Man Arrested for Using Open Wireless Network

DaCool42 writes "In Tampa Bay, a man has been arrested for using a wide open WiFi AP. The St. Petersburg Times has the full story. 'It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft,' said Kena Lewis, spokeswoman for Bright House Networks in Orlando."

Open doors

[bburton]

Police say Benjamin Smith III, 41, used his Acer brand laptop to hack into Dinon's wireless Internet network.

Yeah, because we all know how much "hacking" is required to use wide open WiFi connections.

Also, the poor guy admitted to using the connection too (unauthorized access to a computer network, which is a third degree felony according to the article). Now, if he would have just asked for a lawyer and then shut up, he probably would have gotten off with just a warning.

Re:Open doors

[Kethinov]

You mean the free internet I'm getting from my neighbors isn't legal? :(

Re:Open doors

[Anonymous Coward]

No and if you keep clicking on those damn slashdot goatse links I'm seriously going to turn WPA on.
-your neighbor

Legality

[Morosoph]

The ISP defense that it's like sharing one copy of MS Office is pretty poor, as the bandwidth is fixed; it's more like sharing a video, which seems to me to be entirely legal AFAICT.

Re:Darn

[eric76]

From what I understand, it's not uncommon in crowded apartment complexes for people using wireless cards to have rotten connections because of all the radio noise from their neighbors using wireless.

In some cases, the only way to use their wireless is to shut off their AP and use a neighbor's instead.

Re:Open doors

[jusdisgi]

The prosecuter's office that is handling this case can be reached at 727-464-6221.

I suggest we let them know that if you broadcast an SSID into the public airwaves and then grant DHCP leases across it you are authorizing access to your network.

Re:Open doors

[Some_Llama]

"And if you leave your front door unlocked you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter. NOT!"

This is more like leaving your front door wide open and handing out floor plans to people passing by on the street, any reasonable person would assume that you wanted them to go inside.. and I think that is all that needs to be proven in court... what a reasonable person would be expected to think...

Ridiculous...

[lullabud]

That's a terrible metaphor. You know how I first discovered what turned into war driving? My friend and I were at an OS X demo. When it was over we went out to his car, he opened his powerbook to make some notes, and "OMG, what's this?? I'm online??" It was a complete ACCIDENT. If my Grandmother can accidentally stumble onto her neighbor's "illegally shared" internet then there is something seriously wrong.

It's not like walking into somebody's house, it's more like opening your bedroom window so you can listen to your neighbor's XM radio. You're not paying for that XM... you're stealing by listening to it without your neighbor knowing. Sure, you can't change the channel just like you can't reconfigure their router settings, but you ARE leeching.... whatever. It's absurd. It's asinine. It's not stealing if people are offering it, let alone broadcasting it out with an SSID beacon, and it shouldnt' be illegal if Apple and Microsoft are setting us up for these "illegal" activities by making their OS auto-connect to open networks. Am I the only one who's found himself accidentally using his neighbors signal instead of his own? It's not stealing if I go to my friends house to watch DVD's he rented or bought. It's not stealing when I flip through the channels on his TV even when he's not home. I do agree that saturating your neighbor's pipe is out of line, and using it without their knowledge might be a bit shady, but illegal? That's ridiculous. If they don't want you on their net then they should turn on WEP. If the internet companies don't want you sharing your pipe then they should charge by megabyte.

Re:More like keys.

[Nurgled]

Two things in the transaction could be percieved as "permission". Firstly, the access point is (presumably) periodically advertising itself to the world, inviting any nearby computers to connect. Some computers will do this automatically without prompting, as mine did when I turned it on in my new office the other day and it discovered the access point in the office next door. Secondly, once the computer had associated with the access point it sent a DHCP request onto the network. Think of this as walking up to someone's open door and yelling "Can I come in?". The DHCP server then responded "Sure, you can come in and sit in this seat!" (you can use this IP address). This is also often done unattended by a computer once it has completed the previous step.

Not only, then, is the wireless network sending out periodical invitations to everyone, but when they respond it is helping them to get connected. This guy might be able to claim "hacking" if neither of these were true, but I think in this case it's clear to me that the owner of the wireless network has the liability for sharing his Internet connection in breach of his ISP contract.

As a side note, I was taught in school that in the UK you can legally access any system which doesn't make attempts to stop you. Of course, if you then go ahead and break it or cause disruption you can be charged with damage to property and other such crimes, but just "seeing what's out there" and making use of what you find is legal, assuming what I was taught in school was correct. If this wasn't true, it would be illegal to connect to amazon.com on port 80 without prior permission; the fact that it isn't restricted implies permission to use it. If it required a password and I brute-forced the password to gain access, I would be breaking the law.

