Is It OK To Use An Open WiFi Connection Without Permission?

[Ed Hansberry]

Earlier this week, we told you about a guy that was arrested for <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=41436">using someone else's WiFi connection</a>. One of our readers, Buss, was wondering what your ethics were in this area. Is it ok to use someone else's connection if they are dumb enough to leave it open or is it hands off unless you get permission first?

[dMores]

if i, per chance, find a network and my computer lets me surf with it, then i do it.
if i find a network and it's protected, then i know this person does not want to share his network.

cracking is bad!

so basically i think it's up to the owner to make sure his network is secure. it's not that "unlawful" surfing is actively breaking into something. the owner is broadcasting his signal all over the place. so if someone uses it, then tough luck.

[Robb Bates]

I must say that it is not OK to use someone elses wi-fi. As easy as it is to say "they're not going to be bothered by such little impact" the fact is, they pay for that service and should get all they pay for. If they are downloading a large file and you come in and surf the internet, you are unknowingly slowing down their connection.

The fact that it is unsecured is irrelevant. It's not much different than walking up to someones open car window and stealing something. "Hey! It was unsecured, so they must want other to take stuff out! They're just being friendly and giving their stuff away."

The difference that does exist is that there is an unlimited supply of data bits. But the user has to pay for how fast he uses those bits. There is no way of anyone parked outside to know how much of an impact he is having on the owner.

Robb

[Robb Bates]

so basically i think it's up to the owner to make sure his network is secure.

True, just as it is up to an owner to lock his car or house door. But the fact that they don't doesn't give everyone the freedom to walk into someone's house, or get in their car.

Not everyone who has a wi-fi network knows how to secure them, or even the fact that they can be secured. Most wi-fi routers are unsecure by default.

I recently setup a wi-fi router and had a heck of a time trying to make it secure. And I'm quite the geek.

If you have a dollar's worth of nickels sitting out on your desk, and everyone who walks by takes one thinking "he won't miss a nickel", it shouldn't surprise you to find yourself totally broke.

So, yes, people should secure their wi-fi, if they can, but leaving a network unsecured is not blanket permission for the public to use it.

Robb

[foebea]

well, as far as 'no way to tell the impact', you can of course check network activity with any of a number of free utilities if you really want to. My opinion is this: For small bits such as email, headlines, I wont hesitate to use an open network. if i am going to be using it for a longer periord or have some need for more of the bandwidth, I go to a coffee shop which has free access, or to a friends house.

I am not going to pay 90 bucks a month for this access, i dont use it enough to make it worth that (i dont have a tv and so getting cable would be another waste). i dont do any gaming online, maybe 1 gig of transfer a month including 2 books a month from audible.com, and about 3 hours of surfing a month outside of work. most of my surfing is done while at the office.

[Robb Bates]

well, as far as 'no way to tell the impact', you can of course check network activity with any of a number of free utilities if you really want to.

You're assuming the owner would know how to do that. I'd bet there are many non-savvy wi-fi users that are wondering why their connection is so slow.

I am not going to pay 90 bucks a month for this access.

But it's ok for someone else to have to pay that and have others steal part of their bandwidth?

Robb

[signothefish]

I'm not answering the poll, because it's situational. Is it OK to knowingly surf a residential WiFi network? Absolutely not! But there are cases where I can understand why it would happen.

What if I pull up next to a coffee shop that states "Free WiFi access" in the window, and there are several residences nearby. So I pull up to the drive-thru of the coffee shop, pull into a parking spot to enjoy my coffee and start enjoying the browsing experience. But instead of using the coffee shop's network, I'm using a residential connection.

Another situation... what if I am in an office building, and one of the businesses has a WiFi hot spot? So I am in my own office in my own company and have my device connected to my laptop through activesync, but instead I end up surfing the other business's connection by accident because my cable is not plugged in well.

These are just two examples of an almost infinite number of possibilities why people shouldn't be prosecuted for illegal WiFi access. It's up to the owners of those networks to lock them down.

[Chris Spera]

After 9/11, i remember seeing a news report that said it was a breach of National Security to have an open wi-fi network because there was no real way to isolate cyber-terrorist activity if everybody and their brother, had an unsecured wi-fi network.

I don't know if that's changed or not; but I think router venders need to do a better job at making security work on their wireless products for the non-techie. Most people don't have security enabled because they can't get it working...

[rjcc]

doing it by accident is one thing, doing it on purpose, is another. I'm not totally against doing it, I mean, if its there, and I want to get online, I'm doing it, but if you get caught doing it, you'reeven more of an idiot than the guy who left his hotspot open.


chilling outside of someone elses house with your laptop in your SUV is jut dumb.

[Robb Bates]

This whole discussion is in the same arena as "sharing" files, or downloading MP3s (non-legally), borrowing someone's MS Office CDR or hooking into someone's cable.

It's all about "stealing" something that is non-tangible. You can't touch it, it occupies no space, you can't give it back, it's limitlessly reproducible.

I suspect that people who think it's OK to "share" files, feel it's OK to steal wi-fi.

It's wrong. If you didn't pay for it then you can't use it.

Robb

[foebea]

well, as far as 'no way to tell the impact', you can of course check network activity with any of a number of free utilities if you really want to.

You're assuming the owner would know how to do that. I'd bet there are many non-savvy wi-fi users that are wondering why their connection is so slow.

I am not going to pay 90 bucks a month for this access.

But it's ok for someone else to have to pay that and have others steal part of their bandwidth?

Robb

Um.. k. first question: I was responding to an earlier post saying that there is no way we could find out the impact having on a network. that is not the case. you can see how much the network is transfering and know right away if you using it would inconvenience anyone.

second question. i had a network set up for the past 3 years or so with open wifi access. I had a proxy with a blacklist of pages to keep out the illegal stuff. the ssid was welcome. that way if someone else wants to use it, they know they can. If I wanted to do something intensive, i could disable external access. I have moved recently and as a result can not currently afford access of my own. thats alot of money for a person on thier own with other bills to pay.

As for other peoples networks, if they leave it as default ssid names i usually leave it alone unless i am in the middle of nowhere and i need more exact information about my route that the gps is able to provide. most network names near where i dwell are not default, they say things like open, or free internet, or mikes oasis. those i will use without qualm.

One day when I get settled I will again have internet access of my own. I will leave it open with cute ssid messages and I will have no problem using other networks which hit the street.

Here's an alternate view: just like garbage when it hits the street it is public property. The signal they send beyond what they need to use it in the house is like someone playing a stereo too loud. if i can sit on my porch on the other side of the street and hear the music (connect to the wifi) then i will listen to it (use it). If they dont want people to hear thier music they should turn down the volume, or get a weaker router.

either way, this entire topic is an easy way to get a good many pages added to the forum as this is an explosive topic on which people will never agree. They can only agree to disagree, but i dont think the two sides are agreeable even for this. 0X

[dMores]

i should have been more specific: i don't drive around to find open networks.
but it has happened once or twice in the last year that i was in a cafe with someone and wanted to show him something on my powerbook. not expecting a network, i actually did, and i was able to go online and continue my discussion by showing things online.

most of those instances were with a client or possible client.

then there are times when people come into my studio and ask if they can use a computer to check on their emails.
tourists, friends or just neighbors who do not want to go home to use the net. of course we give them access to go online and check their emails or find driving directions to some destination.

basically, using an open network is just like that.
downloading huge files, slowing the other's network or even trying to manipulate data on their computer is definately not ok.
i wouldn't do it.
maybe leave a text document on that person's desktop to encourage them to secure their data/network.

and securing IS simple. most people have a cablemodem-router-computer+laptop setup. read the instruction manual. it says "thou shalt lock up your internet access" and it shows you how.
if you have a really complicated setup, with various operating systems, versions and hardware, then things are complicated.
but just click on "enable WEP", set a passphrase, enter the password on your client computers, and that's it.

[OSUKid7]

I said it is always wrong to use open networks. However, some networks use open/free APs for customers -- hotels, libraries, stores, etc. How is the customer to know which is the right one to? I suppose this should be common sense, but I'm sure some people would be confused.

Another thing I'd like to point out is networks without encryption are just that - open, without encryption. I had a bad experience about two weeks ago while working at a Tech conference in San Jose, CA using the hotel's wireless network. Someone was (illegally, of course) sniffing packets on the wireless network and got several of my passwords, and thought it would be funny to go into one of my accounts and change some things. The perpetrator later came by and told me it was him, and what he had done. Let's just say I didn't go easy on him and also reported this to the conference staff. What he did was most definitely a federal crime, and similar situations probably won't happen on open hot spots. Still, the chance for this type of situation is always there. I've really tried not to use unencrypted APs since this incident, and when I do, don't use any passwords at all.

[MitchellO]

I'd check email, or a forum, but wouldn't download on somebody elses network. Where I live, I can't even detect a WiFi network other than my own from my house, and my PDA couldn't find any just driving around where I live (not to connect, just to see if their were any on the same channel as me, so I could change).

I may have done it a few times, but only in the city where there are like 5 networks in any one spot, 2-3 that are unsecured.

[alabij]

All wifi is capable of WEP/WPA protection. In fact all if not most manuals always warn and encourage consumers to set up passwords.

I don't think that guy did anything wrong! Sure he was a bit dumb in his obviousness but still if anyone leaves their network open they are not only inviting wardriving but are exposing themselves to hackers.

In fact the indiviual having the open wifi should be prosecuted by their ISP for unauthourized sharing of broadband. 8)

[dMores]

Someone was (illegally, of course) sniffing packets on the wireless network and got several of my passwords, and thought it would be funny to go into one of my accounts and change some things.
hmm ... thank you for this story. i really haven't thought about this problem when using an open=unencrypted network.

because what happened to my colleague a while ago was that our router died, and my colleague's computer automatically switched to the next available network.
my colleague complained about the lack of speed, and i found out the router was down and was able to fix it.
but since he didn't realize he was switching to an open network, he'd probably just use his passwords just like always and not know it's broadcasted around the block.

:|

[alabij]

Just to add
Downloading on someone elses network might be unethical but definitely not illegal(at least for now).

[Donsell]

The analogies used are slightly flawed. It is clearly wrong to take nickels from someone’s dresser or enter their car, be it locked or unlocked, to take personal property.

If you want to use a personal property analogy for wifi access then the correct one would be the property owner kept his nickels out on the sidewalk in front of his home. I think we can all agree that it’s still stealing to take some of those nickels and it shouldn’t be done. But we’d be more surprised if someone didn’t take them than if they had and we’d call the nickel’s owner stupid and place more of the blame on him.

Sure it’s technically wrong to use the wifi point to surf the web. However, I don’t know why we accept ignorance as an excuse for leaving wifi access open.

[alabij]

so basically i think it's up to the owner to make sure his network is secure.

True, just as it is up to an owner to lock his car or house door. But the fact that they don't doesn't give everyone the freedom to walk into someone's house, or get in their car.

Not everyone who has a wi-fi network knows how to secure them, or even the fact that they can be secured. Most wi-fi routers are unsecure by default.

I recently setup a wi-fi router and had a heck of a time trying to make it secure. And I'm quite the geek.

If you have a dollar's worth of nickels sitting out on your desk, and everyone who walks by takes one thinking "he won't miss a nickel", it shouldn't surprise you to find yourself totally broke.

So, yes, people should secure their wi-fi, if they can, but leaving a network unsecured is not blanket permission for the public to use it.

Robb

Your analogies remind me of how the Supreme court deemed P2P illegal(in so many words). You have to understand the technology. Comparing wifi to an open car is not functional. wifi isn't tangible.

[netboy]

ok. some1 answer me this..
IF U SAW/FOUND 20BUK ON THE STREET WHEN NO1 ELSE IS AROUND.. WILL U PICK IT UP OR LEAVE IT THERE?? just like wifi, if it' open, i would use it. and it' not really stealing some1 else stuffs! it' just a cycle! i also leave my wifi open for others conviences. I use yours, and u use mine..

[DaleReeck]

There are legal issues that go beyond just stealing. For instance, someone covertly using a wireless connection to download pedaphile stuff. I feel it needs to be illegal - period. "Firendly use" can easily morph into more darker scenarios. I think the unlocked house it a perfect analogy - unlocked is still entering and stealing WiFi signal is still burglery.

[dorelse]

I love the 'I can't afford it, so its ok for ME to steal' arguements. If you can afford a PC and a PDA, you can afford a broadband connection.

Stealing is stealing, regardless of it being a tangible item or not, physical or digital, if you take something that you are not expressly authorized or permitted, its theft.

It might seem harmless, but illegal use at the very least increases loads on the broadband providers network thus raising our rates as they try expand infrastructure to accomodate the load.

BTW...try the 'I didn't know' arguement before the judge sometime, see how well that flies...I'm sure you'll be the first criminal in the history of the world to use that one. And yes, since its a law, that makes breaking this law a criminal act.

The law this guy violated is largely based on the intent of the act...mistakeningly connecting to a different network because you didn't realize it, would most likely make this law not applicable...simply because the persons 'intent' was to connect to a AP he was authorized to...same goes for the coffee shop example.

That said, I could probably prove that you as a surfer need to take 'reasonable steps' to insure you're using the coffee shops public network and not just any network that happens to work.

Questions like:
Did you verify the network name with the Coffee Shop, so you insured you were connecting to the right AP?
Did you receive network setup instructions from the Coffee Shop to verify you were connecting to their network as instructed by them?
Once connected did you validate the network name against the Coffee Shops name to verify you were connecting to the right network, thus insuring you were using their network AP instead of someone else's?

Ultimately, its still your responsibility...no excuses make it ok.

[rjonasson]

People have been saying the physical property analogies don't apply to the virtual world. How about this:

Say someone sets up a Windows 2000 web server, but doesn't apply all the security patches. Does the fact that Windows 2000 IIS is prone to security breaches mean it's legal for someone to break in? If he doesn't apply security patches, it must be ok to exploit that buffer overflow. If he doesn't apply WEP, it must be ok to grab his signal.

Or how about companies who use security holes in Internet Explorer to load spyware on pc's. If the user really didn't want spyware on his pc, he'd use Opera or Firefox. Since he's using IE, he must be ok with spyware. If he doesn't apply WEP, he must be ok with me using his connection.

How about this one. Say you were invited to a business for a meeting. While you were waiting in the meeting room, you see an ethernet jack in the wall near your chair. Would you be comfortable just plugging your laptop into it and hitting the Internet without the company's permission? If they don't put a physical lock on that jack, it must be ok for me to plug in. If they don't apply WEP, it must be ok for me to plug in.

It's unauthorized use of a computer network. Society should be about protecting the masses, not exploiting them.

[Donsell]

I'm not saying its okay to steal wifi. My point, however, is that the owner of the access point needs to take the responsiblity to education himself or understand the consequences.

If someone left valuable personal property out in the open it isn't right for someone else to steal it. BUT we'd all think the property owner was careless and stupid. We would we give them an out because they didn't know how to protect their property.

In the same way if someone does not want to others to use their wireless network they should secure it. To not do so is as careless and stupid as someone who leaves their car unlocked and is surprised to learn their stereo has been stollen. We wouldn't have a lot of sympathy for the car owner, why do we for the owner of the wifi network?

its not right to steal, but people will always take advantange of the ingorant. And the ingorant will always move the blame to someone else rather than accept their responsiblity.

[dorelse]

I'm not saying its okay to steal wifi. My point, however, is that the owner of the access point needs to take the responsiblity to education himself or understand the consequences.

If someone left valuable personal property out in the open it isn't right for someone else to steal it. BUT we'd all think the property owner was careless and stupid. We would we give them an out because they didn't know how to protect their property.

In the same way if someone does not want to others to use their wireless network they should secure it. To not do so is as careless and stupid as someone who leaves their car unlocked and is surprised to learn their stereo has been stollen. We wouldn't have a lot of sympathy for the car owner, why do we for the owner of the wifi network?

its not right to steal, but people will always take advantange of the ingorant. And the ingorant will always move the blame to someone else rather than accept their responsiblity.

Well, you are right...people who've hooked up a wi-fi network should take the responsibility to secure it.

I guess the distinction that I'd submit, is that locking a car is simple anyone can easily do it. Securing a wi-fi network isn't as simple and easy and most non-techies become confused with all the terminology &amp; multitude of configurations &amp; settings. So I do tend to cut them some slack...true.

On that same note, its mostly us techies that know how exploit that and use it...so its again people who know they can exploit it that need to show the most restraint and show some moral standard...but you are right, it is a 2 way street.

[netboy]

"Say someone sets up a Windows 2000 web server, but doesn't apply all the security patches. Does the fact that Windows 2000 IIS is prone to security breaches mean it's legal for someone to break in? If he doesn't apply security patches, it must be ok to exploit that buffer overflow. If he doesn't apply WEP, it must be ok to grab his signal."


when u setup windows 2000 web server or other stuffs, u EXPECTING it to be SECURE. when u leave your wifi OPEN, u kinda EXPECTED people will accesss it! that' the difference! and speaking about leaving the car windows open.. if u leave your laptop or pda in your car, and leave the windows open, u kinda EXPECTED that some1 is going to steal it! THERE IS A DIFFERENT BETWEEN *SECURE* AND *OPEN*.. also if i leave my house door open, u kinda expected some1 might come in and take your tv and computer, and dvd player! That is y there is LOCKS for cars and houses to protect your stuffs! just like wifi, if u dont want people to access your wifi, set it to SECURE instead of OPEN!


"Or how about companies who use security holes in Internet Explorer to load spyware on pc's. If the user really didn't want spyware on his pc, he'd use Opera or Firefox. Since he's using IE, he must be ok with spyware. If he doesn't apply WEP, he must be ok with me using his connection."


That is y spyware is LEGAL! otherwise we wouldnt need spyware blocker/software to remove it! and again! if u dont want some1 to access your wifi, MAKE IT SECURE instead of OPEN! just like your personal property, if u dont want some1 to steal it, LOCK IT!

[don dre]

I leave mine wide open, esp if I live in an area where there are not others. I watch bandwidth usage and woudl consider securing it if people got greedy. so far, my bandwidth hasn't ben negatively affected.

[gt24]

This issue directly relates to most other computer issues we are facing today...

Spyware is software which installs on user's computers and not only slows down the computers but also displays ads and other such stuff. All this hinges on the fact that the users don't read EULAs, don't patch their computers, don't know how to scan for such threats, and alike. It is still isn't directly decided if spyware is legal or not.

Browsing an open wireless access point is very similar. You are slowing down another user's connection for your convience (in the case of spyware, the slowness is done for the convience of an external advertising company). The causes are similar as well (user's inadequate knowledge and also that the default settings are too relaxed). The legality and punishment of both of these issues is also in limbo (in addition, if wifi browsing is illegal... then what else could be considered pretty much the same...)

This issue can be taken way out of hand if care isn't taken. Having a laptop accidentally connect to an open access point be illegal could be a problem (and not requiring that the resident do ANYTHING to secure that point... and in addition this is the 3rd person they caught using that point this week). Furthermore, could the "unauthorized use of bandwidth crime" be applied to a student downloading files off Peer2Peer at college? How about if that student was playing an online game? What if the student was doing one of those on their own computer and just had campus supplied internet? I'm certain there will be no shortage of lawyers to determine what is right or wrong...

A final disturbing thought... what if the RIAA or MPAA convinces a judge to declare the "unauthorized use of bandwidth crime" against a user downloading not so legal files on their internet connection? After all, does your ISP support you downloading illegal files? In fact, any hop on the internet that doesn't support your traffic could theoretically come back to sue that user. This could be gaming on a company network, inappropriate conduct on a forum, or anything else that somebody would take offense to. While you could defend yourself in court and be found innocent, the larger issue is perhaps the requirement of defending yourself against this criminal charge and the lawyer charges involved. As always, this keeps the lawyers employed.

That is my 2 cents.

[karinatwork]

It took me a loooong time to figure out how to secure my stupid network, and I am still not sure if it's working. I just hope I'll never lose that mile long pass code... 8O

I like the comparison to the unlocked front door thing. You are not substantially "stealing" anything, but just because someone doesn't lock their front door, would you walk into their house, sit down in their recliner and watch tv? I wouldn't.

Yes, it should be illegal to use someone else's WIFI. Only I don't know if I like the fact that they arrest people for doing it anyway. That's a bit steep. Like me, I didn't even know my desktop was logging onto my neighbors network when my internet connection failed. The computer just checked for other options and jumped onto my neighbors wifi. What am I to do?

[Rudism]

People have been saying the physical property analogies don't apply to the virtual world. How about this:

Say someone sets up a Windows 2000 web server, but doesn't apply all the security patches. Does the fact that Windows 2000 IIS is prone to security breaches mean it's legal for someone to break in? If he doesn't apply security patches, it must be ok to exploit that buffer overflow. If he doesn't apply WEP, it must be ok to grab his signal.

I think a more fitting analogy would be, someone sets up a Windows 2000 web server, and puts an anonymous FTP site on it. He then goes onto the Internet and posts his IP address and the fact that there is an anonymous FTP server running on it all over the place. Web sites, forums, random email lists. He does not say whether or not it is ok to use it, merely posts the IP and the fact that there is an anonymous FTP server there.

Would it be illegal to log into his FTP server and see what's on it? Wouldn't it be his own fault for foolishly broadcasting his IP all over the place?

Or how about companies who use security holes in Internet Explorer to load spyware on pc's. If the user really didn't want spyware on his pc, he'd use Opera or Firefox. Since he's using IE, he must be ok with spyware. If he doesn't apply WEP, he must be ok with me using his connection.

Unethical? I suppose it could be construed as such. Illegal? Hardly. What's illegal is usually what the spyware does once it's on your computer.

How about this one. Say you were invited to a business for a meeting. While you were waiting in the meeting room, you see an ethernet jack in the wall near your chair. Would you be comfortable just plugging your laptop into it and hitting the Internet without the company's permission? If they don't put a physical lock on that jack, it must be ok for me to plug in. If they don't apply WEP, it must be ok for me to plug in.

It's unauthorized use of a computer network. Society should be about protecting the masses, not exploiting them.

If the ethernet jack had a big sign above it with an arrow saying "DHCP Internet Connection Here", and I needed a connection for something, I would not hesitate to plug in.

Comparing an open WAP to an exploitable "security flaw" in some software or a private network makes as little sense as comparing it to tangible property theft. It makes it seem like you would have to go out of your way or be sneaky in order to gain access. Remember that these people are broadcasting for the whole world to see that they have an open, accessible internet connection for anyone with a wifi card to use. If they don't want people using them, they should password protect and/or not broadcast their SSID.

[stlbud]

"...They're just being friendly and giving their stuff away."
Robb

There are people who do leave their WiFi open, on purpose, to share with anyone who comes along. This has been going on for as long as WiFi has been in existence. How is someone supposed to know if the owner wants to share or not. I suppose you could just assume it's wrong and walk away. If you do though, you are wasting a resource that is supposed to be used.

Take a look at this, for example -- http://www.wififreespot.com/

It's not just public places either, individuals have opened up their access for the benefit of their community and neighbors. Groups of people are setting up WiFi networks over wide areas to bring high speed internet access to rural and inner city areas.

[CoreyJF]

There was a long tread yesterday. I stopped reading and posting in it because the banter simply became inane. It came down to a million posts (excuse the hyperbole) where several people argued that it is stealing and stealing is wrong (fry in hell you sinners.) I and several others repeatedly argued that it is time for a paradigm on how we deal with the fuzzy boundaries of a wireless world. The reality is we do not live in a black and white world anymore and our concepts must change with time. When you talk about personal property and apply it to concepts of waves and information, your argument gets lost in translation. It is unrealistic to apply the logic of personal property. For those that argue that you own the router and have every right to control how it is used, I couldn’t agree more. Turn on the security. Choose what you do with the signal I send back in response to your broadcast. That way my laptop or PPC doesn’t accidentally stray on to you network and use your bandwidth. By broadcasting your AP without security you are inviting people to communicate.

If it is too complicated to turn on security, I suggest you read the manual, call tech support, or ask you local geek for advice. If you can afford to pay 30-80 dollars a month for broadband, you can afford to slip your 10 year neighbor a couple dollars to set up some basic security.

If it is open and unsecured signal being broadcast into public and other people’s private property it is not stealing, you can not steal what is being given to you.

[x999x]

I'm an American, I like to Capitalise.

Open networks = less money spent on a starbux wifi card

My home networks are closed, as they should be.

[genius74]

All I have to say is Yes it's wrong to use ANY thing w/o permission, be it my unlocked running car or my open WiFi network.. All of this discussion comes from what if scenarios.. Yes it's wrong, but that doesn't mean it will stop. If you get catch knowingly, u could play dumb but there should be some sort of penalty ( no not jail time).. maybe pay the guy's/girl's ISP bill for that month?

