Accessing unsecured wi-fi without permission is illegal (in the US, at least). - by Ultraviolet
mopgoblin on 24/5/2007 at 11:09
Quote Posted by Myoldnamebroke
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.
I haven't looked at wireless networks in much detail, but if I recall correctly, the router he'd be connecting to would literally be asking nearby machines to connect. It's quite similar to leaving a sign on your door saying people can enter. If the owner doesn't want people using the network except under certain conditions, then it's the owner's responsibility to stop their equipment from saying "welcome, come in" to everyone who brings a laptop into the area. That doesn't necessarily require encryption and such (although that's obviously a good idea for other reasons) - it's probably sufficient to give the network a name/description that states who can use it.
Edit: Regarding whether he knew it was wrong, I'm not sure we know enough to say. It's not clear from the article whether he even knew who owned the network, is it?
Myoldnamebroke on 24/5/2007 at 11:27
The literal technical process behind connecting isn't really relevant in deciding people's honesty, though.
Let's take this from the point of view of someone not overly technically literate but has their own wireless network. If you told them a stranger was able to get on to and use that network, access their computer or use bandwidth that they pay for, what would their reaction be? The flip that around - they see someone else's network on a list of available ones: do they, knowing that they probably wouldn't want someone on their own network, act honestly when they connect to it?
It comes down to context - people know that stranger's houses are not domains where they can wander freely unless specifically granted permission (like your sign). People know this because they're familiar with houses - you don't need to put up a sign saying 'don't come in here'.
The question that would have to be considered is, is the man in this case familiar enough with the context to know that other people's internet access isn't something you should just use without permission? It doesn't matter what the signal order being sent is if he realises this - by continuing to use the service he is acting dishonestly. And as I said, that's a question for the jury on the facts. My post was really about intent and in response to the suggestion that the law was absurd as old people might fall foul of it, or something.
Vigil on 24/5/2007 at 11:39
The problem of determining intent is further complicated by the fact that many cities provide free public wi-fi spots - so the man may have been aware that unsecure wi-fi networks can be exploited and knew that doing so was unethical, but simply thought he was using free metropolitan wi-fi access.
If wi-fi software and hardware providers had been a little less negligent in the first place about advising customers of the need to secure their own networks from exploitation, and to make it easier to configure those networks to do so, there wouldn't need to be a law in the first place.
sparhawk on 24/5/2007 at 11:42
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
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.
What's that got to do with it? You think if I worked for old people, I would get away with it? :p
I know that things like this is not obvious to them. I wouldn't expect my 75 year old aunt to know such things either. So it comes down, in worst case scenario, that the judge would take this into account and give her only a warning. That still makes her a criminal in the technical sense though. Breaking a law doesn't you require to know it. If you know it, it's bad, but if you don't it might be bad luck.
sparhawk on 24/5/2007 at 11:45
Quote Posted by raph
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: :)
Let's assume that this argument were actually true. Then the same would apply for televsion broadcasting as well, right? As long as they are broadcasting without encryption they invite me to use it without any fee. Strangely enough, here in Germany and also Austria this doesn't help you. If you have a TV set then you have to pay for it even though the broadcast is publicy available without any special equipment apart from the TV set itself.
Another analogy. If you see a cabriolet on the street, which does not have the roof closed, do you also think that the owner intended you to grab it for a ride? Aftera ll, he invited you, right? If he didn't want anybody to use it, why did he not lock the roof down?
scumble on 24/5/2007 at 11:48
It seems clear from the article that he was trying to get free internet without explicit permission, but the question is whether the law used actually applies. I think the police chief here may have seen it as a bit out of order, but the actual prosecution seems out of proportion, as the penalty attached to the law included much more serious breaches of someone else's network.
I reckon the fair thing would be to compensate whoever owns the the network. In a similar way I think that's the better idea for theft too - imprisoning offenders probably costs the victim more (who pays taxes) - who may also have higher insurance premiums as a result. I suppose the only sense I can see in fines is that the offender is maybe paying for the cost of being nicked and prosecuted.
