When In Singapore Make Sure To Turn Off WiFi Network Autodiscovery

from the otherwise,-jailtime-it-is dept

For many years, we've put up posts questioning whether or not using unsecured WiFi was a crime or if it even should be a crime. It appears that officials in Singapore decided that it absolutely is a crime and John writes in to point out that a teenager now faces three years in jail for using his neighbor's WiFi. There aren't too many details here, and perhaps there's more to this story. However, from the summary, it sounds like this kid used his neighbor's open WiFi network. There's nothing saying that he got past any security or anything like that -- just that he had "unauthorized access." As many of you probably know, most computers these days have WiFi network auto-discovery, meaning that if you're walking around with an ordinary laptop in Singapore, you could accidentally open yourself up to the potential of 3 years in jail just by waking it up in the wrong spot. The other oddity here is that the article claims the complaint was filed by the neighbor, though it's unclear how he knew that his WiFi was being used by the teen, or how anyone can prove that it actually was the teen. Perhaps there really is more to the story, and perhaps the neighbor did properly lock up his WiFi -- but if it really was open, wouldn't locking it up be a more reasonable response than tossing your teenaged neighbor in jail for three years?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Charlie, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 2:50am

    What do you expect from people still living in the dark ages ... this is the 21 cent. wake up people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    HurB, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 2:53am

    Unless there was continued abuse which caused the owner's connection to lose out on bandwidth, and unless the owner had already warned the teenager, it seems like the most unfair thing to do to press charges and have him convicted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    MrPaladin, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 3:28am

    perhaps...

    Perhaps this teen is not pure as the driven snow...

    was the person being persued actually being malicious to other users online?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Andrew, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 3:34am

    they might have knowingly caused a lard bend with bill for the wifi owner. but still 3 years is a bit much.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Ivan Awfulitch, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 4:01am

    Unauthorized Use of Neighbor's Wifi

    I'm surprised they didn't sentence the youth to a caning.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 4:11am

    Singapore? Guaranteed that there was porn involved. They flip out over that stuff

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    The infamous Joe, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 4:13am

    Note to self...

    ....don't visit singapore. :)

    There HAS to be more, it's probably up to 3 years depending on the specific case.

    Hm.. I wonder what their take is on music downloading...

    Note to self...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    The Obvious, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 4:14am

    Secure

    There is an issue if the neighbor secured his network, but if he leaves it open, it is an invitation to share.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Another Anonymous Coward, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 5:01am

    I have to disagree with #8

    = = = = = = =
    Secure by The Obvious on Nov 14th, 2006 @ 4:14am

    There is an issue if the neighbor secured his network, but if he leaves it open, it is an invitation to share.
    = = = = = = =

    Although a good theory, leaving something unsecured does not give anyone the right to use it. If you left your car open and someone took it for a ride or left your home open and someone came in and watched some tv I doubt you'd have the same perspective.

    With that said if the kid wasn't being malicious 3 years isnt a bit much its ludicrous. If jails in Singapore are anything close to jails in the U.S. that kid will be a hardened criminal with a sore *^*(& by the time he gets out. He should at most get a warning and if he continous he can be fined the cost of the neighbors ISP charges plus a stiff penalty. That would probably disuade him/her from using "free" bandwidth :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Dosquatch, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 5:18am

    How

    There's no need for any loss of bandwidth. All that's required is, say, to have been looking at the WAP's connection list at the same time that his neighbor was connected and notice, "hey... I don't have a machine named 'brat next door', what's that doing here?"

    pretty easy to track down at that point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Chronno S. Trigger, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 5:21am

    We don't know it all...

    It could be like at my house where my wireless is secure but my neighbor’s isn't. With Windows XP it just connects to the one with the best signal. My sister didn't even know she was connecting to the wrong network until I told her.

    We need more details before we can complain about this

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anthony, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 5:29am

    Comment 11

    Most WiFi software can be restricted to connecting to a specific Access point and ignore all others. This would require a little more savvy but is doable none the less.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Celt, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 5:42am

    Something isn't right...

