As I see it there are three possibilities here. 1) The arresting officer had too much time on his hands and is one of those officers who engage in the sport of arresting or ticketing people for little known (or enforced) technical violations of law. I knew a cop who ticketed a horse rider for allowing the horse to walk on a paved highway without having rubber horseshoes.; 2) The police believe, correctly or incorrectly, that the person they arrested was committing or about to commit another crime, like burglary, and had insufficient evidence to charge him with that other offense; or 3) When questioned the guy was uncooperative and/or evasive or otherwise pissed the officer off.

Why, in this day and age, shouldn’t the company be just as responsible for their inaction, as the User is for his action?

There is no excuse for not securing your network, and there is no excuse for using a service if you are unsure of your privledges to it.

In the end though, the techs in the company should have more knowledge about this than your average internet user, therefore, they should have tied up their WAP if they didn’t want it wandering off it’s territory.

Articles like this seem to be more frequent of late on news spots. I don’t think someone should be fired unless they are doing something that is explicitly against the law. However…

Reading the comments always unleashes a tide of questions for me… Maybe those who are much smarter than me can answer some questions.

How is this different from wiring a box that lets one decrypt and use satellite video signals? How is this different (other than the initial trespass) from hooking a long cable to one’s neighbor’s cable connection and using the video feed? If the host person’s WiFi is coming from bandwidth paid for by the host person, why is it not wrong to use that person’s bandwidth without permission? Is the host person’s WiFi networking security ignorance such a crime that “someone should take advantage of because they should have secured their network?”

Me thinks the police doth over-reach. That officer had no business making the assumption anything was being stolen, for one thing. At night he had no way of determining with any certainty where the radio signal (remember, wireless?) was originating from. Therefor, no probable cause. Local police have no jurisdiction over matters of Radio Frequency Energy, any more than they should be telling a Ham Radio Operator he can’t operate his station based on a neighbor’s complaint of interference. They should be leaving such matters to the FCC Enforcement folks. If the owner of the wifi was originating a complaint for theft of anything, they should’ve been told to encrypt or otherwise indicate they weren’t providing it for free. Then, like encrypted voice communications, one could reasonably assume they were not intending it to be received by the general public and was therefor protected. This is what occurs when people with no knowledge of radio start combining that with the law.

We all have to be logical here-common sense tells us that there are free wi-fi access points open to the public and there are private access points that only the owner has a right to use-PERIOD. I think arrest in this case is a little overboard-until there is legislation to create laws to deal w/ this fast moving technology- dealing with this kind of problem, maybe a warning to the “thief” and the IT guy being fired may be a more appropriate response

I like the previously posted analogy. Just because something is open or accessible doesn’t make it right to access it. Joe public is not a data security expert, and people are allowed to use technology without having every little detail figured out. It is wrong to assume that every open WiFi is exploitable. I don’t have much qualms about it, but if you get caught, don’t bitch about it and try to piss in my ear and call it rain.

I blame this kind of thing on what I cann “The AOL Mentality”. AOL is designed so every stupid newbie on earth can plug in a phone line and be on the Internet in 10 minutes. We have dumbed down the gear and shortened the learning curse so much that every jackass on earth can use it with no basic knowledge of networking, in this case encryption. I say take away the “quick start” portion of manuals and make people read about how to use the gear as it was intended, not just well enough to make it work. I drove down a street that had strip malls on both sides with my Dell Axim. In 4/10ths of a mile I found 17 networks, 11 of them not secure. Connected to all 11 just to see if they had ANY kind of security in place. None. Now, some travelling salesman who needs to send one email and knows that if he sits outside the Borders store he will get a connection does so, is that illegal even though Borders is a hot spot ON PURPOSE? Gray area after gray area with this stuff.

this just shows how this country is becoming more and more a Police State!!

Jeez…..A think that statement is too vague. What if you were typing a document or watching a DVD on your computer and you were on your car?

The link about the $250 fine was for remotely accessing someone’s computer. Yeah, he may have been using WiFi to do it, but he was hacking someone else’s computer

“Scott (Post No 6) had it right, if you were passively “viewing” the data coming out of a WAP then you have no problem, the analogy of TV/Radio etc will work here. However, when going on the internet etc aren’t we forgetting that in order to RECIEVE a page we first have to REQUEST the page, that requires a active connection and thus we ARE trespassing by requesting that page.”

Wow, how misguided.

So, By requesting a page you are stealing? How so when the access point already GRANTED permission?

We have devices grant permission and access all the time. If you were in my house and had a key and the alarm code, the cops would not arrest you. They might ask you to leave, but at some point in time PERMISSION was granted by me to you because of the key and the code. Now if you copied the key, or stole the code that is different, but remember, we are talking about OPEN access points that automatically GRANT access.

And additionally, computer tresspass specifically requires that you are accessing a network that you do not have permission to use. As the WIFI router has granted permission for the owner to the user of the network AUTOMATICALLY, it is no longer computer tresspass.

It’s illegal to have an unencrypted wifi connection in my state. It’s part of the law that makes it illegal to tap into somebody’s cable or phone service, and has already been held up in court. The broadband providers that offer wireless routers are required to set them up already wep encrypted.