Incidental thought about justice systems, but there we are. Ultimately there ought to be more of a social stigma against nicking bandwidth from sources that aren't explicitly "public use". As Vigil says, if people understood wi-fi better in the first place, this wouldn't really be a problem.
Conversely, it might be the case that places such as this coffee shop may not be concerned about a couple of leechers if it doesn't affect the service much - is it worth the cost of prosecution?
sparhawk on 24/5/2007 at 11:53
Quote Posted by scumble
It's pretty obvious he was trying to get free internet without explicit permission, but the question is whether the law used actually applies. I think the police chief here may have seen it as a bit out of order, but the actual prosecution seems out of proportion, as the penalty attached to the law included much more serious breaches of someone else's network.
I reckon the fair thing would be to compensate whoever owns the the network.
IMO that's also the reason why a police officer is not the judge at the same time. If the officer thought that this guy was breaking a law, without even know wether this was true or not, he probably should have gone to the shop owner and ask wether he allows such acts, and if he wants to file a complaint. If the owner doesn't want to do this, then it should be ok, unless there would really be a law against this (which I can't quite believe, because what law would this be?). If the shopowner doesn't have a problem with it, then the law would essentially have to say that you are not allowed to access a wireless in a public place.
If he would file a complaint, IMO it still would not be justified to arrest this guy, since this would be a minor offence. Taking his address and personality should be more then enough, because in this case a laywer or a judge would have to deal with it anyway (unless there are some regulations about it for a fee or such).
Myoldnamebroke on 24/5/2007 at 11:55
Quote Posted by sparhawk
So it comes down, in worst case scenario, that the judge would take this into account and give her only a warning. That still makes her a criminal in the technical sense though. Breaking a law doesn't you require to know it. If you know it, it's bad, but if you don't it might be bad luck.
This is what my point was directed at - not knowing actually means she ISN'T a criminal. If she wasn't acting dishonestly or fraudulently then she's not guilty.
sparhawk on 24/5/2007 at 12:15
Quote Posted by Myoldnamebroke
This is what my point was directed at - not knowing actually means she ISN'T a criminal. If she wasn't acting dishonestly or fraudulently then she's not guilty.
Well, if she is convicted, then she technically IS a criminal. Thats the definition of a criminal juristically. :)
That doesn't mean that she would be morally a criminal as well. Depending on the country, there might be laws which would require you to break them in order to NOT become a criminal because if you not break them, you are morally a criminal. Law doesn't have anything to do with what's right or wrong per se, only what's defined for a given society.
rachel on 24/5/2007 at 13:29
Quote Posted by sparhawk
Another analogy. If you see a cabriolet on the street, which does not have the roof closed, do you also think that the owner intended you to grab it for a ride? Aftera ll, he invited you, right? If he didn't want anybody to use it, why did he not lock the roof down?
I wouldn't use that analogy. Wifi is not physical, it's more like reading using someon else's light or listening to music that comes from a window. You can't put a physical limit on it, and people should be aware of that. (As for TV, well, there's a well-known law and a tax in place, so people who connect without paying are clearly on the illegal side, it's not really the same thing either, though it's closer to the wifi angle)
I realize that computers are seen by most as mere appliances, but after all, people learned to close their doors and their cars. They should learn (and be taught) to do the same on their PC. With all the virus and spyware bullshit we have to cope with nowadays, spending a few minutes learning the few steps required to close your network when you take it out of the box is trivial in comparison and it's not even complicated to do, it takes what, a few minutes?
The current state of wifi is that if you don't do anything, connecting is allowed and even automatic in some cases. You've got to either change that default state or educate people to change it to suit their preference. Otherwise we'll see a lot more cases like that one when the only problem is misinformation on pretty much every party, user, cop and owner.
