Florida Man Arrested for Illegally Using Another Person's Wi-Fi

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121747,tk,dn070805X,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article...n070805X,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Benjamin Smith III, 40, was arrested on April 21 outside the St. Petersburg home of Richard Dinon and charged under a Florida law that prohibits unauthorized access to a computer or network, says George Kajtsa, the police department's public information officer. &lt;...> Dinon saw Smith sitting in a parked sport-utility vehicle in front of his house and wondered what he was doing there, then saw he was using a notebook computer, Kajtsa says. &lt;...> 'What made him suspicious was, every time he looked toward the car, the guy closed the lid on his laptop,' Kajtsa says. Dinon called police. When they came to the scene and approached the vehicle, Smith closed the computer again. The police asked him what he was doing and he finally owned up to it, Kajtsa says."</i><br /><br />It was bound to happen sooner or later. We all have heard of people who engage in "wardriving" where a person seeks out a Wi-Fi signal with the intention of getting free internet access at someone else's expense. In this case, it unfortunately took the stupidity of the criminal himself for the arrest to happen (this reminds me of the robber who accepted a personal check after his victim informed him that she didn't have any cash in the house). We may be some ways away from being able to identify violators immediately without relying on them to handcuff themselves. I'm just glad that we never saw the security proposition approved that would have held both the victim and the perpetrator guilty. :roll:

[OSUKid7]

I'm glad to start seeing some crackdown on this type of crime. Sure, everyone should secure his/her own network, but at the same time, isn't connecting to someone's network wirelessly the same as doing so wired, or breaking and entering? Very interesting topic. Check out the article FAQ: Wi-Fi mooching and the law (http://news.zdnet.com/FAQ%3A+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-1035_22-5778822.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=zdnn) on ZDNet too, if you're interested.

[Jerry Raia]

So the guy is worried about his wireless being used for something illegal and he left it wide open? A simple MAC address restriction would have helped ya think?? :roll:

[G M Fude]

I hate thieves. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a place where we didn't have to lock the doors to our house or our car? I don't know where that place is.

[bkerrins]

I think saying the homeowner should have done something differently is the wrong approach. The guy (stealing wifi) clearing knew he was breaking the rules, why should the victim have to change what they do?

[MikeUnwired]

I think a HUGE number of people...

1. Don't lock-down their access points out of ignorance or arrogance (but mostly ignorance).
2. Use open access points knowing it's "wrong" but not knowing it's against the law.
3. Think using an access point to pass-through to the Internet is ok as long as you don't browse the "host's" computer.

And, occasionally, someone will use someone else's access point by mistake. In the 75 feet between the end of my building and the far wall of the store front next to mine, there are three access points. Only one is protected. I sometimes will connect to the open point by mistake because I forget to flip-off my wireless switch when I'm using the wired Ethernet in my office. I sit down and connect a few times a day and sometimes don't pay enough attention to the list of available points when I hit ENTER and connect.

I really think the two guys should have worked it out between them rather than getting the police involved, but many people don't agree with me on that. I would have knocked on the guy's car window and asked him what he was doing, but then again, I would lock-down my access point too.

[Jacob]

The guy did do pretty much everything just to make himself stick out.

I would hope he isn't thrown in jail, but he knew he wasn't innocent.

[pjerry220]

It was obvious this guy was trying to get free Internet Access on somebody elses dime. That's not right. But like all who have said before the access point should be locked down.

[powder2000]

To me, it isn't something that should be openly allowed while at the same time, should have been locked down better. I don't just leave my car unlocked when I go into a store and expect it to be secure. It's just common sense on both sides.

[Fishie]

I hate thieves. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a place where we didn't have to lock the doors to our house or our car? I don't know where that place is.

My door is never locked, I live in Belgium.
Canada and Scandinavia are nice places as well I hear.

[babsuvulawho]

I mean, somebody has to make a statement for another way to look at this. I think I agree it is technically illegal (I haven't read the article, but it makes sense to me that it would be) to mooch off of other people's net connections. And nobody likes a moocher, so the idea of the guy next door stealing my internet connection so he doesn't pay for it himself, I agree is at least as bad as stealing cable. Also, it may be the wrong approach to ridicule the man with the unlocked connection, just the same as it's wrong to ridicule a victim of petty theft of some valuable from an unlocked vehicle-- but that won't stop the police from having a laugh when the guy explains that he went into the mall with his windows down and wallet laying front seat. But really, if I had a way of allowing an innocent person who just wanted a quick check of his email or weather update, or whatever, to do so without placing myself in any danger, and knowing he's not actually costing the internet provider anything since this isn't like his daily habit, but a circumstance, I'd totally let him, wouldn't you? So to some extent this is all self-justification. No I don't ever go regularly sniffing out networks and trying to download hours of porn following, but yes, with my PDA in pocket, I sometimes find myself in a situation where it sure would be convenient if I could just download my messages real fast, or whatever, and yes, I have turned on the wifi just to see if anyone in the immediate vicinity left theirs unlocked.
I don't think I've spoken as eloquently as planned, but surely what I'm speaking of is a little different than your average theft. It's not like I actively seek out renters of internet time as victims from which I can steal bandwidth, never paying for it myself. I guarantee I cost neither the internet provider nor the renter anything by such a small borrowing. It's a little bit like stealing cable which people would try and justify, such as the case where the signal is just sent over the air, and they just descramble it, but clearly they are using something they are not paying for, and therefore costing the provider. Well anyway, it makes sense that there must be a law against this, but I guess I'm just saying that I wish that law never had to be enforced and perhaps while still technically illegal, the actions I partake in would be viewed by all as quite all right and therefore never punishable.
does anybody agree, or should I never turn on my wifi again without making sure it connects to nobody's network but my own?

[PneTool]

I know people that leave their access points open and and allow internet traffic though but not acces to their host computers. My thought is that if you do not want people to use your access point lock it down. Also using someone's access point for internet access leaves you open if your computer is not locked down.

In the business park that I work in I can connect to 5 different access points from my desk, all open. One access point allowed my computer to zeroconf with their printers. So I printed out a warning that they should really WEP their network because people can access it. The next day that network wasn't available. What I don't understand is why people get a wireless network and don't lock it down.

At home my network is WEP enabled, does not broadcast, and all computers have a static IP just because I am paranoid 8)

[juttonn]

This story raises some interesting questions. I read an article that took the approach that if someone doesn't secure their connection, then there should be no punnishment for somebody else using it. The analogy is that if you are at a place of business, ie. an airport, coffee shop, hotel, etc and there is an unsecured, open access point, you are going to assume that you can use it. Shouldn't the same rules apply to everyone? I wish I remembered the source of the article. Sorry for not being able to cite it. Then again, if the front door to a business is unlocked, you can walk in. The same doesn't hold true to somebody's house.

Also, what if someone has an access point that the want to keep private (yet do nothing to secure it) and are located near a place of business where people my confuse whether that particular access point is provided for customer's usage, or a private access point? Where legally can we draw the line? Another question is whether there can be any ownership of the radio waves used. I'm fairly sure that the FCC has set asside WiFi frequencies as public frequencies. If that is the case, can someone be prosecuted for using these frequencies on an unprotected network? If I turn on my CB radio and happen to listen in on somebody having a private conversation, I may switch channels out of respect, but if I don't, I certainly won't feel in danger of being arrested.

Obviously, if you find yourself connecting to an access point that is privately owned and probably not secured out of ignorance of the owner of the access point, then you should disconnect not us that connection. But from a legal stand point I don't know how it will come down when were are talking about publically owned radio frequencies. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[gorkon280]

Wasn't this covered like last week????? Anyway, it's about time. Granted, I ain't saying this guy should not be punished. He should, but the guy running the AP should have secured it.

[Paragon]

Sorry, I don't get it! At the price of gas these days, and the shear inconvenience of driving around trying to find an open network, just doesn't cut it with me........For just a few bucks a month you can have an internet connection right in your own home.....no need to hop in the car and go looking for a connection everytime you want to check your email...maybe it's just me. ;)

Dave

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Just to clarify, I was neither ridiculing nor criticizing the owner with my comments.

In my opinion, I agree that it's good practice for everyone to lock down their wireless network, but to me, blaming the owner for this incident seems analogous to blaming the victim of a car theft because they happened to leave their car unlocked. Was it negligent? Sure. Does it mean the owner should legally be at fault? Not in my opnion.

[sralmas]

I think saying the homeowner should have done something differently is the wrong approach. The guy (stealing wifi) clearing knew he was breaking the rules, why should the victim have to change what they do?

I totally disagree. The law makes it illegal to use someone else's wireless connection without authorization. Problem is, how do you know if somone has intentionally left the AP open or whether it is carelessly left open. In light of how simple it is to secure the AP in even the smallest way, I believe that the law should presume authority where the owner has taken NO steps whatsoever to lock down the AP.

[jlp]

Sorry, I don't get it! At the price of gas these days, and the shear inconvenience of driving around trying to find an open network, just doesn't cut it with me........For just a few bucks a month you can have an internet connection right in your own home.....no need to hop in the car and go looking for a connection everytime you want to check your email...maybe it's just me. ;)

Dave

How do you gather that the so called "stealer" was from the vincinity and was so stingy and had so much time at hand that he felt he had to wander around to "steal" someone's wireless internet access???

I'd rather think the guy was quite or very far from his place and needed internet access. If not in this particular story, many people could be in such situation while away from home/office

I feel (but that's just me; well there are a few of us too) that if:
- you don't access the host's computer files
- you don't use a substantial part of the bandwidth*
- do it occasionally
- don't do illegal things while connected to the net
then using someone's wireless access isn't morally (and consequently logically should be legally too) wrong!!

Now imagine it's dark outside, your front porch light is on and a passerby uses your light to view a map, etc. Would you say he's stealing your light??

No that would be ludicrous. Same here with wifi if there's no abusing it.


*=I know it's vague and therefore impossible to determine. However I'm sure technologically it would be possible for example to set a given amount of bandwidth free for passerbys.

[Jacob]

I totally disagree. The law makes it illegal to use someone else's wireless connection without authorization. Problem is, how do you know if somone has intentionally left the AP open or whether it is carelessly left open. In light of how simple it is to secure the AP in even the smallest way, I believe that the law should presume authority where the owner has taken NO steps whatsoever to lock down the AP.

What you do is decide not to steal unless you've got a reason to believe it was left open on purpose.

[Paragon]

- don't do illegal things while connected to the net
then using someone's wireless access isn't morally (and consequently logically should be legally too) wrong!!

