e-mail. Nothing. I hop on IRC and someone happened to be on the phone with the person I was trying to meet up with, and we got direction from there. Stealing net access helped me greatly.
I have no doubt that stealing can benefit the person doing the stealing. :roll: If I run out of gas, stealing a car would help me greatly, too. That doesn't make it right, of course.

I even constructed a scenario earlier where stealing WiFi access would probably be acceptable to most people -- a car accident where you didn't have a cell phone to call 911, but you used your PDA to IM someone to call 911.

However, those situations are very isolated. Checking your E-mail, browsing the Web and so on over somebody else's connection is just wrong unless you know you have their permission.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

tech savvy or not, if you are setting something up then do it right. if you are not doing it right then pay someone to do it right, if you can't - then don't do it. and if you are still going to do it, and give access to everyone, then don't complain that they're "stealing".

Again, what difference is there between that and saying, "If somebody can't lock their car 'right', and gives access to everybody, they shouldn't complain if their car is stolen?"

wi-fi is NOT a must, its a luxury.
One of the few things you've said in this thread that makes sense. WiFi is not a must, so don't use mine -- pay for your own damn access.

Hey, i'm Russian..
Were you a Communist by any chance? If so, that might explain your attitudes that everyone's property is free to be used by you. :D (Disclaimer: That's not a slur against all Russians -- I know that many didn't believe in Communism. I hope that will satisfy the Politically Correct Police. ;-))

i think it just boils down to your morals and principles, and believe me, i have more than probably anyone on this board..
Now there's a statement. Not only do you claim you can use others' property without their permission, you claim you have more morals than probably anyone here? Puh-leeze.... :roll:

Steve

[spawn_x]

Wrong again. If you want me to contrive a scenario, I can. Suppose I have a WiFi card in my PC in ad hoc mode so I can use my Pocket PC. I have Internet connection sharing turned on, but my Internet connection is over the cellular network (for whatever reason -- my main ISP is experiencing an outage, I'm travelling, whatever). Many of those plans do charge based on data.

Strike five!

you are talking about a scenario that only has a one in a million chance of happening.. NOT that you are using the cellular access, but with all of the variables that exist and someone using that on top of it.

The issue isn't about gaining Internet access -- it's about your using something that I paid for without my permission. Get that through your head. Regardless of whether harm is done or not, using somebody else's property without their permission is wrong. You are using the router and Internet connection, and that's all there is to it.

yes that's all there is to it, and i don't see it as wrong. if you don't know how to set it up right with the most basic security setting that takes an additional 30 seconds, then DON'T DO IT!

That wasn't your point. Your point was that your use of my Internet connection didn't harm anybody (which isn't even accurate). My point was that my WiFi signal wasn't harming you, so you can't claim that you can use it because of that.

you dont' like someone using your access without any effort, put a WEP on it or something (anything) else. you think its wrong i think its ok, disagree? then close your network.

Wrong again, on two possible counts.

First, I believe the unauthorized computer access laws cover computer systems, which probably would include the network.

Second, the router is a computer. It's an embedded one, granted, but it's still a computer using fairly general definitions.

good luck proving that one in court.. no harm, no foul.

You haven't proven how Internet access is different from other types of property or services. I've cited both property analogies (coming into my house) and service analogies (using my phone line via a cordless phone) as real-world examples of similar things that are illegal.

The fact that my analogies don't map isomorphically onto Internet access is irrelevant; most analogies aren't exact. You need to show how Internet access is so different that you can use something I've paid for without my permission.

its different because its unlimited and no harm is done if someone else's uses it.

That person should not be allowed to sue. Unfortunately, you seem like you might be the type who would, based on your arguments. When you say that if somebody doesn't set the network up right, it's their fault if you use it, it doesn't take a stretch to see you complaining that their antivirus software wasn't properly set up to protect you and suing them for negligence. :twak:

you don't know me. you don't know my morals, my principles, and what i would sue for and what i would sue over, so please don't make statements like that.

[/quote]However, let's make a deal. If I can give you an example that shows how your accessing my Internet connection can harm me or somebody else, will you agree that you've been wrong all along?[/quote]

no. probability vs. possibility. you can always bring up examples that can change the perspective of something, however the likelyness of something like that to happen is an entirely different thing.

Again, what difference is there between that and saying, "If somebody can't lock their car 'right', and gives access to everybody, they shouldn't complain if their car is stolen?"

that is hardly the same analogy. to steal a car you still require to put in effort, to use an unsecured network you just.. use it.. no effort.

One of the few things you've said in this thread that makes sense. WiFi is not a must, so don't use mine -- pay for your own damn access.

i am paying for access. but on the other hand, why pay if someone is giving it fo free?

Were you a Communist by any chance? If so, that might explain your attitudes that everyone's property is free to be used by you. :D (Disclaimer: That's not a slur against all Russians -- I know that many didn't believe in Communism. I hope that will satisfy the Politically Correct Police. ;-))

no, wasn't communist, sorry.. don't believe in that way of thinking. forcing and taking what's given are two different things. and UNPROTECTED SIGNAL IS GIVEN TO ME. cell phones have encryption, so do cordless phones..

Now there's a statement. Not only do you claim you can use others' property without their permission, you claim you have more morals than probably anyone here? Puh-leeze.... :roll:

hey, arguments/thoughts are different from practice. i believe in what i am saying, however i don't do it.

and what's with the several personal remarks?

you can't have a civilized discussion without referring to insults?

anyways, its obvious some folks have a personal view/side on this and get pretty offensive when rubbed the wrong way, so i'm out of this discussion.

thanks and have a great day. :roll:

[c38b2]

Here is my philosophy, analogy free:

If someone has a publicly accessable network I will assume it is intended for public access. 8)

And here is the analogy:

You don't put a water fountain in a park for your personal use only. :|

[lowair]

Does checking out neighboring access point to see if they are secure and get on the internet harm anything? I don’t think so. Is it right or ok to do? No, I don’t think it is.