The amount of comments for this article shows about how important this issure really is. I guess I can contribute my two cents:

It IS the responsibility of the business/owner to secure its network. The individual should not be fined simply for using an OPEN network. It would be different if he airsnorted and broke into a protected area. Its just like saying that plugging in a laptop in Starbucks (for simple typing not internet usage) is theft of electricity.

iTech @ http://itech.webwarp.net

I am currently sitting in a parking lot, it is night time, and I’m reading this story on my laptop with an EVDO connection. I’m such a bad man.

what do you conside r public propriety ?

youve got enough band WIDTH parlay your royal hiyney

It’s perfectly OK to walk into an office and take all the pens and paper that are not tied down. It should be up to the office admins to secure their property. While we’re at it, that LCD screen on the front counter is probably fair game too, right?

I move in next door. I jump up on the phone poll and I splice into it.

Well, let’s start with the obvious… you’ve broken the law by going on the poll and opening the box.

The situation with WiFi is completely different. That’s a case where you are *broadcasting* the signal out off of your property. There’s no trespassing. There’s no splicing.

Second, degradation of service is a different issue and not applicable here.

Please don’t procreate.

Yup, thanks for debating this on a civil level and not resorting to personal insults. It really helps your credibility.

Simple terms, for a simple mind.

Personal insults really help your credibility. I take you that much more seriously now for calling me simple minded…

You know, it is possible for intelligent people to disagree. Calling them stupid doesn’t help your argument.

He knowingly, and intentionally, connected to a network that was not his. He could have been charged under federal statutes.

The network was open, and invited his computer to connect. Show me the federal statute that makes that a crime.

From the synopsis at the top, he was charged with ‘Theft of Service.’ What that means, is that he intercepted and used a service he was not paying for. That is theft. Simple enough so far?

Nope. Not simple enough. Theft involves loss. Show me the loss.

If it’s a different crime, that’s a different issue. But show me the loss here. Show me why it’s theft, becaues just saying it is over and over again doesn’t actually make it theft.

Answer this, what is more important? The twenty-five to fifty dollars for a DSL or cable connection, or your freedom.

That’s got nothing to do with the question at hand. It’s not about the punishment, but whether or not there’s a crime. And there are plenty of reasons why someone may want to use an open WiFi connection even if they do pay their money for a connection at home. What if he was travelling?

They were charged under the same federal laws I have already mentioned.

You haven’t actually mentioned any.

This is literally access the router, go to jail. Otherwise known as Electronic Trespass.

It’s not trespass, because the router is open, available and inviting. If people went to jail for it, it’s only becaue they had a bad lawyer.

Using something that isn’t yours. More commonly known as theft.

Again, theft involves something being taken and missing. Not so in this case.

Modifying the code for the Point of Sale equipment to capture and hold credit card numbers. Commonly called Computer Fraud/Hacking.

Yup. That’s computer fraud and hacking. The case above is quite different.

Notice the trend?

The trend being… a bunch of incorrect analogies?

Bandwidth is not free. Just because you can’t tell the difference between right and wrong isn’t an excuse for breaking the law. If you want proof of this, go get a leased line(T-1) and see how much it will cost you to keep that kind of bandwidth.

Again, totally missing the point. Bandwidth is not free indeed… but how much more is it costing the non-profit for this guy to use the network in the middle of the night? Turns out… zero. So in this case, the guy isn’t costing anyone anything. So, the rest of your argument is (once again) wrong.

Might I recommend you go to Google and do research. I will even give you a couple of things to look for, Electronic Trespass, Wi-Fi Hacking, Theft of Service.

I’ve done my research. I’m still waiting for you to prove something.

Unless you want to see what some of the people who have been blasting this forum, are capable of with cattleprods and flamethrowers. Don’t go spouting off nonsense.

Yup. Keeping it civil. Thanks.

It is Theft. Read the laws, understand the laws. Find the ones that apply to you, and abide by them.

Again, it’s not theft. Keep trying.

Let me ask you this. Your car is parked on the street. Some hoodlum steals it for a joyride. On his way back, he replaces the gasoline. Then parks it in front of your house, right where you left it. Would you mind if he did this?

I would.

Hmmm I dunno. Most likely (unless they also vacuumed it out for me, could sure use it right now lol), but then it depends on circumstances and my mood. Not everyone is always so hellfire bent about “protecting” their property at all times, although admittedly some random person borrowing your car is a little outside most people’s acceptablility range including mine.

On the other hand, to use a different example, we can’t have “open” radiios at work, so most of us have cds players with headphones. We all bring cds collections (although mine is by far the largest) and most of us have an open policy about free borrowing from each other (although as a common courtesy most of still ask, or at least let the owner know they have a particular cd so we know where it is if we come looking for it) as long as we return them when we are done.

The big assumption here is that the WiFi owner would necessarily have objected to the use of his “property”. Who’s to say they don’t leave the connection open, at least at night when nobody is likely using it, intentionally, like some posters say they do. If the owner doesn’t consider it theft then is it really theft? I say, no.

Of course the big corps are likely to say yes, but I consider them to be some of the biggest crooks of all whose only concept of morality is how big a profit margin they can squeeze.

I will explain that point. There is a number of federal laws that cover this exactly. They all relate to illegal computer/network access. Very simply, just because it is there screaming out it’s name doesn’t give you permission to access that system. Permission must be explicit, not implied. You can and if caught, will be, arrested. It isn’t the Theft of Services charges you have to worry about. It is the federal hacking charges that will cost you several years of your life, and a substantial amount of money. Simple enough?