Oh, please....so as long as I leave my keys in my car and you take it for a drive, as long as you don't do anything illegal, such as speed, that is ok? :roll:

[Paragon]

Now imagine it's dark outside, your front porch light is on and a passerby uses your light to view a map, etc. Would you say he's stealing your light??

No that would be ludicrous. Same here with wifi if there's no abusing it.

If I leave my light on, I'm using the energy. If I leave my Wifi open, it's not in use till you start using it...that costs money. Just ask Jason what he pays each month for bandwidth if you think you aren't stealing anything of value.

Or, to use your example...If I have a light on the outside of my house with a switch and a live wire running to it, if you turn it on, you are stealing my energy.....If you use my open WiFi, you are stealing my bandwidth.

[disconnected]

I think juttonn made some good points. When I go into a coffee shop or mall I quite often look for a connection. If I find one, I generally assume it's meant to be used. I think it's similar to assuming that a path down to a beach is public unless otherwise posted.

I read an article somewhere, sorry can't remember where, where the author said that his laptop at home will sometimes lose the connection to his own network and connect to a nearby one that has a stronger signal without him even noticing it; he thought that, if anything, the other network was intruding into his house.

[viperboyce]

I agree that using another persons WiFi is illegal, without their permission. However, the person who started this string stated that "wardriving" is the act of driving around looking for open WiFi aps with the intention of connecting to that access point to reach the internet or do some other dasterdly business. That statement is soo far from wrong! I personally engage in wardriving, and have never in the two years that I have been doing it connected through another persons ap without their permission. Get the facts right! Don't go around giving those of us that engage in legal wardriving as a hobby a bad name. I also know personally many others that engage in wardriving as a hobby without malice or illegal intentions or actions.

[Darius Wey]

I hate thieves. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a place where we didn't have to lock the doors to our house or our car? I don't know where that place is.

Not sure if you've heard it, but there's a common ideology going around that eons ago, you could leave your house and car unlocked since everyone had the right kind of morals to leave your personal belongings untouched.

Now that's not so much the case. It may be a bad case of paranoia, but I always like to double-check the front door or my car door before I head out.

Back on topic, I do think it's morally wrong to trespass on one's private wireless connection without direct permission, but it should also be in the owner's interest to ensure that his/her connection is appropriately secured. While one can't stop the countless number of hack jobs going on in this day and age, at least by securing your connection, you provide some level of security as opposed to none at all. The problem is that as much as wireless connections are being widely publicised by ISPs and network companies, the vast majority of Joe users aren't educated on the dos and don'ts of wireless networking. Mention the phrase, "have you secured your connection?" to them and they respond with a simple, "huh?". :|

[buss]

Interesting debates going on here, but consider it from this standpoint (for the moment ignore moral and ethical, look only at the law). You can protect the network before allowing to spillover into the public domain, (the street). In fact a legal argument could be made that since the owner of the network did not take reasonable steps to close the network, they made an "attractive nuisance” and could be open to tort claims.

When we consider the fact the radio waves are not confined to traditional boundaries, this raises a whole new issue. For example, a radio or television transmitter on the border between two countries sends signals across the border. The programming is not licensed for use in that country, yet people can still watch/listen. Should they be prosecuted for infringement on intellectual property rights? While some may think this is silly, it is in fact true, look at Direct Satellite Broadcasting Services from the USA that can be picked up in Canada and Mexico.

Simply put, the laws have once again not caught up with technology.

(Morals and ethics back on)
In my office I have a separate commercial internet connection that I have placed on a open WiFi network as a convenience to those conducting business with us and might need internet access. I assume that since it is open, people should know they are free to use it.

Comparisons:
Consider a shopping mall in which free food samples are placed on a table in front of the store (not inside, but in front) and are left unattended, a very common practice. You walk by and help yourself to some goodies, someone walks out and claims you stole the food. Did you? Free samples are common in this setting, yet there was no signed explicitly stating, “free." Is it stealing?

Standing outside theater that has a concert inside, you can hear the music but did not pay, stealing?

How about Wrigley Field in Chicago, apartments across the street can view the ball games without paying admission, stealing?

Do not know what is right or wrong, but know that this can be complicated with longer implications.

[Jonathan1]

"wardriving" where a person seeks out a Wi-Fi signal with the intention of getting free internet access at someone else's expense.

God it would be nice if people researched a term before spouting it out. wardriving is:

To drive around with a laptop with a wireless
card, and an antenna, looking for accessible wireless
networks.

REAL wardrivers do not obtain an IP address from a detected network. Go to any wardriving site’s discussion board and they will pound you into ground if you start talking about “hey how do I get on this network”
You guys are just as bad as mainstream media in regards to getting this right. :? I recently e-mailed www.wcco.com who did a expose on wardriving. They pretty much said the same crap. Maybe just trying to scare people into securing their system. Don't know. All I know is I'm getting REALLY tired of trying to knock down a stereotype that is just plain wrong.


Beyond that tell me who’s fault it is when I have friends over and they want to use my wireless and my neighbor’s access point is as open as..well this is a PG site so I can’t say that. So instead of connecting to mine what is the first AP the system connects to? Sorry but if you don’t put a certain amount of minimum security on your system you are no different then leaving your wide screen TV out on the sidewalk with a blanket over it with the notion that no one is going to take it because they can’t see it. Here in MN you will get a ticket for leaving your car alone running. Why? Because of theft. So in that case its just as much the owners fault as the person doing the stealing. (Also talk to an insurance agent sometime and see what happens if its found that your car was stolen while running. Friend had his rates jacked WAY up after such an incident. (Who the heck needs to leave their car running to grab groceries?)

I was sitting in a hotel room in downtown Philadelphia this past weekend at a convention. I picked up 6 count em 6 WIFI points. 2 were open. As WIFI becomes ubiquitous there needs to be due diligence laws put in place. If you don’t put basic security on your system there should be no reason someone shouldn’t be allowed to access your access point just as some coffee shops have open WIFI. There needs to be an easy way of telling what is open for public use and what isn’t. Of course all of this coming from a state run by…oh nevermind what's the point. *sighs* :roll:

[beq]

I admit I haven't turned on stronger security measures for my AP (such as WPA-PSK, or even just turn off SSID broadcast, etc), only because I have older devices not able to use the newer security features. For example, the old Socket CF Wi-Fi card used on older PPCs...

[Carlos]

This should be treated as simply as trespassing laws. If you walk across an unfenced yard you are not legally trespassing. If you jump a fence to do it, you are.

The owner of an AP should have the burden to put up at least a small "fence" to show his intention to keep people out.

[bjornkeizers]

I regularly connect to other people's networks. Why? Because I can. I don't break into anything and I leave the routers and stuff alone.

I consider connecting to these open networks a great privilege. I don't bite the hand that feeds me bandwidth, because it gives us a bad name, it scares the owners, and it means no more bandwidth for me if they lock it down. Most wardrivers and actual connecters understand there are certain things you can, can't and above all just shouldn't do.

In the end, the owner of the network is responsible for their network and their bandwidth. Not me. If it's open and spills over into my house, I have no problems with using it.

[emuelle1]

I have, on occasion, connected to a residential access point. When I first got my x30, I was along with my wife and her sister hitting yard sales. My son fell asleep in the car, and rather than wake him, I decided to sit in the car with him (I was tired of yard sales anyway). I fired up my wi-fi to see what was out there, and I was able to connect to one router long enough to load a web page before I disconnected. It was enough reading material, and I was sure that what I did was morally wrong.

As said before, I really wouldn't mind if someone connected to my network to download email or check the headlines. I would appreciate it if others would allow me the same courtesy, as one computer geek to another. But, of course, when you make something idiot proof they make a better idiot, and some people run around in life with the sole intention of destroying any public safety or trust for the rest of us, forcing us to lock down our routers and our cars.

I was at the doctor's office a month or so ago. You know how doctors are. You're in the waiting room 15 minutes past your scheduled appointment, then they take you back to the room, check your blood pressure, and leave you in isolation for another 45 minutes. That's at a good office. I fired up my wi-fi, and lo and behold an access point! While I was forced to wait for my 3 seconds with the doctor, I was able to chat with a couple of friends, find something to read and check a few discussion forums (including this one). It made the visit go so much faster. I would love to see more open access points in the world. It would make things like taking the wife to the mall so much more bearable.

[CoreyJF]

I think there are at least two major problems with holding this man criminally liable.

The fact is there are many people and business that leave their networks open for internet access as a courtesy and business. If it is not secured, there is no way for someone to know if it is left open intentionally.

Second, it is a very slippery slope to where Neighbors could one day be prosecuted for accidentally straying on to an unsecured network. Last night I noticed my internet was running slower then usual checked the settings, I had slipped off my own network onto some else’s. Right now there are six wireless networks that overlap my network. Only 2 of them are secured. That was not the first time this has happened and probably will not be the last.

I get very frustrated when people not only compare but say outright that intellectual property, wireless networks, and other such technology can be directly equated to more substantive objects. It is not the same as walking into someone’s house or car or even plugging in to someone Ethernet jack. Just as the internet is smashing boundaries on a global level, wireless networks are doing the same for home and business networks. If you don’t want people on your network, secure it. If some one breaks your security protocols, then they are committing a crime. If someone enters your private property to access your network, they are committing a crime. But if someone accesses an unsecured network in a public area or in their own homes, they are not committing a prosecutable crime. If I were him, I would fight it to the Supreme Court. The concept of a network has changed to drastically in the age of wireless to apply outmoded laws to wireless networks.

Often it takes a while for law to catch up to society. There are several states for instance where adultery is still a crime. Good luck prosecuting 50-90% of the population.

[PDANEWBIE]

WIFI Hijacking scares me.

I have a co-worker who lives near a hospital and hijacks their Wifi and then comes back to us (the IT dept) when she gets disconnected from her VPN she created to our oracle DB. First off the fact that she is using a hospital's WIfi scares the hell out of me second off the fact she is doing some network transaction on their WIFI (not just web browsing) also scares me.

The sad thing is I can't turn off the wifi because she is protected by the powers that be in business as well.

Personally due to this story however the fact this guy closed his laptop each time someone looked out at hime was enough to convince me that the guy is clearly at fault. He knew he was doing wrong and he just flat out got busted.

As fars as some of the other posts about the people should have put encryption on their wireless what I fail to see is why they have to do that? That's like saying you asked for your car to be stolen because you left the door unlocked and they still jumped in it and hotwired it. Just because you have something it doesn't invite everyone to use it.