It doesn’t really matter what the originator intended or whether he properly configured the wap. To say that my access to their wap is the price they pay for being ignorant or lazy means that my ethics can change based on their actions or lack of actions. That’s not really a code of ethics. Ethics don’t change because of what the ‘other guy’ does or what is popular.

The bottom line is that using resources that don’t belong to you without the owner’s permission is wrong. It doesn’t matters whose resources they are, they’re not yours. Using those resources in this context makes it unethical.

[c38b2]

The ambiguity of the last few pages surrounds the owner's wishes. I have solved this by my philosophy (see above) dictating that by leaving the network open, they are giving the public permission to use it. Simple as pie. 8)

[Wiggin]

The bottom line is that using resources that don’t belong to you without the owner’s permission is wrong. It doesn’t matters whose resources they are, they’re not yours. Using those resources in this context makes it unethical.

Nicely stated, short and sweet. Analogies, scenarios, hypotheticals, concepts, intent, etc....they're all interesting. But lowair's point gets to the bedrock that lies below it all, IMHO. :way to go:

[c38b2]

The bottom line is that using resources that don’t belong to you without the owner’s permission is wrong.
Who owns the Internet? :?

[ctmagnus]

Who owns the Internet access that you personally pay for?

[Ed Hansberry]

The bottom line is that using resources that don’t belong to you without the owner’s permission is wrong.
Who owns the Internet? :?
Al Gore.

[ctmagnus]

Who owns the Internet? :?
Al Gore.

No, he invented it.

[dean_shan]

Wrong again. If you want me to contrive a scenario, I can. Suppose I have a WiFi card in my PC in ad hoc mode so I can use my Pocket PC. I have Internet connection sharing turned on, but my Internet connection is over the cellular network (for whatever reason -- my main ISP is experiencing an outage, I'm travelling, whatever). Many of those plans do charge based on data.

Yeah cause when you are Wardriving you are looking for ad hoc networks :roll:

[dean_shan]

wi-fi is NOT a must, its a luxury.
One of the few things you've said in this thread that makes sense. WiFi is not a must, so don't use mine -- pay for your own damn access.


So you're saying you leave your network open? No one would get on it if you lock it down.

[Pony99CA]

You haven't proven how Internet access is different from other types of property or services. I've cited both property analogies (coming into my house) and service analogies (using my phone line via a cordless phone) as real-world examples of similar things that are illegal.

The fact that my analogies don't map isomorphically onto Internet access is irrelevant; most analogies aren't exact. You need to show how Internet access is so different that you can use something I've paid for without my permission.
its different because its unlimited and no harm is done if someone else's uses it.

Wrong again. Show me a user with unlimited bandwidth. I know my DSL line is limited to 768 kpbs (and I tend to get around 600).

However, let's make a deal. If I can give you an example that shows how your accessing my Internet connection can harm me or somebody else, will you agree that you've been wrong all along?
no. probability vs. possibility. you can always bring up examples that can change the perspective of something, however the likelyness of something like that to happen is an entirely different thing.

OK, so what probability do you require that you might be harming somebody by stealing their bandwidth before you'll stop doing it?

If it matters, there's one group you're hurting by stealing bandwidth with 100% certainty -- ISPs. If you're using somebody else's bandwidth, you aren't using any of the paid alternatives. The ISP, who sells Internet access for their living, is getting no money from you, although you're taking advantage of their services.

It's no different than if your town has unlimited garbage pickup, and, instead of paying for garbage service, you just wheel your cans over to the neighbor's curb next to his cans. It's called "theft of services".

If some group is providing people with free Internet access by choice, that's their prerogative. You don't get to make that decision for them.

Again, what difference is there between that and saying, "If somebody can't lock their car 'right', and gives access to everybody, they shouldn't complain if their car is stolen?"
that is hardly the same analogy. to steal a car you still require to put in effort, to use an unsecured network you just.. use it.. no effort.

To steal an unlocked car with the keys in the ignition requires me to open the car door, turn the key and drive. To steal bandwidth requires you to take out your laptop or PDA, turn it on and surf. Is one really much more difficult than the other?

Apparently, you think the effort involved matters, so let's explore that. If you found a bag of money marked "First National Bank" in the street, would you say it was OK for somebody to take? There's almost no effort required to just take it.... :roll:

One of the few things you've said in this thread that makes sense. WiFi is not a must, so don't use mine -- pay for your own damn access.
i am paying for access. but on the other hand, why pay if someone is giving it fo free?

Because they aren't "giving" it to you. A gift is something done consciously. What you are doing is taking, but that doesn't imply they are giving.

If my wallet is laying in the street, did I "give" you the money?

Now there's a statement. Not only do you claim you can use others' property without their permission, you claim you have more morals than probably anyone here? Puh-leeze.... :roll:
and what's with the several personal remarks?

You said most people here don't have morals as high as you, and you don't think that's a personal comment? 8O What basis did you even have for that comment? Did the U.N. Morality Board rank you as one of the Top 10 Most Moral People or something? Was there a morals survey done of the over 15,000 registered users here?

My observations about you are based on what you have written. Whether that's really "you" or not, I can't say, but it's the face you've chosen to show. If you don't like somebody thinking that you're someone who will take advantage of others' ignorance or forgetfulness, maybe you should change what you're saying. ;-)

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Does checking out neighboring access point to see if they are secure and get on the internet harm anything? I don’t think so.
Let me give an example where harm to the owner could be caused. Suppose I'm watching one of Major League Baseball's Internet pay-per-view games. Suppose someone with nothing better to do finds I have an open WiFi point and starts surfing, downloading his E-mail and IMing people. Suppose my video stream starts breaking up, rebuffering, etc.

I would argue that I have been harmed. A service that I've paid for has been disrupted by somebody.

Is it right or ok to do? No, I don’t think it is.

It doesn’t really matter what the originator intended or whether he properly configured the wap. To say that my access to their wap is the price they pay for being ignorant or lazy means that my ethics can change based on their actions or lack of actions. That’s not really a code of ethics. Ethics don’t change because of what the ‘other guy’ does or what is popular.