Re:Open doors

[PopeAlien]

It remains unclear what Smith was using the Wi-Fi for, to surf, play online video games, send e-mail to his grandmother, or something more nefarious.

.. or quite possibly.. ALL OF THE ABOVE!

For safeties sake lets just outlaw the internet.

Re:Open doors

[dcam]

I recommend banning Acer. Clearly they were the root cause of the problem. They built hardware that was capable of hacking an open access point.

Re:Open doors

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

how about Chevy? They built the car that let him troll around looking for a network. They I mean, they provided the means by which he kept his nefarious activities cloaked (sortof)

isnt there some kind of patriot act violation there?

Re:Open doors

[kryzx]

Let's ban DNA.
Clearly that was the root cause of the Chevy, the Acer, and both of the morons involved in this.

Re:Open doors

[galego]

For safeties sake lets just outlaw the internet.

Be careful ... there may be a politician reading this stuff!!

Re:Open doors

[Thuktun]

Be careful ... there may be a politician reading this stuff!!

Surely you mean that someone must be reading it to them.

Re:Open doors

[L.Bob.Rife]

Dont some wireless setups automatically search for an open wifi channel to use?

Dont lots of businesses leave open wifi connections for customers to use?

Re:Open doors

[bigman2003]

I've got a handheld (Dell Axim) and frequently when I am out and about, I'll turn it on to see what networks are open.

The other day I was eating my lunch near some businesses, and I found 4 networks...3 of which were completely open.

I sat there and checked my e-mail while I ate lunch...not a big deal.

Then I went into one of the businesses (that is the reason I was out in front eating) and I saw a big 'free wireless networking' sign on their counter. And this was a physical therapy clinic...

Re:Open doors

[Questy]

I know in my last apartment that from my sofa I could see three separate unprotected networks *AND* my protected one.

Oftentimes (the way the nic drivers for my card worked) would cause my system to prefer the stronger signal, so I would waft onto one of the other networks. I was only free from the other nets when I logged into each one as admin (they were broadcasting the name "linksys" and had left the original admin accounts untouched) and add my MAC address to the deny list.

So, the question then becomes, when I was using their networks, was it because I was intruding onto their network, or because their network was intruding into my home?

I mean, at what point (other than logging into their WAP as "admin" :) ) does using these networks constitute a crime? Isn't it incumbent upon the owner of said network to secure it? If I leave a set of tools on my front step and it disappears, then I see my neighbor with it, just how mad can I be for having left it out for anyone to walk off with?

Re:Open doors

[alta]

I think in this case I'd say you left a set of tools sitting in the guy's kitchen, in his way.

I have exactly the same problem, I have my laptop setup to auto-connect to the best network because it's very convienent while traveling. Then suddenly the guy in the office downstairs gets an AP, puts it on the same channel as mine (dumbass) and leaves it insecure. So I suddenly get connected to his stinking network and all my servers are unavailable. So I went down there, had a talk with him about security and for free, secured his network. 2 weeks later, it's called linksys again and it's insecure. I go down and ask him why "Oh, we had someone else come in, and we couldn't find the codes (he meant wep keys) so we just reset it. Great hu?"

Yeah, great....

So now, I have a WAP that I sat as close to his office as possible. It's on the same channel as his, it has an antenna pointing at his office, it's wide ass open, the SSID is linksys (even though it's not a linksys), and it has no connection to the internet. awe......

Re:Open doors

[pwnage]

Wow, no kidding. I commit this crime every time I go over to my girlfriend's apartment! Better get me a lawyer.

Re:Open doors

[chillmost]

Wow, no kidding. I commit this crime every time I go over to my girlfriend's apartment! Better get me a lawyer.

No, no. We're not talking about that. We're talking about using open wireless connections.

Re:Open doors

[QuantumG]

Right now you're accessing network that you have no received permission to access. Guarenteed. How can I possibly know? Well heck, you're posting on Slashdot. The whole concept of the Internet is based around a default policy of openness. It is assumed that we have permission to access anything connected to the Internet and that assumption is only revoked by layering an authentication system on top. These people who buy a wireless router, connect it to their network, don't even bother to turn on the authentication system and expect it to be private are just pissing in the pool.

Re:Open doors

[bfizzle]

That is an interesting point that you've brought up.