[bjornkeizers]

That's like saying you asked for your car to be stolen because you left the door unlocked and they still jumped in it and hotwired it. Just because you have something it doesn't invite everyone to use it.

Did you check your insurance policy lately? Because that's exactly what it says. I just bought a brand new bicycle, with insurance, and it clearly states that I have to lock it, be careful with it, reasonable measures and all that - I can't just let it sit outside, unlocked, because my insurance won't pay up if I do. I have a responsibility to prevent it to the best of my ability.

Same thing with cars, houses, and networks: you have to take steps to prevent bad things happening to it, otherwise the consequences are yours and yours alone.

[emuelle1]

Exactly. A friend of mine has a '71 Corvette, which is registered and insured as historical. His insurance clearly states that he is not to leave the car unattended anywhere BUT his house. He can't take it to the mall. I think he only takes it to car shows anyway.

[Paragon]

Did you check your insurance policy lately? Because that's exactly what it says. .

You are right, many insurance policies will not cover theft if proper protection is not in place. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE THEFT LEGAL. THE POLICE CAN STILL LAY CHARGES.....IT'S STILL ILLEGAL.

Some days I think the whole world has lost its ability to use common sense. :roll:

[kiwi]

hasnt anyone thought that this dude may have been up to no good.. ie. trying to hack or DL illegal material etc?? - reason to close the laptop up.

[Palmguy]

Of course all of this coming from a state run by…oh nevermind what's the point. *sighs* :roll:

:roll:

This story raises some interesting questions. I read an article that took the approach that if someone doesn't secure their connection, then there should be no punnishment for somebody else using it. The analogy is that if you are at a place of business, ie. an airport, coffee shop, hotel, etc and there is an unsecured, open access point, you are going to assume that you can use it. Shouldn't the same rules apply to everyone? I wish I remembered the source of the article. Sorry for not being able to cite it. Then again, if the front door to a business is unlocked, you can walk in. The same doesn't hold true to somebody's house.

Also, what if someone has an access point that the want to keep private (yet do nothing to secure it) and are located near a place of business where people my confuse whether that particular access point is provided for customer's usage, or a private access point? Where legally can we draw the line? Another question is whether there can be any ownership of the radio waves used. I'm fairly sure that the FCC has set asside WiFi frequencies as public frequencies. If that is the case, can someone be prosecuted for using these frequencies on an unprotected network? If I turn on my CB radio and happen to listen in on somebody having a private conversation, I may switch channels out of respect, but if I don't, I certainly won't feel in danger of being arrested.

Obviously, if you find yourself connecting to an access point that is privately owned and probably not secured out of ignorance of the owner of the access point, then you should disconnect not us that connection. But from a legal stand point I don't know how it will come down when were are talking about publically owned radio frequencies. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The issue wasn't the "ownership" of the radio waves...there was unauthorized access to an actual network, and in Florida that is against the law.

[CoreyJF]

Did you check your insurance policy lately? Because that's exactly what it says. .

You are right, many insurance policies will not cover theft if proper protection is not in place. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE THEFT LEGAL. THE POLICE CAN STILL LAY CHARGES.....IT'S STILL ILLEGAL.

Some days I think the whole world has lost its ability to use common sense. :roll:

Comparing a car to a wi-fi network is apples to oranges. If you want to think of it in terms of physical property you have to take into account that wireless networks boundaries often cross into other peoples private property. If I find a bag or even a car left completely open (say a convertible for instance), placed on my property without permission I have every right to go through it. If you use a wireless network you have to accept that the boundaries exceed you personal/real property and extend into public and private areas. If you don't want people on it, secure it. It also does not take into account that people can accidentally log on to a wireless network, while it is far more difficult to make a reasonable argument that you accidentally entered a car/home/business.

[Paragon]

If I find a bag or even a car left completely open (say a convertible for instance), placed on my property without permission I have every right to go through it.

Clearly the street this guy was parked on was not his property, so he therefore did NOT have the right to "go through it"

.....as I said...common sense!

[martin_ayton]

My neighbour has a tap / faucet on the outside of his house at the front, clearly visible from the road. This is to enable him to wash his car more conveniently. The fact that it is there, and not secured with a padlock, does not mean that I have a right to go and help myself from that tap - without asking - any time I wish. The guy pays for his water.

I have two power points on the outside wall in my garden. They are there so I can plug in the lawn mower or power tools without running cable through a window or door where it might get damaged or provide a tripping hazard. They are unprotected, but that doesn't mean that I am happy for everyone in the neighbourhood to come and plug in and use the electricity I pay for any time they want.

I think it has been said before: the main reason that most APs are not locked down is because most people don't know that they can do so. It is much safer and more polite to assume ignorance than assume that the AP is left open deliberately so that you can access it.

I assume that those people who subscribe to the W?BIC school of connecting via any open access point and who also have a bluetooth phone would have no problem with Joe Hacker coming along and helping themselves to $$$ worth of text messages using the recently announced security flaw (assuming that that is, in fact, possible)? No? Odd isn't it how it's OK to use someone else's stuff without their express permission but not OK for them to do the same to you.

[Paragon]

Odd isn't it how it's OK to use someone else's stuff without their express permission but not OK for them to do the same to you.

Go Martin! :)

[jeasher]

The State will never get a conviction. I believe the ruling will have something to do with the fact that the Wi-Fi signal, although being generated privately, will be considered public domain as it can be acessed on public property. The network was not secured and that is the homeowner's fault. If the network WAS secure, and the man on the street hacked into it, he would then be guilty of violating a law. The fact it was unsecured is the difference.

[CoreyJF]

If I find a bag or even a car left completely open (say a convertible for instance), placed on my property without permission I have every right to go through it.

Clearly the street this guy was parked on was not his property, so he therefore did NOT have the right to "go through it"

.....as I said...common sense!

No But it is public property

[CoreyJF]

My neighbour has a tap / faucet on the outside of his house at the front, clearly visible from the road. This is to enable him to wash his car more conveniently. The fact that it is there, and not secured with a padlock, does not mean that I have a right to go and help myself from that tap - without asking - any time I wish. The guy pays for his water.

I have two power points on the outside wall in my garden. They are there so I can plug in the lawn mower or power tools without running cable through a window or door where it might get damaged or provide a tripping hazard. They are unprotected, but that doesn't mean that I am happy for everyone in the neighbourhood to come and plug in and use the electricity I pay for any time they want.

I think it has been said before: the main reason that most APs are not locked down is because most people don't know that they can do so. It is much safer and more polite to assume ignorance than assume that the AP is left open deliberately so that you can access it.

I assume that those people who subscribe to the W?BIC school of connecting via any open access point and who also have a bluetooth phone would have no problem with Joe Hacker coming along and helping themselves to $$$ worth of text messages using the recently announced security flaw (assuming that that is, in fact, possible)? No? Odd isn't it how it's OK to use someone else's stuff without their express permission but not OK for them to do the same to you.
Again, this would be a completely different situation. They would have to enter private property to access your power outlet or his water pump. That would be a crime. However if they guy with the pump was say, washing his car and water was running into the street, it would not be a crime to wash his hands in the water running down the stream. In wireless, boundaries do not match property lines any more then the internet should be subject to any particular countries laws. And as for the Bluetooth, using security flaw is not what we are talking about; it is and should be a crime. Using an unsecured AP is worlds apart from intentionally using a security flaw.

[Jacob]

Comparing a car to a wi-fi network is apples to oranges. If you want to think of it in terms of physical property you have to take into account that wireless networks boundaries often cross into other peoples private property.

...but in order to USE that wireless network you have to send signals onto my property that uses my wireless router that is on MY property. Hence you are sending something back over and using something that's on my property without my permission.

Like wardriving isn't a crime - you can detect that there is a network there, but you aren't sending anything through the router that you don't own. When you USE that network you are using something that isn't yours.

[jeasher]

Like wardriving isn't a crime - you can detect that there is a network there, but you aren't sending anything through the router that you don't own. When you USE that network you are using something that isn't yours.No, when you are using an unsecured network from the street you are essentially using public property. Compare it to using a swingset in the park.

[Jacob]

Like wardriving isn't a crime - you can detect that there is a network there, but you aren't sending anything through the router that you don't own. When you USE that network you are using something that isn't yours.No, when you are using an unsecured network from the street you are essentially using public property. Compare it to using a swingset in the park.

It's NOT public property though .. MY router isn't public property.

It's nothing like a swingset in the park - my tax dollars and yours pay for that swingset. YOU don't pay for my wireless network.

[CoreyJF]

Comparing a car to a wi-fi network is apples to oranges. If you want to think of it in terms of physical property you have to take into account that wireless networks boundaries often cross into other peoples private property.

...but in order to USE that wireless network you have to send signals onto my property that uses my wireless router that is on MY property. Hence you are sending something back over and using something that's on my property without my permission.

Like wardriving isn't a crime - you can detect that there is a network there, but you aren't sending anything through the router that you don't own. When you USE that network you are using something that isn't yours.

By Defintion, the fact that is is unsecure meens from a technical standpoint the devise has permission to be on the network. That is why it is called setting permissions. If you don't want someone on your network, set permissions to stop it. The fact that your network permiates through public and other peoples private domain puts the responibility on the the broadcaster.

[CoreyJF]

[/quote]

It's NOT public property though .. MY router isn't public property.

It's nothing like a swingset in the park - my tax dollars and yours pay for that swingset. YOU don't pay for my wireless network.[/quote]

But the spectrum you are broadcasting over is.

[Jacob]

By Defintion, the fact that is is unsecure meens from a technical standpoint the devise has permission to be on the network. That is why it is called setting permissions.

Please, that's not true at all. You are divining permissions based on your technical ability to access the network. If it's easy to hack that doesn't mean it was purposely made easy to hack.

If I set my password on a website to be "password" that doesn't mean you have permission to access my account because you easily guessed my password.

If you don't want someone on your network, set permissions to stop it. The fact that your network permiates through public and other peoples private domain puts the responibility on the the broadcaster.

Noone is arguing that people should set permissions - that's obvious. I'm only using "my network" as an example.

I think there is a shared responsibility. I do have a responsibility to make sure that my posessions are secured, however if I fail to secure them that doesn't give others the right to steal them whether they permeate or not.

[Jacob]

It's NOT public property though .. MY router isn't public property.

It's nothing like a swingset in the park - my tax dollars and yours pay for that swingset. YOU don't pay for my wireless network.

But the spectrum you are broadcasting over is.