The bottom line is that using resources that don’t belong to you without the owner’s permission is wrong. It doesn’t matters whose resources they are, they’re not yours. Using those resources in this context makes it unethical.
I agree with most of what you said here, with one minor exception. I think it does matter what the owner of the router intended. If he intends to create a public WiFi spot, then people should be free to use it.

However, that intent should be very clear. The best way to find out what the owner intended is to ask him, but that's not always possible, of course. If the SSID says "FreePublicAP" or something, I would say that establishes intent, too.

But thanks for concisely stating what I've been trying to say in my many posts. :way to go:

Steve

[Pony99CA]

wi-fi is NOT a must, its a luxury.
One of the few things you've said in this thread that makes sense. WiFi is not a must, so don't use mine -- pay for your own damn access.

So you're saying you leave your network open? No one would get on it if you lock it down.
Way to miss the point. Why not address why you think it's OK to use an admittedly luxury item that's not yours?

To be clear, I was using "mine" generically. As I've said other places, I have my SSID changed (I can't turn off SSID broadcasting), 128-bit WEP enabled, MAC filtering on and only enough DHCP addresses allocated so that each of my devices can get an IP address.

However, let me share a true story. Shortly after I got my iPAQ 5555, I was picking up my daughter at my wife's office. Just for fun, I thought I'd see if there were any WiFi access points nearby. I found one called "money", and checked to see if I could browse the Web (just to see if it was secured or not).

When I found I could surf, I asked my wife who in the building dealt with financial matters, and she mentioned a couple of guys, so I went to talk to them. The first one had no clue what I was talking about, but the second said he had a WiFi network.

I explained to him the potential problems an unsecured network could have, especially if his computers had file sharing enabled (people could possibly access his clients' financial records).

We live in a small town that's pretty friendly, so maybe that wouldn't happen. He said he didn't turn on security so his agents or clients could easily connect to his network, but said he'd have his IT guy look into it.

However, the point is that it's his network, and he gets to decide who can use it. Just because his implementation decisions mean other people have an easier time using his network does not mean he consented to that or that it's OK if others use it.

To go full circle, you said you leave your house unlocked. Does that mean it's OK for people to come in whenever they want? Don't tell me whether you can stop it or not; tell me how you would feel if you found a stranger in your house.

Just to be clear -- I think it's stupid and potentially dangerous for somebody not to secure their network (or to lock their house or car or whatever). That's why my network is as secure as I can make it and my house and car are locked.

However, that's their choice, regardless of what I think of it. Their choice does not give me any more rights to use that property than if they had locked it; it merely makes it easier for me to be a free-loader or criminal.

Steve

[MLO]

As much as I like open WiFi points, I still feel a twinge of guilt unless I'm using them for an emergency (phone dead, need to contact husband who is trying to call me). I've adopted the practise that if I am at a location, and discover an open WiFi port, I will surf, but only long enough to find a contact address for the admin so that I can email them and let them know.

If it's a residential WiFi spot, I'll try to find a way to leave a note (electronic of course) of some sort to let them know that their access is open.

[c38b2]

However, that intent should be very clear. The best way to find out what the owner intended is to ask him, but that's not always possible, of course. If the SSID says "FreePublicAP" or something, I would say that establishes intent, too.
It's clear to me. unlocked network=free access point.

An owner of a wifi network can't legally redistribute paid services for free (broadband), so his intentions have to be subtle enough to avoid getting caught and, if called out, feign ignorance about wireless security.

[dean_shan]

It's clear to me. unlocked network=free access point.

:clap: Finally, someone spelt it out in clear english.

[Pony99CA]

However, that intent should be very clear. The best way to find out what the owner intended is to ask him, but that's not always possible, of course. If the SSID says "FreePublicAP" or something, I would say that establishes intent, too.
It's clear to me. unlocked network=free access point.

An owner of a wifi network can't legally redistribute paid services for free (broadband), so his intentions have to be subtle enough to avoid getting caught and, if called out, feign ignorance about wireless security.
Sorry, but you're wrong on two counts.

First, some ISPs do allow redistributing WiFi access, so nothing should prevent them from using an SSID that indicates that.

Second, just because some WiFi users may be trying to violate their ISP's Terms Of Service by "pretending" they don't know what they're doing, that doesn't mean all open WiFi networks are like that. Some people may be ignorant about configuring their networks, some people may have turned encryption off and forgotten to turn it on, and so forth.

If you don't believe that people might forget to turn WEP on, let me tell you a true story. Last March, I bought a new laptop. As it is being used in the same room as my router, I'm using a wired connection. I configured the laptop, but couldn't connect to the Internet. I tried changing a few things, but still couldn't connect. I eventually configured my router to put my laptop in the DMZ, basically taking the router out of the loop, but even that didn't work.

Frustated, I called my ISP, and eventually discovered what was wrong. (I had configured the Gateway parameter on the laptop with my ISP's Gateway IP address, but should have used my router's IP address. DUH!)

Unfortunately, I forgot to go back and change the router to disable the DMZ. I didn't notice that for a while, and, when I did, I fixed it and ran several Trojan Horse and spyware programs. Fortunately, I didn't have any (but that was before MS Blaster).

Granted, this isn't a WiFi story, but it shows how somebody fairly knowledgable about computers and networking (I had set up the network myself before and had another computer wired without a problem) could mess up.

Imagine if I had been configuring the laptop for use in another room, and hadn't been able to connect to the Internet. One of my troubleshooting steps probably would have been to turn WEP off. Once I found what the real problem was, I could just as easily have forgotten to turn WEP back on.

Your assumption about the motives of the network owner is just that -- an assumption based on zero facts and a desire to get something for nothing.

If you're going to assume something, why not make the safe assumption -- it's their property, and you don't get to use it unless you know it's OK with them.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

It's clear to me. unlocked network=free access point.
:clap: Finally, someone spelt it out in clear english.
Plenty of people have said that. Of course, if you looked at his reasoning, you'd see how wrong he is (as my post above spelled out).