If you don’t believe in implied permissions, then I hope you got TechDirt’s explicit permission before you accessed their web site. If not, then I suggest you try to turn yourself in to the FBI for “hacking” as you put it.

this alanogy only

Blahhhh, or to say that in English: this analogy only works…..

so much for my proofreading skills tonight

I will explain that point. There is a number of federal laws that cover this exactly. They all relate to illegal computer/network access. Very simply, just because it is there screaming out it’s name doesn’t give you permission to access that system. Permission must be explicit, not implied. You can and if caught, will be, arrested. It isn’t the Theft of Services charges you have to worry about. It is the federal hacking charges that will cost you several years of your life, and a substantial amount of money. Simple enough?

If you don’t believe in implied permissions, then I hope you got TechDirt’s explicit permission before you accessed their web site. If not, then I suggest you try to turn yourself in to the FBI for “hacking” as you put it.

Techdirt happens to have a Terms of Service. Part of that, happens to be explicit permission to access the site.

I suggest you look into Contract law.

Techdirt happens to have a Terms of Service. Part of that, happens to be explicit permission to access the site.

Actually, we don’t. We put the website up and it’s implied that you are free to view it.

I suggest you look into Contract law.

Ditto.

Just to put this into context, let’s say that you are aware that your neighbour leaves their house in the morning and doesn’t lock the door, this doesn’t give you the right to enter their, plug your computer into their network, and use the internet.

Again, that’s trespassing. If they’re broadcasting the signal onto your property or onto public property… there’s no trespassing.

You cannot expect brillance from ignorance. A PC is a huge portion of “everyones” live. Yet a huge portion of our population are “clueless” about its use.

The police officer should be tested on his understanding and level of PC andor networking knowledge.

The user of Wifi should also be asked what are you doing parked in front of a building in the middle of the night? You would get shot in Alabama for that!

DHCP people!

DHCP !

DHCP !

For those of you with a IQ less than 100: Wifi says “I am here!”, you say “can I use you?”, Wifi says “Yes, here’s an IP and gateway address so you can access the internet, and here’s a lease of time for you to use the connection”.

DONE! There’s your permission and even an electronic contract for time (renewable).

And starbucks and/or mcdonalds little permission screens are exactly the same (you go to screen, ask for permission, then it’s granted). Same, same.

D H C P ! !

For the other stupid posts against free open access and the original article, it’s got to be scare tactics and FUD from all these telco companies because right now TODAY they are all trying to buy out all the small wifi companies and offer wifi service (via 802.11b) in many towns.

It won’t go over well if they can’t lock down all those open wifi routers out there. These are greedy bastards!

Did YOU pay for the service? No? Then YOU have NO right to use it, unless EXPLICITLY granted permission.

DHCP? WTF?

Are you COMPLETELY dense? DHCP was developed to ease network management in a WIRED WORLD before wireless. Just because it has been implemented on a wireless network does NOT imply permission to use said network. Just because it happens to hand out a ‘gateway address’ that allows the connected device to talk to a device that eventually leads to the internet doesn’t mean squat.

Your wife goes to the beauty parlor for a shampoo. They don’t really ‘change’ or take away anything, (except some body oils and dirt,) they just wash her hair. Let her try and walk out without paying for it. Theft of services.

Bottom line. I pay the bill to bring the connection into my house. You don’t. You use the connection without permission. Theft of services. If I were using one of the ISPs in my area, they have a 40Gbit/month limit. You sneak on my net and download a movie. I, thinking I have enough room to get a big download of my own. Wrongo! I get a bill for overage charges! So the meter IS running, and I’m paying for it. You aren’t.

Is that simple enough for you?

“I didn’t have sex with that women, Monica Lewinsky.”

Whups — Sorry about that…

“The arguments here – if they can be called that – all boil down to one of two world views, …”

Amen, & Amen. Thank you for trying to peel back the filter we fail to realize we use when crafting our arguments.

Also, I think if people would read through the previously posted responses they would be less inclined to share the my-front-door-is-open-but-you-can’t-come-in analogy for the 37th time.

LISTEN!…then speak.

Thank you post #70 –

Said in Star Trek Computer Voice:

“Godwin’s law has been attained. Thread approaching irrelevancy…”

My local Home Depot has remote Cat5 jacks in the parking lot at the base of some of the overhead light poles. They use these in the summer for tent sales where a check out station can plug into one Cat5e for networking, and the other is for a phone.

As with the WiFi – there is no locked cover over at least one of these jacks. Assuming they allowed internet access from this port, I could drive up at any hour and run a cable out of my car to the port and do the same thing as this guy was doing.

Could I make the argument that they should have secure the physical port? (ie WAP / WEP / Non Broadcased SSID etc)

I would get slaped with tresspassing at least, and theft of services as well most likely.

EXAMPLE: If I’m running WIFI in my appartment for example, and so is my neighbor, if both of us were retarded and had no security (wep/wap etc) and let the system automatically connect (non ad-hoc) there’s a good chance (considering antenna dynamics and siginal strength), that i’d be on his network sometimes and he’d be on mine.

I’ve worked on some odd cases where a neighboring siginal overpowered the local one (both happened to be set on the same channel and band) and since they both had the same hardware, the default name of the devices were the same. you couldnt easily tell which device you were connected to until I set up some security and changed the default name and MAC of the base station.

So simply using another wifi connection isint grounds for jailtime alone– sometimes it’s stupidity, sometimes it’s lack of planning and implementation but yeah, i gotta admit, sometimes it’s theft. jail-worthy? no, i dont think so.

but consider this: lets say he used that connection to brodcast the next great melissailoveuetc virus that turns your NTFS partitions to liquid shit. It’s the company’s fault for not securing the connection, but he still used SOMEONE ELSES PAID FOR network to do his evil bidding.