It is completely opposite way of thought than how American's have previously thought about property. For example how many of you grew up and left doors unlocked to your house or car all the time. I for one never locked my car doors at home nor the front door to my house. It is your private property and you never expect anyone who wasn't welcome to break those boundries, but we have welcomed the Internet with it's complete opposite point of view.

I wonder if this same ideal is why people don't bother securing wireless even when most have some grasp of the reprocutions of not securing their wireless.

Open Lands

[blase]

Seems to me, instead of doors locked or unlocked, a better analogy might be whether open land is fenced/posted or not.

Re:Open doors

[earthbound kid]

It's like this: even if you don't lock your door, you still have a right to be mad when you walk inside and find someone eating the cookies in your kitchen. On the other hand, if you don't build a fence, you can't get mad when the neighbor walks his dog and it pees on your grass.

It's the same thing with Wifi: you have every right to be pissed off if someone tries to get stuff off of your computer, even if you're dumbass fault that they were able to. On the other hand, if someone is using your bandwidth, it might be sort of annoying to you, but unless you take steps to put a stop to it, it's your fault they're doing it.

The fact is, for most broadband connections, unless the person is file sharing or using VOIP, it's no skin off your nose that they're doing it. If for some reason, it bothers you to be neighborly, the onus is on you to secure your stuff.

Re:Open doors

[mnbjhguyt]

I don't think the open doors analogy is fit.
What you are getting is not a property, is a service.

When using network sockets, there are well documented protocols being used.

So the client computer is basically saying to the server, or wireless router: can I connect?
and the server replies: sure, go ahead

It would be the same thing if a bartender gave drinks for free because he wasn't trained in asking for money in exchange.
Would the customers be liable of theft if they took advantage of this?

Re:Open doors

[hazem]

It's more like sitting on the sidewalk outside someone's house at night. Their porch light is on and you're reading a book by that light.

One could say you're using the light they paid for without their permission. On the other hand, they're letting the light spill out into public land.

Re:Open doors

[Mythrix]

Or it's like this:
Someone bought a wireless router to share his internet connection at home with the rest of his family, but he didn't bother to setup any security.

Then someone outside of the house connects to the wireless router to use the internet connection, without the owner of the router knowing or approving this.

...wait, what were we talking about again?

Re:Open doors

[adjensen]

It is more like running a splitter and a cable and stealing your neighbors cable TV.

This is a close comparison, but ignores the fact that you need to physically trespass in order to accomplish it.

Or running an extension cord to a backyard outlet and stealing power.

Again, requires physical access, but also costs the neighbour money in a higher electrical bill, so it's not the same thing.

Or perhaps a cordless phone.

Even assuming that you don't use long distance, you're depriving the owner of the service, since he can't use the phone while you do.

Some other situations might be:

Running a movie or pay per view on your big screen tv which is visible from the street. Is someone walking by who happens to see the movie stealing from you? If you set up a viewing area in your front lawn and allow people to watch it from the street, are they guilty of CI, or are you?

If you play music in your house loud enough to be heard from the street, is someone who hears it doing anything wrong? What if, instead of casually hearing it, they sit on the curb in front of your house?

The critical fact here is that the wardriver is in a public area. By broadcasting your wi-fi signal into that public area, and not blocking public access (tacitly giving permission, thusly,) I think that it can be argued that you're providing a public service.

If a satellite company beams an unencrypted signal onto my property, I believe that I'm within my rights to watch it. If they encrypt said signal, on the other hand, I do not believe that I have the right to break it.

Same thing applies here, I think. If you take no measures to ensure the security of your network, once it leaves your property, it's fair game. Because the measures required are fairly insignificant, the burden should be on the wi-fi owner to lock things down, rather than on the wi-fi user to ensure that he's not impinging on someone's network.

Re:Open doors

[Floody]

So this guy is walking down the street, his stomach grumbling with hunger. In a row of a shops to the right he spots what looks like it might be a sandwich shop, but he can't tell. There's a sign with no writing up and no hours on the door.

He walks in, and sure enough, there's a "make table" with all the goodies someone could possible want for a sandwich. Oddly though, there's nobody in sight, and no cash register! Hell, not even a tip jar to be seen. He scans the room for a price marquee, or any in

Sounds like a familiar story

[Paul Crowley]

Not long afterwards, he's turned into a pig and trapped in that land until his daughter can free him and her mother from the sorceress Yubaba...

Re:Open doors

[Velox_SwiftFox]

If the WiFi is broadcasting into my home, it is reducing my ability to use the bandwidth myself, secured or not.