[BitBandit]

I haven't seen this brought up yet, so I'm gonna ask.

Most ISPs charge a fixed, flat monthly rate, regardless of how much bandwidth or access is used. As such, if I have an unsecured AP and others use it, this does not change my cost at all. If others use it excessivley, yes, I will be "losing" some of my access due to slowdowns, but how many of us really use all of our bandwidth and how many of us actually use it all the time?

The likelihood of someone accessing an unsecured AP and negatively impacting the real owner is quite low, so does this meet the technical definition of stealing?

Just wondering.

[Jonathan1]

If someone leaves their network open its fair game just as if I have a house next to a drive in movie theatre its fair game. If you don't do something to actively discourage use or promote the idea in some form that this is NOT for public use you have nothing to complain about IMHO.

[rob_ocelot]

After 9/11, i remember seeing a news report that said it was a breach of National Security to have an open wi-fi network because there was no real way to isolate cyber-terrorist activity if everybody and their brother, had an unsecured wi-fi network.

In the four years since 2001 the sale of wireless network equipment has increased tenfold. I see a huge explosion of unsecured wireless networks after every christmas.


I don't know if that's changed or not; but I think router venders need to do a better job at making security work on their wireless products for the non-techie. Most people don't have security enabled because they can't get it working...

Perhaps the router venders should be held accountable and make securing the wireless network (and the network in general) mandatory before the router can be used.

Car manufacturers have to dummy proof cars with air bag warnings and 'do not stick your head in here' warnings -- they are held accountable in part for the ignorance of the end user of their products.

[Jonathan1]

I haven't seen this brought up yet, so I'm gonna ask.

Most ISPs charge a fixed, flat monthly rate, regardless of how much bandwidth or access is used. As such, if I have an unsecured AP and others use it, this does not change my cost at all. If others use it excessivley, yes, I will be "losing" some of my access due to slowdowns, but how many of us really use all of our bandwidth and how many of us actually use it all the time?

ISP WILL bitch at you if you do hit some predefined limit that they don't disclose but its some ungodly amount that no random WIFI connection is going to hit. That connection would have to be serving up bitorrents for a week or two to reach that level and I think most people would recognize a car parked outside for a week. 8) Neighbors are another matter though. As I posted before I've had people over to my house pull out their laptops and BAM it connects to my neighbor's AP instead of mine because there is ZERO security on the thing. Hell the Admin password wasn’t even reset. (Yes I checked because someday when I’m not being lazy I’m going to go over there and help him setup his network right.) I'm not going to fault my friends for someone who doesn't take due care on limiting who uses his connection.

[dorelse]

[Comparing an open WAP to an exploitable "security flaw" in some software or a private network makes as little sense as comparing it to tangible property theft. It makes it seem like you would have to go out of your way or be sneaky in order to gain access. Remember that these people are broadcasting for the whole world to see that they have an open, accessible internet connection for anyone with a wifi card to use. If they don't want people using them, they should password protect and/or not broadcast their SSID.

You don't consider folks who 'wardrive', or this guy who was arrested, as being sneaky? They're driving around in their cars, parking outside of residential homes surfing the internet, and trying not to get caught...um...yeah, that's sneaky.

You've got a couple big assumptions in there... a) they wanted to broadcast an open network, of which you have no fact. b) your assuming that because the network is open, that that grants you permission to use it, which it doesn't c) That somehow the nature of theft is different whether is physical or digital, which it isn't. The laws are slowly catching up.

Your ultimate arguement boils down to they get what they deserve b/c they didn't protect themselves...pretty sure the law is on their side, not yours.

[Jonathan1]

Perhaps the router venders should be held accountable and make securing the wireless network (and the network in general) mandatory before the router can be used.

Car manufacturers have to dummy proof cars with air bag warnings and 'do not stick your head in here' warnings -- they are held accountable in part for the ignorance of the end user of their products.


The problem is that the average user is too stupid to figure out how to setup WEP or how to use it in Windows. Like it or not WIFI on Windows is still a serious PITA for the average user. Even though I have lots of experience with 802.11 occasionally Windows and WIFI just gets funky. WEP and WPA is disabled on routers simply because users want ease of use.

[Jonathan1]

[Comparing an open WAP to an exploitable "security flaw" in some software or a private network makes as little sense as comparing it to tangible property theft. It makes it seem like you would have to go out of your way or be sneaky in order to gain access. Remember that these people are broadcasting for the whole world to see that they have an open, accessible internet connection for anyone with a wifi card to use. If they don't want people using them, they should password protect and/or not broadcast their SSID.

You don't consider folks who 'wardrive', or this guy who was arrested, as being sneaky? They're driving around in their cars, parking outside of residential homes surfing the internet, and trying not to get caught...um...yeah, that's sneaky.



When did being sneaky = doing something bad. And I will point out again! That wardriving != sitting in front of someone's house browsing the net.

[krad]

"Dude, I am parked in the street right now downloading the Fantastic Four movie on some guy's WLAN. What do you expect? His SSID is "linksys""

LMAO.... ROFL... that is hilarious!

[surur]

Remember that these people are broadcasting for the whole world to see that they have an open, accessible internet connection for anyone with a wifi card to use. If they don't want people using them, they should password protect and/or not broadcast their SSID.

I subscribe to this view. Just because they do not understand what they are doing does not mean they aren't doing what they are doing. OPEN means OPEN.

e.g.
MR A. I set up an OPEN connection at home. Don't use it!`
Geek Friend B. Why is it OPEN then?

The people who use technology without knowing what they are doing are being poor netizen's. Either understand what you are doing or don't do it in the first place.

There's analogies to this case and deep linking. If you make something public then its public.

Surur

[Donsell]

The problem is that the average user is too stupid to figure out how to setup WEP or how to use it in Windows. Like it or not WIFI on Windows is still a serious PITA for the average user. Even though I have lots of experience with 802.11 occasionally Windows and WIFI just gets funky. WEP and WPA is disabled on routers simply because users want ease of use.

The problem isn't that people are too stupid to secure a wireless network, if they read enough most can do it. The problem is that they're too stupid to take responsiblity for using a technology they don't understand. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are too stupid to figure out how to secure their lives. If you want to use a technology that you don't understand hire someone to set it up for you or don't use it. If you do use it and get hacked then don't act like a victim.

[KTamas]

if i, per chance, find a network and my computer lets me surf with it, then i do it.
if i find a network and it's protected, then i know this person does not want to share his network.

cracking is bad!

so basically i think it's up to the owner to make sure his network is secure. it's not that "unlawful" surfing is actively breaking into something. the owner is broadcasting his signal all over the place. so if someone uses it, then tough luck.
I second that...

[OSUKid7]

The problem isn't that people are too stupid to secure a wireless network, if they read enough most can do it. The problem is that they're too stupid to take responsiblity for using a technology they don't understand. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are too stupid to figure out how to secure their lives. If you want to use a technology that you don't understand hire someone to set it up for you or don't use it. If you do use it and get hacked then don't act like a victim.
So who determines the line between what all users should know and how those users can get hacked? Here's yet another comparison: someone leaves their car unlocked and a thief steals it. Based on your rationale, that's the owner's fault (I partially agree with that) and the thief committed no crime (I absolutely don't agree with that). I don't have much sympathy for people who don't secure their networks (or at least attempt to) or those who leave their cars unlocked, but still, the criminal committed a crime and knew what he did was wrong, and should definitely be punished.

[Donsell]

So who determines the line between what all users should know and how those users can get hacked? Here's yet another comparison: someone leaves their car unlocked and a thief steals it. Based on your rationale, that's the owner's fault (I partially agree with that) and the thief committed no crime (I absolutely don't agree with that). I don't have much sympathy for people who don't secure their networks (or at least attempt to) or those who leave their cars unlocked, but still, the criminal committed a crime and knew what he did was wrong, and should definitely be punished.

I agree with you. You shouldn't use network access that you don't have permission to use. My point is that if you don't know what you're doing with wireless then hire someone who does or don't expect me to feel badly for you if someone steels your private information. The theft is still wrong, but You're a victium of your own stupidity as much as you are a victium of theft.

[PDANEWBIE]

The fact that people buy a product that is out of the box unsecure does NOT give people the right to be able to just get on someones network.

I went to a persons house yesterday where their Wi-Fi was wide open and they had no knowledge of what network "security" was. I locked it down and I gave them the information but still had I not been there this would have been one more chance for someone to jump on wifi.
(Yes ll you Wi-Fi hotspot stealers have the right to give me glares for taking away one less access point.

The bottom line is the Wi-Fi is a signal that is broadcasting a service. I mean how many people would jump on a Wi-Fi network if there was not internet access? Like any service its something that is PAID for. What your doing is stealing bandwidth from the rightful owners of the service for your own selfish uses.

I don't mind the places that offer Wi-Fi for free and I don't mind schools and things that offer it to all of their visitors thats a totally different situation but when you knowingly and intentionally jump on someone elses service to conduct your own business (personal or professional) then you are the one at fault.

Next thing your gonna say is that if there is a security hole in your network and the administrator does not patch the sceurity hole then the hackers should not be at fault or exploiting that security hole to get into your network. Just plain dumb logic.

[VanHlebar]

To me what would be even more intresting would be a sub-poll. Of those that feel it is/isn't ok to use someone else's Wifi connection without permission, what is the age breakdown.

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that those that feel it is "ok" are going to be the "younger" crowd and those that feel it isn't ok are going to be older. The reason for this is the lack of integrity and morality in our youth.

I agree it is hard to enforce our current set of laws that were written years before Wifi was even around to our current state, but just because something can be done, does not mean something should be done. I don't buy the arguments that if you can't figure out how to secure your network then you shouldn't have one.

We seem to forget on this site that we the readers, for the most part are not the average computer user. The average reader of this site has a much higher understanding of most computers than that average person who just uses computers.

My wife uses a Dell X30 on a daily basis. She loves the thing and would be lost without it, but she still can't install software on it or even download a book from eReader and move it to the PPC without help. Should she not be allowed to use a device because she can't remember how to do this?

The above ins't an analogy to the "theft" of Wifi, but alot of the arguments I have read are along the lines of if you don't protect it then I can take it. This is the same "logic" that the people who write virus' and trojans try to use when they infect your computer. If you are stupid enough to not use a virus protection program then I am in my right to attempt to ruin your computer. Again I don't buy that argument.

Well sorry for the rambling post... I am not sure that somone should be arrested for the "use" of Wifi, but it should be enforced in some way so that people don't just decide to use others bandwidth.

-Eric

[CoreyJF]

The problem isn't that people are too stupid to secure a wireless network, if they read enough most can do it. The problem is that they're too stupid to take responsiblity for using a technology they don't understand. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are too stupid to figure out how to secure their lives. If you want to use a technology that you don't understand hire someone to set it up for you or don't use it. If you do use it and get hacked then don't act like a victim.
So who determines the line between what all users should know and how those users can get hacked? Here's yet another comparison: someone leaves their car unlocked and a thief steals it. Based on your rationale, that's the owner's fault (I partially agree with that) and the thief committed no crime (I absolutely don't agree with that). I don't have much sympathy for people who don't secure their networks (or at least attempt to) or those who leave their cars unlocked, but still, the criminal committed a crime and knew what he did was wrong, and should definitely be punished.

You are not hacking a network if there is no security in place. Comparing accessing an unlocked car and an open wireless network or worlds apart. I would have to call my fiancé at home to be sure this is still the case, but when I left for work this morning, no one had parked a car in my living room. Of course there are 6 different networks bleeding into to my home right now. The world is not flat, the earth is not center of the universe, there are not gremlins living at super sonic speeds (at least I hope not) and wireless networks can not be directly conceived or compared to physical tangible items. While I think manufactures are irresponsible at best, despicably greedy at worst, ultimately when you choose to broadcast a signal, be it two way or not, you are responsible for it.

[PDANEWBIE]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are too stupid to figure out how to secure their lives

Sounds like something that would be said by Timothy McVeigh about the people who died in the OKC bombing.

Should we all live in fear of what other MIGHT do if we don't hunker down with our shotguns?

[foebea]

Comparison:

'Theft' of a car = Physical property theft. the owner now has no use of his car.

'theft' of a nickle = Physical property thef. the owner now has no nickle

'Theft' of bandwidth = Non physical theft of speed and time, for duration of use owner has slower network speed IF and only IF the 'thief' is using an ungodly amount. owner does not lose propert and after a time the 'thief' is no longer on the network and normal activity resumes. The owner has the option of turning off the wireless ap to regain all speed immediately. try doing that with a nickle or a car.

There is no comparison.

At my parents house there are 6 computers on the network, about half of them are in use on the internet at any given time. there is no noticable deficit from normal use. now if someone starts pulling something at 600KBps for an hour, that is rather noticable as everything else goes to phone modem speeds.


HOWEVER: if a person is breaking the law, than the router keeps track of activity dates and mac addresses, and the isp can find out where else the mac connected, what kind of mac, etc. if the person is spoofing thier mac you wont catch them by mac. if it is a disposable, one time 10$ wifi card you wont catch them by mac. in this case further research and tracking is needed. you know, like for a murder. paedophile. trafficing. not checking email. there are laws and there are laws. if wifi use is a crime there need to be laws and laws created to rule over it. and there needs to be an understanding amongst the people. how about the people who want to share access with all move to the west coast, and the people who want to put strict laws against accessing open networks move to the east coast. and then outlaw large antennas and satalites to prevent the florida incident from happening again. . .


i knew this was going to turn into a looong thread.

[foebea]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are too stupid to figure out how to secure their lives

Sounds like something that would be said by Timothy McVeigh about the people who died in the OKC bombing.

Should we all live in fear of what other MIGHT do if we don't hunker down with our shotguns?

wow. just wow. please before posting things like that consider your words. that is harsh and uncouth and in very poor taste.

[Kati Compton]

Yes, let's please not compare wifi use/stealing with the bombing of anything.

[Kati Compton]

To me, using other's wifi is more akin to trespassing than stealing. But that's just a thought.

[VanHlebar]

To me, using other's wifi is more akin to trespassing than stealing. But that's just a thought.

But then they will argue they aren't tresspassing, the bandwidth was broadcast into my living room, how can I be tresspassing in my own house?

I think utlimately, someone is going to have to take a look at issues like these and actually adopt specific laws that make sense in the current paradigm we live in. I will agree with most that our current set of laws just don't really make much sense and our current society has outgrown some of the laws.

-Eric

[CoreyJF]

The fact that people buy a product that is out of the box unsecure does NOT give people the right to be able to just get on someones network.

I went to a persons house yesterday where their Wi-Fi was wide open and they had no knowledge of what network "security" was. I locked it down and I gave them the information but still had I not been there this would have been one more chance for someone to jump on wifi.
(Yes ll you Wi-Fi hotspot stealers have the right to give me glares for taking away one less access point.

The bottom line is the Wi-Fi is a signal that is broadcasting a service. I mean how many people would jump on a Wi-Fi network if there was not internet access? Like any service its something that is PAID for. What your doing is stealing bandwidth from the rightful owners of the service for your own selfish uses.

I don't mind the places that offer Wi-Fi for free and I don't mind schools and things that offer it to all of their visitors thats a totally different situation but when you knowingly and intentionally jump on someone elses service to conduct your own business (personal or professional) then you are the one at fault.

Next thing your gonna say is that if there is a security hole in your network and the administrator does not patch the sceurity hole then the hackers should not be at fault or exploiting that security hole to get into your network. Just plain dumb logic.

There are plenty of people that gladly provide “services for free” Think open source software, freeware, blogs and charity work for starters.

If they had bothered to read through there manual they would have found all they needed to know about enabling security. If they were not able to make the cognitive leap that they were able to log on to there network with relative ease, what is stopping anyone else, Well that is more then a little scary. When I set up a network for my parents at their house, two very non technical types. The first question my dad asked was what would stop my neighbors from being able to log on. This was years ago, before dozens of news stories had surfaced about the dangerous of “unsecured networks”

Responding and using a unsecured information stream being broad cast into public and other peoples private propriety is not even the same universe as knowingly hacking a security flaw.

[dorelse]

Comparison:

'Theft' of a car = Physical property theft. the owner now has no use of his car.

'theft' of a nickle = Physical property thef. the owner now has no nickle

'Theft' of bandwidth = Non physical theft of speed and time, for duration of use owner has slower network speed IF and only IF the 'thief' is using an ungodly amount. owner does not lose propert and after a time the 'thief' is no longer on the network and normal activity resumes. The owner has the option of turning off the wireless ap to regain all speed immediately. try doing that with a nickle or a car.

There is no comparison.

At my parents house there are 6 computers on the network, about half of them are in use on the internet at any given time. there is no noticable deficit from normal use. now if someone starts pulling something at 600KBps for an hour, that is rather noticable as everything else goes to phone modem speeds.


HOWEVER: if a person is breaking the law, than the router keeps track of activity dates and mac addresses, and the isp can find out where else the mac connected, what kind of mac, etc. if the person is spoofing thier mac you wont catch them by mac. if it is a disposable, one time 10$ wifi card you wont catch them by mac. in this case further research and tracking is needed. you know, like for a murder. paedophile. trafficing. not checking email. there are laws and there are laws. if wifi use is a crime there need to be laws and laws created to rule over it. and there needs to be an understanding amongst the people. how about the people who want to share access with all move to the west coast, and the people who want to put strict laws against accessing open networks move to the east coast. and then outlaw large antennas and satalites to prevent the florida incident from happening again. . .


i knew this was going to turn into a looong thread.

Umm...yes, there is a comparison. And at least in Florida, there is a law against it, so um...yes, illegal WiFi use is a crime (kinda the point of the law, it makes it a crime.)

So you 'borrow' my car while I'm at work, I accidental dropped my keys and didn't hear it, you find the keys, take my car, use it all day, return it filled up with gas. I'm out nothing, so according to your logic, no crime has been committed. I didn't miss out on anything, it didn't cost me any money, so I should be feel fine about that? Com'on...you can sugarcoat it with as many IF's as you want, its an illegal intrusion into someone's home via the air. You're using their infrastructure, the bandwidth they bought &amp; paid for. Its still illegal, a law was written for it, thus its illegal.

When did parents quit raising kids with morals? Take whats not yours, if the dummy didn't padlock it to a 500lbs safe, too bad, its mine for the taking? geez.

[CoreyJF]

Comparison:

'Theft' of a car = Physical property theft. the owner now has no use of his car.

'theft' of a nickle = Physical property thef. the owner now has no nickle

'Theft' of bandwidth = Non physical theft of speed and time, for duration of use owner has slower network speed IF and only IF the 'thief' is using an ungodly amount. owner does not lose propert and after a time the 'thief' is no longer on the network and normal activity resumes. The owner has the option of turning off the wireless ap to regain all speed immediately. try doing that with a nickle or a car.

There is no comparison.

At my parents house there are 6 computers on the network, about half of them are in use on the internet at any given time. there is no noticable deficit from normal use. now if someone starts pulling something at 600KBps for an hour, that is rather noticable as everything else goes to phone modem speeds.


HOWEVER: if a person is breaking the law, than the router keeps track of activity dates and mac addresses, and the isp can find out where else the mac connected, what kind of mac, etc. if the person is spoofing thier mac you wont catch them by mac. if it is a disposable, one time 10$ wifi card you wont catch them by mac. in this case further research and tracking is needed. you know, like for a murder. paedophile. trafficing. not checking email. there are laws and there are laws. if wifi use is a crime there need to be laws and laws created to rule over it. and there needs to be an understanding amongst the people. how about the people who want to share access with all move to the west coast, and the people who want to put strict laws against accessing open networks move to the east coast. and then outlaw large antennas and satalites to prevent the florida incident from happening again. . .


i knew this was going to turn into a looong thread.

Umm...yes, there is a comparison. And at least in Florida, there is a law against it, so um...yes, illegal WiFi use is a crime (kinda the point of the law, it makes it a crime.)

So you 'borrow' my car while I'm at work, I accidental dropped my keys and didn't hear it, you find the keys, take my car, use it all day, return it filled up with gas. I'm out nothing, so according to your logic, no crime has been committed. I didn't miss out on anything, it didn't cost me any money, so I should be feel fine about that? Com'on...you can sugarcoat it with as many IF's as you want, its an illegal intrusion into someone's home via the air. You're using their infrastructure, the bandwidth they bought &amp; paid for. Its still illegal, a law was written for it, thus its illegal.

When did parents quit raising kids with morals? Take whats not yours, if the dummy didn't padlock it to a 500lbs safe, too bad, its mine for the taking? geez.

His arrest in no way proves that a crime has been committed, last time I checked while the Patriot Act has done some damage to our civil liberties, we are not quite in banana republic yet. The laws are outdated and are not applicable to the crime. There are plenty of laws on the books that can’t and don’t hold up in court or on appeals. I am not condoning infidelity, but it would be silly to arrest someone for it, although possible under several states laws. It becomes a very slippery slope. Cab the police bust into my living room because my laptop strayed onto an unsecured network. Can I get stopped walking through me neighborhood because I have a PPC with wifi on me?

[Donsell]

Sounds like something that would be said by Timothy McVeigh about the people who died in the OKC bombing.

Should we all live in fear of what other MIGHT do if we don't hunker down with our shotguns?

There is no comparison between McVeigh's victiums and those running unsecured wifi networks.

Yes, in todays world you do have to be responsible and take resonable steps to protect yourself.

[foebea]

Umm...yes, there is a comparison. And at least in Florida, there is a law against it, so um...yes, illegal WiFi use is a crime (kinda the point of the law, it makes it a crime.)

So you 'borrow' my car while I'm at work, I accidental dropped my keys and didn't hear it, you find the keys, take my car, use it all day, return it filled up with gas. I'm out nothing, so according to your logic, no crime has been committed. I didn't miss out on anything, it didn't cost me any money, so I should be feel fine about that? Com'on...you can sugarcoat it with as many IF's as you want, its an illegal intrusion into someone's home via the air. You're using their infrastructure, the bandwidth they bought &amp; paid for. Its still illegal, a law was written for it, thus its illegal.

When did parents quit raising kids with morals? Take whats not yours, if the dummy didn't padlock it to a 500lbs safe, too bad, its mine for the taking? geez.

Crap crap crap. Thats why i try not to take part in these, but i do get so sucked into it. Misunderstandings are easy to come by.

I did not say wifi theft was not crime. I said wifi theft does not equate to car theft. one deprives the owner of property, the other deprives the owner of nothing in most situations, time in other situations.

I have morals. Everyone has morals. However not everyone has your morals. My morals tell me that if a person is generating an electronic drawbridge connecting thier AP with the public areas outside of thier location, then it is there to be crossed. if they do not want people in, they should pull up the drawbridge so people will not enter.

As far as quietly dropping your keys in the grass, that does not cut it. Wifi APs broadcast the ssid of the connection. so no dropping keys. you would have to toss your keys high into the air, connected to a big red balloon and shout at the top of your lungs "It's the purple beamer in the east parking lot, license plate is driveme. I think that would be fun to see once at any rate. I may do that after work.

I will try to quell at least my part of this tide by staying out for now. If anyone addresses me I will respond, but I have to stop feeding this.

Yarr, this do be an evil thread, ta kind that tears Men's souls. :devilboy:

[dorelse]

His arrest in no way proves that a crime has been committed, last time I checked while the Patriot Act has done some damage to our civil liberties, we are not quite in banana republic yet. The laws are outdated and are not applicable to the crime. There are plenty of laws on the books that can’t and don’t hold up in court or on appeals. I am not condoning infidelity, but it would be silly to arrest someone for it, although possible under several states laws. It becomes a very slippery slope. Cab the police bust into my living room because my laptop strayed onto an unsecured network. Can I get stopped walking through me neighborhood because I have a PPC with wifi on me?

Well, the Florida law makes it a Felony offense to "Access a computer or network knowingly, willfully, and without authorization. " (from the PCWorld article)

Sounds like a pretty up to date law to me...and since he owned up to doing it (if the PCWorld article is accurate)...I'd say he's got a Felony conviction coming his way shortly.

[PDANEWBIE]

There is no comparison between McVeigh's victiums and those running unsecured wifi networks.

As far as comparrison in action no there is not (stealing Wi-Fi is not even in the realm of a bombing) as far as comparison in the thoughts that people have in "securing their lives" yes I believe there is.

The problem is that people (like CoreyJF seems to want to defend so I am asuming he is in the relm of I'll use it any time I want to people, and also like my prior comarrison of the OKC bomber) are out there who seem to think they can argue morals to try and suit what makes them be able to sleep at night.