I say he should have to pay for the companies costs of hiring a good tech and setting up some security. that’d be fair, yeah?

There is a lawyer and comic book writer named Bob Ingersoll who wrote a column for a while called “The Law is a Ass”. In one column he discusses Spider-Man picking up a solid gold notebook that was in a wastebasket, and he explains that because it was in the garbage the owner had shown that he had no interest in it, so Spidey was witihin the law to keep it (I don’t think it was gold when it was thrown out,. though). Is it possible that not securing a network connection that is accessible from outside your property is an implied statement that you don’t care who else uses it? Just a thought here, I can see both sides of tis argument and I have not yet decided which side I am on (though I am leaning towards “not guilty”).

“They should have secured their wireless network!”

On the same token — YOU SHOULD LOCK YOUR DOORS BEFORE YOU LEAVE YOUR HOUSE. Otherwise I should be able to walk in freely and use your facilities. But don’t charge me with trespassing — you should have locked your doors. Otherwise I wouldn’t have been tempted.

ever hear the term “white-collar crime?”

FUD from the telecommunications companies is on the rise. I bet you can’t even find this case anywhere and the guy probably got a parking ticket or something.

Reminds me of the FUD being launched about vontage and 911 calls being delayed.

These companies will go to any length to make a profit and keep their share of the market.

See this: http://www.vonage-forum.com/ftopic11631.html

Even if someone at a private residence or business leaves a door unlocked or open, that is not an invitation for tresspassing. Means to enter does not imply permission to enter.

It would appear that the same standard is being applied to wi-fi.

The FCC should fine the non profit for broadcasting a free connection without a licence. It’s an attractive nusance. The downloader should sue the non profit for aiding and abetting his pr0n addiction.

If the analogy of ‘theft of services’ were to apply, the purchases of the WiFi service (in this case, the non-profit compan) would have to file a complaint. The fact that a cop took it on himself to arrest the guy without a complaint being filed from the “aggreived party” shows that civil authorities are not concerned with the act as much as they are with the excuse it gives them to interfere in the lives of private citizens. If the non-profit caught the guy stealing bandwidth and complained, then yeah, the guy goes to jail. BUT offering internet access WiFi to others for free can be a political or economic act, and within the rights of the organization to give away if they so choose. The cop should have written the guy a ticket, and notified the non-profit, who then has a choice to press charges or not; and secure their network or not. Taking the right of distribution away from the actual purchaser of the service is another step toward the deification of property over the lives/choices of individuals. Seems human value lies either in our ability to consume or produce, nothing more.

And if someone outside your house connected to cordless phone and made phone calls, thats all right too. Better yet, I ust wait for the next cellphone with bluetooth enabled and make some calls as well. None of that is stealing by some of the arugments above. Wow.

I heard that the main reason it’s illegal to access other people WiFi is because people like pedophiles could potentially download whatever filth it was they were downloading and the IP address would lead back to the owner of the WiFi, leaving the pedophile to get away. I’d have no problem with people stealing my WiFi if they were just checking e-mail and the like, but not for downloading massive files and eating into my bandwidth.

There are different subjects going on in this thread all blurrig together.

Access Points that are free by intention (some coffee shops, hetc) are one topic and ones that were not intented to be free (someones home or bussiness for use by employees) are quite another.

Also is seems the debate is about the law is vs what everyone thinks should be the law or their opinion of what is ethical or not.

Your analogy is not correct. The key is “Public Channel”. The AP and the associated broadband is not a public channel unless the SSID is something like I’mFreeUseMe.

It seems that the core of this issue is what constitues providing a free service, even unintentionally, versus stealing a service that is not intended for your use. Where is that line? If I stop for a few minutes and watch TV through the window of a store, am I stealing TV viewing time? I think if someone takes NO measures to protect their connection, and it is accessible WITHOUT INTRUDING ON THEIR PROPERTY, then there is no crime. I know someone who has a WiFi connection IN HER OWN APARTMENT, she does not know where it is coming from (most likely a neighbor, but exactly who remains a mystery). If the signal is accessible to her, I don’t think she is stealing by using it. She did not go out and take anything from anyone at all. It is not the same as leaving a door unlocked, because in that case the intruder still has to come onto the proprety, univited, to take something. It is also not the same thing as a wallet in a public place, because the owner inadvertantly left his money there, and the finder is actually taking something away from the owner. Using a business’s connection when they are not there does not interfere with them, they still have the same connection they did before.

tell your friend, that her nice neighbor is sniffing all the traffic coming from her machine over his wireless connection. She can expect some credit cards in her name in the very near future. Being in the security field, not all private wi-fi connections are meant to be secure.

It’s just like fishing, a little bit of bait can bring in a whole lot of fish.

Techdirt happens to have a Terms of Service. Part of that, happens to be explicit permission to access the site.

So expect us to believe that you wrote them a letter or something before you ever accessed their site to get permission? I call BS. If it’s true, I expect Mike could confirm this, but I’m betting it isn’t.

I suggest you look into Contract law.

It’s funny how when you were going off on other people you were framing the issue as a matter of criminal law, but now that it involves you, you want to make it just a matter of contract law. Pure hypocrisy. Kind of fits with with the rest of your arguments.

I have spoken with local & county police about this issue.

The police assumption if someone is using a laptop in a public parking lot late at night is that the person is downloading and/or uploading kiddie porn or terrorist instructions. The assumption is that using an open wifi connection will keep you totally anonymous and the police can’t trace you.

Thus, the probable cause is the “furtive use of a computer connection” impllying “an illicit purpose.”

