Using unsecured WiFi a crime now?

Should connecting to an unsecured WiFi network be considered theft?

  • Yes, it is theft. It's not my fault I leave it unsecured.

    Votes: 14 17.9%
  • No, it is not. Unsecured wireless portals are in the public domain.

    Votes: 61 78.2%
  • I'm still using dialup WTF are you talking about?

    Votes: 3 3.8%

  • Total voters
    78
Would you charge someone with theft if they read a book by the light coming from the floods on your garage? That's an unsecured EM emission too.
Although I've done so in the past, I'm unsure it would be completely lawful. Were it in the form of a TV signal where you're simply receiving and displaying, I doubt they could rule against you. But, when you enter a web site or anything which sends a signal to that router then you're actually invading. It's iffy but plausible such a case could make it to trial.
 
Wouldn't that make it more like watering your lawn using your own water running through your neighbor's hose? It's your internet signal (water), just their router and IP (hose).
 
Wouldn't that make it more like watering your lawn using your own water running through your neighbor's hose? It's your internet signal (water), just their router and IP (hose).

No, it's their "water" (internet service and IP), your hose & sprinkler.

Just like hooking your hose to their spigot and watering your lawn.
 
No it's more like them throwing their hose over the fence into your yard and turning the water on. You have the choice of whether you want to water the entire lawn, or just let it run in one little spot and do nothing with it - or you could tell them to take the hose out of your yard.
 
No it's more like them throwing their hose over the fence into your yard and turning the water on. You have the choice of whether you want to water the entire lawn, or just let it run in one little spot and do nothing with it - or you could tell them to take the hose out of your yard.


Nah, because you can choose whether or not you wish to connect to the WAP. You actually have to do something to use the service.
 
Nah, because you can choose whether or not you wish to connect to the WAP. You actually have to do something to use the service.

You mean kinda like attaching a lawn sprinkler to the free source of water that is on your property? ;)
 
Not at all. They pay for the water you use. With wi-fi, they pay for the electricity to run the router and the IP (unless it's "free" AOL or something), but they do not pay one penny more just because you're piggybacking on theirs.

That's the issue. The people with unsecured wifi have not lost one penny because their neighbors can use their internet connection. Slower internet, maybe, but many other things vary the speed of the connection.

Here's another shot at an analogy. I plant a shade tree in my yard. It benefits me by shading my house. It also happens to benefit my neighbor by shading his house, though he contributed nothing to its planting. Is he stealing my shade?
 
Well just so you know...do not try this in Florida, they HAVE arrested and convicted at least on for WiFi theft.
 
Well, it's certainly "wrong", and I think it's easily justifiable as illegal, and cause for civil actions, though it's still a fairly minor offense.

The main arguments I hear are:

"It's like a shade tree (etc.), the owner loses nothing by my use of it".
No, it's not really like a shade tree. If my shade tree also shades your backyard, and you go sit there, you're not precluding me from enjoying that shade in my backyard, nor diminishing the shade I enjoy. On the other hand, when you're using my wireless network to access my internet connection, you're using up part of two finite resources, namely the bandwidth of my wireless network, and (more importantly, as it's more likely to be a limiting factor) the bandwidth of my internet connection (dsl, cable modem, etc.) While you're using my internet connection, my download speeds on my internet connection are lower than they would otherwise be, I'm only getting partial use of the service that I paid for (and you did not).

I pay Vonage for voice over IP service, and I know that when there's internet activity on my dsl link, I get drops on my voice calls. If you're parked in front of my house, using my DSL connection, you could be screwing up my phone calls, and you'd have no way of knowing whether I'm using that service at the moment or not (no, that traffic doesn't go over the wireless network, so it's not like you can say "well, I can tell there's no activity on the wireless network, so I know you're not using it right now").

"If the network isn't protected, it's an invitation for anybody to use it".
This statement is true in the way that we might say "leaving your laptop on the back seat of your car, in plain view, is an 'invitation' to crime". We don't really mean "invitation" like we might invite somebody to a backyard barbecue, we mean that we're being naive and careless and that some evil-doer may take advantage of us because of this.