If I took a car is that a theft? If I "borrowed" it and then returned it before the owner knew is that still a theft? If I sprayed graffitti on the wall but wasn't caught was that vandalism or not?

People talk about civil rights, talk about laws being broken but basically it downs to morality more than law. The simple fact is if someone has not said "Sure use my Wireless signal" then you shouldn't use it for your own purposes.

You can argue I am being harsh but I really am just speaking about the fact that peoples actions these days are purely self indulgent and not caring about the impact upon others and their services.

I have an Idea someone get a group together to make 1 big free SSID Wireless network named IMFREE then anyone who has setup their home wireless network to have that you know you can use it... until then you are a theif of bandwidth in my eyes.

[jickbahtech]

ok, I've never really weighed in on this discussion before, but I just thought I'd throw down my .02.

Throughout this and other threads, there always seems to be a general consensus that using someones bandwith without permission is wrong in the strictest of legal senses. Personally I chalk it up to a largely unenforcable law. There will be a few people here and there that get busted, but mostly this will go unchecked until people become more savvy. This doesn't mean I run out and use people's stuff. I kinda like to take a more "community" point of view on the whole thing.

If someone has a hose unrolled to the edge of their property and water is pouring out into the street (water they are paying for), and you drive by, and you're kinda thirsty but you could wait until you get home do you take a sip? Do you drive away? Or do you do the neighborly thing and TURN THE WATER OFF.

I used wifi as an excuse to meet my neighbors, and save for the occasional door slammed in my face, I've met quite a few really interesting people. At my last apartment I was even being refered out as a "security expert", and was making a little cash to boot.

Sorry to add to the "silly analogies" posts, but this isn't a car, or nickles, or even water like in my comparison, it's a new beast entirely, and should be treated as such. We come to forums to talk and get help. Why not apply that same mentality to unsecured wifi?

[dorelse]

Umm...yes, there is a comparison. And at least in Florida, there is a law against it, so um...yes, illegal WiFi use is a crime (kinda the point of the law, it makes it a crime.)

So you 'borrow' my car while I'm at work, I accidental dropped my keys and didn't hear it, you find the keys, take my car, use it all day, return it filled up with gas. I'm out nothing, so according to your logic, no crime has been committed. I didn't miss out on anything, it didn't cost me any money, so I should be feel fine about that? Com'on...you can sugarcoat it with as many IF's as you want, its an illegal intrusion into someone's home via the air. You're using their infrastructure, the bandwidth they bought &amp; paid for. Its still illegal, a law was written for it, thus its illegal.

When did parents quit raising kids with morals? Take whats not yours, if the dummy didn't padlock it to a 500lbs safe, too bad, its mine for the taking? geez.

Crap crap crap. Thats why i try not to take part in these, but i do get so sucked into it. Misunderstandings are easy to come by.

I did not say wifi theft was not crime. I said wifi theft does not equate to car theft. one deprives the owner of property, the other deprives the owner of nothing in most situations, time in other situations.

I have morals. Everyone has morals. However not everyone has your morals. My morals tell me that if a person is generating an electronic drawbridge connecting thier AP with the public areas outside of thier location, then it is there to be crossed. if they do not want people in, they should pull up the drawbridge so people will not enter.

As far as quietly dropping your keys in the grass, that does not cut it. Wifi APs broadcast the ssid of the connection. so no dropping keys. you would have to toss your keys high into the air, connected to a big red balloon and shout at the top of your lungs "It's the purple beamer in the east parking lot, license plate is driveme. I think that would be fun to see once at any rate. I may do that after work.

I will try to quell at least my part of this tide by staying out for now. If anyone addresses me I will respond, but I have to stop feeding this.

Yarr, this do be an evil thread, ta kind that tears Men's souls. :devilboy:

Well, I'll give you this...your morals are definitely not my morals.

Just be careful with your morals in Florida, you might share a cell with the guy in the article. You can't use that 'electronic drawbridge' as you call it in FL as its against the law, its unauthorized access, regardless of the network security.

0X

[Rudism]

[Comparing an open WAP to an exploitable "security flaw" in some software or a private network makes as little sense as comparing it to tangible property theft. It makes it seem like you would have to go out of your way or be sneaky in order to gain access....

You don't consider folks who 'wardrive', or this guy who was arrested, as being sneaky? They're driving around in their cars, parking outside of residential homes surfing the internet, and trying not to get caught...um...yeah, that's sneaky.

That doesn't make any sense. By the same logic you could say that the act of shopping in a drug store is sneaky because there are people who go there with the intent to shoplift stuff. The act of wardriving itself, or the simple act of turning on your PPC's wifi to see if there are any open networks nearby is not sneaky... It's what the wardrivers plan to do once they find an open network that may or may not be sneaky.

You've got a couple big assumptions in there... a) they wanted to broadcast an open network, of which you have no fact.

Nobody is forcing them to broadcast the open network. If they didn't want to they'd disable it. If they are not tech saavy enough to understand the concept of open wifi networks in the first place, then they shouldn't be messing with it. We all make mistakes that we pay for... It doesn't put the blame any less on us.

b) your assuming that because the network is open, that that grants you permission to use it, which it doesn't

That's the whole point that's being debated here. You say it doesn't, I say it does.

c) That somehow the nature of theft is different whether is physical or digital, which it isn't. The laws are slowly catching up.

Your ultimate arguement boils down to they get what they deserve b/c they didn't protect themselves...pretty sure the law is on their side, not yours.

My point is that the nature of theft is the same, and that by interpreting the act of using an open wifi network using current and accepted definitions of "theft", that you will come to the conclusion that it is not theft at all. To define it as stealing would be what changes the nature of theft in the digital world.

i.e., if the nature of theft is the same in the physical and digital, why would the laws need to "catch up" at all?

[CoreyJF]

His arrest in no way proves that a crime has been committed, last time I checked while the Patriot Act has done some damage to our civil liberties, we are not quite in banana republic yet. The laws are outdated and are not applicable to the crime. There are plenty of laws on the books that can’t and don’t hold up in court or on appeals. I am not condoning infidelity, but it would be silly to arrest someone for it, although possible under several states laws. It becomes a very slippery slope. Cab the police bust into my living room because my laptop strayed onto an unsecured network. Can I get stopped walking through me neighborhood because I have a PPC with wifi on me?

Well, the Florida law makes it a Felony offense to "Access a computer or network knowingly, willfully, and without authorization. " (from the PCWorld article)

Sounds like a pretty up to date law to me...and since he owned up to doing it (if the PCWorld article is accurate)...I'd say he's got a Felony conviction coming his way shortly.

As I said, you are still innocent until Proven Guilty. Nothing has been proven and it is a test case. My point, and I am sure his attorney’s will be as well, will be that he had implicit authorization by the fact that the router was broadcasting an open unsecured signal into a public area. They will have better luck convicting him on stalking laws. Whether the Florida lower court has the common sense to recognize the implication of a wireless network, or if this will have to be sorted out at a higher court remains to be seen. I would be shocked if the get a conviction and astounded if it were not thrown out on appeals.

[dorelse]

His arrest in no way proves that a crime has been committed, last time I checked while the Patriot Act has done some damage to our civil liberties, we are not quite in banana republic yet. The laws are outdated and are not applicable to the crime. There are plenty of laws on the books that can’t and don’t hold up in court or on appeals. I am not condoning infidelity, but it would be silly to arrest someone for it, although possible under several states laws. It becomes a very slippery slope. Cab the police bust into my living room because my laptop strayed onto an unsecured network. Can I get stopped walking through me neighborhood because I have a PPC with wifi on me?

Well, the Florida law makes it a Felony offense to "Access a computer or network knowingly, willfully, and without authorization. " (from the PCWorld article)

Sounds like a pretty up to date law to me...and since he owned up to doing it (if the PCWorld article is accurate)...I'd say he's got a Felony conviction coming his way shortly.

As I said, you are still innocent until Proven Guilty. Nothing has been proven and it is a test case. My point, and I am sure his attorney’s will be as well, will be that he had implicit authorization by the fact that the router was broadcasting an open unsecured signal into a public area. They will have better luck convicting him on stalking laws. Whether the Florida lower court has the common sense to recognize the implication of a wireless network, or if this will have to be sorted out at a higher court remains to be seen. I would be shocked if the get a conviction and astounded if it were not thrown out on appeals.

Ok, well definitely innocent until proven guilty...no question. And your right its a test case for the FL courts...it will be interesting to see where they land, if unsecured = public &amp; open, or if unsecured means private unless otherwise advertised. Its going to be interesting to be sure.

[bjornkeizers]

To me what would be even more intresting would be a sub-poll. Of those that feel it is/isn't ok to use someone else's Wifi connection without permission, what is the age breakdown.

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that those that feel it is "ok" are going to be the "younger" crowd and those that feel it isn't ok are going to be older. The reason for this is the lack of integrity and morality in our youth.

I *deeply* resent that last comment. I would like for one of our fine mods to strike that comment from his post and give him an official slap on the wrist. This is an outrageous generalization, and you deeply offended me and other younger readers with it.

[Jonathan1]

Well, the Florida law makes it a Felony offense to "Access a computer or network knowingly, willfully, and without authorization. " (from the PCWorld article)


And please do enlighten us how one tells the difference between "without authorization" and "with authorization" when to a laptop there is no difference. I can from where I'm sitting access the WIFI network provided by Caribou Coffee. Right now. How do I know that that network is free to use other then looking around for a sign which isn't guaranteed that I'm going to find one. It’s a bloody omni-directional signal after all. There needs to be a way of knowing what is off limits and what isn’t and that way is pretty dang simple. Secure your network.

[Jonathan1]

To me what would be even more intresting would be a sub-poll. Of those that feel it is/isn't ok to use someone else's Wifi connection without permission, what is the age breakdown.

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that those that feel it is "ok" are going to be the "younger" crowd and those that feel it isn't ok are going to be older. The reason for this is the lack of integrity and morality in our youth.

I *deeply* resent that last comment. I would like for one of our fine mods to strike that comment from his post and give him an official slap on the wrist. This is an outrageous generalization, and you deeply offended me and other younger readers with it.


What didn't you know? Commandment 10a. Thou shalt not use unsecured bandwidth.

I love the fact that people automatically KNOW what is right and wrong. Never mind the fact that it’s such an insanely gray area that even people like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates would be scratching their heads. But along comes the know-it-alls who have it solved in all of 10 seconds. Its enough to make me want to gnaw of my freaking arm in frustration. Clue to the people who think they have it all solved. Life isn’t black and white. The laws of man aren’t impeccably perfect, and you like everyone else are searching in the dark for a clue that isn’t going to be found in 10 seconds.

[Sven Johannsen]

Any of you have a water spigot in the front of your house? Is it locked? Do you turn the water off inside when you aren't using it? No? Well then, I guess you intend for anyone to use your water.

I think it just comes down to using (or taking) something that doesn't belong to you, without permission. Doesn't matter to me if using it won't make a difference, or if it isn't secured, tangible or intangible. Just doesn't seem right.

Apparently the guy in Florida thought it was wrong too. If you quit doing what you are doing lest someone see you...you probably have a gut feeling you shouldn't be doing it. I used to tell my children that when they closed and locked their bedroom doors. (Closed fine. We never went in without knocking and being invited. It was the locked that clued Mom &amp; Dad in on that they knew they shouldn't be doing whatever it was they were doing ;) )

For those that think it's OK to use (or take) something that doesn't belong to you, without permission, that's a shame. Can't imagine we are going to change your minds here though. That's why we have to have laws. Too many of them in my view, but that's what happens when you can't get folks to do what's right, just because it is.

Oh, and for how to tell if it's free or not. In the absence of a sign the says FREE [Fill in the Blank], ask. I've never seen an establishment with free WiFi that didn't have it prominently posted.

[jlp]

I ain't gonna read 8 new pages of posts again on the same subject.

All I see is that almost 4 of 5 people think it's okey to share someone's open wifi/internect connection so surely the Florida law is crashing against most people's ethics.

The problem is how do you tell Florida lawmakers it's against the will/ethics/conscience of the plain majority?

Once upon a time many people shared their table with hungry passersby, later many people shared their phone with neighbors, and later their TV, now their wifi/internect connection.

[OSUKid7]

To me what would be even more intresting would be a sub-poll. Of those that feel it is/isn't ok to use someone else's Wifi connection without permission, what is the age breakdown.

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that those that feel it is "ok" are going to be the "younger" crowd and those that feel it isn't ok are going to be older. The reason for this is the lack of integrity and morality in our youth.

I *deeply* resent that last comment. I would like for one of our fine mods to strike that comment from his post and give him an official slap on the wrist. This is an outrageous generalization, and you deeply offended me and other younger readers with it.
See, I'm a younger reader and didn't find that offensive at all -- because it doesn't describe me, but does describe many of my peers. It's unfortunate, but at the Tech conference I was at last week, the found of Napster asked a question. He didn't phrase it in the way I would have, but he asked "How many of you use P2P file sharing programs?" Nearly everyone raised their hands, including me. However, I do not pirate anything, but I still use programs like BitTorrent to download legal files faster. Most of my peers raised their hands because they pirate software and music though. Now that gets into a different debate, but the same is probably true with those in my age group and those who see no problem with using other people's insecure WiFi APs. There were a number of unsecure APs near the hotel, in addition to the hotel's unsecured network. Of course people used these neighboring connections, and very few saw anything wrong with it. So yes, I agree with VanHlebar's comment in general, but it doesn't describe me.

[jickbahtech]

Totally agree Sven.
I've been using the water hose argument for a while (on the previous page of this thread in fact).
I personally don't like the idea of government coming in to tell me whats right and wrong. They so often fail to fully appreciate the complexity of the tech terror we live in today. That being said I also don't think this should be a free for all between those with tech skills and those without.

[jlp]

Most passersby will be diligent and only make a light use of a free* connection. Inevitably some may abuse it.

Example at a marriage the majority are gladly invited, inevitably you'll find a few scroungers.


*=remember in English free has at least 2-3 meanings, where other languages have separate terms: free as in available/accessible and free as in costless.

[T-Will]

The only reason I leave mine open is because my roomates can't connect when WEP is enabled. I don't mind if anyone else uses it, if I notice a sudden drop in bandwidth I'll just check my router log and block the MAC of the person.

[OSUKid7]

The only reason I leave mine open is because my roomates can't connect when WEP is enabled. I don't mind if anyone else uses it, if I notice a sudden drop in bandwidth I'll just check my router log and block the MAC of the person.
Just remember that's a huge risk that anyone could get on your network and sniff your passwords.

[CoreyJF]

Any of you have a water spigot in the front of your house? Is it locked? Do you turn the water off inside when you aren't using it? No? Well then, I guess you intend for anyone to use your water.

I think it just comes down to using (or taking) something that doesn't belong to you, without permission. Doesn't matter to me if using it won't make a difference, or if it isn't secured, tangible or intangible. Just doesn't seem right.

Apparently the guy in Florida thought it was wrong too. If you quit doing what you are doing lest someone see you...you probably have a gut feeling you shouldn't be doing it. I used to tell my children that when they closed and locked their bedroom doors. (Closed fine. We never went in without knocking and being invited. It was the locked that clued Mom &amp; Dad in on that they knew they shouldn't be doing whatever it was they were doing ;) )

For those that think it's OK to use (or take) something that doesn't belong to you, without permission, that's a shame. Can't imagine we are going to change your minds here though. That's why we have to have laws. Too many of them in my view, but that's what happens when you can't get folks to do what's right, just because it is.

Oh, and for how to tell if it's free or not. In the absence of a sign the says FREE [Fill in the Blank], ask. I've never seen an establishment with free WiFi that didn't have it prominently posted.

The water spigot Idea is not comparable, it requires criminal trespassing.

I personally see no ethical issue with taking something being freely given.

Maybe he was just nervous about being questioned by the police

There is no reason to fee shame if you believe you are doing nothing unethical.

Not everyone posts a sign, Some people what to be courteous and allow passerby’s the check their email, but are not looking to be an ISP

If you don’t want people on your network, secure it.

[bdoherty]

The fact that it is unsecured is irrelevant. It's not much different than walking up to someones open car window and stealing something. "Hey! It was unsecured, so they must want other to take stuff out! They're just being friendly and giving their stuff away."

It's not the same as different to walking up to someones open car window and stealling something. Your analogy applies to someone with insecure network unprotected by a firewall, because you connected through something they left open. You initiated the connection.

You must remember that with Wifi, it was the Wireless Access Point which asked your device to connect to it, not the other way around.

To make your car scenario apply to wifi, you would have you car window open, and the car stereo on maximum volume playing in a repeating loop "FREE STUFF, FREE STUFF, COME AND TAKE IT!!!".

I have a flat rate internet connection, and so I deliberately run my Wireless Access Point in open mode. I protect my private network by running a firewall between it and my Wireless Access Point.

[fgarcia10]

Last weekend I was off already at a friend’s apartment when I received a page from my company's costumer service desk and I had to check something online before I could give them an answer, the only thing I had was my pocket pc and my smartphone. The smartphone did not have network coverage and end up using an open network from somebody in the building. I guess am guilty of using something I did not paid for, but how much damage did I produce? How much bandwidth was I really using? Maybe that person doesn’t mind sharing? Like some people here. I was glad I could it though, maybe I'm what it is wrong with society, but when you are in a tight spot you use what you have.

Just my two cents...

[Paragon]

After yesterday's thread, my poor fingers didn't have the eneregy to do an encore today.

I'm still very surprised at the number of people who honestly believe that just because something is wireless, it is free. Very mind boggling.

Dave

[jickbahtech]

More like if it's not nailed down it's free...

[Paragon]

More like if it's not nailed down it's free...

Oh, sorry, I'll reword that:

I'm still very surprised at the number of people who honestly believe that just because something is wireless, and perhaps left open because the individual has no idea how to properly configure it, it is free. Very mind boggling.

[jickbahtech]

ok thats fair :wink:

[Paragon]

Thanks, :)

[Typhoon]

It's just wrong period. If it is not yours then IT IS NOT YOURS. If you want DSL or WI-FI, wait till you get home, get a job so you can afford it. ...or you can just simply ask the owner. Though DSL is $30-40 a month, getting a job to pay for it should be trivial. If you ask your parents, they will say the same thing (though it may be different now a days). Sorry, I think that is just the right way to do it.

I guess I kind of don't mind having a federal/state law that allows a small use (10 KBps)just in case of emergencies, but how can a law like this be regulated? It would get out of control (like TV)...some people say the responsibility is left up to the owner, which would be the parents, but look at TV now...it is much worse than it was when it started out. It would be the same for Wi-Fi.

[Jeff Rutledge]

I am surprised to see the prevailing vote (at this time) supports the attitude "If it's open, the owner must mean for me to use it free."

I could buy that if there were steps required to open the connection up, but that's how it ships. It's open by default. Therefore any tech-challenged users are likely providing free internet without knowing it. While I agree that the onus is on them to ensure they understand what they're installing, it's a pretty leap from there to "it's their own fault I'm using their connection" or "they must mean for me to use it if I need to."

Also, I'm not saying it's the responsibility of the manufacturers to secure these things, but I don't think it's a bad idea either. If they did ship secured, then you could reasonably assume that an open WAP is meant to be freely used. Otherwise the logic is flawed (conveniently so).

[netboy]

just for the records, i DID NOT read all the posts/messages. it just way too long and take too much time (9 pages already).
comparing WIFI to unlocked car or unlocked house is rediculus! if my car is unlocked, and some1 steal my pda or laptop, i lost the pda/laptop, meaning i dont have that items no more. same as unlocked house, if some1 steal it, u dont have it nomore! but if some1 is using your wifi. WHAT DID U LOSE?? cable internet is 5MB download, and DSL is about 1.5MEG download, most people only using like 5 or 10% of the bandwith at any given time. SO IF YOUR FRIENDS OR NEIGHBORS COME TO YOUR HOUSE.. ARE THEY STEALING YOUR AIR?, THE AIR THAT WE BREATH?? AND IF SOME1 COME TO YOUR HOUSE, AND THEY USING A SOLOR CALCULATOR OR SOLOR POWER TOOL.. ARE THEY STEALING YOUR SUNLIGHTS?? WIFI, AIR, AND SUNLIGHTS ARE THE SAME! THEY HAVE UNLIMITED SUPPLIES! AND U DONT LOSE ANYTHING! maybe i should call up the police when some1 come over to my house and say they stealing the air i breath!

[OSUKid7]

just for the records, i DID NOT read all the posts/messages. it just way too long and take too much time (9 pages already).
comparing WIFI to unlocked car or unlocked house is rediculus! if my car is unlocked, and some1 steal my pda or laptop, i lost the pda/laptop, meaning i dont have that items no more. same as unlocked house, if some1 steal it, u dont have it nomore! but if some1 is using your wifi. WHAT DID U LOSE?? cable internet is 5MB download, and DSL is about 1.5MEG download, most people only using like 5 or 10% of the bandwith at any given time. SO IF YOUR FRIENDS OR NEIGHBORS COME TO YOUR HOUSE.. ARE THEY STEALING YOUR AIR?, THE AIR THAT WE BREATH?? AND IF SOME1 COME TO YOUR HOUSE, AND THEY USING A SOLOR CALCULATOR OR SOLOR POWER TOOL.. ARE THEY STEALING YOUR SUNLIGHTS?? WIFI, AIR, AND SUNLIGHTS ARE THE SAME! THEY HAVE UNLIMITED SUPPLIES! AND U DONT LOSE ANYTHING! maybe i should call up the police when some1 come over to my house and say they stealing the air i breath!
First, I think you need to calm down. That post was both amusing and disturbing at the same time. :lol: This thread is as close to political debates as PPCT gets, and I think we should all agree to disagree.

You don't pay for air/sunlight, you do pay for Internet service. Reread your Internet contract - chances are, you agree to not share it with others.

[Typhoon]

just for the records, i DID NOT read all the posts/messages. it just way too long and take too much time (9 pages already).
comparing WIFI to unlocked car or unlocked house is rediculus! if my car is unlocked, and some1 steal my pda or laptop, i lost the pda/laptop, meaning i dont have that items no more. same as unlocked house, if some1 steal it, u dont have it nomore! but if some1 is using your wifi. WHAT DID U LOSE?? cable internet is 5MB download, and DSL is about 1.5MEG download, most people only using like 5 or 10% of the bandwith at any given time. SO IF YOUR FRIENDS OR NEIGHBORS COME TO YOUR HOUSE.. ARE THEY STEALING YOUR AIR?, THE AIR THAT WE BREATH?? AND IF SOME1 COME TO YOUR HOUSE, AND THEY USING A SOLOR CALCULATOR OR SOLOR POWER TOOL.. ARE THEY STEALING YOUR SUNLIGHTS?? WIFI, AIR, AND SUNLIGHTS ARE THE SAME! THEY HAVE UNLIMITED SUPPLIES! AND U DONT LOSE ANYTHING! maybe i should call up the police when some1 come over to my house and say they stealing the air i breath!

1) DSL has to be paid for in order to use, right? I pay for mine, but if I use my neighbors wi-fi w/out a authorization, I am using DSL w/out pay for it or getting authorization. It is stealing. You steal the bandwith (which IS subtractable). You might also be able to say that you steal the RIGHTS, the rights only obtainable through buying or authorizing.

2) Nobody owns air (that I know of). I don't think there is ownage on "air"...but we do have air space don't we? There are many laws on air space. Most people are not that deluded, greedy, or stingy to say: "Hey I can't let you come over...you will be invading the air space at my house!".

3) If a friend comes over to my house, it is automatically assumed that he can use whatever resources at my house if he needs to because it is the concept of "friends" that allows this...not a complicated concept. But sure, if it is assumed that you have to ask me if you can use my solar calculator (because you might know that I require everyone to ask me to use something of mine), then you would have to ask. Yes, if you use the solar calculator, then you WILL be using up the energy of the solar calculator (which is converted from solar light).

But wi-fi is not like sunlight. Nobody ever had to pay for sunlight. Nor had to pay to have the sun 'there'. I wish I could just have to call up Verizon and say "Hey! Hook me up!" w/out having to pay a cent!

So do you still think that it is not stealing?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But definitely... there needs to be laws to prohibit this problem because I heard that Wi-Fi stealing is used a lot for making death threats, distribution of illegal contents, esp. internet frauds, and hijacking of any account out there on there internet.