Where the real suprize for the unprotected home network will come in is when the police raid your home and seize your computers because you have been connecting to off-shore kiddie porn sites.

As the number of open WiFi nodes increases, the police will eventually become technically competent and able to access the connection information before approaching the “suspect.” It isn’t that hard to figure out who is connected to where if you have the right software and hardware.

I use open wifi all the time, and had no idea there was anything ethically or legally wrong with it.

The shop next door to my house has a connection that my computer picks up so I just use it.

I’ve never thought anything of it. Are they being charged for this? It’s just an open port, isn’t it?

What exactly am I stealing?

This isn’t the same as a phone call, because they’re not getting cherged for added use of the network.

Unless they’re still paying “by the minute” which is unlikely.

Most of us non-tech people (I linked here from FARK.com) think- assume!- that any Wifi connection their computer picks up is free to be used.

I don;t see a crime here, at all, and hardly anyone else does either.

You guys just know tech stuff… non-tech people don;t see any problem with this, everyone thinks it’s OK… just asked around.

Kudo’s for ripping on others for their misspelling of words and then misspelling in your post!

Wow… the name calling…hehe

What I was implying was that just because you find an open Wi-Fi connection, you shouldn’t assume that it was left unsecure because of stupidity or laziness. I have seen cases where people have set up unsecure Wi-Fi connections on which they sniff traffic of those who connect to them. It an easy way to ease drop.

Now do you understand or should I draw you a picture?

I have seen cases where people have set up unsecure Wi-Fi connections on which they sniff traffic of those who connect to them.

The same thing can also happen at many points on the internet. Virtually every internet router has the ability to sniff traffic, no WiFi required. You really don’t understand that, do you?

Do not confuse burglary with free air wave.

“The police assumption if someone is using a laptop in a public parking lot late at night is that the person is downloading and/or uploading kiddie porn or terrorist instructions. The assumption is that using an open wifi connection will keep you totally anonymous and the police can’t trace you.”

It’s your DUTY to educate them, get off your lazy ass and do your duty as a citizen.

When someone uses your wifi you have become the same as an ISP and have no liability, so when the cops find out they should be checking if you have a open wireless router, or you can tell them when they ask.

A district court judge ruled in a recent google case that passing packets automatically like a router does makes you just like a ISP, no liability.

For the brain dead, I have to say this again. When you open up your wireless you are not liable for what ever use people put it to, no liability.

This principal also applies to assuming that everyone has their wireless open for a reason, to let everyone have access. Why not open it? If there’s no liability and you aren’t using all the bandwidth all the time, why not?

This could also be considered invasion of privacy – If you grab a ladder and look over someone’s 10 foot fence, you are still invading their privacy.

You have a reasonable expectation of privacy with a network. Of course that’s getting into another grey area like satellites taking photos of you in your back yard.

There better not be a response to this about some stupid analogy. Like I said, the moral implications are irrelevant. It is technically legal in this situation. Look the laws up yourself if you want. There is no federal, and the lesser are not allowed in this case. REMEMBER: ANALOGIES ARE IRRELEVANT! MORALITY IS IRRELEVANT! IT IS LEGAL!

I’m sorry that you have to resort to insults to feel like you’ve contributed to the topic. I’m trying to put people on the right track, and what I use as my name shouldn’t be important. I don’t like using my real identity online, for various reasons, and that actually is a crime. If you really feel the need to spite me, track me down and get me charged for that. In any case, try to keep the discussion relevant to the topic at hand.

I’m glad they fined the guy 250 bucks for stealing bandwidth. “Theft of Service” happens when a person orders service- such as a pizza- and refuses to pay for it. Or having a locksmith open a car- then drives off without paying for the locksmiths time.

BULLY FOR THE POLICE IN THIS CASE!

DBWs = Drive By Wifi

Just because you don’t lock your front door doesn’t give you the right to go in.

Just because you don’t secure your wireless doesn’t give you the right to hop on it.

Done and Done.

No unsecured wifi annalogy is more like leaving the door unlocked and putting up a billboard that says door unlocked.

Name of place and agency. This needs to be checked.

One point I want to make is that the analogy of “if I left my front door open, it’s not legal to enter my home” is not applicable. Your home is private property. As in physical “is your body on my soil” property. As in “has hundreds of years of historical legal precident” property. There are long standing laws on tresspass for physical property, and it is completely obvious to anyone alive today that tresspass is illegal (within the bound of the law’s use of “obvious” and “anyone”; special cases are just that… special cases). Using a signal broadcast into public airspace is not the same as physical trespassing onto someone’s private property, and historical precident of unencrypted signals in public airspace actually would tend to swing to the side of legal (i.e. radio).

Now is it actually legal to use unsecured wireless? That’s the debate at hand. While I have opinions, this thread has included most of my reasoning already. I’m simply refuting this particular analogy.

Most people that I know of don’t secure their connection because they want to share it with friends. Open network means “go ahead and use it”.

You guys have no argument and sound like complete morons who think it’s stealing. if someone doesn’t secure their network then they are offering it up for use, plain and simple.

Being ignorant of something isn’t an excuse. Just like driving laws. Secure your damn network, or if you don’t know how then pay the neighborhood kid $15 to do it.

Good god, you are vastly ignorant of the law as it relates to unauthorized access of computer systems.

They sent out an open invitation to use the connection. Don’t believe me? Check the beacon frames from an open AP.