Steve

P.S. I notice you still didn't answer if you'd be OK with a stranger coming into your unlocked house.

[Pat Logsdon]

It's clear to me. unlocked network=free access point.
:clap: Finally, someone spelt it out in clear english.
Plenty of people have said that. Of course, if you looked at his reasoning, you'd see how wrong he is (as my post above spelled out).
I think we can debate whether something is ethically or morally wrong until we're blue in the face.

As far as I'm concerned, it won't be LEGALLY wrong or right until there's a specific case that's brought before a judge, who then makes a ruling.

Until then, I think it's a grey area. Some people with access points will be mad if you use their access w/o permission, and some won't care. I think that this is just too new of a technology for other analogies to realistically apply.

[Ed Hansberry]

As far as I'm concerned, it won't be LEGALLY wrong or right until there's a specific case that's brought before a judge, who then makes a ruling.

Until then, I think it's a grey area. Some people with access points will be mad if you use their access w/o permission, and some won't care. I think that this is just too new of a technology for other analogies to realistically apply.
But you'd be wrong, because Pony has said so, and arguing with repeated assertions always trumps discussion.

[c38b2]

But you'd be wrong, because Pony has said so, and arguing with repeated assertions always trumps discussion.
Well put Ed. First, Steve (Pony), I'm not wrong. Am I putting trojans and viruses on other people's computers? Absolutely not - I'm not even sure how your scenario ties in with this debate - setting a computer as DMZ just makes it appear from the Internet as if it's directly connected to your modem. However, you will no doubt contrive a set of scenarios and obscure analogies to try to get us to agree with you. Sorry, but no matter how many times you claim we're wrong it doesn't change the fact that we're right. :wink:

In relation to ISPs and the legality of allowing redistribution of services I was unaware that some ISPs are OK with turning your connection into a hotspot - so much the better then. Any question in my mind about whether or not accessing the Internet via wifi is gone.

So there. :razz:

[Ed Hansberry]

Sorry, but no matter how many times you claim we're wrong it doesn't change the fact that we're right. :wink:
Be careful. I don't think there is a right or wrong. There is no law on point and there are good arguments for both sides. :mrgreen:

[c38b2]

Be careful. I don't think there is a right or wrong. There is no law on point and there are good arguments for both sides. :mrgreen:
Be careful. I don't think there is a right or wrong. There is no law on point and there are good arguments for both sides. :mrgreen:
Be careful. I don't think there is a right or wrong. There is no law on point and there are good arguments for both sides. :mrgreen:

Be careful lest you hit the submit button three times :lol:

For the record, I am not dismissing his arguments - I'm just simply sticking to my own until he can prove to me why I shouldn't make my erronious assumption. :wink:

[Steven Cedrone]

Be careful. I don't think there is a right or wrong. There is no law on point and there are good arguments for both sides. :mrgreen:
Be careful. I don't think there is a right or wrong. There is no law on point and there are good arguments for both sides. :mrgreen:
Be careful. I don't think there is a right or wrong. There is no law on point and there are good arguments for both sides. :mrgreen:

Be careful lest you hit the submit button three times :lol:


He had something really important to say! :wink:

Steve

[Pony99CA]

As far as I'm concerned, it won't be LEGALLY wrong or right until there's a specific case that's brought before a judge, who then makes a ruling.
OK, but why do you believe that current anti-hacking laws don't apply?

And why does a case have to brought before a judge? Does that mean that you will still feel it's OK to use an unlocked WiFi network even if a law is passed where you live that specifically says that using somebody's WiFi network without their permission is illegal?

Until then, I think it's a grey area. Some people with access points will be mad if you use their access w/o permission, and some won't care. I think that this is just too new of a technology for other analogies to realistically apply.
Would you mind sharing your reasoning?

Wireless technologies certainly aren't new. Would you think it's OK to use your neighbor's phone line if your cordless phone happened to share his cordless frequency (even if it was only for local calls and he had unlimited local calling)?

The Internet also isn't new. Would you think it would be OK to tap into his phone or cable line to get Internet access instead of paying for your own connection?

If you answer "no" to the above, how could the convergence of wireless and Internet change your answer?

If you do believe that some people won't want you to share their bandwidth, in the absense of any knowledge one way or the other, don't you think the best policy is to be a "good neighbor" and not use it?

Steve

[Pony99CA]

First, Steve (Pony), I'm not wrong.
Yes, you were. You may not be wrong about whether using WiFi is wrong (although I certainly believe your are), but you were absolutely wrong on your two main points, as I pointed out.

You were wrong to imply that no ISPs allowed sharing via WiFi, and you were wrong to assume that everybody with an open WiFi network was doing so intentionally to avoid their ISPs Terms Of Service.

Am I putting trojans and viruses on other people's computers? Absolutely not - I'm not even sure how your scenario ties in with this debate - setting a computer as DMZ just makes it appear from the Internet as if it's directly connected to your modem.
Nobody said you were trying to put Trojans on a computer. Did you actually read the whole post? I explained quite clearly how my DMZ story tied in with the debate.

Here's the Reader's Digest version:

I know enough not to run with a computer in the DMZ all the time.
While troubleshooting an Internet connection problem, I put a new computer in the DMZ to see if that fixed the problem.
After I solved the problem, I forgot to turn the DMZ off.
If I can do that, it's just as likely to believe somebody would forget to turn WEP back on while trouble-shooting a WiFi connection problem.

If somebody just forgot to turn WiFi on, that refutes your claim that people with unlocked WiFi networks were just trying to avoid violating their ISP's Terms Of Service.

The simple fact still remains that you don't know why a given WiFi network is not secure unless you've somehow heard that it is from the owner. Prove me wrong on that point, as that's the crux of the issue.

If you believe using other people's property without their permission is OK, there's not much I can do to convince you using their WiFi network is wrong.