And the router you are connecting to is MINE... which is not public. If you connect to my wireless network you are USING my router which is in a private domain - period. It's not on your property and it's not legally usable by you.

You can use the spectrum all you want as long as that spectrum doesn't lead to my router ;)

[Paragon]

If I find a bag or even a car left completely open (say a convertible for instance), placed on my property without permission I have every right to go through it.

Clearly the street this guy was parked on was not his property, so he therefore did NOT have the right to "go through it"

.....as I said...common sense!

No But it is public property

So, we are back to you having the right to go through my unlocked car which is parked on the street.


Dave

[CoreyJF]

It's NOT public property though .. MY router isn't public property.

It's nothing like a swingset in the park - my tax dollars and yours pay for that swingset. YOU don't pay for my wireless network.

But the spectrum you are broadcasting over is.[/quote]

And the router you are connecting to is MINE... which is not public. If you connect to my wireless network you are USING my router which is in a private domain - period. It's not on your property and it's not legally usable by you.

You can use the spectrum all you want as long as that spectrum doesn't lead to my router ;)[/quote]

By not securing it you are granting access to anyone why happens by with a WI-Fi device on. If you want to set your router to only give premisions to the devices that you wish, do so. By not turning on security, by default you are giving those devices permission to use your router. That is why the routers have security.

[Jacob]

By not securing it you are granting access to anyone why happens by with a WI-Fi device on. If you want to set your router to only give premisions to the devices that you wish, do so. By not turning on security, by default you are giving those devices permission to use your router. That is why the routers have security.

Granting access - NOT permission.

You seem to not be able to differentiate between these two concepts.

Routers have security because poeple like you can't resist accessing networks that you know don't belong to you. Locks on doors aren't there because people WANT to have to take a key out to get into their own house, it's a necessary step due to human nature of curiosity and temptation to steal.

Network security is the same thing - it's only there because of those who would want to steal.

[CoreyJF]

If I find a bag or even a car left completely open (say a convertible for instance), placed on my property without permission I have every right to go through it.

Clearly the street this guy was parked on was not his property, so he therefore did NOT have the right to "go through it"

.....as I said...common sense!

No But it is public property

So, we are back to you having the right to go through my unlocked car which is parked on the street.

You're never going be able to rationalize this. You know in your own mind that it is wrong, and you guys are all scrambling around trying to find ways to justify it.

Dave

I am not trying to rationalize anything. I am talking about legalities and not moralities. The reality is there is no crime committed. The morality of using an unsecured AP is a bit more of a personal line to be drawn.

I am not bringing it back to a locked car. In fact I keep saying that you can not equate wireless networks with physical property. All I said was if you have to use the physical property analogy, there was more factors to consider such as location and expected permissions. In fact I think it is such a gross over generalization to compare to physical property it completely negates the argument.

By not setting permissions, you are by default giving it. If you choose not to make a choice, you are still choosing.

[martin_ayton]

But the spectrum you are broadcasting over is.

OK. You can walk up to my front door on a (semi)public pathway. Similarly, you can see what is being broadcast over a publicly licenced, open spectrum. You can try my door to see if it is locked. Similarly, you can check if my AP is open (= wardriving).

BUT, the moment you step through my door uninvited, or connect to my personal, paid for, private, wired connection to the internet, you are stealing from me and breaking the law. Period.

I may be more stupid than you because, unlike you, I didn't lock my front door or lock down my AP, but my stupidity or ignorance doesn't give you the right to enter my house and pick up my 'phone and make a call. Even if my 'phone is within reach of the door and you didn't actually have to step inside.

You're never going be able to rationalize this. You know in your own mind that it is wrong, and you guys are all scrambling around trying to find ways to justify it.

Go Dave :rock on dude!:

[Jacob]

By not setting permissions, you are by default giving it. If you choose not to make a choice, you are still choosing.

I'm VERY glad the law actually does not work that way.

[jeasher]

Could this be similar to say...leaving the blinds open and someone looking in your house? What if I'm standing on public property looking into the window of a house? I'm not trespassing, and you have the option of closing your curtains. Legal? I say hell yes. Wierd? Most definitely. Tacky? Absolutely. But if I can get a signal and I'm in a pinch I'm gonna take it.

[CoreyJF]

By not securing it you are granting access to anyone why happens by with a WI-Fi device on. If you want to set your router to only give premisions to the devices that you wish, do so. By not turning on security, by default you are giving those devices permission to use your router. That is why the routers have security.

Granting access - NOT permission.

You seem to not be able to differentiate between these two concepts.

Routers have security because poeple like you can't resist accessing networks that you know don't belong to you. Locks on doors aren't there because people WANT to have to take a key out to get into their own house, it's a necessary step due to human nature of curiosity and temptation to steal.

Network security is the same thing - it's only there because of those who would want to steal.

The purpose of security is to limit use to authorized access (give permission). By not setting those limits you are opening it to anyone. If you don’t want to grant access, set the security on. As I said before, my laptop picks of 6 networks at any given time from my living room. I am constantly finding myself on other people networks without intention. I have gone for a walk with my ppc was in my pocket and it has kicked on and accessed my email because I had pocket outlook open as well. I didn’t even know until my dell beeped at me that the battery was dying.

If you are broadcasting into public space or other people’s property, it is your responsibility to you secure you network. If you don’t want people on your networks, secure then. The world has changed and peoples understanding of boundaries must change to keep up with the world around us.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

By not setting permissions, you are by default giving it. If you choose not to make a choice, you are still choosing.
Without wireless, most folks would be relying on a CAT-5 ethernet connection which most of us agree is not up for public use. I'd venture to guess that 99.9% of the time that users purchase wireless equipment, it's for the benefit of using that same connection without being tethered. I've yet to hear any friend or aquaintence say they want to buy wireless because they would like for anyone passing by their house to use bandwidth that they paid for.

For folks who's sometimes find that they are connecting to a neighbor's connection by accident b/c of signal strength issues, it's a different issue to me as long as it was not intentional. This was a clear case of someone who knew he was doing something wrong and did it anyway.

[martin_ayton]

Could this be similar to say...leaving the blinds open and someone looking in your house?

No. It may be similar to you connecting to my AP and looking at the files on my PC. You have invaded my privacy, but you have not stolen anything. However, if you take photos of me in my house and publish them with defamatory intent or for personal gain, I am going to sue the undergarments off of you.

Looking is one thing. Taking is another.

[Jacob]

The purpose of security is to limit use to authorized access (give permission). By not setting those limits you are opening it to anyone. If you don’t want to grant access, set the security on. As I said before, my laptop picks of 6 networks at any given time from my living room. I am constantly finding myself on other people networks without intention. I have gone for a walk with my ppc was in my pocket and it has kicked on and accessed my email because I had pocket outlook open as well. I didn’t even know until my dell beeped at me that the battery was dying.

If you are broadcasting into public space or other people’s property, it is your responsibility to you secure you network. If you don’t want people on your networks, secure then. The world has changed and peoples understanding of boundaries must change to keep up with the world around us.

You still don't understand the difference between granting access and granting permission.

Can't you set your laptop or your PDA to only connect to a given network? Isn't that your responsibility?

When device manufacturers ship unsecured devices designed for non-tech savy people and they install it - they aren't thinking "Hey, I'm hoping everyone in the world has access to it"

You're just divining permission from the concept of access - it's just not there.

Boudaries haven't changed, you've just changed your moral compass to give yourself permission to cross them.

[martin_ayton]

The purpose of security is to limit use to authorized access (give permission). By not setting those limits you are opening it to anyone. If you don’t want to grant access, set the security on.

Are you really saying that anytime you forget to lock your front door, you are implicitly giving me permission to enter and help myself to anything I find within? Or, if you leave your mobile 'phone around and forgot to set a keypad lock, you have implicitly given me permission to make calls with it?

[Paragon]

If I find a bag or even a car left completely open (say a convertible for instance), placed on my property without permission I have every right to go through it.

Clearly the street this guy was parked on was not his property, so he therefore did NOT have the right to "go through it"

.....as I said...common sense!

No But it is public property

So, we are back to you having the right to go through my unlocked car which is parked on the street.

You're never going be able to rationalize this. You know in your own mind that it is wrong, and you guys are all scrambling around trying to find ways to justify it.

Dave

I am not trying to rationalize anything.................................

I am not bringing it back to a locked car. In fact I keep saying that you can not equate wireless networks with physical property. All I said was if you have to use the physical property analogy, there was more factors to consider such as location and expected permissions. In fact I think it is such a gross over generalization to compare to physical property it completely negates the argument.

That's rationalizing. ;)

[CoreyJF]

By not setting permissions, you are by default giving it. If you choose not to make a choice, you are still choosing.
Without wireless, most folks would be relying on a CAT-5 ethernet connection which most of us agree is not up for public use. I'd venture to guess that 99.9% of the time that users purchase wireless equipment, it's for the benefit of using that same connection without being tethered. I've yet to hear any friend or aquaintence say they want to buy wireless because they would like for anyone passing by their house to use bandwidth that they paid for.

For folks who's sometimes find that they are connecting to a neighbor's connection by accident b/c of signal strength issues, it's a different issue to me as long as it was not intentional. This was a clear case of someone who knew he was doing something wrong and did it anyway.

This exactly my point, the world has changed, people have moved to wireless, so our notions of boundaries must change as well. In one of my first post I specifically said it would be wrong for someone to tap into someone’s wired connection, it represents a physical boundary that does not bleed out into the rest of the neighborhood. It becomes a slippery slope. Where is the line drawn if not in my living room? On my balcony? 100 feet from my house? If I am walking in my neighborhood with my PPC out reading or checking my calendar, can the police stop me and ask to see my ppc? How can they prove intent. Will they be able to get a warrant because I when for a walk with my PPC in my hand?

It is and should be the broadcaster's responsibility to secure his network if it reaches into the public domain. If you can't manage to get security working, you probably didn’t have to technical skills to set your network up in the first place, so who ever did, should have enabled security or explained the security risks.

[CoreyJF]

That's rationalizing. ;)

Actually you are right if you accept one of the definition of rationalizing which is "To interpret from a rational standpoint. "

If you are using the other definition which is "To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior."

I would say that is a very narrow scope of view from someone not allowing their conceptualizations to reach beyond the world that was and into the complexities of the world that is.

[CoreyJF]

The purpose of security is to limit use to authorized access (give permission). By not setting those limits you are opening it to anyone. If you don’t want to grant access, set the security on. As I said before, my laptop picks of 6 networks at any given time from my living room. I am constantly finding myself on other people networks without intention. I have gone for a walk with my ppc was in my pocket and it has kicked on and accessed my email because I had pocket outlook open as well. I didn’t even know until my dell beeped at me that the battery was dying.