[netboy]

You don't pay for air/sunlight, you do pay for Internet service. Reread your Internet contract - chances are, you agree to not share it with others.


yes, i do pay for internet service. but it' not like i will be paying more if some1 is using my wifi. example, i have this cheap coworker, every morning he comes over to me and ask me to check the stocks quotes for him on my cellphone. after awhile, it' getting annoying/irrarating, so sometime i try to hide from him, or saying my cellphone is out of battery.
y should i pay for cellphone data to check my stocks quotes, when he just come over to check stocks quotes for free. so should i call the cop and arrest him? cus he using my cellphone data to check stocks quotes?
I DONT LIKE HIM COMES OVER TO ME TO CHECK STOCKS QUOTES FOR HIM, SO I TRY TO HIDE OR MAKE EXCUESS! just like wifi! IF U DONT LIKE SOME1 ELSE USING YOUR WIFI, **SECURE** IT instead of LEAVING IT **OPEN**
it' always funny to me that everybody try to blame it on others instead of themself..

[gibson042]

To me, using other's wifi is more akin to trespassing than stealing. But that's just a thought.
This is a very insightful comment, and it's a shame that others have not taken note of it. I would argue that having security enabled on your network is analogous to having a fence around your property, and that broadcasting your SSID is analogous to having public access to it (e.g., a paved access drive).

So having encryption enabled and/or broadcasting disabled should identify a network as being reserved for private use, but otherwise it should be open for reasonable public use (though still privately owned... like a parking lot). In my opinion, a person should have no more problem with light use of their network than with someone turning around in their driveway. But the resource remains privately owned and its use a privilege generously extended by the owner; any abuse of it can and should result in loss of the privilege. The incident which started this discussion seems to be a perfect example of an appropriate time to revoke access.

As for the special circumstances of public ignorance about 802.11: one must be circumspect with respect to unsecured access points with the default SSID being brodcast, as the owner may or may not want to share access. Best to err on the side of caution. And looking to the future, manufacturers should probably ship their units with SSID broadcasting off by default.

[Paragon]

it' always funny to me that everybody try to blame it on others instead of themself..

That's because not everyone is as smart as you, and knows how to configure their network, or that they even need to. You could be a great help to these people, and go to their door, inform them that their network is open, and if they would like you will gladly take a few minutes of your time to show them how to do it properly, right? ;)

Dave

[Typhoon]

You don't pay for air/sunlight, you do pay for Internet service. Reread your Internet contract - chances are, you agree to not share it with others.


yes, i do pay for internet service. but it' not like i will be paying more if some1 is using my wifi. example, i have this cheap coworker, every morning he comes over to me and ask me to check the stocks quotes for him on my cellphone. after awhile, it' getting annoying/irrarating, so sometime i try to hide from him, or saying my cellphone is out of battery.
y should i pay for cellphone data to check my stocks quotes, when he just come over to check stocks quotes for free. so should i call the cop and arrest him? cus he using my cellphone data to check stocks quotes?
I DONT LIKE HIM COMES OVER TO ME TO CHECK STOCKS QUOTES FOR HIM, SO I TRY TO HIDE OR MAKE EXCUESS! just like wifi! IF U DONT LIKE SOME1 ELSE USING YOUR WIFI, **SECURE** IT instead of LEAVING IT **OPEN**
it' always funny to me that everybody try to blame it on others instead of themself..

I think it is both trespassing and stealing. The judge seems to think so...that is probably why the guy was arrested.

You are trespassing for using his wi-fi router when you don't have 'permission' to and you are stealing when you are 'taking' bandwith from him. Bandwith is subtractable and is not an unlimited resource like you think. I wish it was unlimited, then I would be download in MBps instead of Mbps.

[netboy]

WHY DO PEOPLE ALWAYS TRY TO BLAME OTHERS INSTEAD OF THEMSELF??
I pay for car insurance, and gas. and if my coworkers want to carpool with me so he/she can save on gas and car insurance. and IF U DONT LIKE IT! U DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! AND NOT LET HIM/HER RIDE WITH U! INSTEAD OF BLAMING ON HIM/HER! just like wifi, IF U DONT LIKE SOME1 USING YOUR WIFI! U DO SOMETHNG ABOUT IT AND MAKE YOUR WIFI **SECURE** (instead of OPEN). AND NOT JUST TRY TO BLAME IT ON OTHERS!

[OSUKid7]

yes, i do pay for internet service. but it' not like i will be paying more if some1 is using my wifi. example, i have this cheap coworker, every morning he comes over to me and ask me to check the stocks quotes for him on my cellphone. after awhile, it' getting annoying/irrarating, so sometime i try to hide from him, or saying my cellphone is out of battery.
y should i pay for cellphone data to check my stocks quotes, when he just come over to check stocks quotes for free. so should i call the cop and arrest him? cus he using my cellphone data to check stocks quotes?
I DONT LIKE HIM COMES OVER TO ME TO CHECK STOCKS QUOTES FOR HIM, SO I TRY TO HIDE OR MAKE EXCUESS! just like wifi! IF U DONT LIKE SOME1 ELSE USING YOUR WIFI, **SECURE** IT instead of LEAVING IT **OPEN**
it' always funny to me that everybody try to blame it on others instead of themself..
No, I don't think anyone thinks you shouldn't secure your network to keep others out, but that doesn't justify stealing.

If you left your keys in your car with the doors unlocked, is it ok for someone to drive it around the block a few times and return it? After all, they didn't take much, and you're not being charged for it. Oh, but gas, well, yes you'll have to pay to fill up the gas that they took, just like many ISPs charge for bandwidth usage. Oh, and what if that person had an accident in your car, then he would be liable, not you. Well with WiFi/Internet usage, if a crime is committed on your connection, who do you think they'll look at first? You of course. And what if you left some personal data in your car, the "criminal" could get that information and steal your identity. The same could happen on your unencrypted network.

In the end, it's all about risk, for both parties involved. If you think what you're doing is illegal, immoral, etc., don't do it. Secure your network the best you can and don't get on other people's networks. If you think what you're doing is fine, moreal, etc., go for it, and be prepared to have your passwords sniffed and/or arrested for your crime.

[netboy]

I think it is both trespassing and stealing. The judge seems to think so...that is probably why the guy was arrested.




just cus u arrested, it doesnt mean u guilty! u INNONCENT until PROVEN guilty in the court of law..

[Paragon]

WHY DO PEOPLE ALWAYS TRY TO BLAME OTHERS INSTEAD OF THEMSELF??
I pay for car insurance, and gas. and if my coworkers want to carpool with me so he/she can save on gas and car insurance. and IF U DONT LIKE IT! U DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! AND NOT LET HIM/HER RIDE WITH U! INSTEAD OF BLAMING ON HIM/HER! just like wifi, IF U DONT LIKE SOME1 USING YOUR WIFI! U DO SOMETHNG ABOUT IT AND MAKE YOUR WIFI **SECURE** (instead of OPEN). AND NOT JUST TRY TO BLAME IT ON OTHERS!

Judge, it's not my fault, he left his gun right there in front of me...AND IT WAS LOADED...what was I supposed to do? Not shoot him? He should have at least had the safety on! :roll: :D

[Typhoon]

WHY DO PEOPLE ALWAYS TRY TO BLAME OTHERS INSTEAD OF THEMSELF??
I pay for car insurance, and gas. and if my coworkers want to carpool with me so he/she can save on gas and car insurance. and IF U DONT LIKE IT! U DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! AND NOT LET HIM/HER RIDE WITH U! INSTEAD OF BLAMING ON HIM/HER! just like wifi, IF U DONT LIKE SOME1 USING YOUR WIFI! U DO SOMETHNG ABOUT IT AND MAKE YOUR WIFI **SECURE** (instead of OPEN). AND NOT JUST TRY TO BLAME IT ON OTHERS!

People are burden w/tasks, priorities, and problems everyday. There needs to be laws that become the ulitimate authority in issues like this.

So you don't think it is wrong? If you don't think so, do you think it is okay to steal? There seems to be a lot of error in your logic there. But the laws are supposed to be there for the Grandmas out there. Grandma is bed bound w/a terminal illness and you want to blame her because the twenty some year old next door, that knows how to do everything, is stealing her internet connection? Then it takes her 5 weeks to figure out what was really wrong w/her internet connection? Why do you want to put the blame and pressure on her? So far she has gone through heck and back w/the DSL company and attempts to get help from others and dealing w/headaches just so that the kid next door can get his jollies off the ton of porn he is downloading from her internet connection? Because he is afraid to ask his dad for DSL? There is something wrong w/that...

[netboy]

If you left your keys in your car with the doors unlocked, is it ok for someone to drive it around the block a few times and return it?


that is YOUR FAULT for leaving the key in the car unlocked. IS IT ALSO YOUR FAULT IF U LET YOUR 3 OR 6 YEARS OLD BOYS SLEEP OVER AT MICHAEL JACKSON HOUSE! HAHA*


*this is intended to be a joke, Michael Jackson, please dont sue me! hehe

[Paragon]

You're a funny guy netboy.....I hope you aren't parked in front of my house right now. ;)

[Typhoon]

I think it is both trespassing and stealing. The judge seems to think so...that is probably why the guy was arrested.




just cus u arrested, it doesnt mean u guilty! u INNONCENT until PROVEN guilty in the court of law..


It is ridiculous how some people use this qoute religously: "you're innocent until proven guilty". It becomes the ultimate authority above all their senses (and their brain). Especially when you provide them w/the most convincing evidence. You should lay off this qoute. Everytime I hear someone use this, I always hear them get slammed to. Kind of like the Michael Jackson trial...even w/the most convincing linking evidence to the crimes, Jacko got off. When you listened to the jurors, you hear them religously cite this qoute...

[Typhoon]

If you left your keys in your car with the doors unlocked, is it ok for someone to drive it around the block a few times and return it?


that is YOUR FAULT for leaving the key in the car unlocked. IS IT ALSO YOUR FAULT IF U LET YOUR 3 OR 6 YEARS OLD BOYS SLEEP OVER AT MICHAEL JACKSON HOUSE! HAHA*


*this is intended to be a joke, Michael Jackson, please dont sue me! hehe

Oh yea, it would definitely be my fault. It is also the STEALER's fault for STEALING the car. That is why there are laws against it. But there are not laws against leaving the keys in the car w/the doors unlocked. Why? Shez...I can not see a reason why!

[netboy]

So you don't think it is wrong? If you don't think so, do you think it is okay to steal? There seems to be a lot of error in your logic there. But the laws are supposed to be there for the Grandmas out there. Grandma is bed bound w/a terminal illness and you want to blame her because the twenty some year old next door, that knows how to do everything, is stealing her internet connection? Then it takes her 5 weeks to figure out what was really wrong w/her internet connection? Why do you want to put the blame and pressure on her? So far she has gone through heck and back w/the DSL company and attempts to get help from others and dealing w/headaches just so that the kid next door can get his jollies off the ton of porn he is downloading from her internet connection? Because he is afraid to ask his dad for DSL? There is something wrong w/that...


i just dont consider using some1 else wifi as "stealing". becuase u HAVE NOT LOSE ANYTHING! if some1 steal from your car or house, u LOSE that items with your hard-earned money.. this is not the case with wifi
and ...
1. most grandmas dont use computers
2. most grandmas dont know what is WIFI, and dont use one or have one
3. most grandmas just have internet access hooked to their computer with DSL/phone line or cable (internet)

[netboy]

But there are not laws against leaving the keys in the car w/the doors unlocked. Why? Shez...I can not see a reason why!


so is there a law against using some1 wifi with OPEN acess point??

[Typhoon]

But there are not laws against leaving the keys in the car w/the doors unlocked. Why? Shez...I can not see a reason why!


so is there a law against using some1 wifi with OPEN acess point??

Stealing is stealing and there are laws against that. Why is that so hard to understand?

[netboy]

Stealing is stealing and there are laws against that. Why is that so hard to understand?

it is so hard to understand because i "just dont consider" using some1 OPEN wifi as stealing..

[Typhoon]

So you don't think it is wrong? If you don't think so, do you think it is okay to steal? There seems to be a lot of error in your logic there. But the laws are supposed to be there for the Grandmas out there. Grandma is bed bound w/a terminal illness and you want to blame her because the twenty some year old next door, that knows how to do everything, is stealing her internet connection? Then it takes her 5 weeks to figure out what was really wrong w/her internet connection? Why do you want to put the blame and pressure on her? So far she has gone through heck and back w/the DSL company and attempts to get help from others and dealing w/headaches just so that the kid next door can get his jollies off the ton of porn he is downloading from her internet connection? Because he is afraid to ask his dad for DSL? There is something wrong w/that...


i just dont consider using some1 else wifi as "stealing". becuase u HAVE NOT LOSE ANYTHING! if some1 steal from your car or house, u LOSE that items with your hard-earned money.. this is not the case with wifi
and ...
1. most grandmas dont use computers
2. most grandmas dont know what is WIFI, and dont use one or have one
3. most grandmas just have internet access hooked to their computer with DSL/phone line or cable (internet)

Most? You are making a wild assumption. There are plenty old people out there using computers. But if she does get wi-fi installed because her kids hooked it up from her, why do you have to single out old people.

Your posts make you sound like an anarchist...are you?

[Paragon]

i just dont consider using some1 else wifi as "stealing". becuase u HAVE NOT LOSE ANYTHING!

YES I have, or will, when the cost of my internet access goes up because of it. Here is why that legal protection needs to be in place, and don't tell me it can't or won't happen otherwise....look at the costs we see because of file sharing if you need proof.

So, I leave my WiFi open to share with five neighbors who surround me. The guy on the next steet over does it, and the on the next street over and so on, and so on.....Do the math. How much more am I going to have to pay for internet access because all these other people are sharing their connections with so many others. :roll: :roll:

The argument can, and has been made, that I'm only logging for a short time to check email, what harm am I causing. Well nothing really, but the law has to be in place to cover the worst case senerios. It is a lot like speeding. On many highways it is against the law to do more than 60 MPH. If you are doing, say, 68 MPH, it is doubtful the police will bother you, but if you go too fast they will. Using other people's WiFi is much the same. No one is going to bother you too much if it is very light use, but if you sit in front of some guys house for an extended period of time then that is a different story. Apparently in Florida that is the case.

Dave

[Typhoon]

Stealing is stealing and there are laws against that. Why is that so hard to understand?

it is so hard to understand because i "just dont consider" using some1 OPEN wifi as stealing..

lol we all understand that and have read that you do. You have tried to argue other people as being wrong. Some of us can't understand why you think that way. It is mind boggling... but if that is all your point is and you can't understand the logic to people who don't support stealing, then "oh well".

[Typhoon]

i just dont consider using some1 else wifi as "stealing". becuase u HAVE NOT LOSE ANYTHING!

YES I have, or will, when the cost of my internet access goes up because of it. Here is why that legal protection needs to be in place, and don't tell me it can't or won't happen otherwise....look at the costs we see because of file sharing if you need proof.

So, I leave my WiFi open to share with five neighbors who surround me. The guy on the next steet over does it, and the on the next street over and so on, and so on.....Do the math. How much more am I going to have to pay for internet access because all these other people are sharing their connections with so many others. :roll: :roll:

lol That's a very good example. No more "unlimited" internet access... I can't imagine anything else to add to this thread...

[Paragon]

lol That's a very good example. No more "unlimited" internet access... I can't imagine anything else to add to this thread...

We are already seeing examples of that. I believe someone mentioned that Darius' ISP capped his use awhile back. I think for most of us, if we read our contracts with our ISP's we will see similar clauses that place limits on our "unlimited" use.

Dave

[brianchris]

Most people in America (I know this is an international board) have forgotten its not a right (protected by the US Constitution) to drive a motor vehicle, its a privilege. It seems to me that almost everyone here who thinks its NOT OK to use an open WiFi network seem to think there is an inherent RIGHT (protected by government, or at least Florida state law) to own and operate a wireless network WITHOUT anyone else ever using it......HOGWASH!!!

Just as no-one is forcing people not leave their networks unsecure, lets get even more fundamental: No one is FORCING them to make their network wireless in the first place, and there is no government protected RIGHT for you to run an unsecure wireless network without people using it.

Using a technology incorrectly is no one else's fault but the person whose using it incorrectly. Most of us agree if someone doesn't use a seatbelt in their car, its their fault if they get more severely injured in an accident. The driver of the car has FAR more control over clicking his seat belt (i.e. enabling encryption on WiFi) than controlling all the other drivers actions (i.e. other wireless clients) in the proximity around him, though legislation or any other means. Buckle your seat belt, and encrypt your wireless network, or DON"T complain. It unrealistic for the rest of the world's drivers to use the "honor system" and not crash into you because you never learned to buckle a seat belt. The law says: buckle your seat belt.

Analogies are wearing thin, but some of these haven't been mentioned yet, and I believe apply:
YOUR NEIGHBOOR -has his porch light on in evening, can you not do work in your yard by his light? (the electricity is costing him money)
-is playing music loudly which you can hear on your property, can you not listen or enjoy it? (He bought the CD's, MP3's, or cable/sat stream)
-has a tree on their property providing shade to your property.....should you not enjoy it? (he's paid for the water and fertilizer to make the tree grow).
-lighting fireworks in their backyard for the 4th of July, can you not look at them? (the fireworks cost him money).

It’s not the easiest thing to enable security on a wireless network, I agree, but that doesn't give you the RIGHT to set an open wireless network up and expect others not to use it.....sorry. There are other options, such as paying someone else to secure it for you, or not using a wireless network at all.

[Typhoon]

I'm not sure if you are expecting this as implied, but are you blaming just the WI-FI router owner and not the person stealing the internet connection?

If so, how about we let out all the criminals from prison? You better have some sort of security to protect yourself and your belongings from them or it is your fault for not getting security. You better have the best security in the world to protect yourself from all the professional theives. What about the child predators who want to come after your children while they play in the yard? Too late! Everyone else has already bought a fence from Home Depot because we just let out all the criminals! How about lumber so you can build a fence? Too late! Joe, next door, beat you to it! To a point, w/this logic, we will have armed ourselves against the most dangerous compulsive neurotic criminals out there...but then we would become paranoid as well. Let rotwielers run loose because school kids should carry a mase or gun to protect themselves. Too late! Joe's kids beat your kids to the mase. Or maybe you ran out of money to pay for security? Yes! It is your fault for not getting a good enough job. It is also your parents' fault for not providing you money for college. It is also your grandparents' fault for kicking out your father when he was 18 because they were paranoid. At some point we might actually need to design a Terminator or Robocop to fight crime...an unstoppable crime fighter!

In this case, we require a fence for people's property and remove the fence on the criminals. Laws are supposed to prevent crime. And nobody in the world would support the tree shade analogy.

[gibson042]

Most people in America (I know this is an international board) have forgotten its not a right (protected by the US Constitution) to drive a motor vehicle, its a privilege.
There is indeed a right to drive a motor vehicle that you own, provided you do not violate the rights of others. Depending on your situation, this may impose certain limitations on you when you venture onto public streets.

It seems to me that almost everyone here who thinks its NOT OK to use an open WiFi network seem to think there is an inherent RIGHT (protected by government, or at least Florida state law) to own and operate a wireless network WITHOUT anyone else ever using it......HOGWASH!!!
The wireless network is your property, and you certainly have the right to reserve its use for yourself, just as you have the right to allow anyone and everyone to access it. However, broadcasting its SSID and leaving encryption off can be seen as an invitation to use it, which might be unintentional in the case of a novice owner.

Analogies are wearing thin, but some of these haven't been mentioned yet, and I believe apply:
YOUR NEIGHBOOR -has his porch light on in evening, can you not do work in your yard by his light? (the electricity is costing him money)
-is playing music loudly which you can hear on your property, can you not listen or enjoy it? (He bought the CD's, MP3's, or cable/sat stream)
-has a tree on their property providing shade to your property.....should you not enjoy it? (he's paid for the water and fertilizer to make the tree grow).
-lighting fireworks in their backyard for the 4th of July, can you not look at them? (the fireworks cost him money).
These are somewhat appropriate, but keep in mind that your neighbor could put up a fence and prevent you from using his resources.

It’s not the easiest thing to enable security on a wireless network, I agree, but that doesn't give you the RIGHT to set an open wireless network up and expect others not to use it.....sorry. There are other options, such as paying someone else to secure it for you, or not using a wireless network at all.
The issue comes down to a lack of knowledge; in some cases people don't even grasp the concept of wireless network security. But the network is still theirs, and they do have the right to disallow its use by others. Even so, a competent judge would probably rule against them and suggest securing the network; the default setup is comparable to hanging an "open house" sign on your house and leaving the front door open. To that extent, you are correct... not so much about a person's expectations, but about the actual results.

[bjornkeizers]

I for one find it amusing that only 24% of the people who voted in the poll say it's wrong. That means 76% think it's OK, from simple Email grabbing to a camping trip in front of someone's house.

And yet, most people in this thread and the other one are against it.. How strange.

I guess this is what they mean by "vocal minority"

Ha ha!

[Typhoon]

I for one find it amusing that only 24% of the people who voted in the poll say it's wrong. That means 76% think it's OK, from simple Email grabbing to a camping trip in front of someone's house.

And yet, most people in this thread and the other one are against it.. How strange.

I guess this is what they mean by "vocal minority"

Ha ha!

I'm kind of wondering if the poll results were a joke...like maybe most people like the idea of using someone else's wi-fi network for very simple conviences since they might be away from home often. Though wi-fi networks are accessible everywhere, esp. right outside of offices or stores, maybe most people here know it is wrong. But seeing how vocal some supporters of unathorized wi-fi usage/taking are here in this thread, maybe the poll results are correct.

[Rudism]

Analogies are wearing thin, but some of these haven't been mentioned yet, and I believe apply:
YOUR NEIGHBOOR -has his porch light on in evening, can you not do work in your yard by his light? (the electricity is costing him money)
-is playing music loudly which you can hear on your property, can you not listen or enjoy it? (He bought the CD's, MP3's, or cable/sat stream)
-has a tree on their property providing shade to your property.....should you not enjoy it? (he's paid for the water and fertilizer to make the tree grow).
-lighting fireworks in their backyard for the 4th of July, can you not look at them? (the fireworks cost him money).
These are somewhat appropriate, but keep in mind that your neighbor could put up a fence and prevent you from using his resources.

Exactly. Just as he can set up WEP or turn off SSID broadcast to prevent you from using his wifi. Or, if he is unable to do so (ie, he does not have the tools or knowledge to build his own fence), then he can hire somebody to do it (ie, pay someone else to build his fence).

If he is unaware of the existence or concept of fences altogether, well then, that can hardly be considered to be his neighbor's fault.

[Paragon]

It seems to me that almost everyone here who thinks its NOT OK to use an open WiFi network seem to think there is an inherent RIGHT (protected by government, or at least Florida state law) to own and operate a wireless network WITHOUT anyone else ever using it......HOGWASH!!!

Hmmm...sorry, Brian, but as you have mentioned, under Florida law there IS a law against it. If I live in Florida, at least, I DO have the right to run an open wireless network, since they have charged this individual with ILLEGALLY using someone else's open network, not the person running it.

As to the fact that some have mentioned that according to the pole most people think it is ok....for light use. I mentioned this before. Using someone's wireless connection is much like speeding. If a speed limit is 60 MPH, and you do 65 MPH you are not likely going to be bothered. If you speed excessively you will be charged. In the same context, if you use someone elses wireless network to check you email quickly, I doubt you will ever be bothered, but if you park outside someone's house for an extended period of time then you could very well find yourself in trouble.

Why do I have to be bother with all this security, and encryption in the first place? For the same reason I need locks on my front door. For the same reason I have to deal with all this almost impossible DRM to listen to music. So that people won't STEAL it.

I can only hope that setting up a wireless network does not become even more difficult to setup because of excesive abuse by those who think it it free, in the same way that dealing with DRM has become necessary in the different media industries. PLEASE DON'T F**K THIS UP FOR THE LAW ABIDING AMONG US!

Dave

[brianchris]

It seems to me that almost everyone here who thinks its NOT OK to use an open WiFi network seem to think there is an inherent RIGHT (protected by government, or at least Florida state law) to own and operate a wireless network WITHOUT anyone else ever using it......HOGWASH!!!

Hmmm...sorry, Brian, but as you have mentioned, under Florida law there IS a law against it. If I live in Florida, at least, I DO have the right to run an open wireless network, since they have charged this individual with ILLEGALLY using someone else's open network, not the person running it.

As to the fact that some have mentioned that according to the pole most people think it is ok....for light use. I mentioned this before. Using someone's wireless connection is much like speeding. If a speed limit is 60 MPH, and you do 65 MPH you are not likely going to be bothered. If you speed excessively you will be charged. In the same context, if you use someone elses wireless network to check you email quickly, I doubt you will ever be bothered, but if you park outside someone's house for an extended period of time then you could very well find yourself in trouble.

Why do I have to be bother with all this security, and encryption in the first place? For the same reason I need locks on my front door. For the same reason I have to deal with all this almost impossible DRM to listen to music. So that people won't STEAL it.