However, if you do believe you should get somebody's permission before using their property, tell me why WiFi is OK to use. Lowair stated it best -- using someone's property without their permission just because they didn't secure it means you are basing your ethics on the actions of others.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

But you'd be wrong, because Pony has said so, and arguing with repeated assertions always trumps discussion.
Wow, Ed, that's a wonderfully dismissive, um, assertion. However, in case you haven't noticed, I have been discussing the issue (possibly too much, but it's still discussion). Or did I miss the definition of "discussion" changing to exclude attempts at persuasion?

The fact that nobody has convinced me that using someone's bandwidth without their permission is OK is irrelevant. If someone can give me a good argument that doing so is OK in the general case (not an emergency), I'll be glad to admit I was wrong.

Also, I haven't just "said so". I've backed my assertions in at least four different ways:

With analogies from the real world that I've felt were applicable. Of course, very few analogies are ever perfect, but they can be instructive.
With actual examples of people with unintentionally unsecured networks, including how somebody who hadn't secured his WiFi network didn't realize what effect it could have and how people could just forget to secure a network that was once secure.
With legal arguments that existing anti-hacking laws would cover this situation (which nobody has proven wrong).
With refutations of the claim that using somebody's network wouldn't hurt anybody.

However, you're a Biblical guy, so let me try another tack. Have you heard of a little list called the Ten Commandments? Remember #10 -- "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Wouldn't that apply to thy neighbor's bandwidth?

And what about good old #8 -- "Thou shalt not steal." Wouldn't using the bandwidth of a network owner who didn't intend to share it be stealing it? And wouldn't getting Internet access from an ISP that didn't allow WiFi sharing be stealing money and resources from the ISP?

Steve

[c38b2]

And wouldn't getting Internet access from an ISP that didn't allow WiFi sharing be stealing money and resources from the ISP?
I believe the RIAA is prosecuting those who offer the content for free, not the ones who download it for free.

Oh, and did I read the whole post? Briefly - you're responses are often long-winded and obfuscated so I actually never fully pay attention to them. I went and reread it and you clearly mention how it's not a WiFi issue but try to compare it to one.

Lastly, I think that the reason you have debated this long and with a passion is because at some point someone either leeched of your own bandwidth or hacked your network, and are automatically assuming that anyone that would use other's connections is not above hacking or becoming a bandwidth hog. Would I be correct in this assertion?

[lowair]

A very interesting discussion, as Samuel Johnson said, “Only through debate may the truth be arrived at.”

It is discussions like this that make me evaluate what I believe. I look at other people’s arguments and ask ‘Why do they feel this way about this subject’? Most importantly, I ask my self ‘Why do I feel this way about this subject’?

Of course, I have no problem using a wap that the owner gives permission to use, be it through the ssid (as in ‘FreeAccess’) or through some other explicit method.
Some people are able to assume that if it is open then that is the reason it was setup. ‘Hey, if they didn’t want me to use it then they would have implemented at least one of the easy to enable security features’. I don’t feel comfortable making an assumption like this. Making an assumption on what another person is thinking robs them of choice. I’ve made the choice for them. Past experience for me has shown that making assumptions about people’s intensions or motivations is usually not a good idea.

Some might say that the choice was made when the wap owner didn’t enable security. Perhaps. That may indeed be what that person was thinking. But there is no doubt that some people don’t enable security for reasons other than creating a public access point.

For me, the formula is pretty clear also. Is it mine? Or is it someone else’s? If it is someone else’s, then I need their explicit permission to use it. Without explicit permission, it would require that I make an assumption. And we all know what the word assume breaks down to. :wink:

Regardless, it’s great to see an issue like this being debated! It’s one of the reasons I love PPCThoughts! :way to go:

[Steven Cedrone]

For me, the formula is pretty clear also. Is it mine? Or is it someone else’s? If it is someone else’s, then I need their explicit permission to use it. Without explicit permission, it would require that I make an assumption. And we all know what the word assume breaks down to. :wink:

That sums it up rather nicely! :way to go:

Steve

[lowair]

An owner of a wifi network can't legally redistribute paid services for free (broadband), so his intentions have to be subtle enough to avoid getting caught and, if called out, feign ignorance about wireless security.

Hmmmm,,,
If you have to feign, concoct, deceive, delude, dissemble, dissimulate, distort, dupe, equivocate, exaggerate, fabricate, fake, falsify, fib, forswear, frame, fudge, invent, jazz, jive, make believe, malign, misguide, misinform, misinstruct, mislead, misrepresent, misspeak, misstate, overdraw, palter, perjure, pervert, phony up, plant, or prevaricate about what you are doing,,,,,,

That should tell you something! :lol:

[Pat Logsdon]

As far as I'm concerned, it won't be LEGALLY wrong or right until there's a specific case that's brought before a judge, who then makes a ruling.
OK, but why do you believe that current anti-hacking laws don't apply?
Because it hasn't been possible over "public" airspace, or a "public" frequency before.

And why does a case have to brought before a judge?
A case has to be brought before a judge so the judge can determine the law. I can't - I'm not a lawyer OR a judge, so my opinion isn't worth a whole lot.

Does that mean that you will still feel it's OK to use an unlocked WiFi network even if a law is passed where you live that specifically says that using somebody's WiFi network without their permission is illegal?
Where exactly did you get that from what I wrote? If you got anything from what I said, you'd realize that the opposite would be true in my case. If it's illegal, then there's no grey area, and the question is moot. If I use someone's wireless network after that law is passed, I break the law. Case closed.

Wireless technologies certainly aren't new. Would you think it's OK to use your neighbor's phone line if your cordless phone happened to share his cordless frequency (even if it was only for local calls and he had unlimited local calling)?
This is where I think the argument gets ridiculous. I can't use my neighbor's phone because the manufacturer of the phone has encrypted the signal so it can only be read by that phone's base station.