    I have a friend in Singapore whose boyfriend went to jail for an arson related charge and was out in 9 months. There has to be more to this story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    brbubba, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 6:10am

    Re: I have to disagree with #8

    I've said it a hundred times before and I will say it again, do not compare an open WiFi access point to property laws, it is not an appropriate analogy.

    The proper comparison is the usage model of the Internet, because a WiFi access point is simply an extension of the Internet. Subsequently the model used for ALL Internet surfing, commerce, etc is a form of electronic handshake. Essentially your computer sends a signal to another computer asking if you can access a file on a certain port. If the receiving computer decides you don't have permission then it will refuse your request. All of this takes place in seconds and not once have you obtained oral or written permission to access those resources. That permission is implicitly made by the fact that you can access a resource without circumventing security measures. And, in addition, you just crossed a dozen other privately owned networks, routers, etc to get that information request, all without asking.

    My question to you is this, how would you respond if a website you frequently visit, suddenly called the police and had you charged with illegal usage of resources. Most would call this absurd, but based on the same principles many want to implement regarding open WiFi you could be convicted for this simple action millions of us perform every day.

    Just because consumers are sometimes ignorant as to how to secure their WiFi does not exclude them from the responsibilities that any administrator would have to secure his/her network, servers, computers, etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Mike, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 6:38am

    If its not secured then I don't think you could justify punishing someone for using someones wifi. First of all there is little you can do to prove they did it. Second this is like punishing someone for using your website with out your permision. It uses server spaces doesn't it.

    Now I will agree that if the person with the wifi warned the kid, maybe a fine would be reasonable, but maybe if he would just encrypt his network and solve the problem all together.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    comboman, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 6:49am

    Don't expect sane laws in Singapore

    Singapore is an authoritarian state where chewing gum is illegal and possession of drugs can result in the death sentence or at the very least getting beaten with a cane. If the kid was tapping into his neighbor's wi-fi to view pron, he should count himself lucky they didn't cut of his wiener.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    WoW, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:02am

    If someone was leaching so much bandwidth that I lost my World of Warcraft connection and missed out on all the goodies from a 40 man raid, I'd want them in prison. Not 3 years, but at least a few hours.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    AustinDKelly, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:09am

    Re: Re: I have to disagree with #8

    i think that he is right when he uses the example of the home that is unsecure.

    if someone were to watch your TV (an extension of the global brocast networks) with out you giving them express permission, it would be the same thing.

    you pay for cable TV, you pay for cable internet (or dsl...) you pay for gas, it would be unfair for someone else to use those resources you buy just because you left the door unlocked.

    and i have said it a million times and i will say it again. the companies that are selling these out of the box wifi kits/routers need to have the wifi diabled, and have security enabled so that during the initial setup you do not have the option of turning off WEP/SSA whatever. i understand the want for consumers to have ease of use, but it would not be that much more time consuming to have it enable during the wizard setup.

    it is one thing when your computer stumbles across an open wifi and "handshakes" its is another when you concenciously select "Mrs Hubers Wifi Connection".

    akin to checking out the make and model of a car, and looking in the window vs. getting in the car and driving it just cuz the keys are there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:11am

    Re:

    good point. if i noticed activity like that i would just secure my network, i dont think i would go knocking on doors.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Charles, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:17am

    Tan was released on a bail of 6,000 Singapore US dollars (US$3,855; euro3,000) and is scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday.

    If convicted, Tan faces up to three years in jail and fines of up to S$10,000 (US$6,425; euro5,000) under the Computer Misuse Act.


    Sounds like a lot of you don't read the actual articles before making posts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    dinewebwarrior, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:28am

    Secure

    First of all... everyone knows an unsecured wifi network is just an invitation for vultures... Maybe the neighbor was waiting for the kid to jump onto his wifi... hahhhaha.. Secondly... if you own a wifi and you don't want anyone using your paid for bandwith, I say secure the sucker... if you don't know how to secure your wifi network... might as well go back to a 28 k modem... hahahhaha..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    English Pro, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:40am

    Singapore ....

    is the country that still "canes" people as a punishment ....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Rip Van Winkle, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:48am

    Re: Comment 11

    why should a person with a wireless receiver, be required to be MORE savvy than the person next door, who left their router open ?? I leave mine open.. if someone happened to need the internet.. for a minute, I wouldnt care if they connected to check their email / whatever.. and at the same time, id hope that others might leave theirs open, so if im out on the road somewhere, maybe i could use mapquest or something of that nature... no harm in that.