I can only hope that setting up a wireless network does not become even more difficult to setup because of excesive abuse by those who think it it free, in the same way that dealing with DRM has become necessary in the different media industries. PLEASE DON'T F**K THIS UP FOR THE LAW ABIDING AMONG US!

Dave

If it wasn't clear from my post, I think the Florida law is asinine.

So you lock your doors, and put up with DRM, use WEP encryption, and probably buckle your seat belt....that's all I'm suggesting owners of open networks do. Owners of open wireless networks most certainly have a right to encrypt their wireless network (put up a fence), and I've argued they very much should do that, or don't complain....its simple really.

Um, I'm not in Florida, so I'm not breaking any law when I (extremely occasionally) use an open network of UNKNOWN origin. Implying that I'm a law breaker is a bit insulting......I'm breaking laws created in your head, not in reality (except in Florida, of course).

[Paragon]

If it wasn't clear from my post, I think the Florida law is asinine.

Ah, now I get it. We only have to obey laws that aren't asinine. ;) :)

Anyway, I think it is best we agree to disagree, before we both let this get out of hand.

Have a good day Brian.

Dave

[Rudism]

...under Florida law there IS a law against it. If I live in Florida, at least, I DO have the right to run an open wireless network, since they have charged this individual with ILLEGALLY using someone else's open network, not the person running it.

Charged, but not convicted. As has been mentioned before, the argument would be that he did not use the network without consent, as the simple act of broadcasting to the world that you are providing an open wireless network is the same as giving consent to use it.

[whydidnt]

Pretty entertaining posts here. I'm surprised so many people view this as a black and white issue. I have personally never used an unsecured access point that wasn't specifically setup for general public use, but I can understand why some think it's okay to do so.

I have limited knowledge of the worldwide situation, but in the US - we get free TV and Radio broadcast via Radio Waves. We are allowed to freely access those signals anywhere we can receive them. Satellite Radio and TV providers use the air waves as well, but they secure their signal, so that specific hardware (tied to an ID within the hardware) is required to use their signal.

In my mind it's not a long jump to make from the above scenario to say if you are broadcasting a radio signal, and it's not secure, then it is free for others to use. As soon as you secure it, it then becomes yours to control as you see fit.

Not to date myself, but I'm in my 40's so I don't think I fit the young vs. old profile discussed earlier. It's interesting that so many who speak of "Pesonal Responsibility" (and I count myself as one of those), seem to think those who have an open Access point don't need to accept responsbility for it.

If you can afford multiple computers (why else to you need WiFi?), Wireless access points and adapters, and DSL or Cable internet access, you certainly can afford to pay someone to set up a secure wireless network if you don't want to authorize others to use it. It's called personal responsibility.

As far as the arrest in Florida, an arrest in the US on state charges (as these are) often fails to turn into a conviction - just ask Michael Jackson, Robert Blake or OJ Simpson. Time will tell how that case comes out, but my guess is it will depend on how deep of pockets the guy who was arrested has. If he doesn't have $$, he'll probably plead down to a misdemeanor, if he does, he'll probably fight it and be found not guilty.

[Global Mobility]

If the network is open to allow others to freely use it then is should be fine to access and utilize the wireless network as long as it is not used for illegal activity. The difficult question is that often we do not know if the open network is knowlingly open or simply has been deployed by an individual that is ignorant to wireless security measures and its potential effect.

It is certainly illegal to crack or guess anothers WEP key and/or to clone (spoof) an authorized MAC address to gain access to a network. The simple fact that WEP has been enabled shows that the owner wished to keep it private from unauthorized users.

Too much is up to interpretation if some type of security measure is not used to secure a wireless network. I see that there are many that feel free access to unsecured networks is okay as convenience and necessity leads way to justification. This is not the case, technology has evolved so that most people can pay for wireless data coverage wherever they have mobile phone coverage thru GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, RTT, EVDO, CDPD, etc. Of course you need to pay for these services.

More work needs to be done with the manufacturers of wireless networking products to make it easier for owners to secure their networks. A simple RED sticker (that instructs the owner of what could happen if it's left unsecured) that covers the network jack would go a long way. Manufacturers want to keep everything as "friendly" to the buyer as possbible for quickest setup and ease of use.. thus, no red sticker.

For all those that use "free" WiFi networks.. because you feel that if the network is not secured it should be freely accessible..

Would you mind if people created "HONEYPOT" access points to allow you to use their network that tied you into a DNS server that was programmed to direct traffic to spoofed bank sites, PayPal, etc.. Or to filter for username and passwords on port 80/110/25, and disallow access to SSL and VPN ports. Once information is obtained, then to publish them on a website called UnAuthorized WiFi Users and Their Habits.. your FTP, POP, and non CHAP username and passwords are in cleartext. And like some people's argument here, you should have used a more secure method as going thru a VPN or using SSL. Maybe this information might change the way you think about "free" wifi networks.

If you object to someone running a HONEYPOT access point, then you also probably realize that the data that you transmit/receive on an unsecured network can be of potential risk to you. It's an open network thus all data that runs thru is free for all..

There are plenty of wireless "hotspots" that have been deployed for people to use and to pay for their use. Make good use of them. They exist for a reason.

[Global Mobility]

Also.. did you know that HONEYPOT networks are becoming the easiest and most efficient way to steal someone's identity, create fraudulent eBay auctions, pilfer money, etc.. ???

I have personally found quite a few honeypot networks running in the San Jose area that were accessible to restaurants in areas where there were large amounts of banks and office buldings. I wonder why they were setup there? How did I know it was a honeypot network? First, the SSID was "linksys" and there was no encryption turned on. My notebook automatically connected to it so I decided to ping paypal.com to see where it directing me to. I did a trace route on the IP address, and it was going to Slovakia. I didn't know PayPal ran their servers from Slovakia.. I decided to open my browser to head off to paypal.com, and the site looked exactly the same as I could recall it. I entered in a mock username/password, and the site told me that the site was down for maintenance and that I should try again in a few hours. While still connected, I did the same for ebay.com with the same results.

I used some of the software tools on my notebook, and recorded the MAC address of the perpetrator's access point (and accessible location), and forwarded it to law enforcement handling the local area.

Don't trust open networks! It's like a bottle of cold water sitting in the middle of a sidewalk during a hot summer's day. It makes you think about it, but wouldn't you rather just buy one from the corner store and not second guess anything?

[brianchris]

If it wasn't clear from my post, I think the Florida law is asinine.

Ah, now I get it. We only have to obey laws that aren't asinine. ;) :)

Dave

I'm not in Florida Dave.....I don't have to obey that law. If I was in Florida, I'd obey it, I NEVER said I wouldn't (your leaping and putting words in my mouth Dave). I said the law was asinine: Instead of legislating the single owner of the unsecured wireless network, lets legislate everyone else in the world who might come near it......ridiculous.

As a freelance network admin, I setup clients with ISPs all the time, and almost all ISP's have it in their contract that their customer can NOT maintain an unsecured wireless network. Therefore, the people you are defending Dave are breaking contract with their ISP......why does this even have to be a state (or federal) law?

The Florida law protects "WiFi ignorance" and therefore fosters it. Sorry, if you were willing to pay money for the wireless hardware, and are unable to secure it yourself, pay a little bit more to have someone lock it down for you....don't get cheap and and expect a state law to be created to protect you.

[Rudism]

If it wasn't clear from my post, I think the Florida law is asinine.

Ah, now I get it. We only have to obey laws that aren't asinine. ;) :)

Dave

I'm not in Florida Dave.....I don't have to obey that law. If I was in Florida, I'd obey it, I NEVER said I wouldn't (your leaping and putting words in my mouth Dave). I said the law was asinine: Instead of legislating the single owner of the unsecured wireless network, lets legislate everyone else in the world who might come near it......ridiculous.

If my understanding of the situation is correct, the law in question is not specific to wireless networks. It is a broader law prohibiting unauthorized use of computer networks in general. The point being that using an open wireless network should not be considered as unauthorized. That is why, if the fellow charged with this can afford a lawyer, he would hopefully be acquitted.

[hal]

What is the difference between connecting to a web site and using it's "Free" service and accessing an OPEN access point?

How often do you ask permission of a Web Site owner before connecting to their service and viewing the web pages it hosts?

So with the theft concept, how many of you have stolen web pages of someone's web server and stored a copy of their copyrighted matierial in your browse cache?

Do you check the Terms of use on EVERY web site you ever connect to before viewing the content? Of corse if you can't find any terms of use you immediately disconnect in case the owner didn't want you to see this information. Don't You?

I'm not saying it's morally right, but it's not particularly wrong either.
If you don't want joe public to connect to your Wi-Fi then hide the SSID and add security.

I have security on my access point but happily allow access to people I know, the same is true in the office, customers or visitors can use it, but they must ask for or be given the details first.

If I wanted to allow anyone to access it I would have left it open, and don't see how I could complain if someone used it without asking first.

Just how do you know who to ask for permission anyway?

How doy you know if it's a legitimate public Hotspot without connecting to it anyway?

Secure it or stop complaining!!!

[Sven Johannsen]

What is the difference between connecting to a web site and using it's "Free" service and accessing an OPEN access point?

Gee, I don't know. What's the difference between walking into a store and browsing, and walking into someone's open garage and browsing? (Hint: in Texas the latter can get you shot...legally)

[Typhoon]

I'm not sure if you are expecting this as implied, but are you blaming just the WI-FI router owner and not the person stealing the internet connection?

If so, how about we let out all the criminals from prison? You better have some sort of security to protect yourself and your belongings from them or it is your fault for not getting security. You better have the best security in the world to protect yourself from all the professional theives. What about the child predators who want to come after your children while they play in the yard? Too late! Everyone else has already bought a fence from Home Depot because we just let out all the criminals! How about lumber so you can build a fence? Too late! Joe, next door, beat you to it! To a point, w/this logic, we will have armed ourselves against the most dangerous compulsive neurotic criminals out there...but then we would become paranoid as well. Let rotwielers run loose because school kids should carry a mase or gun to protect themselves. Too late! Joe's kids beat your kids to the mase. Or maybe you ran out of money to pay for security? Yes! It is your fault for not getting a good enough job. It is also your parents' fault for not providing you money for college. It is also your grandparents' fault for kicking out your father when he was 18 because they were paranoid. At some point we might actually need to design a Terminator or Robocop to fight crime...an unstoppable crime fighter!

In this case, we require a fence for people's property and remove the fence on the criminals. Laws are supposed to prevent crime. And nobody in the world would support the tree shade analogy.

...It is very odd that most supporters of unauthorized wi-fi access still don't get that stealing is just wrong. If you think it is okay, why don't you just ask the owner of wi-fi router if you can use it? Are you afraid to? I get the feeling that these supporters of unauthorized wi-fi access support the above scenario I mentioned. How sad... survival of the fittest and no sympathy for the wi-fi owner. I of course have no sympathy for the trespasser.

[jlp]

I think (and hope) the only real solution must come from the device manufacturers:

They are the ONLY ones who fully master that technology. And it's their own responsibility -before all- to make sure their customers are aware of what they do.

Imagine car makers would build cars with door locking mechanisms so complicated nobody would know how to use them.

Well the analogy is only partly correct because as has been noted this is immaterial (airwaves) vs. material (car, house, etc.)

The thing is cars exist since over a century now and carriages for milleniums, even much longer with houses.

Everybody knows that they must protect them, they've seen people steal something from them dozens of times.

Since airwaves are immatierial, it's much more difficult for people to master the technology. Everybody can stick a shovel into the ground, but it's far from everybody who can master average mathematics laws (material vs immaterial again).

The definite solution can only come from device manufacturers as I said. They should include in their setup wizard a question in the like:
"Would you like to allow for occasional passersby to use your wireless access for occasional light surfing and email downloading. Note 1: your own computer data and full internet activities (web surfing, email access and file downloading will be totally secure thanks to our tried and proven XYZ hackerproof technology.) Choose the maximum bandwidth you want to allow passersby tu use for their internet activities using the slider below. Note2: 10 to 15% bandwidth usage is usually more than adequate for light surfing and light email downloading. Note3: when nobody else uses your connection, you automatically regain 100% usage of your internect bandwidth." etc.

This way EVERYBODY will KNOWINGLY either freely allow passersby to use their wireless access or KNOWINGLY lock their access to passersby.

This is the ONLY way to have everybody take their OWN responsibility:
- manufacturers to clearly inform their customers about what they should do
- customers to freely and knowingly allow/lock usage to their wireless access
- passersby to know and be SURE that if an access is open it's because they were knowingly and freely granted its usage!!

[Typhoon]

What is the difference between connecting to a web site and using it's "Free" service and accessing an OPEN access point?

Gee, I don't know. What's the difference between walking into a store and browsing, and walking into someone's open garage and browsing? (Hint: in Texas the latter can get you shot...legally)

LOL

[indiekiduk]

I think it needs pointing out that you do not own your internet connection, you rent it from your ISP, the same way the ISP rents the bandwidth on the routers on its connection to the rest of the Internet. Its beyond me why people are moaning about stealing so much when you all "steal" the bandwidth of the routers on the internet every day to browse web pages all over the internet. So wireless is the perfect way for you to just become another node on the internet and let someone travelling with their laptop have the convenience of checking their email through your connection. Use VPN to encrypt your transmissions of course.

I use open networks when travelling to check mail. I return the favour by leaving my home network open for the people in the surrounding hotels to check their mail. Using Itunes or rendezvous chat can be fun too. You can be a part of this friendly community if you like, however, if you secure your home network then I think its only fair you do not use other open networks at all.

Yes we could be breaking the terms of of service with the ISP but isnt supporting the meaning of the Internet more important? Besides we can just keep choosing different ISPs until they work it out, there are hundreds to choose from in the UK.

[Typhoon]

I think it needs pointing out that you do not own your internet connection, you rent it from your ISP, the same way the ISP rents the bandwidth on the routers on its connection to the rest of the Internet. Its beyond me why people are moaning about stealing so much when you all "steal" the bandwidth of the routers on the internet every day to browse web pages all over the internet. So wireless is the perfect way for you to just become another node on the internet and let someone travelling with their laptop have the convenience of checking their email through your connection. Use VPN to encrypt your transmissions of course.

I use open networks when travelling to check mail. I return the favour by leaving my home network open for the people in the surrounding hotels to check their mail. Using Itunes or rendezvous chat can be fun too. You can be a part of this friendly community if you like, however, if you secure your home network then I think its only fair you do not use other open networks at all.

Yes we could be breaking the terms of of service with the ISP but isnt supporting the meaning of the Internet more important? Besides we can just keep choosing different ISPs until they work it out, there are hundreds to choose from in the UK.

Renting? So renting, at least, doesn't apply any ownage to the "renter"? If people keep coming up w/new definitions for things, they are going to get definitely confused...really. So has the wi-fi snooper been paying for rent? If I rent out a house only to Family A, Family B can even "TOUCH" the property.

And return the favor to who? To the guy you stole the connection from? Humanity doesn't work on some collective conciousness.

The concept of stealing is so simple. Why do you guys keep coming up w/all these excuses and trying to redefine terms &amp; logic that have to fit your inconviences? Terms and logic that have forever existed in all laws all around the world...why change them? I say...go get a job.

Believe it or not, the internet is just a network collection of computers. It just so happens that we have to pay for the internet connection. And just because 1 wi-fi snooper can't snoop it doesn't mean the INTERNET BECOMES LESS OF AN INTERNET! It is there just as long as the computers are connected!

With your logic, maybe we should build a holy shrine to this "internet" and make it mandatory that ever single computer in existence be networked and we would all be one happily family...just so that we don't have to pay $30-$40 a month. And maybe make everyone a cyborg and hook us up as well!

[bjornkeizers]

With your logic, maybe we should build a holy shrine to this "internet" and make it mandatory that ever single computer in existence be networked and we would all be one happily family...just so that we don't have to pay $30-$40 a month. And maybe make everyone a cyborg and hook us up as well!

Where do I sign???? I'll take free internet, everywhere, every time, and the implant that goes with it. Hell, I'll be first in line if they ever invent tech like that. WiFi is merely the first step.

[Sven Johannsen]

These threads just disappoint the heck out of me. It just boggles my mind the 76% of your concepts of right and wrong is so different than mine. Seems so basic to me, that if it doesn't belong to me, I don't use it, or take it, without paying for it or getting permission, which includes recognizing a sign that says 'free-take one'. It's irrelevent to me whether it is legal, or easy, or doesn't hurt anyone, or is sometimes free some places. Doesn't matter if it's WiFi or a grape at the grocery store.

To assert that it is the owners/leasers/renters responsibility to make it difficult for those wanting to do the wrong thing (IMHO), may unfortunately be valid, but it doesn't make the wrong thing right, or even less wrong. Doesn't mean I might not do it, but at least I understand it's not right. I might even shift some blame. "I was just following traffic", "Everyone does it", "If he didn't want me using his WiFi he would be using something other than WEP. because everyone knows you can crack that in 5 minutes". In my gut though, I know I had the final choice of doing what I know is right..you don't take what what doesn't belong to you. http://www.peace.ca/kindergarten.htm It's # 6.

[Typhoon]

LOL Kindergarten? I didn't think more could be added to this thread, but I guess I was wrong.

[hal]

What is the difference between connecting to a web site and using it's "Free" service and accessing an OPEN access point?

Gee, I don't know. What's the difference between walking into a store and browsing, and walking into someone's open garage and browsing? (Hint: in Texas the latter can get you shot...legally)

Come on, justify the comparison between it and a web site then, it's much closer than your comparison.

So you leave your Garage door wide open and it can be seen from the street, I guess you would try to shoot someone if they looked in?

Texas, sounds like a fun place...

If you don't want someone to look, don't leave it OPEN.

If it is illegal, the courts will eventually decide, and if it is then everyone will know, if it isn't then access point owners have a choice.

[Narny]

http://www.peace.ca/kindergarten.htm It's # 6.

Hmmm. So does #1 take precedence? :wink:

[Typhoon]

What is the difference between connecting to a web site and using it's "Free" service and accessing an OPEN access point?

Gee, I don't know. What's the difference between walking into a store and browsing, and walking into someone's open garage and browsing? (Hint: in Texas the latter can get you shot...legally)

Come on, justify the comparison between it and a web site then, it's much closer than your comparison.

So you leave your Garage door wide open and it can be seen from the street, I guess you would try to shoot someone if they looked in?

Texas, sounds like a fun place...

If you don't want someone to look, don't leave it OPEN.

If it is illegal, the courts will eventually decide, and if it is then everyone will know, if it isn't then access point owners have a choice.

Why would anyone shoot someone for looking? I don't think that is what he meant. His analogy wasn't that complicated...

[Rudism]

Why would anyone shoot someone for looking? I don't think that is what he meant. His analogy wasn't that complicated...

For the analogy to be complete, however, he would also have to put an ad in the local paper advertising an "Open Garage" with the address of his house before going off to polish his shotgun.

[Typhoon]

http://www.peace.ca/kindergarten.htm It's # 6.

Hmmm. So does #1 take precedence? :wink:

Then how about sharing wives? Or maybe I will take some stranger's Lamborghini out for a spin w/out asking...but just for awhile! Let's not get too ridiculous...

[Typhoon]

Why would anyone shoot someone for looking? I don't think that is what he meant. His analogy wasn't that complicated...

For the analogy to be complete, however, he would also have to put an ad in the local paper advertising an "Open Garage" with the address of his house before going off to polish his shotgun.

You've lost me...

[Sven Johannsen]

http://www.peace.ca/kindergarten.htm It's # 6.

Hmmm. So does #1 take precedence? :wink:

They aren't mutually exclusive or in conflict. I just don't see an open Wifi as an implicit intent to share. Seems 76% think I must tell them in some way that I don't want them to take, or use, my stuff, before they feel compelled not to. That's what disappoints me. I remember when you could leave your garage door up, your front door unlocked, and the windows down on your car. Sure there were people back then that would take advantage of that, but not 3 out of 4. OK, so maybe WiFi opportunists wouldn't do that, but apparently there is some criterea in their minds that allows taking or using my stuff to transition from wrong to right. Seems to revolve around what kind of stuff it is, and where I left it..or where they found it. That's why none of the analogies work very well. You wind up comparing things on opposite sides of that nebulous line, and obviously 'that's different'. I just don't happen to think there is a line, or even a gray area. Taking or using something that doesn't belong to you, without permission. isn't right, period.

[mr_Ray]

Wow, there are some pretty loud people 'discussing' here. :)
Let's put across a few points that a skim over the comments hasn't shown up.


The "it's stealing!!" fallacy.
-I say this is stealing, and stealing is wrong, therefore this is wrong.
An arguement based on an illogical foundation. Details for individual arguements later on.

The "it's unauthorised access" fallacy.
You don't have written permission countersigned form God, so it's wrong.
Wrong. Technically the router is handing out both invites and authorisation to access. The owner set this up wither implicitly or explicitly. All manuals come with instructions on how to secure it and disable this behaviour.

The "florida" fallacy.
Florida has a law against this, so it's wrong"
Sorry, 99.9% of the world just don't have this law applied to them. Also as history both distand and recent have shown, laws are often out of sync with right and wrong.

The usage fallacy.
You're using their net connection and will get then in trouble.
Nope, they'll be getting themselves in trouble. Chances are that the contracts THEY (not you) signed include one or more of the following clauses.
- (Explicitly) you cannot make your connection available over an unsecured wireless network
- You cannot share this conection (at all)
- You alone (as the 'owner') are responsible for the way this connection is used
-etc etc
That's their problem, not yours.

The "'it's like trespass!" fallacy.
OK, it's not stealing, but you're trespassing on their network
Many will come out with analogies like entering someone's house/car/other property. This just doesn't apply. This is something that they are broadcasting into YOUR house. Amusingly, if anything it is THEM trespassing. This is trespass akin to someone putting their carpet in your house and then claiming that you are trespassing on their carpet.
They are broadcasting into YOUR house an open invite. Be this deliberately or through ignorance cannot reasonably be deduced by yourself.

The "it's not yours so you cannot use it" fallacy.
You didn't pay for it, someone else did so to use it is WRONG!
Every day you use things that aren't yours. From extreme examples previosly given such as air and sunlight to more reasonable ones. You enter a shop, and you are using their floor, etc. Chances are the shop didn't have an explicit "please enter" sign too. Roads too, especially in a country you are visiting and hence haven't funded through taxation. Have you ever seen someone's TV through their window? They had to pay for that!! Subscriptions, electricity, the TV itself... yet they have put it in a position where all may benefit from it.

The "they shouldn't need to have security" fallacy.
Why should they have to secure their own property?
And you shouldn't need security on your house either, but you DO. You're perfectly entitled to have no doors on your house and put an enticing poster up telling people about all the things inside, but it wouldn't go down well with your insurance company after you were robbed. There is such a thing as taking responsibilty for your property, and outright negligence.

The "morality" fallacy.
But it's just moral\immoral
Maybe to you, but 100% for certain not to others. Everyone has their own unique set of morals, deal with it.

The "they shouldn't have to know this stuff" fallacy.
It's all technical, they shouldn't have to know this WEP/WPA thing!
Maybe maybe not, but if they can afford computer, access point, net connection etc they hasve the option of paying to secure it. Or just read the instructions.
Ignorance of the basics of the tool you're using should NEVER be a defence in a society where people have (or are epxected to have) self responsibility (admittedly this is starting to become uncommon!!). It wouldn't be an offence if I was driving a car without training, weilding a chainsaw in public without knowing it's dangers, etc. Taking responsibility for their actions from people is always EVIL EVIL EVIL!




Just to finish off, surely if there's any rights in issue here, it should be my right to not have people broadcast illegal network invites to me? Stop throwing your network at me with the door wide open and I'll stop walking
through the door.

[mr_Ray]

Seems 76% think I must tell them in some way that I don't want them to take, or use, my stuff, before they feel compelled not to.
No, it seems to me that 76% of people are begging you to stop broadcasting to them an invite to use something that you don't want them using!

It's a poor reflection on society that people think that they can get away with asking you to drive their car for free and then punching you in the face if you do. Gobblammit, if you don't want me to use it you could have just not mailed out those invites!

[Jacob]

It's a poor reflection on society that people think that they can get away with asking you to drive their car for free and then punching you in the face if you do. Gobblammit, if you don't want me to use it you could have just not mailed out those invites!

Noone is mailing invites. It's funny that you "debunk" logical fallacies and then you use one yourself.

It's a poor reflection on society when people think that they can read people's minds and think they're invited to use something they know isn't theirs.

[mr_Ray]

It's a poor reflection on society that people think that they can get away with asking you to drive their car for free and then punching you in the face if you do. Gobblammit, if you don't want me to use it you could have just not mailed out those invites!