And if the neighbor says "hey, those apples are mine - please let me come over and gather them up", my response would be "Okay. Don't forget to rake up the leaves that fall on my side this autumn too then".

You've marked it as public

[cgenman]

The analogy is false, though, because you're broadcasting your property... All of your analogies imply clear boundary conditions, such as property edges, doors, using someone else's computer, etc. But if you put up an unsecured wireless network which you setup of sufficient strength to permeate your neighbor's property, the boundaries are very different.

If you have a wireless stereo system, which broadcasts to your speakers, and your neighbor picks it up, it's not "stealing" your music if they listen. If you want to share photos with your family and you put up an unsecured internet site, it's not stealing if non-family members visit and download your photos.

The fact of the matter is you've setup a broadcasting network through a section of your neighborhood. Congratulations, you're now a broadcaster. All operating systems will automatically connect with your network (...maybe not BSD). If you had a problem with this, you can very simply turn on WEP.

Which is how the internet works. Everything is assumed public until you put on the slightest bit of security. That's the convention. If you visit a website and they don't authenticate, it's assumed public. If someone sends you a link to a streaming movie and it doesn't ask for a password, it's assumed public. By practical definitions, it is public. We're not talking about bolting on an iron-clad Novell authentication system, we're talking about changing one preference in your network configuration settings.

You bought a piece of land next to a public field, and you didn't put up a fence or any demarkations. People will wander into and out of the field as if it were part of the commons. There is no practical way to ask whose field / network it is, nor any reason to see to ask. By not marking it as private, you have used the conventional method of marking it as public.

Would someone make their network public? Lots of people do it intentionally. In my apartment, I generally see no fewer than 10 or so wireless networks. Of those, half or so are unsecured. There's usually one or two that has the default router name (Linksys, etc). But most have changed their name to something else, which means that the people involved knew enough to go through the setup process and decided to leave their network open to everyone. Why? Mostly it's a desire to share and be neighborly. Oddly enough, the ISP up the street does the same thing. Lots of the businesses have open wireless access in an attempt to get people to come in with their laptops and drink coffee while doing work.

Of course, there are tradeoffs involved all around. Your wireless network is fucking up my other wireless equipment and using the available spectrum in my house. My wireless phones and other devices are using the same unlicensed spectrum, but are now competing with your bloody web surfing to be heard. I accept that you're going to have a wireless network, because those things are useful. And if you decide not to secure it and make it public, it's on me (and all of the other users) to be good citizens and not saturate your upstream by sharing on P2P apps all the time, or queueing up weeks worth of downloads. If you do decide to secure your network, it's neighborly of us to respect those boundaries and not packet hack it, despite WEP's inherent vulnerabilities. It's also neighborly to broadcast your SSID and channel, because in high density areas the difficulties involved in keeping people's networks from stepping on eachother is far greater than the minimal security provided by not broadcasting your SSID.

You marked your network as public, and now you're complaining that it's not private. Fine. Flip the fucking switch so that we know that it's private.

Re:Open doors

[Klowner]

Crap, and all this time I've been walking into people's homes and plugging my laptop directly into their switch.

Re:Open doors

[TheoMurpse]

The difference between WiFi and the car/house analogy is that a WiFi hotspot broadcasts its information, inviting connections. There is no "breaking in" involved. If there was a house that had a sign in front saying "Open House Today" with the door open, you are welcome to enter legally, as it's an open house. Haven't people ever been to these in neighborhoods before? This is equivalent to an open WiFi access point.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Open doors

[v1]

I was just fine-tuning the analogies being used here and have one of my own that's a little closer to the point.

Imagine your neighbor has a TV going loudly - he has cable TV and you do not. You hear a show playing you've been meaning to see. You yell over the fence, "mind if I come over and watch that show?" The neighbor's butler yells back, "Sure, come around through the gate.". You go over, sit down and enjoy the show. After the show is over, the owner shows up, and is PISSED because you are there.

The neighbor has not lost any property, but has been denied payment for a service he has performed. (providing you with entertainment) Unfortunately for the neighbor, you were allowed free access to the entertainment indirectly by the neighbor. The neighbor has no legal grounds against you because you were acting with permission of an agent of the neighbor. (the butler)

This is very similar to the issue of open access points. The wireless router being the butler that's been told to allow anyone that asks to be given free internet access. Just because you get upset that the currentl policy of your own access point bothers you does not give you free license to sue someone that has taken advantage of your offerings.

Looked at another way, if a store owner places a tray out in his grocery store labeled "free samples", and some kids come in and start eating the samples, the store owner has no right to prossicute the kids for theft just because it's not "what he intended". He has every right to change his mind and tell the kids to leave, but what's done is done. Give someone permission to do something, and you're just going to have to accept it when they've done it.