    And.. in response to someone elses car comment...
    If the guy is dumb enough to leave a key to his car, on everyone nearby's doormat, and not use "the club" on his steering wheel, i'd sure as heck take it for a spin, at least to the grocery store!

    lighten up

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    fliptrx, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:51am

    Whose at fault...?

    If I leave my connection open, then it's my own fault if it's abused by someone else...

    ...and if I leave my front door unlocked and someone comes in and robs me blind, then it's my own fault...

    ...but, if someone busts my front door down and takes everything I own...then, and only then, can I blame someone other than myself !

    We have to take some responsibility and quit blaming someone else for our own stupidity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    TriZz, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:54am

    Bandwidth

    I've never been to Singapore, nor have I ever held an account there - but lets say that it's not like the US and you have to pay for the bandwidth that you use (ie: It's not $60 a month for unlimited use). Then, this would be a jailable offense because you'd have tangibles being taken (read: he's stealing money).

    ...but again, maybe someone who knows about Singaporian (is that a word?) ISPs could shed some light?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    JOlhan, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:59am

    Invasion of privacy

    I think the owner of the WiFi should be sued for invading the young neighbor's space with his network waves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Brian, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 8:08am

    Re: Re: Re: I have to disagree with #8

    Thats absurd to say that wifi and home invasion are the same thing. The problem with someone watching your TV in your own home is that it is physically invasive and that there is someone uninvited in your living space.

    Open WiFi is more analogous to having someone watch your TV through the window from the house next door. The kid never got up and went next door to use the WiFi whereas in your example someone has not only come on your property without your consent, but has invaded your home to use your resources.

    If you don't want the neighbor's watching your TV from their window, what do you do? You turn it off, close the drapes, or ask them to stop. Similarly for the wireless you turn it off, lock it, or ask them to stop.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    joe momma is anonymous, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 8:09am

    this device may not cause harmuful interference

    this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Captain Obvious, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 8:44am

    #9 & #18

    More brilliant comments from the uneducated of America.

    I'm too stupid to appropriately configure the technology I’m using.

    I'm to dumb to understand the technology I’m using.

    Therefore when someone uses my WIDE OPEN access point I’m going to call them a criminal because that’s not what I intended to happen!

    Poster 14 had it right. If you do not setup security on your access point then your access point will invite people to use it. They did not break-in or steal.

    YOUR access point announced itself to the world VIA a "SID" = "Hello world my name is xxx...Connect to me".
    My computer is merely accepting the invitation that your access point put out.

    If you want to play big boy games and have a network it's your responsibility to "LEARN" about how to do that responsibly.

    If your walking down the street and suddenly someone runs and yells that your trespassing yet there where no fences- no gates- no signs or any other indicator that you had stepped onto this persons property... what would you tell them???

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    IANAL, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 8:52am

    I am not a lawyer. I'm a information security expert and I lived in Singapore.

    The law used here is the Computer Misuse Act. Unlike what has been previously mentioned in other comments about analogies in property law, the Act states clearly that unauthorized access to computer systems or networks (wired or wireless), whether they were secured in the first place, is illegal. The law is somewhat sweeping, as most Singapore laws are, and discretion is left to the judge. A point to note is that the kid hasn't been sentenced yet. What is stated is the maximum possible charges. His trial is scheduled for tomorrow.

    I must say that's is not a trivial task to locate the kid (or anyone using a home wireless network without authorization). The low-tech way would be to find the (easily faked) MAC address logged by the AP and then determine which computer it is either by going through manufacturer records (not easy), or knocking on every door within range and checking all equipment (also not easy). The kid must have been pretty blatant about it ("Nya, nya, thanks for the bandwidth sucker!").The victim was probably not tech savvy enough to secure his network, so without prompting, wouldn't have figured out the reason for the performance drop in his DotA game or why his BitTorrent rates were reduced.

