Accessing unsecured wi-fi without permission is illegal (in the US, at least). - by Ultraviolet
Myoldnamebroke on 24/5/2007 at 13:38
Quote Posted by sparhawk
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.
Obviously if she's convicted she's a criminal but if she wasn't acting dishonestly then she wouldn't be convicted :p The judge wouldn't 'take into account' that she didn't know what she was doing was wrong, she would just be found not guilty.
sparhawk on 24/5/2007 at 13:56
Quote Posted by Myoldnamebroke
Obviously if she's convicted she's a criminal but if she wasn't acting dishonestly then she wouldn't be convicted :p The judge wouldn't 'take into account' that she didn't know what she was doing was wrong, she would just be found not guilty.
That's not exactly true. If the judge found her not guilty it would mean that she wouldn't have broken any laws. Obviously this can not be true if such a law exists and it was broken, even in ignorance. So the judge would have to find her guilty in that case, but he can put a very mild penality. The "guilty" part of the case doesn't refer to the state of the accused, it refers to the law itself. So if the judge finds her guilty it means that she was guilty of breaking the law, not guilty of doing it intentionally or not, which are two different things.
sparhawk on 24/5/2007 at 14:02
Quote Posted by raph
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.
The anology was more targeted at the fact that, just because something is open, it is not automatically an invitation to use it however you see fit. A shop is also open during the day, but that also doesn't mean that you can take whatever you want from it without paying. :p
Quote:
(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)
So what's if a tourist is coming along (or an immigrant) who comes from a country where this is not taxed so he doesn't know about it?
Quote:
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?
I agree with that. Personally I wouldn't leave my computers unprotected. On my WAN router there is a password, encryption enabled and also limited to known MAC adresses, which is as much as I can do. If somebody still breaks in, I can't really prevent it, because I have used everything that I have at my availabillity.
Quote:
The current state of wifi is that if you don't do anything, connecting is allowed and even automatic in some cases.
Who says that (that it is allowed in this case)? Is this an assumption of yours or actually written down somehwere?
Quote:
You've got to either change that default state or educate people to change it to suit their preference.
Which of course would assume that you have to be actually aware of it. :) A few seconds of thinking about it should clue you in, but the average user probably is not really aware of this.
rachel on 24/5/2007 at 15:27
Quote Posted by sparhawk
Who says that (that it is allowed in this case)? Is this an assumption of yours or actually written down somehwere?
The
router says that. The router broadcasts an invitation to join in, and merely enabling Wifi in XP makes it look for open access ports to connect. The router sends invitations all over the place, you just have to open the wifi to connect. It's not obvious, and it's not written anywhere, that's the problem.
Quote:
Which of course would assume that you have to be actually aware of it. :) A few seconds of thinking about it should clue you in, but the average user probably is not really aware of this.
That's my point. We'll fix this with education, not random senseless trials that hit Joe Average because the Walmart drone was more interested in his profit margin than in taking the time to explain him how this stuff works (and that's assuming he actually knows himself).
There's this story that comes up every now and then, about a Digg post saying "hey come tomorrow at [address] and take everything you want, free for all", and people came and stole everything, believing it was legit, and the owner came back and found the house ransacked and empty.
Whether this is a true story or not, that's exactly what computers do: without their owners knowing,
they open the ports and invite other PCs to join the network. And users connect and just assume it's ok since it's automatic.
Even just putting a sticker prominently glued on the PC saying "beware, open wifi is available to everyone, not just you" would be a step in the right direction.
And finally:
Quote:
So what's if a tourist is coming along (or an immigrant) who comes from a country where this is not taxed so he doesn't know about it?
Quote Posted by sparhawk
Not knowing a law doesn't make you immune to it. That's always like it was, in any country, IMO. Only politicians can feign ignorance.
:)
If you go somewhere you don't know, do your research. If I'm driving in the US, I have a look and learn the speed limit and read about US driving habits. I won't just go and drive at 130km/h assuming it's ok just because that's the limit in France.