The Internet also isn't new. Would you think it would be OK to tap into his phone or cable line to get Internet access instead of paying for your own connection?
Again, the analogy doesn't apply. I've broken at least two laws by doing that - trespassing on someone's private property, and tampering with the phone or cable company's property. If I'm sitting in my car, in the street, and turn on my PDA's wireless connection, which is at the default configuration, and it then automatically connects to someone's wireless network, which is ALSO at a default configuration, whose fault is it? Is it the manufacturer? I didn't tamper with anything if I just check email. I didn't touch his property at any time.

That's why I think we'll need legislation or a legal ruling before we can definitively answer the question of whether it's right or not. Until that happens, this is just a philosophical discussion.

If you do believe that some people won't want you to share their bandwidth, in the absense of any knowledge one way or the other, don't you think the best policy is to be a "good neighbor" and not use it?
Sure - that would be nice. But "nice" still isn't the law. Personally, I wouldn't do it. But my argument isn't for or against - it's that the question itself is pointless and not worth arguing about. :mrgreen:

[MagicConch]

When someone logs onto a net, they leave their MacID and their system name. Usually it's the same MacID and system name they use on their own network w/ network access control. With WEP defeatable and ID spoofing available to everyone, logging on to a neighbor's network makes it much easier for them to log onto your protected, access control network. When it comes to the neighborhood, I would not do SSID broadcast, and not log onto anyone's network, and deactivate any sniffing features on your WiFi device (since you know the network you need to log onto, and since your network isn't putting out a SSID anyway) . People who are foolish enough to do any of those, are asking to get hacked and deserve it. Hell those people are a hacker's dream come true; they come straight to you.

[Pony99CA]

And wouldn't getting Internet access from an ISP that didn't allow WiFi sharing be stealing money and resources from the ISP?
I believe the RIAA is prosecuting those who offer the content for free, not the ones who download it for free.

It's true that the RIAA is currently prosecuting only the biggest uploaders, but who knows what the future holds. Stealing is a crime, but so is receiving stolen property (although downloading is really stealing, too).

Also, if somebody goes into a library and photocopies books, it won't be the library that's prosecuted.

Lastly, I think that the reason you have debated this long and with a passion is because at some point someone either leeched of your own bandwidth or hacked your network, and are automatically assuming that anyone that would use other's connections is not above hacking or becoming a bandwidth hog. Would I be correct in this assertion?
You know what that makes you for ASSuming, right? :twisted:

As far as I know, nobody has leeched my bandwidth or hacked my network. When I set my WiFi network up, I changed the SSID and admin passwords and enabled WEP. Later, I added MAC filtering just to be safe.

I also don't assume that all people using someone's network are hogging bandwidth or up to nefarious purposes. In fact, I believe the opposite -- most people are probably just checking E-mail or browsing the Web for a while because they don't have anything else to do.

However, it doesn't matter to me -- no matter what they're doing, if they're using somebody else's property without permission, they're doing something wrong and, quite likely, illlegal. It's not what they're doing on the network that matters, it's the mere fact that they're on it at all.

If you really wanted to know why I have such strong feelings about this, you could just ask instead of guessing (incorrectly). I'm a computer professional who's fed up with many of the so-called hackers (crackers, really) who feel there's nothing wrong with snooping around another person's computer system, saying it's just for the challenge. If they want a challenge, they should get their own systems or find someone willing to let them perform penetration testing. Seeing losers like Kevin Mitnick and Adrian Lamo treated like celebrities on Tech TV doesn't help, either.

I'm also fed up with losers writing viruses, worms and Trojan Horses. I'm fed up with phishers trying to steal identities. Of course, I'm fed up with spammers (even though I don't get much since I switched E-mail addresses). And, to tie it back into the issue at hand, I'm fed up with people claiming it's OK to use somebody's property without their permission just because it's easy and may not be illegal.

The Internet has made instant communication across the world cheap and easy. It has spawned communities like this where we can get help and help others. It's a shame to see losers ruining it because of their own greed, spite and ego. No, I don't think these losers will kill the Internet, but they're making it a lot less fun and a lot more annoying.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

As far as I'm concerned, it won't be LEGALLY wrong or right until there's a specific case that's brought before a judge, who then makes a ruling.
OK, but why do you believe that current anti-hacking laws don't apply?
Because it hasn't been possible over "public" airspace, or a "public" frequency before.

Just because something hasn't been possible doesn't mean existing laws don't cover it. If a nationwide WiFi mesh network was created, and people started sharing copyrighted files over it, would you need a new law to realize that's illegal? I would hope not.

I want to know what the substantive differences are between a WiFi network and a wired network that makes using the former a gray area (or legal to some people) while using the latter is clearly illegal. To me, they're both networks, they both belong to somebody else and you aren't authorized to use either.

Does that mean that you will still feel it's OK to use an unlocked WiFi network even if a law is passed where you live that specifically says that using somebody's WiFi network without their permission is illegal?
Where exactly did you get that from what I wrote? If you got anything from what I said, you'd realize that the opposite would be true in my case. If it's illegal, then there's no grey area, and the question is moot. If I use someone's wireless network after that law is passed, I break the law. Case closed.

I agree, but read what you said.

As far as I'm concerned, it won't be LEGALLY wrong or right until there's a specific case that's brought before a judge, who then makes a ruling.
You specifically said you wouldn't accept it was illegal until a judge ruled on it. You didn't say "until a judge ruled existing laws covered it or legislation was passed to specifically cover it". Maybe I'm just reading your words too closely, but that's why I asked.

Wireless technologies certainly aren't new. Would you think it's OK to use your neighbor's phone line if your cordless phone happened to share his cordless frequency (even if it was only for local calls and he had unlimited local calling)?
This is where I think the argument gets ridiculous. I can't use my neighbor's phone because the manufacturer of the phone has encrypted the signal so it can only be read by that phone's base station.

It's not "ridiculous". Early cordless phones weren't encrypted, were they? Many of them just used a small collection of separate frequencies you could turn a dial to select if there was somebody already on the default frequency. It wouldn't surprise me if many of those cordless phones were still in use, even.

Try answering the question without trying to nitpick the whether the scenario is exactly correct.