If you are broadcasting into public space or other people’s property, it is your responsibility to you secure you network. If you don’t want people on your networks, secure then. The world has changed and peoples understanding of boundaries must change to keep up with the world around us.

You still don't understand the difference between granting access and granting permission.

Can't you set your laptop or your PDA to only connect to a given network? Isn't that your responsibility?

When device manufacturers ship unsecured devices designed for non-tech savy people and they install it - they aren't thinking "Hey, I'm hoping everyone in the world has access to it"

You're just divining permission from the concept of access - it's just not there.

Boudaries haven't changed, you've just changed your moral compass to give yourself permission to cross them.

I don't set the pda to only link to a specific AP because I use them at work and at Starbucks, and at several other wireless hotspots.

When you are broadcasting a radio signal it is you responsibility to ensure it is being used correctly and legally, Hence the various FCC restrictions out there for broadcasters(since this is regarding US case law) I believe it is you that doesn't understand the "difference" By definition by broadcasting a unsecured signal into public domain you are implicitly granting permission to access it , The AP's are set by default to grant access to any device that connects to it. Ignorance of there technology does not absolve them of their responsibility. Now if you want to make the argument that the manufactures share some liability by shipping with security off, I won't argue with that. I believe it is profit motivated, a fear of not being able to sell as many devices or having to spend more money on support.

Now if you think that the concepts of boundaries have not changed by the wireless world, you are kidding yourself

[jlp]

- don't do illegal things while connected to the net
then using someone's wireless access isn't morally (and consequently logically should be legally too) wrong!!

Oh, please....so as long as I leave my keys in my car and you take it for a drive, as long as you don't do anything illegal, such as speed, that is ok? :roll:

Looks like many people STILL have a problem understanding the obvious difference between physical (car, house, book, CD, etc.) and non physical things (light, airwaves, digital files, etc.) :roll:

Reminds me of aborigens (in various places: Africa, South America, Australia, etc.) who freaked out when Westerners came to see them and took pictures of them. For them they were stealing their soul :roll:

[Jacob]

Now if you think that the concepts of boundaries have not changed by the wireless world, you are kidding yourself

The concept of legal boundaries hasn't changed - the concept of property hasn't. My router = my property - period. Without my EXPLICIT permission to access it, sorry.. that's wrong.

If you think the concept of property rights has changed then you are kidding yourself.

[Paragon]

- don't do illegal things while connected to the net
then using someone's wireless access isn't morally (and consequently logically should be legally too) wrong!!

Oh, please....so as long as I leave my keys in my car and you take it for a drive, as long as you don't do anything illegal, such as speed, that is ok? :roll:

Looks like many people STILL have a problem understanding the obvious difference between physical (car, house, book, CD, etc.) and non physical things (light, airwaves, digital files, etc.) :roll:

Absolutely! Using the excuse that I can't see it or touch it is a very poor excuse to use for stealing it. ;)

Dave

[Carlos]

The aborigene analogy is the only one I've seen in this thread that makes any sense. Trying to draw an analogy between using an open AP and physically depriving a person of property is so silly on its face, that I can't believe people are seriously trying to use it.

The legal side is certainly separate from the ethical argument, and there I am sure this case will fail. There has always been a viewpoint in the law that you have to create clear boundaries before you can accuse someone of crossing them. The fence around your yard, or the "unauthorized access not permitted" banners on FTP and telnet servers are examples. Unless this guy accepts a plea bargain, he'll be very likely to win this case. Of course it will waste many thousands of dollars for him to do so.

[CoreyJF]

Now if you think that the concepts of boundaries have not changed by the wireless world, you are kidding yourself

The concept of legal boundaries hasn't changed - the concept of property hasn't. My router = my property - period. Without my EXPLICIT permission to access it, sorry.. that's wrong.

If you think the concept of property rights has changed then you are kidding yourself.

Of course the concept of legal boundaries have changed, your statement shows a lack of understanding of the very nature of radio waves. Legally you do not have to give or be given explicit permission when the permission is implicit; that is what implicit means. And if you want to stop granting implicit permission, it is very simple, set the security to not allow open access. Anybody then accessing your network will be doing so with criminal intent.

[Jacob]

Of course the concept of legal boundaries have changed, your statement shows a lack of understanding of the very nature of radio waves. Legally you do not have to give or be given explicit permission when the permission is implicit; that is what implicit means. And if you want to stop granting implicit permission, it is very simple, set the security to not allow open access. Anybody then accessing your network will be doing so with criminal intent.

I do understand the very nature of radio waves.

Back up your legal claim. Where does it state this? If this was the case, the above person wouldn't have been arrested for use of someone else's network.

NOONE is saying people shouldn't set security protocols - NOONE. I'm not saying that you shouldn't - just like you shouldn't keep your front door wide open.

The permission is just only in your mind.

Locks are only to keep theives out.

[CoreyJF]

The aborigene analogy is the only one I've seen in this thread that makes any sense. Trying to draw an analogy between using an open AP and physically depriving a person of property is so silly on its face, that I can't believe people are seriously trying to use it.

The legal side is certainly separate from the ethical argument, and there I am sure this case will fail. There has always been a viewpoint in the law that you have to create clear boundaries before you can accuse someone of crossing them. The fence around your yard, or the "unauthorized access not permitted" banners on FTP and telnet servers are examples. Unless this guy accepts a plea bargain, he'll be very likely to win this case. Of course it will waste many thousands of dollars for him to do so.

I was reading through the tread and I could not see where anyone used the argument "using an open AP and physically depriving a person of property" I believe he was arguing that it was improper to use his property without permission. Which of course I completely disagree and suspect that most reasonable people would realize does not hold true when one is talking about radio waves broadcast into the public domain.

I also could not agree more with you that he is prosecuted he will win, because as I have been saying technology is demanding that we re-evaluate what we call boundaries.

[CoreyJF]

Of course the concept of legal boundaries have changed, your statement shows a lack of understanding of the very nature of radio waves. Legally you do not have to give or be given explicit permission when the permission is implicit; that is what implicit means. And if you want to stop granting implicit permission, it is very simple, set the security to not allow open access. Anybody then accessing your network will be doing so with criminal intent.

I do understand the very nature of radio waves.

Back up your legal claim. Where does it state this? If this was the case, the above person wouldn't have been arrested for use of someone else's network.

NOONE is saying people shouldn't set security protocols - NOONE. I'm not saying that you shouldn't - just like you shouldn't keep your front door wide open.

The permission is just only in your mind.

Locks are only to keep theives out.

The fact that we have to regulate what we broadcast out into the public domain is basic case law, feel free to research.

Saying that permission is only in your mind is the same as telling me I need to get permission from NBC to watch broadcast TV.

As for him being arrested on a third degree felony, as I said in my earlier post, there are still laws against infidelity on many states case books, good luck holding up its constitutional nature in any higher court. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that the police or even a court has let changing times or a profound lack of understanding of technology, lead them to make bad decision. One can only hope it corrects itself in the end.

[Jacob]

The fact that we have to regulate what we broadcast out into the public domain is basic case law, feel free to research.

Saying that permission is only in your mind is the same as telling me I need to get permission from NBC to watch broadcast TV.

You're not understanding my point - the violation doesn't happen when you receive the signal, it's when you connect and send.

I'm saying you do have permission to receive the signal - just not to send. Once you log on via my router - that's the problem.

I don't SEND anything to NBC. I don't need their permission to receive their broadcast, but I DO need permission to send something back through their satellites - as you would be sending something back through my router if you connected through it.

As for him being arrested on a third degree felony,

I don't think he deserves to have been arrested on a third degree felony - or at the very least he doesn't deserve to be sent to jail or severely punished. Maybe given a little slap on the wrist fine and let go - but that's it.

Don't think that I think this should be some capital offense - only if you were to actually screw with my files/email/other data would I think more severe punishment be appropriate.

[CoreyJF]

The fact that we have to regulate what we broadcast out into the public domain is basic case law, feel free to research.

Saying that permission is only in your mind is the same as telling me I need to get permission from NBC to watch broadcast TV.

You're not understanding my point - the violation doesn't happen when you receive the signal, it's when you connect and send.

I'm saying you do have permission to receive the signal - just not to send. Once you log on via my router - that's the problem.

I don't SEND anything to NBC. I don't need their permission to receive their broadcast, but I DO need permission to send something back through their satellites - as you would be sending something back through my router if you connected through it.

As for him being arrested on a third degree felony,

I don't think he deserves to have been arrested on a third degree felony - or at the very least he doesn't deserve to be sent to jail or severely punished. Maybe given a little slap on the wrist fine and let go - but that's it.

Don't think that I think this should be some capital offense - only if you were to actually screw with my files/email/other data would I think more severe punishment be appropriate.

I do understand, I just disagree, by broadcasting an unsecured connection designed to communicate with any device in range, you are initiating access into your network. If you don't want people to be able to access it, secure it. If they bypass your security, then they are committing a crime. Without security you are broadcasting a 2 way signal available for use by any compatible device in range.

The line becomes way too blurred when you are dealing with wireless. Will the police have the authority to arrest me and go through my PDA because I am walking through a neighborhood with a wireless device.

[jlp]

It's NOT public property though .. MY router isn't public property.

It's nothing like a swingset in the park - my tax dollars and yours pay for that swingset. YOU don't pay for my wireless network.

But the spectrum you are broadcasting over is.

And the router you are connecting to is MINE... which is not public. If you connect to my wireless network you are USING my router which is in a private domain - period. It's not on your property and it's not legally usable by you.

You can use the spectrum all you want as long as that spectrum doesn't lead to my router ;)

I'll use my front porch light analogy again: if yours is on then every passerby can use your light to watch a map, even read a book, (heck they could even indulge in illegal activities: I gather porn publications is illegal in some states) even tho the lightbulb is on your property, the light shines outside to public properties like the nearby sidewalk, street etc.

If you don't want passersby to use your light, turn it off; if you don't, anybody outside your property can freely use it without trespassing, etc.

[jlp]

When device manufacturers ship unsecured devices designed for non-tech savy people and they install it - they aren't thinking "Hey, I'm hoping everyone in the world has access to it"

You're just divining permission from the concept of access - it's just not there.

Boudaries haven't changed, you've just changed your moral compass to give yourself permission to cross them.