    ISPs in Singapore generally don't charge per byte transfered. With widespread broadband, the consumer rates are monthly and dependent on the desired speed. There's also a trend to give out wireless routers with the service subscription, which is to say the least, annoying in high-rise, high-density Singapore. I have huge problems with interference when I try to get online during my visits back there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Nic Stevens, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 8:58am

    They have a simple law for dealing with that here in Washington. Theft of Services.

    It's been used to take people to task for dumping their trash in someone else's dumpster (is it fair that someone else pay for the collection of someone else's garbage? The open door on the dumpster is not a welcome mat either)

    A recent case in Seattle a man drove up next to a cafe with a wifi hotspot. That hotspot was there for the cafe's customers. The man using it, however, was not a customer.

    He was, actually, asked not to use their system but did so anyway and was subsequently arrested for Theft of Services.

    As far as determining whether the Singapore kid in question was using the other man's WiFi... Unless he changed the MAC address it is directly traceable to the kid's hardware.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Ed, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 9:20am

    In meantime...

    In meantime...

    The telco sale and doesn't give you the services.
    They all time put the eyes inside your data, voice, making trafic shapping, whatever.
    The big (your) brother are with the Big ear up and semsible about you phone lines...

    Gime a break, 3 years in jail for teens, it sucks !!

    Who doesn't did some kind of forbiden thing wen teen??

    Maybe they just born with 30 y.o. or more there

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    zap, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 9:23am

    Re: Secure

    Does that mean if you leave your car unlocked that's an invitation for a joy ride?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Ed, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 9:25am

    In meantime... again

    # 26 I totaly agree with you
    "...Open WiFi is more analogous to having someone watch your TV through the window from the house next door. The kid never got up and went next door to use the WiFi whereas in your example someone has not only come on your property without your consent, but has invaded your home to use your resources. ..."

    Or, else, it's about some one reading your newspaper over your shouder, at a train. You'll sue him? As a bandit?? A theft??

    U M B E L I V E B L E !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    I know it all, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 9:42am

    I leave mine open - is that a crime??!!!

    I leave mine open. I have my boxes behind firewalls, I monitor traffic. If someone wants to pull up in front of my house and reserve a hotel room or check email - they are my guest. If they want to send hate mail to the White House, it's logged. So is it a theft then? People can also use the light from my house to see where they are walking on the street. I pay for that light. Does this mean they have to have my express permission to use it? If they want adult toys they can got to herprettypleasures.com and get great price, selection and discreet shipping and billing. Paying too much for adult toys and DVDs....that's a crime!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Starky, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 9:48am

    Re:

    "If you left your car open and someone took it for a ride or left your home open and someone came in and watched some tv I doubt you'd have the same perspective."

    Well, provided that they filled the car up and returned it before I needed it or if they left my TV and everything else where it was, and maybe left some money to cover the extra electricity, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Daniel (profile), Nov 14th, 2006 @ 10:09am

    Re:

    "If you left your car open and someone took it for a ride or left your home open and someone came in and watched some tv I doubt you'd have the same perspective."

    If someone took my car, I couldn't use it. If someone used my bandwidth, it doesn't have quite the same effect - certainly it's not worth three years of this kid's life.

    Similarly, if I sat in your house watching tv, I'm invading your privacy, that's not the issue here either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    medmad, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 10:11am

    Re:

    I used to live in singapore for 14 years, and i know that the laws there are pretty messed up, but post no. 16 is totally wrong. Chewing gum is now legal, although monitored and expensive thanks to taxes, getting the death sentence for drugs is pretty rare unless if you bring kilos of the malicious substance, and the caning.. well its still around. It is not totaly an authoritarian state... compare it to true authoritarian states and you will see a clear cut difference.. etc etc.

    However, i would imagine the teenager did something malicious with the open wifi, probably porn or downloaded free mp3's... something which is illegal but not monitored unless if you get caught on another charge which allows the state to go through your computer etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Matt, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 10:23am

    Re: Comment 11

    I would assume that if he knew how to log into his router and look at his connection list, then he probably would have known how to secure the network, and then this whole fiasco never would have happened...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Xiera, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 10:32am

    intent?