Noone is mailing invites. It's funny that you "debunk" logical fallacies and then you use one yourself.

It's a poor reflection on society when people think that they can read people's minds and think they're invited to use something they know isn't theirs.The mailing invites was an anaolgy.

What is an outright fact is that the access point has been set up to broadcast open availabilty, and when access is applied for (often automatically by your PC), it is freely granted. Argue what you like, but that is fact.

Imagine buying a robot security guard, and leaving it on a setting where anyone asking permission to enter is granted permission. In fact more than that, imitating the givin gout of IP config info, the robot also hands out a map of the property.

[Jacob]

The mailing invites was an anaolgy.

I know. A poor one.


What is an outright fact is that the access point has been set up to broadcast open availabilty, and when access is applied for (often automatically by your PC), it is freely granted. Argue what you like, but that is fact.

There's a difference between ability to access and having permission to access. You're right - ability to access is granted, not permission to access.


Imagine buying a robot security guard, and leaving it on a setting where anyone asking permission to enter is granted permission. In fact more than that, imitating the givin gout of IP config info, the robot also hands out a map of the property.

Imagine making a proper analogy. The proper analogy, in this case, would not have the "security robot" giving out a map. There are other things wrong with this analogy too, but you should be able to see it.

Imagine using only networks that you actually have permission to use.

[Rudism]

I wonder if this whole question of whether or not broadcasting your unsecured SSID constitutes permission to use your network or not would be such a hot topic if this feature was disabled by default in wireless routers. What if you had to go out of your way to turn on anonymous access to your network. Would that make a difference to anyone who voted that it is not right to use open unsecured networks?

If so (and I suspect that would be the case), then I suppose this is all really a matter of creating laws to protect ignorant people from the damage that their own inability to take responsibility for what they do causes. It's been done before I'm sure. Guess it wouldn't be so surprising if it happened again in this situation.

[Jacob]

I wonder if this whole question of whether or not broadcasting your unsecured SSID constitutes permission to use your network or not would be such a hot topic if this feature was disabled by default in wireless routers.

I think you're right in both cases.

It's not a matter of the routers feature of being open as being enabled - it's that the feature of securing it is not enabled by default.

This is changing though - my wireless router came with security enabled and I was happy it did.

[brianchris]

I wonder if this whole question of whether or not broadcasting your unsecured SSID constitutes permission to use your network or not would be such a hot topic if this feature was disabled by default in wireless routers. What if you had to go out of your way to turn on anonymous access to your network. Would that make a difference to anyone who voted that it is not right to use open unsecured networks?

If so (and I suspect that would be the case), then I suppose this is all really a matter of creating laws to protect ignorant people from the damage that their own inability to take responsibility for what they do causes. It's been done before I'm sure. Guess it wouldn't be so surprising if it happened again in this situation.

Although I have agrued (and still believe its totally OK) to use networks that are wide open, I would agree that a hidden SSID is enough for me to see the intent was not to share. Besides, I don't have the time to try and guess the SSID even if I wanted to, and trying to guess the SSID is the first steps towards cracking the WEP encyption, then the users Quicken password, etc. etc. (which, by the way, I've never said any of that was OK).

SO, IMO, yes, I think that's a great idea....the manufacturers SHOULD ship their units with the SSID set not to broadcast. I know the intent of the network owner, and as far as the ignorant WLAN owner is concerned, they have to call tech support to get connected for the first time. They're not encrypted (and ultimately should be), but again, I don't have time or interest to sniff or crack.

Great idea, and possibly a compromise in this bettlefield of a thread?

[Talon]

It's someone elses connection, if you want Wi-Fi then pay for it yourself or get a cup of coffee somewhere that offers free Wi-Fi (DON'T just sit in the coffee shop and not buy anything).
That said I have looked around for open Wi-Fi networks I could use. Twice. Once was the week it took me to get the DSL set up after moving house, the other time I was spending a week away from home with no dial up and no cafe/coffee shops within 10 miles offering Wi-Fi. The first time I used it once to send and email and look up a phone number, the second time I couldn't find any.

[Doug_Eldred]

I think a lot depends on your intent and the extent of your use - and perhaps if your setup "accidentally" uses it or if you intentionally do so. Clearly to use it for spam or malware or other inappropriate uses would be wrong. To use it for extended periods and heavy traffic would also be wrong, since it adversely affects his/her performance and might impact their bill. If you just want to do something quick, maybe, but if you have Wi-Fi how come you don't have your own access point or public network ID?

I do have sympathy for the "if they are careless enough or dumb enough to not secure it" theory, but that only goes so far. "Enough is enough!"

Doug

[mr_Ray]

Although I have agrued (and still believe its totally OK) to use networks that are wide open, I would agree that a hidden SSID is enough for me to see the intent was not to share. Besides, I don't have the time to try and guess the SSID even if I wanted to, and trying to guess the SSID is the first steps towards cracking the WEP encyption, then the users Quicken password, etc. etc. (which, by the way, I've never said any of that was OK).

SO, IMO, yes, I think that's a great idea....the manufacturers SHOULD ship their units with the SSID set not to broadcast. I know the intent of the network owner, and as far as the ignorant WLAN owner is concerned, they have to call tech support to get connected for the first time. They're not encrypted (and ultimately should be), but again, I don't have time or interest to sniff or crack.

Great idea, and possibly a compromise in this bettlefield of a thread?
Yes I think that it's more than fair to assume that any reasonable attempt to secure the network can be seen as denying you permission to access. Be this hiding the SSID, enabling WPA/WEP, turning off the auto-assigning of connection config, etc. the intent would be clear.


PS for anyone complaining about not giving permission to use the network - I'm sure I never gave you permission to broadcast your network into my house.

[gibson042]

Although I have agrued (and still believe its totally OK) to use networks that are wide open, I would agree that a hidden SSID is enough for me to see the intent was not to share. Besides, I don't have the time to try and guess the SSID even if I wanted to, and trying to guess the SSID is the first steps towards cracking the WEP encyption, then the users Quicken password, etc. etc. (which, by the way, I've never said any of that was OK).

SO, IMO, yes, I think that's a great idea....the manufacturers SHOULD ship their units with the SSID set not to broadcast.
Hear, hear! Fully supported. :idea:

[OSUKid7]

Although I have agrued (and still believe its totally OK) to use networks that are wide open, I would agree that a hidden SSID is enough for me to see the intent was not to share. Besides, I don't have the time to try and guess the SSID even if I wanted to, and trying to guess the SSID is the first steps towards cracking the WEP encyption, then the users Quicken password, etc. etc. (which, by the way, I've never said any of that was OK).

SO, IMO, yes, I think that's a great idea....the manufacturers SHOULD ship their units with the SSID set not to broadcast.
There's a huge problem with having the SSID off by default: Windows and Mac operating systems use active detection to find networks -- that's why if you turn off SSID broadcasting, you can't "see" the network. However, Linux uses passive detection and can still "see" the network even if SSID broadcasting is off. So if SSID broadcasting is off by default, do you really think most people are going to be smart enough to manually enter "linksys" into their Windows wireless config? I certainly doubt it, that's asking way too much. :lol: Oh, so you say it's time for Windows to change to passive scanning? Well then that just defeats the whole purpose of disabling SSID broadcasting in the first place!

Law breakers will always come up with excuses as to how their so-called crime was not illegal at all. Disabling SSID brodcasting by default will just mean more tech support calls at the networking companies. It's really the same reason they don't ship APs with encryption enabled.

[mr_Ray]

Although I have agrued (and still believe its totally OK) to use networks that are wide open, I would agree that a hidden SSID is enough for me to see the intent was not to share. Besides, I don't have the time to try and guess the SSID even if I wanted to, and trying to guess the SSID is the first steps towards cracking the WEP encyption, then the users Quicken password, etc. etc. (which, by the way, I've never said any of that was OK).

SO, IMO, yes, I think that's a great idea....the manufacturers SHOULD ship their units with the SSID set not to broadcast.
There's a huge problem with having the SSID off by default: Windows and Mac operating systems use active detection to find networks -- that's why if you turn off SSID broadcasting, you can't "see" the network. However, Linux uses passive detection and can still "see" the network even if SSID broadcasting is off. So if SSID broadcasting is off by default, do you really think most people are going to be smart enough to manually enter "linksys" into their Windows wireless config? I certainly doubt it, that's asking way too much. :lol: Oh, so you say it's time for Windows to change to passive scanning? Well then that just defeats the whole purpose of disabling SSID broadcasting in the first place!

Law breakers will always come up with excuses as to how their so-called crime was not illegal at all. Disabling SSID brodcasting by default will just mean more tech support calls at the networking companies. It's really the same reason they don't ship APs with encryption enabled.
That's an entirely different matter. You're talking about people who are deliberately access a network by bypasing some deliberate level of security. I doubt there is anyone here who would consider that to be correct. Even if you don't consider hiding the SSID as security, it is still a clear message saying "I do not wish this network to be accessed by anyone".

What's being discussed here is the matter of accessing networks that have been set up to flag themselves as open to all.

[OSUKid7]

That's an entirely different matter. You're talking about people who are deliberately access a network by bypasing some deliberate level of security. I doubt there is anyone here who would consider that to be correct. Even if you don't consider hiding the SSID as security, it is still a clear message saying "I do not wish this network to be accessed by anyone".

What's being discussed here is the matter of accessing networks that have been set up to flag themselves as open to all.
I was only pointing out why the networking companies would probably never ship their access points with SSID broadcasting disabled.

[JMac]

Yes, it should be illegal to use someone else's WIFI. Only I don't know if I like the fact that they arrest people for doing it anyway. That's a bit steep. Like me, I didn't even know my desktop was logging onto my neighbors network when my internet connection failed. The computer just checked for other options and jumped onto my neighbors wifi. What am I to do?
Wow! So many poor wifi users who accidentally are using other networks! Amazing! As a matter of fact, unbelievable - really. I don't believe it.

And for all those who use this "what if you don't know your PC went and picked up another network..." argument: Point me to ONE case of someone being arrested for this - anywhere in the world. And if you connect at an airport or Starbucks you won't be seeing 'linksys'! Please don't try to say you can't tell the difference by SSID.

This guy was outside the network owner's house for hours! In a Chevy Blazer with a laptop. (He can't afford wifi?) The home owner saw him and waited for him to leave. Left to go out, and came home at 11 PM - the thief was still there. This was not a case of an "accidental" connection, nor just checking driving directions.

I would be willing to wager that all of those posting here that they steal wifi because they think it's being intentionally shared and say that they leave theirs open for sharing are full of it. I doubt they even HAVE networks.

And as far as the "...if they're not smart enough to know better, they deserve to have their bandwidth stolen..." opinions, that's such an old, false-rationalization that it's pitiful you would even use that. It was used against rape victims - If a woman walks down the street in a known high-crime area dressed provocatively, does she "deserve" it if she is raped? Stupid, yes. But that does NOT excuse the rapist!

Same for anyone who walks in a public area known for muggings and stops to count their money. Again very stupid, but it doesn't make taking their money legal! Pitiful argument!

And for those "generous" souls who claim they leave their networks open for others to use, if you check your ISP's terms and conditions, you are in violation. No, you don't OWN that bandwidth, and you are not free to give it away - causing the whole modem full of users to suffer in speed, and ultimately pay for your foolishness.

Truly amazing how normally law-abiding folks can get so irrational when it becomes apparent that something they are doing just because they can, and they won't have to pay, suddenly are "legal experts" and champions of the poor wifi-less underclass!

Just my Never-So-Humble Opinion!
:)

Edit: BTW, I realize how harsh this post sounds after re-reading it. But it stays as written. I understand that this is commonly done, and I don't really have THAT big of a problem with it. And I DO think that wifi networks are too difficult for neophytes to secure properly. I just hate to see folks whom I know are smarter that that make silly arguments to justify their behavior. Just put on a sheepish grin and say, "I know it's not really right, but I do it anyway". That's a lot easier to swallow!

[brianchris]

That's an entirely different matter. You're talking about people who are deliberately access a network by bypasing some deliberate level of security. I doubt there is anyone here who would consider that to be correct. Even if you don't consider hiding the SSID as security, it is still a clear message saying "I do not wish this network to be accessed by anyone".

What's being discussed here is the matter of accessing networks that have been set up to flag themselves as open to all.
I was only pointing out why the networking companies would probably never ship their access points with SSID broadcasting disabled.

Its a point I made a couple posts before you (and others before me). Yes, it will create more support calls, but the calls themselves will be FAR less technical / complicated / difficult for hidden SSID by default than with WEP enabled by default.....the buck has to stop somewhere, and this seems to be the lesser of all evils.

A setup poster with over half of it in 180 point font indicating the SSID should be set to XXXXX on all computers that connect to it will help with the volume of calls. :lol:

[Narny]

I don't think anybody here is advocating stealing. The debate is whether using an open wireless network broadcasting its SSID is stealing bandwidth, or whether it's using something the reasonable man might have expected to be allowed to use.

How's this for an analogy - and a close one, I hope:

You enter a search term into Google and get a page of hits (analagous to results of scanning for networks). You then click on a URL and see a page of photos on someones web site. The owner of this site has set up an HTTP server on his computer so that he can view his photos whenever he's out and about and surfing the net. He did this just for his own personal use. He didn't understand that you have restrict access if you don't want to provide that HTTP service to anyone who connects, and complains that you've used bandwidth from his server without permission and have viewed his private photos. How do you feel about this?

Again, it's not about whether it's right or not to use someone's private bandwidth or access their private files - that's wrong. It's just that in the brave new world of the internet, there's a certain expectation that if you can get to something without any barriers whatsoever, then that was the owner's intention. This concept will never map successfully on to the non-virtual world of property and possessions.

[Typhoon]

Seems 76% think I must tell them in some way that I don't want them to take, or use, my stuff, before they feel compelled not to.
No, it seems to me that 76% of people are begging you to stop broadcasting to them an invite to use something that you don't want them using!

It's a poor reflection on society that people think that they can get away with asking you to drive their car for free and then punching you in the face if you do. Gobblammit, if you don't want me to use it you could have just not mailed out those invites!

Whoa there! Now the excuse of unauthorized wi-fi access is a compulsive disorder?? The problem is not the wi-fi router owner, but it is the snooper who isn't getting medication!

[dorelse]

Just to finish off, surely if there's any rights in issue here, it should be my right to not have people broadcast illegal network invites to me? Stop throwing your network at me with the door wide open and I'll stop walking
through the door.

I love this attitude...it should be my right to not have people broadcast illegal network invites to me....um, where is it illegal to have a router broadcast an Open network? Its illegal for you to USE it (ok, at least in FL), but not for them to broadcast it. Somehow, you've gotten confused.

Firstly, its unfortunate how people cling to the law as their only moral and ethical conscious. 'Its not a law here, so I'm fine." The fact that you think stealing is a fallacy clearly shows that using something that doesn't belong to you is somehow ok. What do you prefer to call it then? Unapproved Access? Unauthorized Usage? Undetected Borrowing? Inconsecquential Unintended Internet Access? Com'on...anyway you slice it, the access wasn't intended for you, therefore, you aren't supposed to use it.

In many states in the US its not against the law for a landlord to install video camera's in a renters shower and tape them...think about that one. Its the landlords house/apartment, he installs the camera before you rent the place (no trespassing has occurred), and tapes it all to a VCR is his place. Doesn't sell the tapes, just watches them. (This actually happened.)

Think your wife, you, or (god forbid) your kids think somethings been 'stolen' from them? If there's not a law against it, then its ok to do it according to your logic.

Taking your 'The router invited me' arguement, the router may broadcast an open signal, it IS NOT calling you up and saying I'm inviting you to use me, you had to a) make and effort to first look for it, BIG difference b) Make an effort to connect the network, without knowing you were authorized by the OWNER of the equipment. You ultimately decided (in the FL example), that even though the law says no, you say, oh "the law is wrong", so I'll just go ahead and enter. No harm, no foul...right? That's the ultimate excuse for everyone who does something immoral, and has no solid justification for it, and tries to minimize their guilt over having done it.

[brianchris]

OK, dorelse, Typhoon, and others.....what I think is a great compromise (wireless AP manufacturers hidding the SSID by default) was suggested (by Rudism).....what's your opinion on that? We know what your opinion is already on the subject in general :?

[dorelse]

OK, dorelse, Typhoon, and others.....what I think is a great compromise (wireless AP manufacturers hidding the SSID by default) was suggested (by Rudism).....what's your opinion on that? We know what your opinion is already on the subject in general :?

Well, its a start, however, they're not going to do it. Providing an open network out of the box means the user gets connected the easiest way possible. Less problems = less $ spent on tech support.

I do think its the responsibility for the casual wireless home network owner to secure their network, I truly do. However, just because a wi-fi network homeowner doesn't secure it, does not mean its public domain.

This recurring theme of 'I was invited b/c its left open', 'its not secured, so I can use it', 'Too bad for them...should've locked it up...so now its free for the taking' is a truly disappointing testament to the lack of morals &amp; ethics in our world today.

[OSUKid7]

OK, dorelse, Typhoon, and others.....what I think is a great compromise (wireless AP manufacturers hidding the SSID by default) was suggested (by Rudism).....what's your opinion on that? We know what your opinion is already on the subject in general :?

Well, its a start, however, they're not going to do it. Providing an open network out of the box means the user gets connected the easiest way possible. Less problems = less $ spent on tech support.

I do think its the responsibility for the casual wireless home network owner to secure their network, I truly do. However, just because a wi-fi network homeowner doesn't secure it, does not mean its public domain.

This recurring theme of 'I was invited b/c its left open', 'its not secured, so I can use it', 'Too bad for them...should've locked it up...so now its free for the taking' is a truly disappointing testament to the lack of morals &amp; ethics in our world today.
Exactly!! I fully agree with each of your statements here.

[Typhoon]

OK, dorelse, Typhoon, and others.....what I think is a great compromise (wireless AP manufacturers hidding the SSID by default) was suggested (by Rudism).....what's your opinion on that? We know what your opinion is already on the subject in general :?

That would be stupid. I'm just kidding. Sure why not...

[Rudism]

This recurring theme of 'I was invited b/c its left open', 'its not secured, so I can use it', 'Too bad for them...should've locked it up...so now its free for the taking' is a truly disappointing testament to the lack of morals &amp; ethics in our world today.

What's disappointing is how quick we are to judge someone's morals when it's not an issue of morals at all.

I'm sure if the question was "is it ok to use someone's wireless network when you are pretty sure that they do not want you to use it?" then the response would be an overwhelming "no, of course not".

It is not the ethics and morals that is at question. What is at question is how should we view open wireless network SSID broadcasts. Should we, by default, assume that it was the owner's intention to leave it open for others to use as a convenience, or should we assume, by default, that the user is an ignoramus who is too lazy to understand the technology that he is implementing?

That's the real question here. Nothing to do with morals.

[Typhoon]

This recurring theme of 'I was invited b/c its left open', 'its not secured, so I can use it', 'Too bad for them...should've locked it up...so now its free for the taking' is a truly disappointing testament to the lack of morals &amp; ethics in our world today.

What's disappointing is how quick we are to judge someone's morals when it's not an issue of morals at all.

I'm sure if the question was "is it ok to use someone's wireless network when you are pretty sure that they do not want you to use it?" then the response would be an overwhelming "no, of course not".

It is not the ethics and morals that is at question. What is at question is how should we view open wireless network SSID broadcasts. Should we, by default, assume that it was the owner's intention to leave it open for others to use as a convenience, or should we assume, by default, that the user is an ignoramus who is too lazy to understand the technology that he is implementing?

That's the real question here. Nothing to do with morals.

You must have a seriouly deluded perception of moral or ethical values...

[mr_Ray]

This recurring theme of 'I was invited b/c its left open', 'its not secured, so I can use it', 'Too bad for them...should've locked it up...so now its free for the taking' is a truly disappointing testament to the lack of morals &amp; ethics in our world today.

What's disappointing is how quick we are to judge someone's morals when it's not an issue of morals at all.

I'm sure if the question was "is it ok to use someone's wireless network when you are pretty sure that they do not want you to use it?" then the response would be an overwhelming "no, of course not".

It is not the ethics and morals that is at question. What is at question is how should we view open wireless network SSID broadcasts. Should we, by default, assume that it was the owner's intention to leave it open for others to use as a convenience, or should we assume, by default, that the user is an ignoramus who is too lazy to understand the technology that he is implementing?

That's the real question here. Nothing to do with morals.
That's the issue that I'm trying to discuss yeah.

Some people just seem to believe that if you ever use anything in life that you've either not paid for or don't have explicit permission to use, that you are a thief, and are an inherently evil person.

If someone is putting something in your house without your permission (the network), is giving it zero security, and having it hand out connection details on request (or without even an explicit request if windows is set up so), it's apparently evil to use it. Wow.

When I walk down the street, I'm going to have some music playing. Anyone who listens to it without authorisation I shall rightly call evil.


Canwe get away from the stealing/evil nonsense, and discuss the situation of having an open network placed in your house....

[chaoscalle]

*Sheepish grin* I know it's not totally legal, but I do it sometimes anyway...

To explain my view of the matter:
Here in Sweden, we have a law that is called "allemansrätten". The best translation I can offer is All Mens Rights. What it means is that you may tread on any mans land, drink the water and use the natural resources there, as long as you don't destroy anything, steal any of his possessions that might be there and don't disturb him or his family. In the real world, this means that you may go anywhere you please, as long as the area is not surrounded by a fence and signs that says stay out, and you follow the rules stated above. Of course are you not allowed to enter anyones house without permission.

I personally apply this to connecting to open WiFi networks as well. As long as I act responsibly, I can use these radiowaves, that are, as well as private land, available. I don't destroy anything, I don't send spam or surf porn, and never download anything larger than 1 MB unless it's a truly free WiFi network. I check my mail, and maybe one or two sites on the net. I never touch the LAN behind the WAP. I'm not interested in checking anyones "house" out without his explicit permission.

In regard to who is responsible for people not accessing the open networks, I'd have to say that it is the owner of the AP. You have no rights without responsibilities. The analogies in this thread are quite absurd and fun, but I'd like to try my own...

You are driving down a road looking for a lake in a city where you've never been before. You then see another unmarked road that intersects with the road you're driving on, and you turn onto it, thinking "I wonder if this road might take me to the lake, it sure goes in the right direction". Suddenly, you are approached by some guy claiming that this road belongs to him, and you have no right to use it. If the "owner" had just put up a sign that said "private road", most people would not use it. If he had put up a gate or roadblock, no-one would. But he didn't want to. Is this the driver's (user's) fault?

If you answer yes to that question, you are probably living in another dimension than me.

Edit 050716: Bad spelling.

[nutshell]

For my money folk who share are folk who care.

I recently got lost in a strange town and the maps I had were no good. I pulled into a parking lot, found an open connection, went online and got the map and the directions I needed.

I would not abuse the priviledge, but having an open connection nearby that day sure saved my bacon.

[gibson042]

Welcome, chaoscalle! And thank you; your example and your analogy show the correspondence with trespassing. I maintain that open, unencrypted access points are like publically accessible parking lots, and that all who do not abuse the privilege are welcome to their use.

[dorelse]

Welcome, chaoscalle! And thank you; your example and your analogy show the correspondence with trespassing. I maintain that open, unencrypted access points are like publically accessible parking lots, and that all who do not abuse the privilege are welcome to their use.

ie...parking in a Target/Wal-Mart parking lot even though you're attending the parade one block over?

Or, are we talking about a Public (City Owned, taxpayer Funded parking lot)?

If its the former, techincally, I believe they could have your car towed. The purpose of their parking lot is for the benefit of their customers. Now, they also like to be good corporate citizens and (provided it doesn't impact their business), will allow it.

City parking ramps are of course open to the public b/c my tax dollars helped to pay for it...so I've already paid for my access to that public lot.

I don't believe you can apply that principle to using a privately owned home network.

[Typhoon]

This recurring theme of 'I was invited b/c its left open', 'its not secured, so I can use it', 'Too bad for them...should've locked it up...so now its free for the taking' is a truly disappointing testament to the lack of morals &amp; ethics in our world today.

What's disappointing is how quick we are to judge someone's morals when it's not an issue of morals at all.

I'm sure if the question was "is it ok to use someone's wireless network when you are pretty sure that they do not want you to use it?" then the response would be an overwhelming "no, of course not".

It is not the ethics and morals that is at question. What is at question is how should we view open wireless network SSID broadcasts. Should we, by default, assume that it was the owner's intention to leave it open for others to use as a convenience, or should we assume, by default, that the user is an ignoramus who is too lazy to understand the technology that he is implementing?