When you leave your front porch light on do you really tell yourself: "Hey, I'm hoping everyone in the world has access to it" :roll:

[jlp]

The aborigene analogy is the only one I've seen in this thread that makes any sense...

Thank you :way to go: :clap:

[Carlos]

If this was the case, the above person wouldn't have been arrested for use of someone else's network.
There are thousands of invalid laws on the books. People have been arrested unlawfully, you might have heard about that. Some people are--gasp--even acquitted of the allegations against them. An arrest is zero indication of criminal behavior.

This guy probably mouthed off to the cops and they looked for something to use against him to redeem their manliness and power.

[Paragon]

Ok, so what if i run a network cable out just beyond my property and someone connects to it, are they doing some thing illegal? Yes! Of course they are. This is no different than if someone connects to an electrical cable and uses my electricity. They both have a value. I pay the electric company every month for my electricity. I also pay my ISP every month for internet access. How does this all change if the cable is dropped and the connection is made wirelessly? It is the same product being used in the same way. Only the delivery method has changed.

Dave

[jlp]

- don't do illegal things while connected to the net
then using someone's wireless access isn't morally (and consequently logically should be legally too) wrong!!

Oh, please....so as long as I leave my keys in my car and you take it for a drive, as long as you don't do anything illegal, such as speed, that is ok? :roll:

Looks like many people STILL have a problem understanding the obvious difference between physical (car, house, book, CD, etc.) and non physical things (light, airwaves, digital files, etc.) :roll:

Absolutely! Using the excuse that I can't see it or touch it is a very poor excuse to use for stealing it. ;)

Dave

Unfortunately you left out one of the important part of my post in your quote. The part about aborigines (the correct spelling) feeling that people taking pictures of them "stole" their soul.

Looks like many people STILL have a problem understanding the obvious difference between physical (car, house, book, CD, etc.) and non physical things (light, airwaves, digital files, etc.) :roll:

Reminds me of aborigens (in various places: Africa, South America, Australia, etc.) who freaked out when Westerners came to see them and took pictures of them. For them they were stealing their soul :roll:

We all know this belief is wrong, like we all know using someone's front porch light that radiates outside a property is NOT stolen, just like we should understand accessing airwaves that radiates outside a property is NOT stolen, just like we should understand accessing airwaves that radiates outside a country boundary is NOT stolen, etc.

It looks like "aboriginal-like beliefs" extend beyond their inital continental boundaries :lol:

[jlp]

Ok, so what if i run a network cable out just beyond my property and someone connects to it, are they doing some thing illegal? Yes! Of course they are. This is no different than if someone connects to an electrical cable and uses my electricity. They both have a value. I pay the electric company every month for my electricity. I also pay my ISP every month for internet access. How does this all change if the cable is dropped and the connection is made wirelessly? It is the same product being used in the same way. Only the delivery method has changed.

Dave (emphasis added)

The keyword here many people strangely forget is "changed"

[Carlos]

I pay the electric company every month for my electricity. I also pay my ISP every month for internet access.
Geez, I can't believe we keep having to explain the obvious problems in these analogies.

You pay for the electricity you USE. Usage costs money.

You pay for simply having the connection to your ISP. Usage costs nothing.

If you ran a cable to the sidewalk, that would very reasonably be interpreted as an invitation to share. When you put your trash bin on the sidewalk, the law says you no longer own the contents. This was also adjudicated to mean that if you put property on the sidewalk which is not reasonably expected to be there, it is assumed trash and is not stolen if someone takes it. This was a case revolving around a couch or TV or something that someone put out as rubbish but didn't want someone else taking it.

Again, the trespass laws are the closest analogy. Absent some sort of indication of your wish to keep someone out, there is no trespass.

[Paragon]

We all know this belief is wrong, like we all know using someone's front porch light that radiates outside a property is NOT stolen, just like we should understand accessing airwaves that radiates outside a property is NOT stolen, just like we should understand accessing airwaves that radiates outside a country boundary is NOT stolen, etc.

NO, NO, NO, NO, You are leaving out a very important part. When I leave a light on. I'm using the energy. If I leave a WiFi access point open, and you connect to it, YOU are using the bandwidth, not me. I'm paying for it, not you. I have not given you permission to use my access.

Dave

[Paragon]

You pay for simply having the connection to your ISP. Usage costs nothing.

Carlos, would you please call my IPS and explain that to them for me. They keep sending me a bill each month for my connection. What they charge me is based on their cost, which in turn is based on what use their system gets.


Dave

[Carlos]

Right. And what effect would it have on your bill if you left your connection idle for a year or full-throttle usage for a year?

[Paragon]

The keyword here many people strangely forget is "changed"

Ok, jlp, I'm as dumb as post. Please carefully explain to me how its ok to use my network connection wirelessly, but it isn't when connecting using a cable.

Dave

[Paragon]

Right. And what effect would it have on your bill if you left your connection idle for a year or full-throttle usage for a year?

Ask that question of someone who has an open access point in their coffee shop or the likes, that their ISP is aware of. In most cases they pay more, because there is heavier use on the system......Again, ask Jason what he pays for bandwidth each month. As use goes up so does his bill. On the receiving end we all pay and averaged cost, based on estimated use of the system.

[Damion Chaplin]

The fact that we have to regulate what we broadcast out into the public domain is basic case law, feel free to research.

Saying that permission is only in your mind is the same as telling me I need to get permission from NBC to watch broadcast TV.

You're not understanding my point - the violation doesn't happen when you receive the signal, it's when you connect and send.

I'm saying you do have permission to receive the signal - just not to send. Once you log on via my router - that's the problem.

I don't SEND anything to NBC. I don't need their permission to receive their broadcast, but I DO need permission to send something back through their satellites - as you would be sending something back through my router if you connected through it.

EXACTLY. Radio waves in public property are open for all. As soon as you access the router (the physical property part) by sending a signal back, you are trespassing. Using someone else's property without their permission is illegal and nothing has changed in that regard. While you may think that society's laws need to catch up, currently they have not. So using someone else's router (or any other equipment) without their permission is still illegal. If it were a one-way radio broadcast that would be one thing. Since it's two-way and requires the use of the (again, physical property) router, doing anything except viewing is unlawful and illegal (which isn't possible since the unit needs to send a recognition signal to the router to even connect at all). Until the law is changed this is still true and any decent lawyer knows that.

Using someone else's stuff without their permission, especially if that stuff is on private property (e.g. the router in my office), is ILLEGAL. No two ways around it I'm afraid.

[Janak Parekh]

You pay for simply having the connection to your ISP. Usage costs nothing.
Untrue. Most ISP's TOS give ISPs the right to cap your connection in case of excessive use. In other words, the amount you pay carries an implicit quantity of use. While this makes some "unlimited" services misleading, the practical implication is that use of the network does merit a cost.

--janak

[Carlos]

So in other words, you pay the same whether it gets used or not.

[Carlos]

by sending a signal back, you are trespassing
If you send a random signal, are you still trespassing? If you send a conflicting signal are you trespassing? Or is it only when the signal happens to be directly related to the sent signal that you are trespassing?

No two ways around it I'm afraid.
Yup, you're right, legally it is definiltey NOT trespassing if the owner of the property has not made a reasonable effort to mark it as such and to make his "no trespassing" wishes clear. That is the current case law, which trumps a statute.

[Paragon]

My closing remarks. :)

I'm going to ask those of you who have been arguing that it is legal to use another persons wireless network connection to call your ISP and tell them you have an open WiFi connection that you are sharing with your neighborhood and whoever else comes along, so they don't have to pay them a monthly fee as well. Then come back here and tell us how well that conversation went. I think we all know that you AND the people using it will find yourselves in a spot of trouble.

Bye bye! :)

[Jacob]

I'll use my front porch light analogy again: if yours is on then every passerby can use your light to watch a map, even read a book, (heck they could even indulge in illegal activities: I gather porn publications is illegal in some states) even tho the lightbulb is on your property, the light shines outside to public properties like the nearby sidewalk, street etc.

If you don't want passersby to use your light, turn it off; if you don't, anybody outside your property can freely use it without trespassing, etc.

A poor analogy.

You don't send any messages back to my porch light. If you did - then the analogy would fit. It doesn't.

As I said before - you have the right to RECEIVE.. NOT SEND.

[Jacob]

When you leave your front porch light on do you really tell yourself: "Hey, I'm hoping everyone in the world has access to it" :roll:

As I said before - the porch light analogy specifically ignores my point altogether.

I KNOW it's sending out a broadcast - you make the decision whether you send back.

[Carlos]

we all know that you AND the people using it will find yourselves in a spot of trouble.
Under every TOS I've read, the subscriber would be the one with a problem. There can be no TOS violation by someone who is not a party to the contract.

[bjornkeizers]

EXACTLY. Radio waves in public property are open for all. As soon as you access the router (the physical property part) by sending a signal back, you are trespassing.

We're not talking about physical trespassing though - we're talking about signals, radio waves.

If *my* signals going to *your* property is trespassing, then I could reasonably argue that *your* WiFi network spilling over into *my* propert is trespassing as well.

Your network could in fact interfere with my network, or say.. my cordless phone. And who knows what effect that radiation has on my health! In fact, I'm surprised someone hasn't been sued over their network spilling over into someone's property.

[maikii]

I'm glad to start seeing some crackdown on this type of crime. Sure, everyone should secure his/her own network, but at the same time, isn't connecting to someone's network wirelessly the same as doing so wired, or breaking and entering? Very interesting topic. Check out the article FAQ: Wi-Fi mooching and the law (http://news.zdnet.com/FAQ%3A+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-1035_22-5778822.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=zdnn) on ZDNet too, if you're interested.

No, I don't think it's like breaking and entering, stealing.

From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), someone using another person's wireless network for Internet access, does not take away at all from the bandwidth and connectivity of the owner of the network. So, why not share? That is perhaps why some do not add security (which can cause problems as well) to their wireless network. They don't mind sharing their Internet connection with others.

Of course if someone was hacking into another's network in order to access their computer, spy on them, etc., that would be different, highly illegal and unethical. I don't think that is possible in most cases. Being able to share a wi-fi internet connection doesn't mean one can access the other person's hard drive.

Some whole communities, cities etc., have established a free wi-fi connection for the whole community. Good idea. Some states have laws against this. Why? Because the ISPs are worried about this, and have been lobbying lawmakers. If people can get broadband for free through wi-fi, why would they pay for DSL or cable broadband?

They are also trying to pass laws to make any sharing of a broadband connection illegal. I doubt they will succeed.