When we try to justify our use of an unprotected network, we're not sincere in saying "that's an invitation to public use", we're really saying "that person is so stupid, that they deserve to be taken advantage of as a punishment for their carelessness". This is the way we might say a pilot "deserved to die" when he does something really stupid. Almost a Darwinian sort of justification. If somebody was really broadcasting an invitation, maybe they could advertise this intent through the network name ("all-are-welcome"). Obviously, the typical user has an unprotected network due to naivety, and not a spirit of generosity.

In any case, many of us seem to confuse "acceptable behavior" with "I can get away with it". There's really just something miswired in a lot of brains, whereby an inability to get caught, or a lack of repercussions, somehow makes it "okay to do".

"Well, if I'm not supposed to use it, then don't let it enter my house."
Well, this is a really disingenuous argument, sort of replacing common sense judgement of right and wrong with legal "loophole" mentality. But do consider that you're not just using the person's wireless network, you're using this as a ramp to access their DSL/cable-modem connection, and this resource isn't located in your house.
-harry
 
I live in a small subdivision and my back yard is 50 acres of woods. Pre-wireless, guests had ocassionally used unsecured networks to check e-mail and stuff, nothing abusive. So when I went to wireless I did not secure it, for the same reason, I don't mind sharing.

Well, three months in someone hacked my router and secured it so I could not use it. I knew exactly what was up and pulled the plug (I don't leave unattended machines "on"). It took hours on the phone with Linksys (who were very helpful once I reached America).

Moral: The human heart is depraved. It will turn all good to ill. It is now secured, to the detriment of others who will no longer be able to do a quick check.

We have enough things labeled "crimes". Just caveat emptor will do here.

You'll find a checkbox to not allow the administrator to log in over wireless. That should be set if you can connect over a wire. Even if you don't have the house wired you could take a laptop up to the router when you need to change something.

SBC/AT&T 2wire DSL modem/router/APs now come with WAP on by default with the password being the serial number on the box. That changed the WiFi free-for-all in most areas.

I don't remember how they get mere mortals to get that working in the guided setup. I've installed like 6 of them myself and have never had the guided setup work for me - mainly because it doesn't grok Firefox. Not that it ever tells you that. Why would you be using something else? You know, in order to set up your new network securely you must use the most insecure browser. :eek:
 
That's the issue. The people with unsecured wifi have not lost one penny because their neighbors can use their internet connection. Slower internet, maybe, but many other things vary the speed of the connection.

The funny thing is, if you do this with a cable modem, you're all sharing the same bandwidth anyway. So, you can either piggyback off your neighbor... Or you can go and buy some $100+/mo digital cable + cable modem service, a wireless router, and set it up... And the effect is exactly the same as if you'd been piggybacking except the cable company is shafting one less person.
 
The funny thing is, if you do this with a cable modem, you're all sharing the same bandwidth anyway. So, you can either piggyback off your neighbor... Or you can go and buy some $100+/mo digital cable + cable modem service, a wireless router, and set it up... And the effect is exactly the same as if you'd been piggybacking except the cable company is shafting one less person.

I've always hated this explanation as it is a poor attempt to vilify the cable company and persuade customers to go DSL. Fact of the matter is, at some point you're sharing bandwidth with your neighbors. Whether it be at the CO on DSL or the local node for your cable. Reality is that both DSL and Cable can increase capacity. I've had DSL that's sucked, I've had Cable that's sucked. It's really the company to blame.

/Rant over... :D
 
I've always hated this explanation as it is a poor attempt to vilify the cable company and persuade customers to go DSL. Fact of the matter is, at some point you're sharing bandwidth with your neighbors. Whether it be at the CO on DSL or the local node for your cable. Reality is that both DSL and Cable can increase capacity. I've had DSL that's sucked, I've had Cable that's sucked. It's really the company to blame.

/Rant over... :D

Well said.

BTW my old DSL was 356K. My Comcast Cable is 8 megabit / second. I've never had a problem with it dipping below that and I live in an apartment complex with plenty of Comcast customers.
 
