Ultraviolet on 24/5/2007 at 08:34

---

Gleaned this from SA:

(http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2489306)

Apparently this guy would regularly drive up to this coffee shop and check his e-mail on the wi-fi connection that was available even from outside. (Stuff like chicken-wire holding up your stucco, or even just in front of your insulation -- whatever -- will help that, as well as strategic positioning of the hot spot and pointing its antennae.) The cops noticed his routine, or somebody reported him, or whatever, and bam. He got a minimal sentence and a $400 fine for not even knowing it was illegal.

Seriously -- let's say you're using your laptop and Windows says "new wireless networks detected." Windows XP is cool like that, you know. Tells you what you can use. So it comes up, and there's a big shiny "connect" button, and then you're connected. How cool is that? ANYBODY EVER NOTICE A DISCLAIMER IN THERE ANYWHERE? (unless I'm just remembering wrong, there is none) People honestly have mistaken their CD-ROM drives for cup-holders, and people are legally expected to know anything about network security laws?

Well, if the law can't be changed, at least Windows' wireless utility can.

ps oh yeah almost forgot: discuss

(http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9722006-7.html) -- and there's the direct link to the news story if you don't care to read SA goons' rambling. There are some points made there, though.

Ultraviolet on 24/5/2007 at 08:58

---

Well they get away with it well enough, don't they? Yes, I THOUGHT of that argument, but honestly, it's not publicized, and people DO NOT KNOW this. CUPHOLDERS AND CD-ROM TRAYS. Did I not already present a perfectly valid "technology makes no sense" argument? You can "get off with a warning" for speeding, and EVERYBODY knows speeding is illegal. It requires you to push your foot down harder and blatantly disregard when you see signs with a lower number than the one on your speedometer. That's not the case here.

Connecting to wi-fi is a mostly automated, guided, walk-me-through-it process. If it's a capability of your computer that you paid for by buying it, how are you expected to know where it comes from?

Sparhawk, do you deal at all with old people and computers? Because I do on a daily basis, and seriously, things like this are just not obvious to them.

rachel on 24/5/2007 at 09:33

---

Not only that, but Wi-Fi is designed to allow users by default. Basically the PC asked "hey can you let me in?" and the router replied "Sure, no problem", so in essence permission to access the network was granted.

It's the owner's responsibility to close his network if he doesn't want "unauthorized" access, then he can redistribute the key to whoever he wants and keep everyone else out. Leaving it open by default automatically means he authorizes anyone to use it. It's as simple as that.

[edit] ah, simul-post, mopgoblin said just the same just before :erg: :)

Ultraviolet on 24/5/2007 at 10:11

---

The thing is, maybe they did, but he wouldn't know, because he was outside. How do you get permission to do a thing you don't know requires permission? One couldn't expect to see the speed limit obeyed if signs weren't posted, for example.

Myoldnamebroke on 24/5/2007 at 10:44

---

If the law is anything similar to the UK one, it's a question 1) of intent and 2) of honesty. Those are things, by and large, for a jury to decide - the old person whose computer automatically connects them to the service is unlikely to have the same mental state as some comp. sci. student nicking his neighbour's internet access, and so they're unlikely to have the same criminal liability.

Saying 'but they didn't secure it, that's just asking for people to connect' is pretty weak - if I don't lock my door then I've been stupid but it doesn't let a burglar off the hook. Likewise you ought not to be suprised if someone gets onto your unsecured network but if they're vaguely technically aware they ought to at the very least suspect they shouldn't be on there - especially one provided by a shop. The fact that the guy accessed it in his car and didn't go in hints at the fact he suspected access was for customers only - it smacks of closing your eyes to a potentially barrier to what you're doing. That is to say, if he stays outside and never goes in to check, he can never be told that he needs to pay for something to get access - regardless of what the shop owner may or may not have done, that seems dishonest to me.