It wouldn't be a bad idea for neighbors to share the costs--to share the cost of the broadband modem and wi-fi router, etc., and to share one monthly fee for one broadband account, in one of their houses, then they could all use it to connect via wi-fi to the Internet. A scary prospect to IISPs, who want each household to pay the fee separately, but good for consumers, giving more people access to high-speed Internet.

Many people though, pay their accounts separately, but don't care if others share it, and don't secure the network.

Strange that this guy in Florida didn't secure his network, yet got mad about someone sharing it. If he didn't want it shared, he should have secured it. I'm sure the law referred to there was passed due to lobbying from ISPs, who hate the idea of shared Internet access.

[Carlos]

someone using another person's wireless network for Internet access, does not take away at all from the bandwidth and connectivity of the owner of the network.
Definitely not true. If the subscriber and the other user were both trying to download a large file, for example, each would only get half the speed. Doing things like checking mail or IM would have hardly measurable impact on most broadband connections however.

[maikii]

You pay for simply having the connection to your ISP. Usage costs nothing.
Untrue. Most ISP's TOS give ISPs the right to cap your connection in case of excessive use. In other words, the amount you pay carries an implicit quantity of use. While this makes some "unlimited" services misleading, the practical implication is that use of the network does merit a cost.

--janak

Has this actually happened to anyone you know? Someone has "unlimited service", yet was billed extra for usage? I've never heard of it. It might be buried in fine print in some TOS, but I don't know if that has ever actually been applied.

[jlp]

You pay for simply having the connection to your ISP. Usage costs nothing.

Carlos, would you please call my IPS and explain that to them for me. They keep sending me a bill each month for my connection. What they charge me is based on their cost, which in turn is based on what use their system gets.


Dave

I dunno about the U.S. ISP contracts, but here in Europe (at least Switzerland and nearby France) every xDSL/cable contract is of the sort "all you can eat". So whether I don't use anything at all or spend 24/7/365 downloading demos and buying (i.e. downloading) online music, my bill is absolutely and exactly the same.

So if someone walking down the street would use my (future) wifi system to surf the net and check their emails, as long as they don't do the things I listed before, they could use it. 8)

[maikii]

My closing remarks. :)

I'm going to ask those of you who have been arguing that it is legal to use another persons wireless network connection to call your ISP and tell them you have an open WiFi connection that you are sharing with your neighborhood and whoever else comes along, so they don't have to pay them a monthly fee as well. Then come back here and tell us how well that conversation went. I think we all know that you AND the people using it will find yourselves in a spot of trouble.

Bye bye! :)

And you really expect someone to do that, to make that call??? What for?

Yes, of course ISPs don't like such sharing, because they make more money if everyone buys a separate account. In fact, they would probably prefer it if everyone in a household bought a separate account, instead of sharing one, but that's not going to happen.

Regarding your last sentence, about "find yourselves in a spot of trouble". What kind of trouble? Thrown in jail? The hypothetical situation you describe where the owner of the account willingly shares the access with his neighbors, is certainly not a crime anywhere, no more than sharing it with his family. It's no different than a community providing free wifi within its borders, which affects many more people than a few neighbors. The ISPs don't like it, they are lobbying for laws to make free municipal Wi-Fi illegal, but they won't succeed in doing that. You could certainly not make any argument about "trespassing", when the owner is freely sharing , and invites his neighbors to share his connection. (If he told his neighbor who did not have a telephone--"you could come make a call from my house", would you consider that illegal and unethical as well?

[jlp]

Heck it's what happened over a century ago, when telephone started to spread around, you only had one connection at the local post office. Remember The Little House on The Prairie TV series? in at least one episode you can see that happening.

Same with TV a few decades ago.

Now Wifi 8)

[WorksForTurkeys]

is it "wrong"? maybe.
is it illegal in that part of Florida? yes.
does the guy belong in jail? that depends upon the community.

I don't think I want my taxes going towards the construction of a new wing of Rikers for this class of offense. I always thought jailing someone for pot usage was absurd, and I guess this falls into that category as well.

Give the guy in the car a ticket and points on his license to discourage a repeat offense, and maybe give a ticket to the homeowner who was negligent about securing his AP the next time he reports someone else illegally using his AP connection, to cover the costs of the police &amp; courts for having to deal with this a second time, and as an incentive for the homeowner to get the MAC filter on his router configured.

[Janak Parekh]

Has this actually happened to anyone you know? Someone has "unlimited service", yet was billed extra for usage? I've never heard of it. It might be buried in fine print in some TOS, but I don't know if that has ever actually been applied.
Reread my post -- not billed, but rather capped, i.e., they rate-limit your network connection if you overuse it for some period of time. Google for "bandwidth capping" or "cable modem capping"; it happens very frequently. Those that use P2P networks notice this in particular. Some ISPs even state bandwidth limits or allowed applications when you sign the contract.

Darius was ranting to me a couple months ago when his DSL connection was capped... for the rest of the month. 8O His ISP advertises unlimited service, but after 10GB/month (mentioned in the fine print) it slows down to modem speeds. He'd have to pay more to get a higher cap. It's technically unlimited, but practically there are implications of bandwidth sharing.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), someone using another person's wireless network for Internet access, does not take away at all from the bandwidth and connectivity of the owner of the network.
Sure it does, as I've mentioned before.

In addition, when you connect to a wireless network, Windows starts sending broadcasts on that network automatically. This is part of the NetBIOS Name Resolution protocol. As a result, not only are you talking to any routers on the WiFi network, but often machines on that network that happen to be on as well.

Of course if someone was hacking into another's network in order to access their computer, spy on them, etc., that would be different, highly illegal and unethical. I don't think that is possible in most cases.
Depends on what you define as "spying". If you were able to determine the computer's name and IP address, for instance? It's also very easy to set up packet capture on a shared subnet, like that of a WiFi network, so not only is it possible, it's doable with a free download. (I do Internet/network security research for a living. ;))

Some whole communities, cities etc., have established a free wi-fi connection for the whole community. Good idea. Some states have laws against this. Why? Because the ISPs are worried about this, and have been lobbying lawmakers. If people can get broadband for free through wi-fi, why would they pay for DSL or cable broadband?
This is an interesting, but unrelated issue. Those that establish public free WiFi networks use either corporate donations or taxpayer dollars to underwrite the bandwidth cost. And no, I don't agree with telcos' lobbying to make free WiFi networks illegal.

It wouldn't be a bad idea for neighbors to share the costs--to share the cost of the broadband modem and wi-fi router, etc., and to share one monthly fee for one broadband account, in one of their houses, then they could all use it to connect via wi-fi to the Internet. A scary prospect to IISPs, who want each household to pay the fee separately, but good for consumers, giving more people access to high-speed Internet.
Nah, if ISPs downstream bandwidth costs increase, they'll end up passing on the cost to consumers. Ultimately, those that share will lose. The question is, how much freeloading will it take for that threshold to be crossed?

Strange that this guy in Florida didn't secure his network, yet got mad about someone sharing it. If he didn't want it shared, he should have secured it.
No doubt, but there is "being smart", there's ethics, and there's law. They cross in weird ways.

I'm sure the law referred to there was passed due to lobbying from ISPs, who hate the idea of shared Internet access.
Unless we have facts to back that up, that's speculation...

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

Definitely not true. If the subscriber and the other user were both trying to download a large file, for example, each would only get half the speed. Doing things like checking mail or IM would have hardly measurable impact on most broadband connections however.
Depends, again, on what you do with it. Attachments on email or IM could rapidly be "measurable".

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

And you really expect someone to do that, to make that call??? What for?
It's just a discussion point.

Regarding your last sentence, about "find yourselves in a spot of trouble". What kind of trouble?
As a minimum, termination of contract/service. This thread is not only about the legal aspects, but the ethical aspects as well.

You could certainly not make any argument about "trespassing", when the owner is freely sharing , and invites his neighbors to share his connection. (If he told his neighbor who did not have a telephone--"you could come make a call from my house", would you consider that illegal and unethical as well?
That's an interesting question. It's not unethical -- you're telling the owner, unlike this WiFi scenario. As for legality, I would have to read the Florida ISP statute, but on a practical sense no one would get arrested. (If the owner was nice enough, the guest could come into his house and use his cable modem, for instance.)

--janak

[Palmguy]

I am not trying to rationalize anything. I am talking about legalities and not moralities. The reality is there is no crime committed. The morality of using an unsecured AP is a bit more of a personal line to be drawn.

I am not bringing it back to a locked car. In fact I keep saying that you can not equate wireless networks with physical property. All I said was if you have to use the physical property analogy, there was more factors to consider such as location and expected permissions. In fact I think it is such a gross over generalization to compare to physical property it completely negates the argument.

By not setting permissions, you are by default giving it. If you choose not to make a choice, you are still choosing.

The reality is you don't know what you are talking about. I'm looking for the exact text of the law, but if the law says that you can't access someone else's network without their permission, then yes, a law was violated. You can talk all you want about "by not setting permissions, you are by default giving it away for free", but until you look at the law itself, you have no basis for saying "I am talking about legalities and not moralities. The reality is there is no crime committed". How can you make that statement?

[Jason Dunn]

My, what an interesting thread. :-) We had this discussion at our user group meeting on Monday night, and the group was equally divided. The reason this issue is complicated is that it involves several factors: the law, the moral issue of using someone else's bandwidth, and the moral issue of whether or not the router vendors are doing enough to stop this.

I believe in an "intentions matter" approach to this issue - if I find an unsecure network and need to connect to grab a file or check my email, I connect, do what I need, then disconnect. My intentions are good, and I don't believe it's immoral to use a wireless signal without the user's permission. If I were to connect and download a massive file, or access illegal content, my intentions would be evil and therefor the action become immoral. Obviously opinions on this vary based on what I've read. ;-)

My simplistic solution? When I create a WAP SSID, I tag -SECURE or -OPEN onto it (for instance, my home network is DOJO-SECURE). I don't turn off SSID broadcasting (it doesn't help with security anyway). That tells the person connecting that it's my intention that this network is either secure and not for sharing, or open and I'm happy to have visitors jump on. If everyone on the planet adopted that naming structure, this issue would largely be moot because you'd know the intent of the person who's running the WAP. But that's not going to happen of course. ;-)

[jlp]

You could certainly not make any argument about "trespassing", when the owner is freely sharing , and invites his neighbors to share his connection. (If he told his neighbor who did not have a telephone--"you could come make a call from my house", would you consider that illegal and unethical as well?
That's an interesting question. It's not unethical -- you're telling the owner, unlike this WiFi scenario. As for legality, I would have to read the Florida ISP statute, but on a practical sense no one would get arrested. (If the owner was nice enough, the guest could come into his house and use his cable modem, for instance.)