For everyone’s information, there is NO Federal Law that prohibits the mere access of a computer network without authorization. The oft-quoted Computer Fraud and Abuse Act requires there to be intent to defraud or other motiviation to be applicable.

However, most STATE law prohibits unauthorized access to a computer system or network.

Here’s a page where you can look up your State’s statue:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/CIP/hacklaw.htm

And here’s a copy of the relevent part of Florida’s law (where I live – unrelevant portions removed):

815.06 Offenses against computer users.–

(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:

(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network;

commits an offense against computer users.

(2)(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), whoever violates subsection (1) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

…So, in other words, accessing a computer network (which in FL includes a wireless network) without permission is a felony.

Incidentally, there’s no reason why two schools of thought cannot coexist here. You can choose to offer your WiFi or not, and accessing it is either prohibited or permitted. The point that everyone seems to miss is that private property is private unless you are overtly granted permission to enter upon/use it. So, legally, WiFi networks are private unless you have overt permission to use it. The question that will be pondered in court is – did you believe you had permission, and why? If you don’t have a good faith answer to that question that the court believes… Then you’ll pay the price. I highly doubt that “he didn’t secure it” will get you very far.

The question is not whether or not it is illegal to use unsecured WIRELESS. The question is whether or not it is illegal to use someone’s network without authorization, and there are both State laws and court precedents that state unequivocally that is it NOT. The manner of access is simply not relevant. Wireless just makes it easier to do. Legallly speaking, this has nothing to do with stealing or tresspass, but everythng to do with the specific crime of accessing a computer network without permission. From a legal perspective, the crime is identical no matter if you sit in front of a house and use the Wifi or break into the house and plug in to the LAN. (Of course, in the latter, you’d have tresspass and possibly B&E charges too, but that’s another story).

Now, this doesn’t take into account that having unsecured wifi is a pretty stupid thing to do – which it is, since not everyone will get caught and opens up the possibility that you’ll get blamed for what someone accessing your wifi might do. However, imprudence does not equal permission in the eyes of the law, as those arrested and charged are now finding out.

JoeT, you are a telco plant, along with all the other posts like yours. You work for the telcos that are trying to get rid of any free and open access by putting out a bunch of FUD and then profiting by buying up any wireless companies in small towns.

When you are at starbucks, the ROUTER gives you the permission, automatically, just because you went to the web page contained in the ROUTER. Same as DHCP.

Get a clue, get a life, and get a better job where you aren’t sticking to people just to pay your rent.

.

No, I’m not a “telco plant”, I do, however, work for a company that sells security products for WiFi to the government and commercial interests. I lecture on WiFi security to groups such as Infragard and ISSA, and have had the opportunity to discuss the subject with several Law Enforcement groups over the years. If you have any Google-Fu, you should be able to figure out who I am and how to email me to verify that, if you care enough to. I hadn’t mentioned who I am and what I do because I did not want to create the impression that I was posting on behalf of my company – which I am not.

Second, there is nothing wrong with free wireless. If you want to share your WiFi, that’s your business. If your ISP has an issue with it, then get an ISP that doesn’t. But don’t go thinking that you have the right to make that decision for someone else – they have a right to keep their Wifi PRIVATE if they wish – and are not legally required to secure it to have that legal protection. While it is crazy to not secure it (and I expend a great deal of energy lectuing on just how stupid this is), the law does not require protection to demonstrate a lack of consent for use.

Starbucks (in reality, T-Mobile) offers a PUBLIC hotspot that they both advertise as public access and encourage you to use through that splash page. John Jones down the block with the Linksys he bought at Wal-Mart yesterday does not.

To say that I can freely use anyone’s WiFi is to say that I can freely plug into their LAN. Legally, it’s the same thing. After all, you’ve got DHCP on your LAN, right?

As to your suggestion that I get a clue: I actually have one that I share with the current case law. You, my friend, are barking up the wrong tree. I neither have a stake in this (as my home wifi is secured with my company’s product – and you won’t be getting in), nor any particular passion about it one way or the other. I personally have a Verizon aircard, and get Internet access that way when I travel. What I DO care about is when people post bogus information that is more born out of desire for it to be the truth than is is based in reality. Telling people that it’s OK to access anyone’s WiFi is telling them to violate (most/all) State laws and is irresponsibility at it’s lowest. The whole point of this article is that people ARE getting arrested for this (especially now that the awareness is being raised amongst the general public), and so your days of sneaking onto people’s LANs uninvited are beginning to dwindle down slowly. Call me what you want (and look like a fool in doing so), but I know the market, I know the industry, and I know the case law – and it does not agree with you and your position.

JoeT says “people ARE getting arrested for this” “and I know the case law”

Only people who don’t know their rights and won’t fight for them. I wouldn’t call that an american either.

You need to post the case law because out of all the posts here and on digg no one has posted any, AND a number of people have shown how there is no law for this anywhere, but proof that there are many, many reasons for people to leave their wifi open since there is no liability and all that.

Did the guy even contact the non profit to see if they left it open for free use? I guess not. You can see this guy just pays any ticket he is given. One of those government always knows best sort of people.

And please stop spreading your FUD to the “law enforcement groups”, you and people like you are the cause of a lot of our loss of freedoms and corporate takeover of this country.

Thanks for supporting the telcos on this issue. You are my hero.

BTW: You are biased, and you don’t even know it. You are one of those people who can fool himself easily.

Buy more ammo. Deal with the police and their gov’t overlords the correct way.

The difference is you can’t try to break a system, bring down a service, or simply send out 75,000 pieces of spam asking to enlarge your breasts.