That's the real question here. Nothing to do with morals.
That's the issue that I'm trying to discuss yeah.

Some people just seem to believe that if you ever use anything in life that you've either not paid for or don't have explicit permission to use, that you are a thief, and are an inherently evil person.

If someone is putting something in your house without your permission (the network), is giving it zero security, and having it hand out connection details on request (or without even an explicit request if windows is set up so), it's apparently evil to use it. Wow.

When I walk down the street, I'm going to have some music playing. Anyone who listens to it without authorisation I shall rightly call evil.


Canwe get away from the stealing/evil nonsense, and discuss the situation of having an open network placed in your house....

Whoa there! You seem to have problems that you have written out in this post. Are you pessimistic in being percieved evil? It is stealing and besides that, no one will call you evil just because you stole a wi-fi connection. Who, in this thread, directly said that?

[Global Mobility]

If a network is OPEN, I feel that it *could* be used for legitimate purposes.

If a network is OPEN, does that mean that all the data that passes thru it is also PUBLIC DOMAIN since most people do not pass encrypted traffic (didn't make any effort to protect their data; not that this would matter--it's "SHARED" network as many here seem to believe. If the owner of the OPEN network logged all visitors and sniffed all packets to recreate user sessions, and maybe shared this infomation with others for educational purposes, would that be ILLEGAL? It's a SHARED, OPEN, and of PUBLIC DOMAIN since its not secured. Isn't it?

Nothing is really clear, and there are no real answers to the hypthetical questions mentioned above at this time. However, setting a precedent without fully realizing the effects could literaly "open the floodgates" for more bad legislation.

I'm unsure why Florida was so quick to create their laws regarding computer networks, and how they can quickly construe their current law to even apply to wireless networks. More discussion is needed asl all this is still quite new for the mainstream population.

[Typhoon]

Welcome, chaoscalle! And thank you; your example and your analogy show the correspondence with trespassing. I maintain that open, unencrypted access points are like publically accessible parking lots, and that all who do not abuse the privilege are welcome to their use.

ie...parking in a Target/Wal-Mart parking lot even though you're attending the parade one block over?

Or, are we talking about a Public (City Owned, taxpayer Funded parking lot)?

If its the former, techincally, I believe they could have your car towed. The purpose of their parking lot is for the benefit of their customers. Now, they also like to be good corporate citizens and (provided it doesn't impact their business), will allow it.

City parking ramps are of course open to the public b/c my tax dollars helped to pay for it...so I've already paid for my access to that public lot.

I don't believe you can apply that principle to using a privately owned home network.

It is wierd, but people only really need to understand these basic words to understand that it is stealing and it is wrong:

1) PRIVATELY owned
2) Paid for

[Global Mobility]

As for the person or persons in Florida that construed their current law regarding computer networks to apply to wireless networks.. how?

Unprotected, unlicensed radio waves that stay inside the owners domain *might* be considered property, but the radio waves that extend beyond the owner's domain should not be "owned." Again, it's FCC unlicensed radio waves so I do not think that the owner actually "owns" this.

Analogies that use tangible assets should not apply in this case. An unlocked door to a person's home is definitely not proper in this case since that unlocked door was inside the alleged perpetrator's vehicle. It's in his vehicle, but he cannot access everything that's in HIS vehicle?


No answers.. just more questions.. more thought!

[Typhoon]

If a network is OPEN, I feel that it *could* be used for legitimate purposes.

If a network is OPEN, does that mean that all the data that passes thru it is also PUBLIC DOMAIN since most people do not pass encrypted traffic (didn't make any effort to protect their data; not that this would matter--it's "SHARED" network as many here seem to believe. If the owner of the OPEN network logged all visitors and sniffed all packets to recreate user sessions, and maybe shared this infomation with others for educational purposes, would that be ILLEGAL? It's a SHARED, OPEN, and of PUBLIC DOMAIN since its not secured. Isn't it?

Nothing is really clear, and there are no real answers to the hypthetical questions mentioned above at this time. However, setting a precedent without fully realizing the effects could literaly "open the floodgates" for more bad legislation.

I'm unsure why Florida was so quick to create their laws regarding computer networks, and how they can quickly construe their current law to even apply to wireless networks. More discussion is needed asl all this is still quite new for the mainstream population.

LOL Oh man. Now this has turned into an unsolved mystery? You guys make me laugh...

[Typhoon]

Maybe someone can answer this question. How about I stop on over to your house and borrow your wife? Only for a short while, so that I can get my jollies off...

[gibson042]

Welcome, chaoscalle! And thank you; your example and your analogy show the correspondence with trespassing. I maintain that open, unencrypted access points are like publically accessible parking lots, and that all who do not abuse the privilege are welcome to their use.

ie...parking in a Target/Wal-Mart parking lot even though you're attending the parade one block over?

Or, are we talking about a Public (City Owned, taxpayer Funded parking lot)?

If its the former, techincally, I believe they could have your car towed. The purpose of their parking lot is for the benefit of their customers. Now, they also like to be good corporate citizens and (provided it doesn't impact their business), will allow it.
Exactly. They could tow your car (it is on their private property, after all), but they do not as long as your use does not negatively affect them. Just as it is generally okay to turn around in some stranger's/neighbor's driveway (even though such an act is technically trespassing), it should be generally okay to lightly use a stranger's/neighbor's wireless access point as long as it is open and unencrypted (even though such an act technically amounts to trespassing). This is perfectly in synch with chaoscalle's description of and the sentiments behind "allemansrätten". Technically not allowed, except by public acceptance of its benign nature. Or should the full weight of the law be brought down (for both physical and virtual trespassing) upon nutshell, who wrote:

I recently got lost in a strange town and the maps I had were no good. I pulled into a parking lot, found an open connection, went online and got the map and the directions I needed.
We aren't talking about seeding torrents, we're talking about checking e-mail. I, for one, gladly permit others to lightly use my network, and hope that the average person would let me use theirs in a pinch. The abundance of open, unencrypted networks seems to imply that they would.

I cannot see a moral difference between turning around in someone's driveway and using their open, unencrypted access point to verify my directions or price compare or look up a word or complete any number of other small tasks. If you can, please describe it.

[JMac]

I recently got lost in a strange town and the maps I had were no good. I pulled into a parking lot, found an open connection, went online and got the map and the directions I needed.
We aren't talking about seeding torrents, we're talking about checking e-mail. I, for one, gladly permit others to lightly use my network, and hope that the average person would let me use theirs in a pinch. The abundance of open, unencrypted networks seems to imply that they would.

I cannot see a moral difference between turning around in someone's driveway and using their open, unencrypted access point to verify my directions or price compare or look up a word or complete any number of other small tasks. If you can, please describe it.
Hard to tell when we're talking the concept in general or the Florida case specifically. But in the Florida case, the St. Pete Times indicates the "poacher" was there for several hours - surely this is a bit more than checking email or getting driving directions!

[mr_Ray]

Maybe someone can answer this question. How about I stop on over to your house and borrow your wife? Only for a short while, so that I can get my jollies off...That is a completely inappropriate analogy and you full well know it.

Perhaps you can instead turn your energies to answering this.

What gives YOU the right to spread YOUR network across MY property without my consent?

Why should you then be allowed to leave it explicitly marked "open to all", and marked as such and not have people use it ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY?

What then gives you the right to be placing this deliberately open network on my property, and set it up to hand out a live internet connection to any who ask?

And then what gives you the right to claim that I am morally wrong for using something open that you have placed in my property?

Seriously, how about answering those in a sensible way instead of likening using an open free-for-all network to abusing someone's wife?

[JMac]

Maybe someone can answer this question. How about I stop on over to your house and borrow your wife? Only for a short while, so that I can get my jollies off...That is a completely inappropriate analogy and you full well know it.
I agree with you completely on this. Completely inappropriate. (Please understand that wasn't my post.)

What gives YOU the right to spread YOUR network across MY property without my consent?
That one's easy - it's not your property. At least as regards RF or other transmissions. It's one thing to think it SHOULD be your property, just like it's OK to think that you should not have to pay any taxes. But it is in fact not OK according to the law. There are a lot of things that I think should not be illegal - but they are, and I can get myself into trouble by exercising my desires in opposition to the law. Also known as "willful intent"!

Why should you then be allowed to leave it explicitly marked "open to all", and marked as such and not have people use it ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY?
First, what is explictly marked "open to all"? I haven't seen that network yet. But if it were marked that exact way, then it would not be illegal for you to access it. That would constitute approval and authorization by the "owner". However, that "owner" doesn't really own his/her bandwidth - the ISP does, and it is almost a certainty that the TOS of the ISP spefically forbids such use. Also, if the "borrower" of the bandwidth uses the network to, say, distribute child pornography, the "owner" could be considered culpable also, depending on the specific content and jurisdiction. Something to think about!

What then gives you the right to be placing this deliberately open network on my property, and set it up to hand out a live internet connection to any who ask?
Again, it's not your property. Ask your lawyer, a judge, a law professor, or any other legal authority - at least in the US and I'm pretty sure, the UK. I really can't speak to the laws of other countries, and I don't know where you reside. If you have a statute or law that states otherwise, please let me know. If it's just your personal opinion or desire, you're definitely entitled to be as incorrect here as you want!

And then what gives you the right to claim that I am morally wrong for using something open that you have placed in my property?
"Moral" is a personal and relative term, except where it is described in the law. And that word is not used in the US Federal statute, nor any US state that I know of as of now. We could all continue arguing ethics and morality here, but I don't think we'll get anywhere. Legality is at least written and can be discussed a bit more objectively. However you're still dead wrong on the "my property" issue. Sorry.

Seriously, how about answering those in a sensible way instead of likening using an open free-for-all network to abusing someone's wife?
Again, I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. It was a personal, distasteful slur and has no place in this forum.

[Typhoon]

Maybe someone can answer this question. How about I stop on over to your house and borrow your wife? Only for a short while, so that I can get my jollies off...That is a completely inappropriate analogy and you full well know it.

Perhaps you can instead turn your energies to answering this.

What gives YOU the right to spread YOUR network across MY property without my consent?

Why should you then be allowed to leave it explicitly marked "open to all", and marked as such and not have people use it ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY?

What then gives you the right to be placing this deliberately open network on my property, and set it up to hand out a live internet connection to any who ask?

And then what gives you the right to claim that I am morally wrong for using something open that you have placed in my property?

Seriously, how about answering those in a sensible way instead of likening using an open free-for-all network to abusing someone's wife?

I will try your logic out sometime...when my new neighbor's wife knocks at my door to introduce herself, I will take my opportunity to "borrow her" for awhile. Hey, she stepped onto my property! Inappropriate? No, it is totally appropriate because it is a perfect analogy to the logic that was mentioned and plus it is shocking! Don't be ridiculous....you feel threatened about Wi-Fi coming to your place? Can you hear it humming at the night or something? Let's see who's logic wins at court. The neighbor stealing my internet connection by Wi-Fi or my Wi-Fi access covering his property?

And hey...stealing is stealing.

[Typhoon]

I recently got lost in a strange town and the maps I had were no good. I pulled into a parking lot, found an open connection, went online and got the map and the directions I needed.
We aren't talking about seeding torrents, we're talking about checking e-mail. I, for one, gladly permit others to lightly use my network, and hope that the average person would let me use theirs in a pinch. The abundance of open, unencrypted networks seems to imply that they would.

I cannot see a moral difference between turning around in someone's driveway and using their open, unencrypted access point to verify my directions or price compare or look up a word or complete any number of other small tasks. If you can, please describe it.
Hard to tell when we're talking the concept in general or the Florida case specifically. But in the Florida case, the St. Pete Times indicates the "poacher" was there for several hours - surely this is a bit more than checking email or getting driving directions!

True, which is likely the case for most unauthorized access...

[bjornkeizers]

(this is also for the posters above)

I love this attitude...it should be my right to not have people broadcast illegal network invites to me....um, where is it illegal to have a router broadcast an Open network? Its illegal for you to USE it (ok, at least in FL), but not for them to broadcast it. Somehow, you've gotten confused.

Not only are you subjecting me to radiation caused by *your* network - with possible negative effects on my health - but the radio waves could also interfere with *my* network or other equipment that uses the same frequency(s). Granted, it's not very likely, but it could happen. And what if *all* my neighbours got WiFi? I already have five other WiFi networks closeby not counting my *own* WiFi network... and I don't know what it's doing to me or my equipment.

I'd like for them to shut off their networks or limit their range, but hey.. it's their network.

I'm surprised that nobody's been sued over this. I'd take it to court for a test trial if I could.

[mr_Ray]

Maybe someone can answer this question. How about I stop on over to your house and borrow your wife? Only for a short while, so that I can get my jollies off...That is a completely inappropriate analogy and you full well know it.

Perhaps you can instead turn your energies to answering this.

What gives YOU the right to spread YOUR network across MY property without my consent?

Why should you then be allowed to leave it explicitly marked "open to all", and marked as such and not have people use it ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY?

What then gives you the right to be placing this deliberately open network on my property, and set it up to hand out a live internet connection to any who ask?

And then what gives you the right to claim that I am morally wrong for using something open that you have placed in my property?

Seriously, how about answering those in a sensible way instead of likening using an open free-for-all network to abusing someone's wife?

I will try your logic out sometime...when my new neighbor's wife knocks at my door to introduce herself, I will take my opportunity to "borrow her" for awhile. Hey, she stepped onto my property! Inappropriate? No, it is totally appropriate because it is a perfect analogy to the logic that was mentioned and plus it is shocking! Don't be ridiculous....you feel threatened about Wi-Fi coming to your place? Can you hear it humming at the night or something? Let's see who's logic wins at court. The neighbor stealing my internet connection by Wi-Fi or my Wi-Fi access covering his property?

And hey...stealing is stealing. You couldn't answer my question huh?
Well you're blatantly trolling now, continuing stupid comparisons to rape. I for one won't bother replying to you.

[Typhoon]

Well you're blatantly trolling now, continuing stupid comparisons to rape. I for one won't bother replying to you.

FINE BY ME. YOU DON'T HAVE TO. There are other posts in this thread that analogize your logic to just as heinous crimes as well.

That is really weak that you can't answer it. I think people would laugh or think it is odd if you said what you said in a debate because you couldn't answer it. Simple...you could refute it or accept it. But it is okay because I can see that you are afraid of exposing the similarities. Don't hold your nose up too high...

[chaoscalle]

I will try your logic out sometime...when my new neighbor's wife knocks at my door to introduce herself, I will take my opportunity to "borrow her" for awhile. Hey, she stepped onto my property! Inappropriate? No, it is totally appropriate because it is a perfect analogy to the logic that was mentioned and plus it is shocking! Don't be ridiculous....you feel threatened about Wi-Fi coming to your place? Can you hear it humming at the night or something? Let's see who's logic wins at court. The neighbor stealing my internet connection by Wi-Fi or my Wi-Fi access covering his property?

And hey...stealing is stealing. You couldn't answer my question huh?

Quite obviously there is something missing in your education and/or upbringning. You can not "borrow" anyones wife. The wife is a person of her own and has a mind of her own, and if she wants to play hide the sausage with you, thets HER choice, not the husbands. And in most civilized parts of the world, it is still legal to fool around.

If you are unable to understand that to rape this woman, who has nothing to do with the matter in question, without HER consent is not allowed, then I will not discuss this matter further with you, as you obviously are unable to understand proportions and the fact that women are not property.

I will try again with an edited analogy with basically the same content as my first one:
You are driving a car on a road. Before you, you see the "Information SuperHighWay", and an umarked, unmapped road leading to it. You drive up the unmarked road and onto the "Information SuperHighWay". After a few kilometers, you see that the police are chasing you. You, being a good citizen, drive to the side of the road and stop. The cop comes up to you and say "Sorry, sir/maam, but you are arrested". You are dumbfounded, and ask the officer why. The officer tells you that you used an unlawful on-ramp, and therefore you must pay huge fines and spend some time in jail.

Is this your fault? According to my philosophy, the answer is no, as you had no way of knowing that you were not allowed to use that road. Had there been a sign that said "Road Closed For Public Use" (=SSID "Do Not Use"/"Private"), then yes, you can't use it, and if you did, it's your fault, and you would have to take the punishment. If the road had been blocked (=WEP/WPA), then definately yes, but as it was neither, I say it wasn't your fault.

[Typhoon]

I will try your logic out sometime...when my new neighbor's wife knocks at my door to introduce herself, I will take my opportunity to "borrow her" for awhile. Hey, she stepped onto my property! Inappropriate? No, it is totally appropriate because it is a perfect analogy to the logic that was mentioned and plus it is shocking! Don't be ridiculous....you feel threatened about Wi-Fi coming to your place? Can you hear it humming at the night or something? Let's see who's logic wins at court. The neighbor stealing my internet connection by Wi-Fi or my Wi-Fi access covering his property?

And hey...stealing is stealing. You couldn't answer my question huh?

Quite obviously there is something missing in your education and/or upbringning. You can not "borrow" anyones wife.

WHOA! STOP THERE. Nice try but I need to let you know what you are doing here. Where is the focus on rape? I am making an analogy but YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. The poster was insisting that since MY wi-fi access is on his property, it is should be allowed to be accessible by him even though he never paid for it.

LOL Com'on. It is not like I am giving details on cannabalism! You guys act as if you have been going to a ultra conservative church all your lives and act as if I have just stepped into some forbidden zone. And who said rape? I never did. What happens after I "borrow her" has a ton of possibilities. I THINK YOU GUYS ACCUSED ME OF TALKING ABOUT RAPE TO DISCREDIT MY POST. ...NOW THAT IS PRETTY BAD.

Now ask yourself this... who does the wife belong to? And about your Road analogy...you can't tell me that when you connect to a router that you don't know which router is yours???? If that is the case then here is my answer:

LOL

I never knew what a SSID was (I still don't), and I have never had that problem!

[Steven Cedrone]

O.K., enough! Come up with another analogy, drop the "borrowing the wife". 8O

Thanks!

[chaoscalle]

WHOA! STOP THERE. Nice try but I need to let you know what you are doing here. Where is the focus on rape? I am making an analogy but YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. The poster was insisting that since MY wi-fi access is on his property, it is should be allowed to be accessible by him even though he never paid for it.

LOL Com'on. It is not like I am giving details on cannabalism! You guys act as if you have been going to a ultra conservative church all your lives and act as if I have just stepped into some forbidden zone. And who said rape? I never did. What happens after I "borrow her" has a ton of possibilities. I THINK YOU GUYS ACCUSED ME OF TALKING ABOUT RAPE TO DISCREDIT MY POST. ...NOW THAT IS PRETTY BAD.

Now ask yourself this... who does the wife belong to?

No, I don't want to discredit you in any way, but I interpreted your post as I read it. If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry.

If your WiFi network is available on his property and is open, then he can use it. If you have encrypted/locked it, then he has no rights what so ever to connect to your network.

And... The wife belongs to herself.

[Steven Cedrone]

Guys, steer away from the "wife" analogy... :?

Thanks!

[Typhoon]

WHOA! STOP THERE. Nice try but I need to let you know what you are doing here. Where is the focus on rape? I am making an analogy but YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. The poster was insisting that since MY wi-fi access is on his property, it is should be allowed to be accessible by him even though he never paid for it.

LOL Com'on. It is not like I am giving details on cannabalism! You guys act as if you have been going to a ultra conservative church all your lives and act as if I have just stepped into some forbidden zone. And who said rape? I never did. What happens after I "borrow her" has a ton of possibilities. I THINK YOU GUYS ACCUSED ME OF TALKING ABOUT RAPE TO DISCREDIT MY POST. ...NOW THAT IS PRETTY BAD.

Now ask yourself this... who does the wife belong to?

No, I don't want to discredit you in any way, but I interpreted your post as I read it. If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry.

If your WiFi network is available on his property and is open, then he can use it. If you have encrypted/locked it, then he has no rights what so ever to connect to your network.

And... The wife belongs to herself.

Thanks. I just didn't want people to get the wrong idea.

[Typhoon]

O.K., enough! Come up with another analogy, drop the "borrowing the wife". 8O

Thanks!

Sure, no problem. Let's say if 3 of my neighbor's dogs dug a hole under the fence and started running around in my yard. Instead of returning the dogs, I take them, clobber them, and start a dog BBQ... does anyone object to this?? I hope not...because he should of put a leash on them and used dog tags in the first place. Who knows? Even though I PLAINLY see the hole under the fence, how do I know for sure who's dogs they are? Maybe the gods gave them to me! Don't blame me for his lack of security...

As you can see, this insane analogy allows for the same excuse to be applied to the most insane situations.

[JA]

Yumy! Dog is good with ketchup. Got 2 hand it 2 you typhoon, ur a bigger troll then I am! Haha :twisted: Ja

[chaoscalle]

And about your Road analogy...you can't tell me that when you connect to a router that you don't know which router is yours???? If that is the case then here is my answer:

LOL

I never knew what a SSID was (I still don't), and I have never had that problem!

I always know which router is mine. I still haven't found another with the same name. That was not the point...

To explain further:
You are in a city, where you know there are a huge amount of open WiFi networks available to the public, for example my hometown Stockholm, the capital of Sweden. Your boss calls and says you need to check your e-mail A.S.A.P., or he will go medieval on your a**.

You pick up your trusty PPC companion, start it, and turn on the WiFi. You find 20-30 different open networks, all with similar names, and simply log on to the one with the strongest signal to get your e-mail.

SSID is the name of the network that your router broadcasts in order to help you identify your own. Most are set to broadcast the name "default".

I won't even comment the dog analogy as it is too absurd.

[Rudism]

Let's say if 3 of my neighbor's dogs dug a hole under the fence and started running around in my yard. Instead of returning the dogs, I take them, clobber them, and start a dog BBQ... does anyone object to this?? I hope not...because he should of put a leash on them and used dog tags in the first place. Who knows? Even though I PLAINLY see the hole under the fence, how do I know for sure who's dogs they are? Maybe the gods gave them to me! Don't blame me for his lack of security...

As you can see, this insane analogy allows for the same excuse to be applied to the most insane situations.

It certainly would not be illegal for you to interact with the dogs on your own property. You could pet them, play fetch, feed them some water, check their collars to see who they belong to, even put them in your car and take them to a vet to be scanned for microchips.

As soon as you clobber them and barbecue them, though, you are breaking other, totally unrelated animal cruelty laws. Not to mention the civil case that your neighbor would have against you. Your analogy does not compare to simply using someone's public wifi router to check your mail... it compares more to using someone's public wifi router to send death threats and hack government networks. Sure, you'd be breaking the law, but that's hardly due to the fact that you're using a publicly available wifi connection to do it.

[gibson042]

Hard to tell when we're talking the concept in general or the Florida case specifically. But in the Florida case, the St. Pete Times indicates the "poacher" was there for several hours - surely this is a bit more than checking email or getting driving directions!
I was referring to the concept in general. The details of the Florida situation, as I understand them, imply that the guy was abusing his privilege and should have been asked to leave, with his access revoked. But it seems that the owner of the network was unaware of how to restrict access (and unaware that his network was publicly available, for that matter), and a little suspicious/afraid, so he called the police. I don't think the offender will suffer anything more than a warning, and stands a good chance of winning his case if it goes to trial, but he was on the wrong side of "allemansrätten" and common courtesy.

[striker2001]

Wi Fi is like a box of chocolates :D

[Typhoon]

And about your Road analogy...you can't tell me that when you connect to a router that you don't know which router is yours???? If that is the case then here is my answer:

LOL

I never knew what a SSID was (I still don't), and I have never had that problem!

I always know which router is mine. I still haven't found another with the same name. That was not the point...

To explain further:
You are in a city, where you know there are a huge amount of open WiFi networks available to the public, for example my hometown Stockholm, the capital of Sweden. Your boss calls and says you need to check your e-mail A.S.A.P., or he will go medieval on your a**.
...
I won't even comment the dog analogy as it is too absurd.

Why not look for an internet cafe? Starbucks is just about everywhere. That's ridiculous. I say, if all else fails, wait till you get home. And if you can't afford it, get a better paying job.

[Typhoon]

Let's say if 3 of my neighbor's dogs dug a hole under the fence and started running around in my yard. Instead of returning the dogs, I take them, clobber them, and start a dog BBQ... does anyone object to this?? I hope not...because he should of put a leash on them and used dog tags in the first place. Who knows? Even though I PLAINLY see the hole under the fence, how do I know for sure who's dogs they are? Maybe the gods gave them to me! Don't blame me for his lack of security...

As you can see, this insane analogy allows for the same excuse to be applied to the most insane situations.