--janak

That's where the change in technology makes the difference: before to share a meal, the heat of a home/fire, phone, TV you had to come in someone's house; now with wifi because it's intangible and extends well beyond walls and property limits every passerby could connect to it; walls limit the house, fences limit the property, cables and hoses represents limits too, but airwaves go beyond.

Maybe some day everybody will have devices that will work from induction-like electricity, therefore needing no wires inside their house (that already exists in labs). Possibly the energy will reach outside properties, and then again passersby will be able to tap that electricity using their mobile devices.

In 5 to 10 years we will have exactly the same debate on that subject, coz PPCs (or whatever their form, maybe OQO Model 10 8) ) will obviously use that technology (provided it is (or when it will be) widely spread, like wifi is today).

[Janak Parekh]

That's where the change in technology makes the difference
Absolutely, and without question the laws are inconsistent and way behind the times.

Maybe some day everybody will have devices that will work from induction-like electricity, therefore needing no wires inside their house (that already exists in labs). Possibly the energy will reach outside properties, and then again passersby will be able to tap that electricity using their mobile devices.
Alternatively, shielding the walls of the house is a working solution today. However, this would disable you from being able to use WiFi in the backyard. I would expect that security-sensitive companies do employ this, however, as an additional protection metric.

--janak

[jlp]

I'm sure the law referred to there was passed due to lobbying from ISPs, who hate the idea of shared Internet access.
Unless we have facts to back that up, that's speculation...

--janak

Of course it's speculation. And the fact it's speculation is included in the form of the sentence : for a fact you say something akin to: "I know for a fact..." or "I read (a reliable source) that says..."; if you say "I'm sure that..." is the form of a speculation in and of itself... 8)

[Janak Parekh]

if you say "I'm sure that..." is the form of a speculation in and of itself... 8)
I disagree. "I'm sure that" is an assertion of fact (i.e., "it can't be otherwise"). It's stronger than mere speculation.

--janak

[maikii]

I'm sure the law referred to there was passed due to lobbying from ISPs, who hate the idea of shared Internet access.
Unless we have facts to back that up, that's speculation...

--janak

Of course it's speculation. And the fact it's speculation is included in the form of the sentence : for a fact you say something akin to: "I know for a fact..." or "I read (a reliable source) that says..."; if you say "I'm sure that..." is the form of a speculation in and of itself... 8)

Well, that isn't pure speculation. I didn't just make that up. I read a newspaper article about it, in fact. I cannot quote the paper and date of article, as I don't recall them. It was a recent article, probably in the Los Angeles Times.

And--whatever other possible motive could there possibly be for state legislators to introduce a bill that would ban free municipal Wi-Fi? Their constituents would certainly like to have free wi-fi, everyone would like to have that, except for one group--ISPs who would be afraid that they would lose customers that way. So yes, it definitely stands to reason that the reason some lawmakers are proposing such laws is due to pressure from ISP lobbyists. Yes, that much is speculation, but very rational speculation, for anyone who thinks about it. Besides that, as I said, I read an article about it in the paper.

[Janak Parekh]

And--whatever other possible motive could there possibly be for state legislators to introduce a bill that would ban free municipal Wi-Fi?
Ah, you're referring to the Pennsylvania statute, not the Florida trespassing statute we're talking about here. Yes, that was passed under heavy lobbying from the entrenched telcos/ISPs.

--janak

[gfreeman]

I'm looking for the exact text of the law, but if the law says that you can't access someone else's network without their permission, then yes, a law was violated. You can talk all you want about "by not setting permissions, you are by default giving it away for free", but until you look at the law itself, you have no basis for saying "I am talking about legalities and not moralities. The reality is there is no crime committed". How can you make that statement?

It's quite possible, nay probable, that a decent lawyer can successfully argue that not securing a network is the same as giving "Everyone" permissions. This would be especially easy if the router config software has a setting "Allow anyone access" rather than "Set no password". If I were a lawyer (and I'm not), this is where I would start my case. We don't know whether his software's dialog is written like that, but if it is then he's given permission for anyone to access his network.

Someone mentioned a tap/faucet on his property, and that taking water from it would be stealing. Agreed - but if a sprinkler were attached to it and the water sprayed onto the road, then it would be legal for anyone to catch that water and use it.

There are three distinct arguments: trespass, B&amp;E, and stealing. Trespass is out, because the WiFi is being broadcast. B&amp;E is arguable - was the network secure? Was there an implicit invitation by not setting a password? And the stealing part is probably where this mobile-user is going to get nailed, if at all. If it can be shown that he contributed to an increase in bandwidth by the original router owner, then there may be a case.

Whatever, laws need to be air-tight, not just water-tight. Lawyers can argue many things simply because the written laws are not 100% clear.

[Pete Wilson]

Just to hilight the cost issue (since it doesn't seem clear to everyone) - I have a friend with a wireless network at his house. He has a modem router that dials up the ISP for Internet.

If he were dialing a long distance number (which ISDN would be for him), the consequences of someone trespassing on his wireless network are pretty clear when he receives the phone bill.

[gamtab]

Isn’t this all but a big waste of tax payers money…how much does it cost to arrest him, charge him, bring him before the courts and then fine/jail him…how much did his ‘illegal’ wifi access cost the ISP or the owner of the network…
Will this deter other people from accessing a network without permission…I seriously doubt it…
If this is such a fearful and dreadful crime why doesn’t the government educate the people on wifi security steps…what ever happened to those wonderful public service ads from the 50’s??
Better still why not have local municipal free wifi network…oh wait Verison successfully lobbied for a bill to make them illegal…way to go Verison.

[Steve Jordan]

This case is about paramount to my leaving my front door open and someone walking in and eating my food. They could have done a lot more harm to me, my property and family, but they only made a sandwich. Cause for a fine, sure, but that's about it.

On the other hand, I should have known better than to leave my door unlocked. I should have enough sense to know what can happen, and take appropriate steps to protect myself. I should understand the environment I live in, and know that in a crime-prone area, locking my door is the prudent solution. My leaving my front door open does NOT automatically mean I am inviting thieves in, and theft is theft.

So many of the problems in the computer industry come down to consumers buying and using things that they don't know how to use properly... and because computers are designed to be used in many ways, that opens up opportunities for wifi stealing, spamming, hacking, etc.

If I was a retailer selling hot coffee, and I knew that a particular person is prone to buying coffee and doing something bad with it-- like throwing it on the next guy in line-- I am within my right to not sell that person coffee. Internet providers have the same right to deny access to those who abuse their systems, and they are not afraid to exercise that right.

Consumers need to understand their responsibilities to protect their property, and take appropriate steps, including hiring a professional to secure their connection if they cannot. Otherwise they shouldn't be surprised if, in the future, providers refuse to sell them services that they have shown they cannot secure.

[A_C]

Oh geez its only a internet connection, there are more important crimes going on...

I do it all the time, at work several little shops forget to encrypt/dont know how to turn wep on, so i use their connection, as long as you arent logging into their router and changing connections or stealing data i see no harm.

[maikii]

Also, as some wrote here that using a wifi signal that comes into your home from a neighbor's house is "trespassing", couldn't that signal coming into my home be considered to be "trespassing"? (If one could consider an electronic signal to be trespassing.)

I didn't ask their signal to come into my house. What if it interferes with my radio and TV reception, cordless phone, or my own wi-fi or Bluetooth network? (Has anyone been sued for that?)

I think just as much a case could be made that the person with the home wi-fi network was trespassing, than the fact that someone who had that unsecured signal come into his house without his permission, used it to access the Internet.

[Janak Parekh]

Also, as some wrote here that using a wifi signal that comes into your home from a neighbor's house is "trespassing", couldn't that signal coming into my home be considered to be "trespassing"? (If one could consider an electronic signal to be trespassing.)

I didn't ask their signal to come into my house. What if it interferes with my radio and TV reception, cordless phone, or my own wi-fi or Bluetooth network? (Has anyone been sued for that?)
Interference and trespassing are completely different, especially considering that 2.4GHz is an unlicensed "open" band. If you were broadcasting on a restricted band, then that could actually be grounds for criminal persecution.

--janak

[jcmoffitt]

Wow, I did not realize that in some states it is illegal to use an open WAP. I guess I would be in jail myself. That reminds me to check on the laws in SC to make sure I dont wind up with pretty silver bracelets while checking my e-mail when I am away from home.

I think this is very easy to figure out. Something is unlawful when a legislative body determines it is illegal and passes a law stating thus and so. So, if you do the crime (ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law) then you do the time (or pay the fine in this case). LOL... 8O

I also believe that if a home owner or business owner does not want someone to piggy back off of their wifi signal that is extending beyond the physical bounds of their busines or home walls then they should lock that puppy down tight. It only takes 3 to 5 minutes to do it. If you leave the signal out there for folks to connect to you can not expect people not to.

[signothefish]

There's an interesting article on CNN Money about this very topic. Definitely worth a read:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/technology/personaltech/internet_piracy/index.htm

"To a growing number of Internet piggy-backers, it's the sweet sound of pirating their neighbor's wireless network.

Most new computers are equipped for wireless Internet access, and more and more people are opting for Wi-Fi in their homes. But as the networks become stronger and more prevalent, more of those signals are available outside the home of the subscriber, spilling over into neighbor's apartments, hallways and the street.

Add to this the growing number of cafes and other public "hot spots" that offer Wi-Fi (for wireless fidelity) connections and the ability to buy more powerful antennas that can pick up signals several hundred feet away. The coverage in some places can be pretty near flawless...

Edited by mod JR

[Jeff Rutledge]

Article quote trimmed. Please follow the link above for the remainder of the story.

[Typhoon]

Interesting debates going on here, but consider it from this standpoint (for the moment ignore moral and ethical, look only at the law). You can protect the network before allowing to spillover into the public domain, (the street). In fact a legal argument could be made that since the owner of the network did not take reasonable steps to close the network, they made an "attractive nuisance” and could be open to tort claims.

A man walking out of a store is carrying a paper shopping bag that is a little over stuffed. I notice that it was so stuffed that a tiny red velvet container falls out of the bag onto the street while he is getting into his car. It is a good thing he didn't notice. I pick it up and put it into my pocket w/out telling him. He should of been more careful because he has just lost a brand new $10k wedding ring. Hey, he had left it in the public domain... its a good thing for arguements like these.