    Post 9 brings up a good point with the car and house analogies. If someone uses my car or my house or my WiFi without my consent, I'm gonna be upset. BUT, honestly, I should be responsible for locking such things. Unlike a car or a house, one could use your WiFi without realising they were doing it (due to the auto-connect feature). This is where intent plays a role.

    It is difficult to prove intent, but if the convicted person had been personally warned by the plaintiff, then non-intent to cease the behavior should qualify as intent. Beyond that or the convict actually saying "I am using your WiFi network", I don't see how he is any more responsible than the plaintiff who didn't secure his network.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    zeroJJ, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 12:08pm

    Unfortunately those disliking these flawed analogies are correct. Similar to intellectual property rights concepts, it's difficult to accurately equate tangible property with intangible property. They just aren't the same and cannot be dealt with in the same manners.

    To assail #9 a with a bit more predjudice:
    Rolling with your car analogy, it would be more accurately described if your neighbor parked his car on YOUR property (say in your driveway) not only with it unlocked, but the keys in the ignition and the engine running.

    It's just not the same to look at it like an invasive action such as trespassing. The fact of the matter is that in trespassing you are entering in anothers property. The wireless signal is being broadcast into other's airspace. Depending on how you look at things, this could be construed as an invasion of your airspace.
    It reminds me of the early days of satellite. If somebody is beaming a signal into your home that you did not pay for, authorize, or otherwise ask to have beamed into your home, are you still responsible for paying for it?

    Unfortunately, all of that idea is negated by our laws designed to unevenly favor the mediacorps and provide little or no consumer rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    comboman, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 12:21pm

    Re: Re: medmad

    I used to live in singapore for 14 years, and i know that the laws there are pretty messed up, but post no. 16 is totally wrong.

    If by 'totally wrong' you mean right, then I agree.

    Chewing gum is now legal, although monitored and expensive thanks to taxes, getting the death sentence for drugs is pretty rare unless if you bring kilos of the malicious substance, and the caning.. well its still around.

    Chewing gum was made legal for medical purposes only in 2004. "Recreational" chewing is still illegal. Getting the death sentence for drugs is rare, but most countries that still have a death sentence reserve it for only the most serious of crimes like first degree murder. For disputing my well-researched post I sentence you to 5 lashes of the cane. :-p

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    brbubba, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 1:46pm

    More antics

    This is neither a computer misuse issue nor a theft of service issue.

    Regarding computer misuse, many states do have laws, rather archaic ones at that, that define what computer trespass and misuse are. While some have clauses describing circumvention of security measures others do not, and broadly proclaim it a crime to trespass on any network. And my response to this is bollocks! By these archaic definitions you are committing a crime just by reading this article, website, etc. So while yes, using open WiFi would be a crime in that case, then everyone else in the state is also breaking the law on a daily basis by opening a web browser, email client, or any other program which pulls data from the Internet.

    The theft of service issue only applies to the person with the open WiFi connection. By sharing their bandwidth, intentionally or not, they may be violating their terms of service. The burden of compliance in this case lies solely with the owner. Not to mention that "services" is a loose definition at best. The fact that you took bandwidth from this website to display a page is considered a service, of tangible value that costs the owner money or can be assigned a monetary value. However, you don't see anyone trying to arrest you for surfing the web, thereby using resources that are not yours and for which you were never given explicit permission to use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 2:39pm

    Re: Note to self...

    FYI, music downloading etc, that even smells of infringement has been made a criminal offence...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Random Dude, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 3:59pm

    NY has a law like this.

    IIRC NYC has a law like this, as well.

    I wonder if anyone thought of hitting MS up for some charges. Since XP by default scans for connections on wireless.

    God forbid MS and other software companies stop pandering to the lowest common denominator, and force the end users to RTFM rather turn it on by default. in order to avoid support issues.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    William C Bonner, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 11:42pm

    Bad Analogies for WiFi

    I'm so sick of the bad analogy for unsecured WiFi being that you don't lock the front door of your house. If your WiFi signal was limited to inside your house, that might work, but since you are now broadcasting your signal as far as the street in front of your house, it should change the rules entirely. If you display your TV on the outside of your house, and a person parks in a legal parking space in the street in front of your house, can that person watch your TV? I say yes.