Okay, I have 2 for us…

#1. I buy a gun, and I dont lock it up, in fact, I brodcast the model number of the gun with a light outside my house. Someone takes my gun and kills a kid in the street. Is it my fault that I left the gun un-attended and accessiable? Or is it just the killer’s fault? I think that I would have some responsibility just as this company does

#2. This is the more important thing… THIS IS NOT THE JOB FOR YOUR LOCAL PIGGY POO TO BE DOING?!?!?!

The way ISPs work, is that they assume you are only going to use an average of ten to twenty percent of your total allocated bandwidth. This is called Shared Bandwidth. Most cable companies, such as Charter and Comcast, use this type of planning.

Assume all they want, if they sell me X amount of bandwidth, it’s mine to use; otherwise THEY are stealing from ME (regardless of how they’ve spun this around to convince everyone to believe otherwise).

Here is a simple comparison for you. I leave the door to my house unlocked. You come in and steal my stuff. Are you stealing because I left the door unlocked??? Damn Straight! Yes I am a moron for leaving the door open but you are the idiot to think that was an open invitation to come in and steal my stuff. Same thing as the WiFi. You wouldn’t presume that the weed eater in the garage was free for your taking, so why my WiFi?

um…I think I might be going to jail soon….

Yea, this article is bullshit because it is not illegal to use an unsecured wireless network. It is more than easy to secure a wireless network, so if the owner of an unsecured wireless network is too lazy to secure it, then he forfeits his rights. Only if I hacked his secured network and started using his hotspot, would I be breaking the law. It is all very simple. It is a shame that such uninformed trash gets published these days.

I am writing because I just got a paypal requesting confirmation on an order I never purchased

Someone from PA ordered a dell computer for 699.00 and are using my e-mail address.

Any comments as what to do…

“you’re saying that if You’re too illiterate or stupid to “secure” your cash in your pocket and your cash lands in the Wal-mart parking lot it’s MY responsibility to not take it?”

No, he is saying that if he takes his cash out in Wal-mart’s parking lot, throws it up into the air and it lands on the passenger seat of your car, even through closed windows, you have the obligation to ignore it and never do anything with it.

Also notable: the cash he takes out of his pocket and throws up into the air is replenishable, i.e., he loses nothing by giving it away.

i never new this ,sometimes when i go to the park i use wifi

Okay, to start off. I 100% agree with the owner of this page. He wasn’t doing any danger to the building, they obviously didn’t care if someone else used the WiFi because the length went beyond the building’s private property, and the fat ass police officer probably had nothing to do and wanted to tell his other fat ass, donut eating buddies a funny story: “Ohh yeah. Hey listen guy’s this is funny. The other night, i scared the shit out of some guy with a lab-top in his car. You should do it/Watch out for people, etc.” You get my point. If the police worried more about the war, politics, shootings, thieves, grand theft auto’s, etc. their wouldn’t be any violence, any wrong doing, or anything, at all, wrong with the world these days; or atleast the U.S.

Secondly, i would like to state that if someone is concerned with someone else using their WiFi, then do something about, but don’t be a baby and call the police. Simply, state to the person, i don’t like you using my wireless internet or WiFi, could you please stop or if you don’t stop further actions will be inforced, and that’s ALL you should have to say. I can’t believe this! I want to go shoot myself because every thing we, as American’s, do now-in-day’s is going to be either wrong or they’ll (the police) try to piss us off so they can say we either resisted arrest or something false. FUKC THE POLICE!! THEY HELP NO ONE. THEY CAN’T DO THEIR JOB

Finally, i would also like to state something: Say i owned a desktop and moved into a new house. I got internet and bought a lab-top when i got a wireless internet modem for my Verizon/Comcast modem (this makes the desktop’s internet wireless so it can picked up from another computer/desktop or a lap-top). So i use my lap-top out near my pool, in my car infront of my house (for whatever reason), etc. and i can go to jail for using my own internet connection??? I don’t think so. The police have nothing better to do, like i said before, but try to trick the freedom we as American’s have earned. I’VE GOT ONE THING TO SAY TO YOU POLICE OFFICER’S, YOU CAN KISS MY CAUCAJUN ASS… (i don’t care if a cop see’s this. They can bithc and complain all they want. I don’t care anymore. They minus well throw me in jail, because it’s going to be tomorrow that you can look at someone w/o going to jail or the next day you’ll be hearing that you can’t walk outside with your face visible. I hear-by state that the U.S. police are corrupt. Now i know that a bad apple can spoil a bunch but this is true in many cases.)

I would also, like to apologize for cursing. I was just very upset that they did this.

thats bll shit

wat about if they let u ue their key is it still illegal?

If I read you correctly you are saying that if the manager doesnot give you his permission you are stealing when you go to any establishment that haS FREE WIFI. This is totally rediculas there are many locations that offer free wifi access, many do not have a way for you to inter a building you use there parking lots. Again if you do not get the managers permission (according to you) you are then stealing. This is rediculas most businesses know enough to turn off their network if they do not want it used after hours. If they do not want it used they turn it off and if it is not turned off that usually means an employee messed up and the employer needs to deal with him. Many businesses in order to encourge people to come in and openly advertized free wifi. You do not need to get the managers permission every time you want to use their free wifi.

Stealing Wifi is illegal, and it should be more known to the public. Someone who doesn’t know much about these things might connect accidently, not know they are doing anything wrong and then have all their crap looked at, private stuff that they don’t want broadcast; and a hellish nightmare of theft and revenge from whoever they inadvertantly stole from. I know I wouldn’t steal from a stranger or screw with their computer just to be a weirdo, I sorta have basic morals. Not perfect; just decent live and let live.