The issue with wi-fi is that there's no law to begin with, and most people are not computer geeks, so it's fuzzy for everyone involved.
Myoldnamebroke on 24/5/2007 at 15:40
Quote Posted by sparhawk
That's not exactly true. If the judge found her not guilty it would mean that she wouldn't have broken any laws. Obviously this can not be true if such a law exists and it was broken, even in ignorance. So the judge would have to find her guilty in that case, but he can put a very mild penality. The "guilty" part of the case doesn't refer to the state of the accused, it refers to the law itself. So if the judge finds her guilty it means that she was guilty of breaking the law, not guilty of doing it intentionally or not, which are two different things.
...
It is exactly true, I'm afraid. Mental state is a vital part of nearly every criminal offence, and the act itself is not enough to convict without the appropriate intent.
Theft, for example, is dishonestly taking someone else's property with the intention of keeping it. When I go into a shop and pick up a banana to take it to the checkout, I take property belonging to another with the intention of keeping it to myself. I am not guilty of theft because I'm not acting dishonestly by just taking it off the shelves - I don't act dishonestly until I try and walk out without paying.
Likewise, the old biddy in our example who does not know anything about computers is not acting dishonestly and so the offence is not complete - to be guilty she must, by the definition of the offence, be acting dishonestly.
Ultraviolet on 24/5/2007 at 15:48
Quote Posted by Myoldnamebroke
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.
I don't see how. He'd only go in if he wanted coffee. Otherwise, he'd stay out. You wouldn't walk into a coffee shop and just chill by yourself.
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.
That's still a lot of unnecessary legal process.
I'm all for the "secure it or STFU" method.
Quote Posted by sparhawk
Let's assume that this argument were actually true.
Oh ho ho, I see what you did there!
Quote Posted by raph
it's more like reading using someon else's light or listening to music that comes from a window
Shhh don't get the RIAA in on this! I'm waiting for the inevitable lawsuits now. Far-fetched? Maybe not.
Turtle on 24/5/2007 at 16:14
Quote Posted by sparhawk
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.
Wrong.
The shop owner noticed the man in his car everyday sitting for a half hour or so and wondered what he was doing and if he was a threat. (IIRC the cafe is only a block or 2 from the school.)
She called the police to check into it and when the police questioned him they saw what he was doing. They checked into the law and found that he was breaking it. The chief of police did not realize beforehand that it was a crime, so no, he wasn't looking to screw somebody over.
This law has been in the books in Michigan since the '70s and this is the first time anyone is being prosecuted under it. The man received a fine and community service instead of the maximum 5 years jail time allowed by the law. Prosecutors were hesitant to charge him, but with the explosion of Wi-fi availability some groundwork had to be laid for future cases.
Aircraftkiller on 24/5/2007 at 16:16
If that applies in Florida I'd better not get caught, I don't pay a dime for no internets and everybody is happy.
dj_ivocha on 24/5/2007 at 16:35
Quote Posted by sparhawk
So what's if a tourist is coming along (or an immigrant) who comes from a country where this is not taxed so he doesn't know about it?
Tourists aren't required to pay these taxes though, are they? And I thought in order to be given immigrant status, you'd have to prove you know the host country's laws first?
Mingan on 24/5/2007 at 18:48
As a complement to raph's comment, the WiFi RFC clearly specifies that WiFi routers broadcast invitations and that WiFi-enabled devices are constantly looking for new networks to connect to, by default. It is also common that unsecured WLANs autoconnect on discovery.
As for the guy, he's got the fool on him; he bargained a guilty plea, while he could probably have gone to court and got off the hook. This story was on The Register today, along with the law; it is broad and open-worded, so much so that you probably could make it say about anything.
Note : I don't expect people to go and read RFCs; most people outside the IT realm won't understand, and it's boring as hell to read.