The Internet also isn't new. Would you think it would be OK to tap into his phone or cable line to get Internet access instead of paying for your own connection?
Again, the analogy doesn't apply. I've broken at least two laws by doing that - trespassing on someone's private property, and tampering with the phone or cable company's property. If I'm sitting in my car, in the street, and turn on my PDA's wireless connection, which is at the default configuration, and it then automatically connects to someone's wireless network, which is ALSO at a default configuration, whose fault is it? Is it the manufacturer? I didn't tamper with anything if I just check email. I didn't touch his property at any time.
It's nobody's "fault". If you happen to find an open WiFi point, it's not a big deal. It's no different than seeing somebody left their house door open.

However, once you enter that house, you've broken the law. Checking your E-mail may not have physically touched his property, but certainly used his equipment. It may also have adversely affected something he was doing on the computer (like watching a ball game, as one of my earlier posts mentioned).

Also, you're using the ISP's services and equipment without paying. As I mentioned earlier, I think existing theft of services laws apply. Tell me how it's substantively different than avoiding paying for garbage service by wheeling your cans over by the neighbor's cans. The cans are in the street, so you haven't trespassed on the neighbor's property.

That's why I think we'll need legislation or a legal ruling before we can definitively answer the question of whether it's right or not. Until that happens, this is just a philosophical discussion.
I agree that it would be nice to have such a ruling, but I don't know if we'll get one because I doubt it's easy to catch a violator.

I also don't like creating new laws if the existing ones can already be applied. (I'm a Republican -- we like smaller government. :D) If an analysis of existing laws shows that WiFi is a gray area, then I'd support new legislation.

However, even with legislation, do you want to bet that there will be some people that would still say they aren't hurting anybody and would do it anyway? You can't legislate morality.

Besides the legal issues, I'm trying (unsuccessfully, I realize) to convince some people that using another's property is wrong without their permission. It doesn't matter if you haven't hurt them, it doesn't matter how easy it is and it doesn't matter whether it's easy to be caught.

If you wouldn't want people using something of yours without your permission (anything of yours, not just your WiFi network), then assuming you can use something owned by another without their permission is hypocritical. Hypocrisy isn't illegal, but it's generally considered a bad thing.

Steve

[Pat Logsdon]

Just because something hasn't been possible doesn't mean existing laws don't cover it. If a nationwide WiFi mesh network was created, and people started sharing copyrighted files over it, would you need a new law to realize that's illegal?
No, because that's clearly illegal, no matter what the transmission method is, and there are already laws to cover it. As far as I know, there's no law that classifies checking email on someone else's network as illegal. That's the grey area, in my opinion.

I want to know what the substantive differences are between a WiFi network and a wired network that makes using the former a gray area (or legal to some people) while using the latter is clearly illegal. To me, they're both networks, they both belong to somebody else and you aren't authorized to use either.
True, but again, the method of transmission is the key difference. Wires are property. Air isn't. :mrgreen:

As far as I'm concerned, it won't be LEGALLY wrong or right until there's a specific case that's brought before a judge, who then makes a ruling.
You specifically said you wouldn't accept it was illegal until a judge ruled on it. You didn't say "until a judge ruled existing laws covered it or legislation was passed to specifically cover it". Maybe I'm just reading your words too closely, but that's why I asked.
Ok, ya got me. I wasn't particularly clear in my first post. What you quoted above is my opinion. Bottom line being that there's no legislation or ruling on this particular subject, and I think we need that before we can say whether it's truly right or wrong, legally speaking.

This is where I think the argument gets ridiculous. I can't use my neighbor's phone because the manufacturer of the phone has encrypted the signal so it can only be read by that phone's base station.
It's not "ridiculous". Early cordless phones weren't encrypted, were they? Many of them just used a small collection of separate frequencies you could turn a dial to select if there was somebody already on the default frequency. It wouldn't surprise me if many of those cordless phones were still in use, even.
Sure, but it's not really the same, is it? A phone is just a conversation - there's data transfer if you want to look at it that way, but it's two way (three at most), and you can't do anything else but talk. I just don't think it's a good analogy. :mrgreen:

It's nobody's "fault". If you happen to find an open WiFi point, it's not a big deal. It's no different than seeing somebody left their house door open.
This is the main point where I disagree with you. I DON'T think it's the same, since if I'm in my car, on a public street, accessing the information over public air, I don't really think I've violated your private property. That's why I think it needs to be defined legally.

If you wouldn't want people using something of yours without your permission (anything of yours, not just your WiFi network), then assuming you can use something owned by another without their permission is hypocritical. Hypocrisy isn't illegal, but it's generally considered a bad thing.
I totally agree with you here. The Golden Rule is an excellent one, and I try to live my life by it. But it's still not the law. :mrgreen:

[David Prahl]

This same argument took place last fall. Many of the same members were involved. It was locked if I remember correctly.. :lol:

[Pony99CA]

OK, I took some time off on this thread, but I've done a little research, which I'll present below.

Just because something hasn't been possible doesn't mean existing laws don't cover it. If a nationwide WiFi mesh network was created, and people started sharing copyrighted files over it, would you need a new law to realize that's illegal?
No, because that's clearly illegal, no matter what the transmission method is, and there are already laws to cover it. As far as I know, there's no law that classifies checking email on someone else's network as illegal. That's the grey area, in my opinion.

There are theft of services laws that would cover that. The person checking their E-mail is using the services of the ISP without permission. That seems to be clearly illegal with laws to cover it.

I want to know what the substantive differences are between a WiFi network and a wired network that makes using the former a gray area (or legal to some people) while using the latter is clearly illegal. To me, they're both networks, they both belong to somebody else and you aren't authorized to use either.
True, but again, the method of transmission is the key difference. Wires are property. Air isn't. :mrgreen:
The problem is that you aren't just using the air. The air is just one part of the data's journey, but you're also using my access point (which certainly is physical property), my cable that connects to my broadband modem (wires that are physical property), the broadband modem (more physical property) and my cable or phone line (more wires). You're also using my ISP's equipment.