It certainly would not be illegal for you to interact with the dogs on your own property. You could pet them, play fetch, feed them some water, check their collars to see who they belong to, even put them in your car and take them to a vet to be scanned for microchips. ...


THIS IS ODD. you guys are CONSTANTLY AVOIDING to talk about the point and try changing the subject. But it is obvious why...because you guys can't answer it. I GIVE UP. IT IS LIKE TALKING TO A BRICK WALL...

[chaoscalle]

Why not look for an internet cafe? Starbucks is just about everywhere. That's ridiculous. I say, if all else fails, wait till you get home. And if you can't afford it, get a better paying job.

1. Internet cafés broadcasts their SSID as well as anyone else. Many of them use the "default" SSID as well.
2. Starbucks does not exist in Sweden. Sweden is a country in the northern part of europe, on the other side of the atlantic.
3. I'm on 24/7 call. I sometimes tend to spend time in other places than my work or my home, and sometimes it can take me a few hours to get home. Some business can't wait that long.
4. I am well paid and have a WiFi network at home, connected to the internet, open for all.


THIS IS ODD. you guys are CONSTANTLY AVOIDING to talk about the point and try changing the subject. But it is obvious why...because you guys can't answer it. I GIVE UP. IT IS LIKE TALKING TO A BRICK WALL...

I feel much the same way about you. I seem to miss the point you are trying to make all the time and I find your analogies very strange and frightening, when you say that using an open WiFi network in a non-harmful manner is the same thing as slaying innocent animals.

[Sven Johannsen]

Why not look for an internet cafe? Starbucks is just about everywhere.

Starbucks ain't free. I would suggest that to find a free WiFi Hotspot in my town you'd need internet access to find one. No I 'm not changing sides. I'm just saying there are some areas where 'really' free access is harder to come across.

I'd like to say that I never indicated that anyone who used another's internet access without assuring that it was intended to be, was evil, or a thief. I just said it's not right to do so. Because it isn't yours. The only real argument I see refuting that assessment supposes that I must have left it open on purpose. I'm not sure how you can jump to that conclusion if the SSID is Linksys, or even UpstairsAP. If it says Free2U, or HopOn, I might figure the intent to share is there myself.

Let me ask, not as an analogy, but maybe a similar situation. If you go to someone's office and you find yourself in the breakroom, and there is a coffee pot and cups. Do you just pour yourself a cup, or do you ask first?

As far as my broadcasting into your space, that's a function of the equipment, and I can't do much about it. At least not at a technical level comensurate with not knowing how to implement security, or maybe not even knowing you need to. You, on the other hand, have the option to not use it, totally within your control.

I enjoyed very much chaoscalle's explanation of "All Man's Rights" as applied in his country. I would even agree that in that environment, WiFi access outside a private home may more likely be seen as available than it might be here. Here, being a very property centric society. There certainly are still some cultures where nobody owns anything, though i don't think they have WiFi.

[jlp]

I understand Chaoscalle's analogy and I'll go one further, I understand it's what he meant with his "allemansrätten".

Most of us have gone hiking in the woods or mountain. Has any of you gone thru the trouble of finding the owner of every bit of land you've gone thru and ask permission to do so? Have you not taken dead wood to make a staff, attach a pennant, make a fire, a stick to cook some food? Have you not eaten some berries? Have you not drank some water? Have you not taken some nice looking rocks? Have you not taken some flowers? etc.

According to the stance of the nay-sayers here, you've been trespassing and stealing!! :roll:

According to most normal people, you've been reasonably using freely available resources; as long as you've followed Chaoscalle's recommandations that goes with it, as long as you haven't gone past "No Trespassing" signs and fences.

8)

.

[bjornkeizers]

Wow, the debate is still going on! 8O

At the moment, there are no laws that specifically govern the use of WiFi, both by owners and passersby. And because there is no law, we all need to figure out what's 'right' or 'wrong', use and abuse.

Hey, I'm going to be honest here and say that, until my government says that I can't, I'll still use the open WiFi whenever the opportunity presents itself. With the slow lawmakers - they're still working on the Napster case after all. :roll: - it'll take at least another five years to legislate free, open WiFi to death... so until that time I'm forced to rely on my own morals and ethics.

And as you can see, 77% of the people who voted in the poll agree that it's not 'wrong'....

Right now it's the law of the jungle out there. You either learn, adapt, etc. or you get eaten.

[Sven Johannsen]

I understand Chaoscalle's analogy and I'll go one further, I understand it's what he meant with his "allemansrätten".

Most of us have gone hiking in the woods or mountain. Has any of you gone thru the trouble of finding the owner of every bit of land you've gone thru and ask permission to do so? Have you not taken dead wood to make a staff, attach a pennant, make a fire, a stick to cook some food? Have you not eaten some berries? Have you not drank some water?
Don't need to. Over here you don't do that unless you are on public land, National Forest, National Park, Bureau of Land Management, City or County park, etc. Private land is just that, private, and you better not be on it, unless there are some specific allowances, and these would be posted.

Have you not taken some nice looking rocks? Have you not taken some flowers? etc. Depending on where you are, that may or may not be illegal. It is the hikers responsibility to find out. If you don't know, I would recommend not taking them. Collecting firewood is dependent on the location as well BTW.

According to the stance of the nay-sayers here, you've been trespassing and stealing!! :roll:Not if I am on public land. If I am on private land without permission, you bet I'm trespassing. Even on public land there are certain things I can use and certain things I can't.

According to most normal people, you've been reasonably using freely available resources; as long as you've followed Chaoscalle's recommandations that goes with it, as long as you haven't gone past "No Trespassing" signs and fences.

8)

.

The concept of public access to private land isn't well accepted over here, so this working this into the discussion doesn't translate well. We are also talking about a quantity that is somewhat unique. It is something of yours I can use without ever getting on your property. I still think it's yours and i shouldn't use it without asking.

I colleague brought up a very good analogy, as analogies go in this discussion. You have an apple tree. Some of the branches hang over into my yard. Are the apples on the tree on my side yours or mine?

I don't know the answer to that, legally. I do know I would ask you if I could pick the apples on my side. If you said no, I likely wouldn't let you on my property to pick your apples, and we could develop a wonderful relationship based on that :roll:

[brianchris]

I colleague brought up a very good analogy, as analogies go in this discussion. You have an apple tree. Some of the branches hang over into my yard. Are the apples on the tree on my side yours or mine?

I don't know the answer to that, legally. I do know I would ask you if I could pick the apples on my side. If you said no, I likely wouldn't let you on my property to pick your apples, and we could develop a wonderful relationship based on that :roll:

Interesting......in mentioning this thread with my wife a couple days ago, she came up with that analogy, except with two differences: the apples had actually fallen off the tree into your yard from the branches that hang over, and her analogy was supporting her belief that it was OK to use open WiFi (which is interesting becuase she has never used an open WiFi network ever).

So, would you return the fallen apples to your neighboor? Does the fact they fell off the tree apply to WiFi at all? Are we all in analogy hell here? Who knows, but I still think Rudism's idea of a compromise (SSID hidden by default) is the solution (and gibson042 actually suggested it earlier in the thread than Rudism). I also TOTALLY agree with Narny's coment earlier in this thread that the "concept [of WiFi] will never map successfully on to the non-virtual world of property and possessions."

[SassKwatch]

wifi isn't tangible.

It most assuredly is. One doesn't have to be able to physically touch, smell, or hear something for it to be tangible.

[SassKwatch]

The people who use technology without knowing what they are doing are being poor netizen's. Either understand what you are doing or don't do it in the first place.

That's a weak argument. Very few people who drive cars can tell you how fuel injection works. Should they never step on the gas until they can?

Or if they pass that test and get the car rolling, should they have to understand disc brake fuctionality before applying the brakes? Whooops.....crash, bang, booom.

[gibson042]

wifi isn't tangible.

It most assuredly is. One doesn't have to be able to physically touch, smell, or hear something for it to be tangible.
Umm, you might want to double-check (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tangible). :wink:

tan·gi·ble adj. [list=a:5e565e02e8] Discernible by the touch; palpable[/list:o:5e565e02e8]
Some of the biggest difficulties with radio waves are that an unaided human is completely oblivious to them and that they completely ignore our property lines.

[Ed Hansberry]

Some of the biggest difficulties with radio waves are that an unaided human is completely oblivious to them and that they completely ignore our property lines.
but unlike traditional radio that is broadcast, using WiFi means you are connecting back to their hardware and forcing it to accept and respond to your signal. Totally different that just listening in on a radio broadcast.

[jlp]

I understand Chaoscalle's analogy and I'll go one further, I understand it's what he meant with his "allemansrätten".

Most of us have gone hiking in the woods or mountain. Has any of you gone thru the trouble of finding the owner of every bit of land you've gone thru and ask permission to do so? Have you not taken dead wood to make a staff, attach a pennant, make a fire, a stick to cook some food? Have you not eaten some berries? Have you not drank some water?
Don't need to. Over here you don't do that unless you are on public land, National Forest, National Park, Bureau of Land Management, City or County park, etc. Private land is just that, private, and you better not be on it, unless there are some specific allowances, and these would be posted.

Have you not taken some nice looking rocks? Have you not taken some flowers? etc. Depending on where you are, that may or may not be illegal. It is the hikers responsibility to find out. If you don't know, I would recommend not taking them. Collecting firewood is dependent on the location as well BTW.

According to the stance of the nay-sayers here, you've been trespassing and stealing!! :roll:Not if I am on public land. If I am on private land without permission, you bet I'm trespassing. Even on public land there are certain things I can use and certain things I can't.

According to most normal people, you've been reasonably using freely available resources; as long as you've followed Chaoscalle's recommandations that goes with it, as long as you haven't gone past "No Trespassing" signs and fences.

8)

.

The concept of public access to private land isn't well accepted over here, so this working this into the discussion doesn't translate well. We are also talking about a quantity that is somewhat unique. It is something of yours I can use without ever getting on your property. I still think it's yours and i shouldn't use it without asking.

I colleague brought up a very good analogy, as analogies go in this discussion. You have an apple tree. Some of the branches hang over into my yard. Are the apples on the tree on my side yours or mine?

I don't know the answer to that, legally. I do know I would ask you if I could pick the apples on my side. If you said no, I likely wouldn't let you on my property to pick your apples, and we could develop a wonderful relationship based on that :roll:
(Sorry for the long quote but it's fully relevant to my answer)

When you say: "The concept of public access to private land isn't well accepted over here, so this working this into the discussion doesn't translate well." could I politely ask you please stop thinking you're in the center of the world?

The title to this thread is not "Is It OK To Use An Open WiFi Connection in the USA Without Permission?" and the site is NOT USpocketpcthoughts.com.

This is an international site and wifi networks are installed all over the world as you should guess.


Now another example: on your land property there is the source of a river; the river then goes thru my property. Do you own the water? Do I have to ask your permission to use the water? Most certainly not.

This is one of the closest analogy with Wifi, along with the front porch light.

Of course as noted there is no perfect analogy with wifi in the physical world.

Why?

Simply because there are no perfect analogy in any situation, not only wifi. Parables, synonyms, they never represent the exact same situation or meaning. But they are used to examplify an idea, thought, situation, etc. that is similar.

And similar does NOT mean identical.

But the similarity of the example (or parable) can open up a new understanding of the matter that is discussed.

Hopefully 8).

[gibson042]

Some of the biggest difficulties with radio waves are that an unaided human is completely oblivious to them and that they completely ignore our property lines.
but unlike traditional radio that is broadcast, using WiFi means you are connecting back to their hardware and forcing it to accept and respond to your signal. Totally different that just listening in on a radio broadcast.
Absolutely correct. I was just pointing out a source of confusion (not to mention a breaking point for many analogies) on the topic, not making an argument that bidirectional and unidirectional radio communications are equivalent. The truth is, all kinds of intangibles stress our notions of property, and require reasoned application of overarching principles in order to be successfully incorporated into the body of law. That's what the Florida legislature was attempting to do, and that's what the participants of this thread are attempting now.

Edit: It is interesting to see how the answer changes with application of different cultural principles, many of which are enshrined in law.

[juttonn]

wifi isn't tangible.

It most assuredly is. One doesn't have to be able to physically touch, smell, or hear something for it to be tangible.
Umm, you might want to double-check (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tangible). :wink:

tan·gi·ble adj. [list=a:67e843f30a] Discernible by the touch; palpable[/list:o:67e843f30a]
Some of the biggest difficulties with radio waves are that an unaided human is completely oblivious to them and that they completely ignore our property lines.

Uh, you might want to keep reading definitions. Using your link to dictionary.com here are definitions 2 &amp; 3:

2. Possible to understand or realize: &lt;cite>the tangible benefits of the plan.

3. <u>Law.</u> That can be valued monetarily: &lt;cite>tangible property.

[Rudism]

but unlike traditional radio that is broadcast, using WiFi means you are connecting back to their hardware and forcing it to accept and respond to your signal. Totally different that just listening in on a radio broadcast.

Nobody's forcing it to do anything. The owner can choose whether or not to allow anonymous access.

[gibson042]

Uh, you might want to keep reading definitions. Using your link to dictionary.com here are definitions 2 &amp; 3:

2. Possible to understand or realize: &lt;cite>the tangible benefits of the plan.

3. <u>Law.</u> That can be valued monetarily: &lt;cite>tangible property.
I quoted the definition that alabij was using in the original post, which was obvious in context (contrasting wi-fi with an open car):
Your analogies remind me of how the Supreme court deemed P2P illegal(in so many words). You have to understand the technology. Comparing wifi to an open car is not functional. wifi isn't tangible.
As is often the case, the legal definition does not coincide with the conversational definition. Which is the definition that (with about 95% certainty on my part) alabij was using, and that I was using, under which wi-fi is not tangible.

[Typhoon]

LOL sorry, I just had to reply... Wi-Fi is there, right?? It is not a concept like love. Whether you can feel it or not, people know it exists. I trust my intuition on this one...

[Sven Johannsen]

When you say: "The concept of public access to private land isn't well accepted over here, so this working this into the discussion doesn't translate well." could I politely ask you please stop thinking you're in the center of the world?

I didn't think I did. If you actually read through the posts instead of taking things out of full context, you might have understood that my point is that we are looking at the WiFi question from very different points of view when it comes to personal and public property. I previously said it made sense that in a society that is used to public access to what we would consider private land, your extension of that philosophy to WiFi, would tend to make you feel it is for AlleMann's use as well.

My point was that the analogy doesn't work, unless we share the same experience in the compared item. For example, if it is natural for you to get a drink out of someone else's water spigot, but that is not permissible here (disregarding any tresspassing complications), using that as an analogy to the WiFi question would cause is to draw opposing conclusions.

It doesn't seem to me though that the majority of those on the "It's OK" side of the fence feel that way because of some societal background that holds to the understanding that some private things are available for public use, within reason. I can buy that. It appears the predominant argument is more on the line of implied consent due to lack of protection. That indicates to me that without consent, they feel it would be wrong. I don't buy that lack of security implies consent.

[chaoscalle]

I think I'd have to agree with Sven here...

Obviously, us non-Americans are so used to total ignorance by Americans, having the impression that the average American thinks that America is the center of the world and that London, England, Paris or France is the capital of a small country named Europe.

I know that this is true to some extent due to several discussions online and in person, but obviously Sven here has more knowledge of the world than that. Must be due to the Nordic nick he is using... ;)

I understand fully that my analogy isn't all that workable, or even understandable, for many Americans. That's why I tried to explain it as I did. Here in Sweden, I'd just have said that "I think this falls under allemansrätten" and that would've been it.

It is fully possible that I would've had another view of the matter if I'd grown up in Texas, where I could shoot people trespassing on my front lawn, but I didn't, so I don't.

[Steven Cedrone]

Can we please NOT turn this thread into a debate about Americans and their knowledge (or lack thereof) of geography... :roll:

Thanks!

[chaoscalle]

I apologise. That was not my intent. :oops:

My intent was only to state that I understand that my analogy might not be easy to comprehend for people that are not used to the level of freedom we have here in Sweden, and that my view of things might have been different had I been raised in another country.

[Sven Johannsen]

It is interesting that different societies do hold to what I would think are very different basic rules. I come with the basic understanding that if it doesn't belong to me, I don't use it. Other places either have caveats to that, or go so far as to be brought up that there are some things that just don't belong to anyone, or belong to everyone.

Honestly I think the latter has more merit, but comes with some inherent responsibilities. I would assume Allemansrätten does come with expectations of the level of use. While apparently I can hike across your property, I probabaly can't build a house on it. I'm not sure if I could camp there for a couple of days. Not sure what reasonable use is. On the WiFi front I'm not sure what reasonable use would be either. In my own mind, it wouldn't bother me if someone got Mapquest directions, checked their e-mail, or even restarted a service on their corporate server over my connection. I would have some issues if they started a spam flood, downloaded warz and pirated media, or hacked my web site. The potential for that is why my WiFi is protected, not because I am against sharing. There is no good way to assure that the user will confiorm to any particular standard of 'reasonable' use.

So, the concept that using something that doesn't belong to you is wrong has prevailed here, likely as a fairly clear cut rule. Now we only have to argue about whether it belongs to me or not, rather than if the use you think is reasonable, is reasonable to me.

Well this was a fun and informative discussion. Makes perfect sense to me if you subscribe to the allemansrätten philosophy that open WiFi would fit nicely into that. Doesn't make sense to me that in a society that believes that not having a fence in my front yard is not an indcation that I want you in it, that not having protection on WiFi is an indication I want you to use it.

For the record, Sven is my name. Born in Offenbach to German parents, but the ancestry is Danish and German. Been in the US for about half a century, so I only lay claim to German when it is embarrassing to be American ;)

O.T.
What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
Trilingual
What do you call someone that speaks two languages?
Bilingual
What do you call someone that speaks one language?
American :)

[jlp]

...
O.T.
What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
Trilingual
What do you call someone that speaks two languages?
Bilingual
What do you call someone that speaks one language?
American :)
Or English or French :twisted:

[Typhoon]

...
O.T.
What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
Trilingual
What do you call someone that speaks two languages?
Bilingual
What do you call someone that speaks one language?
American :)
Or English or French :twisted:

I was told that even though a lot of citizens in France 'can' speak English, they won't. And even if you ask them for directions. I'm really not lying, though... my French teacher told me that. And she is from France. I don't remember for sure but I think the logic behind was..."why should I??"...

[chaoscalle]

@Sven:
Obviously, we share much the same view of reasonable use. No more debate. :D

And to whom the WiFi signal belongs to has never been in question from me. It belongs to the person who bought the router/AP/whatever and pays the ISP for the connection. Thus it is his to do with what he wishes, i.e. leaving it open or locking it up. It's up to him.

If I find a open WiFi network when I want/have to check my mail, I'll use it. If I don't, I'll connect through bluetooth to my cellphone and use the built-in modem to connect and pay the US$2 per MB it costs. It really doesn't matter that much to me. ;)

For more about allemansrätten, check out the official Swedish government site (in english); http://www.allemansratten.se/templates/Page.asp?id=2060

I won't touch the language part so that Steven won't be mad with me again... ;)

[Sven Johannsen]

I was told that even though a lot of citizens in France 'can' speak English, they won't. And even if you ask them for directions. I'm really not lying, though... my French teacher told me that. And she is from France. I don't remember for sure but I think the logic behind was..."why should I??"...

I think most places if you make a stab at the language. At least learn enough to ask if anyone speaks English in the native language, and do it politely, you get better response. Appreciating someone who speaks English, instead of expecting them too, goes a long way. Complementing someone on their English is usually well received. In France it might be an insult, so be careful ;)

I had the opportunity to go to Norway a while back and was a bit concerned about the language barrier. I had no idea at the time that darn near everyone there speaks Norwegian, English and one other language. That's what the schools teach. Anyway, we get off the plane, get into a cab, and I figure If I just give the hotel name, that should get us going. The Norwegian cabby, turn'd around, and said, "Right'o, won't be but a half hour, have you there straight away." (apperantly his English was English, not American ;) ), I responded, "My God, your English is better than that of the cab drivers in my country." Made his day.

[Ed Hansberry]

[
I think most places if you make a stab at the language. At least learn enough to ask if anyone speaks English in the native language, and do it politely, you get better response. Appreciating someone who speaks English, instead of expecting them too, goes a long way. Complementing someone on their English is usually well received. In France it might be an insult, so be careful ;)
I just use the tried and true method of talking s-l-o-w and LOUD.

[gibson042]

Thank you again, chaoscalle, for the cultural education. The sections on private roads and signs and fences were particularly enlightening on the different worldviews; in the United States one has complete ownership of property and can place any restriction on others' use of it (up to and including total prohibition, even for those on foot or bicycle). But I would compare most Americans with the Swedes who keep their roads open to motor traffic, even though they have the right to close them... provided that the "do not disturb, do not destroy" principle is honored.

[chaoscalle]

@Gibson042
I'm just happy to have an opening for my annoying besserwisser-isms... ;) And I'm also proud to be a Swede... We're a small country with about as many citizens as New York, and still we have made some serious impact on the world... Like Ericsson, Volvo, IKEA, smorgasboards and much more...

I'm going to have to get over to the US soon and take a look around... So when you hear about the the Swede that got shot in Texas for snooping around peoples garages, you know who it'll be :D

@Sven
When it comes to languages, I speak Swedish and English fluently, German badly, French worse and I have forgotten almost all Japanese I took in highschool... :D

The Frog-eaters and the Brits have been fighting in one way or another since even before they were nations... I think they do it mostly as a matter of principle these days ;)

Sorry for all the O.T.... :oops:

[Sven Johannsen]

Sorry for all the O.T.... :oops:
Doesn't bother me. Takes the thread in a much more interesting and pleasant direction. The original got subverted pages ago.

For me I still muddle through German enough to get around as a pleasant tourist :oops: , and I'm still working on my English.

Thanks for the smorgasbords, BTW. :way to go:

[JMckie]

On stealing an open wifi signal for light web usage and no hacking:

Legally, I don't care. I break the law every day by driving over the speed limit (safely). Getting caught speeding concerns me 1,000,000X more than getting indicted for theft of service given the minor mooching that I may occasionally do.

I am not a nihilist. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other laws that I don't follow.

Ethically, I don't care as well. As long as bandwidth is not abused and the mooching is done discreetly (unlike the dumb St. Petersburg guy), it doesn't harm anyone. That should be the litmus test for ethical issues: How much real harm does it cause? For casual and occasional mooching, no one is harmed or even inconvenienced. In fact, given that it benefits one person, it is ethically a good thing.

Taking time during business hours to make personal calls or to check the Aximsite forums is ethically a bigger offense, because you are stealing company resources. I notice many of the holier-than-thou preachy posts were made on company time. Hypocrites.

[gibson042]

Thanks for the smile. :D

[htmanning]

It's totally wrong to use someone's wifi signal unless they're aware of it, but it's going to be impossible to track such a thing.

What we should be doing is trying to encourage a movement for free wifi, where people offer their signal for use by others. I read an article about a movement in NYC where people were doing that. If enough people participated we wouldn't have to wait for the big companies to cover us.

Tom
Pocket PC Blast! (http://www.pocketpcblast.com)

[Sven Johannsen]

What we should be doing is trying to encourage a movement for free wifi, where people offer their signal for use by others. I read an article about a movement in NYC where people were doing that. If enough people participated we wouldn't have to wait for the big companies to cover us.
I don't think it's an issue of getting people to share. It's more of an issue of getting others not to abuse or misuse.

[Paragon]

Well apparently it's against the law in the UK. This time the person has been charged and convicted.

Check out the thread at engadget.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000400051561/#comments

I think one of the main reasons many people think it is ok to use an open network is because there are so many that are intentionally left open by businesses as an attraction to buy their coffee or whatever. As well many people do intentionally leave an open access point. This tends to lead people to believe that if they find an open access than it must be ok, because so many others are ok to use. That is an assumption. One of my grade school teachers taught me how to spell asssume...to assume makes an ass of u and me

For me to use my internet connection in my house I have entered into an agreement with my ISP and pay them every month for the privilege. It doesn't matter if I use it on a computer with a cable or if it is wireless regardless of whether or not it is open or encrypted, I have made that agreement. If the guy walking by my house uses it he does not have an agreement wth the ISP. I do, not him. He does NOT have permisssion. He is onl;y acting on an assumption, nothing more. Remember what assuming does. ;)

dave

[OSUKid7]

Well apparently it's against the law in the UK. This time the person has been charged and convicted.

Check out the thread at engadget.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000400051561/#comments
Just submitted that to news@PPCT about 20 minutes ago.

[Sven Johannsen]

Anybody have the inclination to read all the comments over there? Save yourself some time, if you've read this thread. It's pretty much the same.