I don’t even know how I got to this site; Bored, messing around. Disclaimer: every website I visit does not necessarily reflect this humans opinions or values. lol

laptops auto connect to wireless routers that arent secure all by themselves. just because they dont have a secure connection doesnt mean its my responsibility to turn off my network card. even a secured network sends its ssid out to anyone near it, and when your computer sees it, it communicates with that router to ask if its secured and with what security its using, which is why your laptop will say that you need a wep key or whatever key is being used.

that said many laptops will connect to the internet after it auto connects to an unsecured wifi network to DOWNLOAD UPDATES FOR YOUR COMPUTER! again, not your responsibility to turn off your wifi while driving slowly down the road.

My ipod touch will auto connect to wifi while im walking around town, accasionally to personal networks that are not secured. when it connects it will send ping a site to make sure it has internet. again, not my problem to shut off my wifi, and i could say they are interfering with my ipod because as i pass by their router will use the services of my ipods micro processor to ask for a mac id and it sends MY ipod an ip address (dhcp) but it is not illegal!
can i be arrested for my ipod accessing the music store to refresh its data while im walking by a house listening to music? or even using its built in safari browser to view myspace? absolutely not! just as i cannot arrest them because their wireless lan asked my ipod for a mac id and assigned it an ip address!

this is all simple computing tech, and theres nothing the cops can do about it, its not stealing, even if they had a secure network its still going to ask my ipod for a mac id using “valuable” processor services. the point is its not stealing, because its a continuously renewable item, once i go out of range im no longer using bandwidth and they still have it. and as for the “download quota before they have to pay for usage” comment, that doesnt exist, only on cell phone plans, and last time i checked, you dont send your cell phones data services over wifi…

case closed, it wasnt illegal unless he hacked it or was specifically told he could not use the wifi connection.

dont believe me? open up the terms of service for your wireless router, it says to encrypt your network or someone could use your internet connection ‘and’ by not encrypting your network you are thereby tied to the FFA regulations for wifi hot spots that state “anyone around an unsecured wireless network (aka. hot spot) is legally allowed to use any services provided by the wireless connection.”
services means INTERNET! or if you go to MacDonalds and they have a computer connected to the wireless router through LAN, and that computer has a shared printer and network drive, and an internet connection on the WAP port, you can print anything you please, delete and upload anything you want to the shared drive, AND use the internet with no legal issues unless stated otherwise.
this case is closed.

Yes, the cops in Illinois do ticket and will probably start arresting for this. Stealing wifi is the same as tapping someone’s phone, so it’s a very serious offense-it may be a federal crime but these laws haven’t been challenged. I’m sure the auto-connect feature is going to go the way of the dodo. The assumption is that a person using wifi illegally is trying to avoid paying for broadband at best, and stealing other information on the networks, at worst. And the logic that it was an “open” connection is spurious. Just because the door is left unlocked doesn’t mean you can walk into a person’s house. Computers are thought of as digital houses and wallets, and less like radios or streetlights or television. I think that arrests and fines and search warrants for this are going to skyrocket in the years ahead, due to the prevalence of identity theft, fraud..they just don’t have the tools to sniff out where people are yet, but it’s coming. (I know someone who works in enforcement, and yes they are setting up “honey pots” fake connections to catch people doing this). If people didn’t have valuable information on computers, draconian enforcement of these laws wouldn’t be worth the effort. Then again, it could just be an Illinois way to boost revenue and give the legions of lawyers some work. If business were smart they would pool together to offer free wifi in cities, online ordering saves them money. This reminds me of the record companies attempt to prosecute file downloaders.

If your signal is penetrating through my walls at home, then how would that be a problem. If its an issue, put a password on the router. but it shouldnt be illegal and I dont see how it is. If you throw something of yours threw my house continuesly and I used it. Its not my problem nor is it illegal. For one you put it in my home, on my property, and in my posession and for two you are sharing your network with anyone with access to it.Hint…you are sharing access. that means thats not theft to you or the service provider.Why are you sharing, because you are placing your signal in my home. I never went to your home and took your signal and brought it back. Maybe its wrong in some sort of immoral way, but honestly to fix the problem, instead of charging an arm and a leg per month, they should take a very small portion out of each individual for taxes and make it free for everyone, because pretty much everyone uses the internet.Oh and by the way, your signal is trespassing on my property.

Going in someones house requires you going onto their property. If their property goes outside of their property line. It’s no longer their property.

To adress the coments here about some people just don’t know how to secure their network:
1. I’m sure the owners manual walks you through that.
2. If I didn’t see the speed limit sign and I get a ticket, does that mean my neglectful driving gets me off the hook. Nope. Because stupidity is no excuse.
If someone allows their wifi to drift outside their property line, then is their property trespassing, or is it not their property?

So using a company’s unsecured, unencrypted wireless network is illegal. It shouldn’t be. It should be the consent of the company because they let their WiFi be unencrypted.

This is setting up for a crime to happen. It’s ridicules

Using the same pretext, the cops should arrest people watching TV programs from outside a TV retail store, because the passer bys would be stealing the store’s paid Satellite TV service.
Or worst, cops should start arresting everyone watching a Baseball game from outside the stadium, like Wrigley Field for example, because that game is property of the MLB and they would be stealing the service MLB is charging for it to everyone inside.
It’s a lame world, isn’t it.

Payday Loans

Protect your butthole in prison