The funny thing is, if you do this with a cable modem, you're all sharing the same bandwidth anyway. So, you can either piggyback off your neighbor... Or you can go and buy some $100+/mo digital cable + cable modem service, a wireless router, and set it up... And the effect is exactly the same as if you'd been piggybacking except the cable company is shafting one less person.

It's not really the same. Your upload and download speed are capped at the cable modem normally well below it's actual capacity (upload speed mostly). So you could easily max out your neighbors alloted upload speed on their wireless and send their connection to a crawl.

If you did this same thing on your own cable modem theirs would work fine.
 
Well said.

BTW my old DSL was 356K. My Comcast Cable is 8 megabit / second. I've never had a problem with it dipping below that and I live in an apartment complex with plenty of Comcast customers.

*nod* The crappy cable service here is still better than me dishing out money for a landline just to get DSL. 3Mbps and I'm always around right around that area. Might end up moving this summer just to get better internet access since Charter offers 10Mbps and digital cable (with more channels) for about the same as I'm currently paying for my 3Mbps and Northland's "Digital 100" package even though it's more like 10 digital channels and your basic cable. Bah.

Plus, my favoritest thing about cable. I can take my modem, walk over to a friend's house who has cable TV and plug in. Modem comes right online. In fact they don't even have to have cable TV so long as the line isn't disconnected.

Anyhoo, threadjack off :D
 
I've always hated this explanation as it is a poor attempt to vilify the cable company and persuade customers to go DSL.

I don't give a crap what people get, but I never miss a chance to vilify the cable company. :no: :D

I'm still trying to figure out... When I move back to Milwaukee, I'm not planning on getting a land-line and I never watch TV. What's the best way to get super-fast broadband and NOTHING else?
 
I don't give a crap what people get, but I never miss a chance to vilify the cable company. :no: :D

I'm still trying to figure out... When I move back to Milwaukee, I'm not planning on getting a land-line and I never watch TV. What's the best way to get super-fast broadband and NOTHING else?
Buy your own ISP.:rolleyes:
It's a conspiracy. No broadband without phone, cable, or something else you don't want.
 
I don't give a crap what people get, but I never miss a chance to vilify the cable company. :no: :D

I'm still trying to figure out... When I move back to Milwaukee, I'm not planning on getting a land-line and I never watch TV. What's the best way to get super-fast broadband and NOTHING else?

Apparently the FCC doesn't think you should have the right to that service.

But, I'd take a look at Speakeasy's "OneLink" service if it's available in Milwaukee... apparently they do it somehow. Speakeasy isn't cheap, but I LOVE them. Incredibly reliable, excellent customer service... I could rave on and on. The thing I love most about them: You can run anything you want: Web, email, FTP, whatever. No upstream blocking like most providers. Just great stuff... I couldn't recommend them highly enough!
 
I don't give a crap what people get, but I never miss a chance to vilify the cable company. :no: :D

I'm still trying to figure out... When I move back to Milwaukee, I'm not planning on getting a land-line and I never watch TV. What's the best way to get super-fast broadband and NOTHING else?

Cable. I think all cable providers will offer JUST cable internet to you (for the longest time that's what I did with Northland). DSL as far as I know still requires a loop, which requires you to get a land line setup.
 
Cable. I think all cable providers will offer JUST cable internet to you (for the longest time that's what I did with Northland).

When I was in Milwaukee previously, getting a cable modem (with Time Warner) meant at a minimum a $115/mo digital "basic" cable plan. :mad: That was four years ago, but I'm not optimistic. TW sucks.
 
The continuing saga.

Interesting.

An expert on Internet law, Jennifer Granick of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School in California, said she feared police may be on a fishing expedition.
They may "use something that's not really illegal as a stalking horse to go looking for something else illegal," Granick said Thursday by phone.
What little case law there is holds that hopping on unsecured wireless networks is not a crime, she said.
Granick said the Internet center could help Tanner should he face criminal charges.
Palmer library director Pat Kilmain said Tanner broke no library rules that night. During the day, anyone in the library can use the wireless service for free.
 
Cable. I think all cable providers will offer JUST cable internet to you (for the longest time that's what I did with Northland). DSL as far as I know still requires a loop, which requires you to get a land line setup.