    The way unsecured WiFi handshaking works, you have to connect to a network to find out if you are allowed to connect to it. Once you've connected to it, unless you are directed to a service telling you that you are not supposed to use it without paying a fee, you assume that using it is allowed.

    I know that my TV outside the house analogy isn't the greatest, but the point is that you are broadcasting your signal beyond the limits of what you control. Does someone have a good analogy that can be distributed to try to educate people?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Random_SG, Nov 15th, 2006 @ 9:08am

    He's not sentenced yet..

    I'm a Singaporean, living in Singapore, and have been following this case quite a bit..

    Take note guys: HE'S NOT SENTENCED YET.

    3 years is the maximum punishment he would get, that doesn't mean that he definitely will get 3 years. I'll expect him to get off lightly this time only because he's a teen, probably with a probational sentence (yes, we DO have probation, we're not a catch-all-jail-all community) or perhaps a stiff fine.

    Tan going to jail? Most probably not. 1 month tops even if he is. And please, all these seemingly "authoritarian" measures are the main reasons as to why Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. A little harsh perhaps, but if it makes sure I'm living in a safe country, I don't mind, I just make sure I don't get into trouble.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    medmad, Nov 16th, 2006 @ 1:48pm

    Re: He's not sentenced yet...

    Dude singapore may be one of the most safe places in the world, but it depends who you are. As a white guy in singapore, i got into fights just for my skin colour. Oh and my brother was refused an education in some schools for the same reason. I cant remember that happening to me in any of the other asian countries i have lived in.

    Moreover, the 'authoritarian' government narrows the minds of its citizens, i have talked to many a singaporean and have found a general single-mindedness and limited general knowledge about culture. And dnt get me started about singlish. (for those who dont know, its a mixture of english with aspects of chinese and malay, its increadibly hard to understand to the untrained ear)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    medmad, Nov 16th, 2006 @ 1:48pm

    Re: He's not sentenced yet...

    Dude singapore may be one of the most safe places in the world, but it depends who you are. As a white guy in singapore, i got into fights just for my skin colour. Oh and my brother was refused an education in some schools for the same reason. I cant remember that happening to me in any of the other asian countries i have lived in.

    Moreover, the 'authoritarian' government narrows the minds of its citizens, i have talked to many a singaporean and have found a general single-mindedness and limited general knowledge about culture. And dnt get me started about singlish. (for those who dont know, its a mixture of english with aspects of chinese and malay, its increadibly hard to understand to the untrained ear)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    ZipWizard, Nov 21st, 2006 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Not Using WI-FI In SINGAPORE

    In San Francisco, USA...they are creating a wireless network of FREE Wi-Fi for everyone with a Wi-Fi card within range. It is supported by advertising, and should be ready soon. The airport and malls ALREADY have Wi-Fi access for anybody with a laptop...but you DO have to LOGIN. I suppose...based on present mentality...this would be the "progressive" technology movement in Singapore's WORST nightmare. Chalk one up for USA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Ignorance Breeds Contempt, Apr 12th, 2007 @ 12:19am

    The truth

    Let me clarify. The kid deliberately tapped on the unsecured Wi-fi many times, which resulted in him being caught doing so. Hence the criminal implications. If I dun remember wrongly, he was given community service work rather than harsh jail terms / caning etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Ignorance Breeds Contempt, Apr 12th, 2007 @ 12:19am

    The truth

    Let me clarify. The kid deliberately tapped on the unsecured Wi-fi many times, which resulted in him being caught doing so. Hence the criminal implications. If I dun remember wrongly, he was given community service work rather than harsh jail terms / caning etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    bob miles, Aug 9th, 2007 @ 7:02am

    boy uses neighbous Wiifi

    At 13 years old, the boy is old enough to know NOT to use/take another person's property (whether it is locked aaway or not)
    If the boy is in the wrong (as it sems he is), then cane his buttocks, and send him to school

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This