There are plenty of physical components in the chain. Looking exclusively at the first (or last) leg of the connection is nothing more than a rationalization to justify what you're doing.

For reference, here's what the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act defines a computing system as:

(1) the term "computer" means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;
Note the part I emphasized, which includes communication facilities (which I believe include any network attached to the computer).

Granted, that specific law doesn't sound like it applies to most WiFi access (unless the computer system is part of the government, a bank or used for interstate commerce), but I thought it would be useful to see how the law views a computer system.

This is where I think the argument gets ridiculous. I can't use my neighbor's phone because the manufacturer of the phone has encrypted the signal so it can only be read by that phone's base station.
It's not "ridiculous". Early cordless phones weren't encrypted, were they? Many of them just used a small collection of separate frequencies you could turn a dial to select if there was somebody already on the default frequency. It wouldn't surprise me if many of those cordless phones were still in use, even.
Sure, but it's not really the same, is it? A phone is just a conversation - there's data transfer if you want to look at it that way, but it's two way (three at most), and you can't do anything else but talk. I just don't think it's a good analogy. :mrgreen:

I think the analogy is quite good. They're both communication channels by which information is exchanged. I don't believe that the method of communication is really relevant. The analogy may not be perfect, but, as I've said, how many analogies are?

Also, your point about two-way or three-way communication doesn't seem relevant, either. How is that important? And, even if it is important, anybody can set up a conference call where a lot more than three phones are involved. And, if you're only checking E-mail, how many connections are you really making?

If people would stop trying to nitpick the analogy and look at the broader implications, I think this discussion wouldn't have carried on so long. My cordless phone analogy was brought up mainly to illustrate that cordless phones and wired phones are basically treated the same under the law, so why should wireless networks be treated differently than wired networks? That's the broader issue.

It's nobody's "fault". If you happen to find an open WiFi point, it's not a big deal. It's no different than seeing somebody left their house door open.
This is the main point where I disagree with you. I DON'T think it's the same, since if I'm in my car, on a public street, accessing the information over public air, I don't really think I've violated your private property. That's why I think it needs to be defined legally.

Again, only a small part of the communication is over the air. You're also accessing the information over my physical network, which means you have violated my private property.

For contrast, here's a scenario that I don't think would violate my property. If I'm streaming media from my computer to my home theater over a WiFi connection, and you listen to that content on your computer, I don't think you're doing anything wrong.

Once you start transmitting data over my network, though, that's when the line is crossed. Checking your E-mail, IMing, Web surfing, etc. would all fall on the wrong side of the line.

Steve

[dh]

Hey Steve, I haven't seen you around for a while, glad you're back.

It's interesting the debate you are having with Surgical Pat, but I get the impression you really agree on the basics here. You both have a good idea of what's right and what's not.

At my apartment complex, I see seven or eight networks when I do a scan. Only one has any sort of security, mine. I just don't want anyone buggering about with my computer and downloading stuff using my connection.

However when I moved here, it took a day or two for Comcast to get my connection set up and I needed to check my email. What did I do? I used an unprotected network a couple of times of course. Is this legal? Probably not, in the same way that speeding isn't legal. I use Sprint's Vision for my email when traveling now, I have no intention of using other people's networks unless I really have to.

It would make sense for the router makers to enable security by default. Why on earth do we see so many linksys and dlink SIDs? It would be better if a new user was prompted to use a new name and pass code when installing their equipment.

I think that having an open access to a cable connection is violating the Conditions of Use for most peoples ISP as well. When I first signed up with with Comcast in NJ they were having a purge on looking for subscribers with open connections and kicking them off their network.

[Pony99CA]

Hey Steve, I haven't seen you around for a while, glad you're back.
Thanks. :-) I took a few months away from here, but I've been back for a few weeks. I just don't spend as much time here (or on most Web sites) as I used to due to personal reasons (nothing serious, mind you, just general malaise).

It's interesting the debate you are having with Surgical Pat, but I get the impression you really agree on the basics here. You both have a good idea of what's right and what's not.
Yes, I think we both agree what's "right", but differ on what's legal. I still think it's illegal, but I'm no lawyer, and could be wrong.

However, some people here seem to think it's "right", and I'm at least trying to convince them that accessing someone else's property without permission is wrong, regardless of the legality. At one time, there were no laws against stealing or murder, but that didn't make it right.

At my apartment complex, I see seven or eight networks when I do a scan. Only one has any sort of security, mine. I just don't want anyone buggering about with my computer and downloading stuff using my connection.

However when I moved here, it took a day or two for Comcast to get my connection set up and I needed to check my email. What did I do? I used an unprotected network a couple of times of course. Is this legal? Probably not, in the same way that speeding isn't legal.
:lol: I was actually thinking of the speeding analogy before my last post. I think the premise is similar -- just admit that what you're doing is illegal, but you're not worried about getting caught and/or punished. The harm done by either is usually minimal, but you never know when you'll come across that one time that you do hurt somebody.

It would make sense for the router makers to enable security by default. Why on earth do we see so many linksys and dlink SIDs? It would be better if a new user was prompted to use a new name and pass code when installing their equipment.
That's certainly a good idea. Routers probably have embedded microprocessors if they can serve admin Web pages, so why not have a startup wizard that prompts to change SSIDs, admin passwords and, maybe, enabling WEP or WPA?

I think that having an open access to a cable connection is violating the Conditions of Use for most peoples ISP as well. When I first signed up with with Comcast in NJ they were having a purge on looking for subscribers with open connections and kicking them off their network.
Yes, that was mentioned earlier; in fact, way back in July 2002, there was a long thread (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1926) about Time-Warner sending a cease-and-desist letter to some guy.

However, I think some ISPs don't mind if you share WiFi access, so not all open WiFi points are violating the ISP's TOS. On those ISPs, my theft of services arguments wouldn't apply, but a WiFi user still wouldn't know if the open WiFi point was shared intentionally or not.

Steve