Not quite true. *Some* big cable providers (TWC, for one) require that you get internet along with cable service, at least for residential service. DSL requires a loop, but *some* providers will give you naked DSL. There are a few CLECs that will give you DSL only, but you're at the mercy of the phone company to keep the loop working.

The companies want to sell bundles. More profit in bundles.
 
I believe Comcast offers each of their services; cable, internet and digital voice as separate items.
 
Odd. Time Warner in SC offered me just cable internet. This was a number of years ago, but I just paid an add'l 5$ for non-cable customer and they threw a filter on my line so I couldn't grab the analog channels.
 
http://www.adn.com/front/story/8694610p-8593404c.html

Brian Tanner, the Web surfer whose computer police seized after chasing him twice from the Palmer Public Library parking lot, has his laptop back. Tanner, 21, said Palmer police called Saturday saying he could pick the machine up “maybe Tuesday” after police checked it for child pornography. He said he and police evidence custodian Jonathan Owen negotiated and Owen scanned the laptop and returned it Saturday. Tanner said Thursday he has found another network outside a downtown Palmer bank that he won’t identify that he taps into at night to play online games. Once he moves out of his parents’ house he’ll set up his own connection, he said.
And get this(!):

Owen said the scan for child porn is something he does with every computer that comes through the evidence room. It has to be done, he said, to protect him and the department from charges of distributing child pornography. “That had nothing absolutely to do with this case. It’s just a matter of policy,” Owen said. Computer evidence in general is a confusing area of the law, and it’s best to be on the safe side where liability is concerned, Owen said. “It’s an area that people are trying to do right by,” Owen said. “But if the police were to take a computer into custody and then release it, and let’s say it’s full of child porn, then let’s say someone said you planted it.” Police could be held accountable for the pornography, Owen said. “In this case he’s not looking for evidence of a crime he’s just looking to make sure he doesn’t get charged with a crime,” Palmer Police Lt. Tom Remaley said.
An expert in Internet law disagrees. An administrative search or inventory for child porn is simply an excuse to sidestep the warrant requirement, said Jennifer Granick, an attorney and executive director of the Center for Internet and Society at the Stanford Law School in California.
“It’s a pretty crafty argument on their part,” she said by phone Thursday. “I think that is thin. If the police don’t know what’s on the laptop because they only search what they’re allowed to search, no court would impose liability for failing to violate the Constitution by searching the laptop beyond what the warrant allows.”
In other words, if police have reason to search the computer, so be it. If not, it’s hands off, Granick said.

More in the article about the original WAP issue too.

Probably only lawyers and search and seizure geeks like me will be further interested but I think the police are overreaching in this case.

OK, mark down the date and time...yes, that's right, I just said the cops blew it. What a mess.
 
It sure sounds like warrantless search to me. I'm sure any judge would throw out any incriminating evidence that was found, but the police would then just go looking at other ways to get the guy.
 
Then keep the signal insude your house. If your signal extends beyond the boundaries of your property - it's fair game. But like I said, if they start hacking computers inside the network or watching conversations and e-mails then I say that's a crime.

You might think a little differently if your wireless network was left unsecured and someone used it to download child pornography and the authorities traced it back to your IP address.

I agree completely with Chuck on this one and while those of us who are technically savvy enough to secure a wireless network, I believe the vast majority of home users are not in spite of the instructions that come with the equipment. I am responsible for the security of a corporate network and I take every precaution that my budget and technology allows me. I feel a great deal of empathy for the average home user who doesn't know how to properly secure their home network. Some don't even understand the danger involved.

I for one have never connected to an unsecured wireless network that is not meant for public use and I have no desire to do so. Using something without permission is just plain wrong. Personally I see this as more of a moral issue than a legal one but obviously some infractions can be a lot more serious than others. Connecting to someone else's network to check your own e-mail not so bad, but using someone's connection in an attempt to mask your identity and get away with doing something illegal really really bad.

Jeannie
 
Of course Vista now does this for you:

zealous_autoconfig.png


http://xkcd.com/416/
 
Back
Top