This second example has only one assumption to be made though... does an open access point imply a "free samples" sign? Surely we can agree it would not be the same if the tray was sitting in the store and did NOT have a "free samples" sign, surely anyone in the store would be apprehensive about taking something from the tray, and surely the store owner would have right to be upset if someone started snacking on his new display he was setting up. Unfortunataely, access points come from the factory open, and unedjucated consumers don't realize the door is open by default for the world, so they feel that their beliefs take precidence over their actions. This complicates the matter of assuming an open access point is intended to be a free access point, because it can't easily be said that most access points that are open are intended to be free. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the open access points in my city would get closed if the owner realized I had free and unimpeded access to them. Given that simple reality, I realize that most laws are made to protect the majority, sometimes from their own stupidity.

Should accessing open wireless access points be illegal? That is a tough question for me to answer. I believe the 'free' sign cannot be assumed because the majority of WAP owners simply don't realize the WAP is open to all - this is not something that anyone can effectively argue against. This makes the open access point much more akin to the plate of what appear to be free samples in the grocery store, but with no sign saying "free samples". This places Joe Public on much more shakey legal ground if he digs in. It could then be assumed that the onus is on the public to determine whether they really are free samples before digging in, and if they eat some and then the store manager storms out and is pissed because you are eating his display, I believe it could be assumed he has a right to be upset.

The simplest way to clear this up is to ship WAPs with free access disabled, OR to ship all WAPs with a label taped over the power jack, saying THIS ACCESS POINT SHIPS FROM THE FACTORY WITH ALL SECURITY AND PRIVACY FEATURES DISABLED. UNLESS THIS CONFIGURATION IS CHANGED BY THE CONSUMER, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT COMES WITHIN THE RANGE OF THIS DEVICE MAY HAVE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO YOUR INTERNET CONNECTION. With that in place, the onus then falls on the WAP owner to secure his access point, and we can more easily say the "free" sign is out on the WAP if it is left unprotected.

Re:Open doors

[v1]

Following up on my own post...

I was just thinking - this could be viewed from another angle as well. Imagine the owner of a new drive-in theatre, but he sets up no privacy fence along the back of his lot, which is exposed to a little cafe with outside seating. Lots of people come to the cafe each evening, and watch the show from there.

The drive-in owner gets pissed because people are obtaining a free service (entertainment) from him without his permission. It's possible to assume a dim bulb might not realize this is going to be a problem. There are privacy measures he can take (set up a fence) and should reasonably assume are required to insure his privacy. (you don't change into your swimsuit while standing by your pool in your back yard unless you have a privacy fence) In this respect you can say that a person's privacy is their own responsibility, and if they take no actions to enforce their privacy and it is violated, that it is their own fault.

Based on this argument, if I were hauled into court over accessing an open access point, the most important piece of evidence I would present would be the WAP's owner's manual. I would highlight the places in the booklet that described the security and privacy features available to the consumer, and highlight the places where it stated what the default behavior of the unit was. I believe this would be an adequate defense. If the consumer chooses to be ignorant about his property that is capable of interacting with the public, then they accept this interaction. Otherwise if they've read the manual and not used these privacy features, they have knowingly accepted the risk of having their privacy violated.

Re:Open doors

[TWX]

"...It is your private property and you never expect anyone who wasn't welcome to break those boundries, but we have welcomed the Internet with it's complete opposite point of view..."

"The difference here is it's wireless. It uses *PUBLIC* airspace/radio frequencies. That's the same line of reasoning the Supreme Court used with regards to the creation of the FCC."

It's even more than that. The wireless router received a standard, "can I have legitimate credentials on this network?" request in the form of a DHCP lease request. The wireless router replied with valid credentials for that network. The user did not make any malformed requests, did not use any information that he should not have rightfully posessed, and in no way forced his way into the network.

He also properly followed FCC rules regarding the use of wireless equipment.

If the owner of a wireless transceiver, a radio if you will, doesn't want to let that device communicate then they bear the burden of making it not communicate. If they leave it in a mode that allows any public access over frequencies that belong to the public-at-large then they bear the responsibility.

I'd like to see the ARRL and the FCC get involved in this, even though the odds are against this guy having any official licensing from the FCC.

The Looming Legal Threat to Wi-Fi

[usurper_ii]

Your post reminded me of a good Dvorak commentary that came out about a year or so ago. -- Usurper_ii

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1565274,00.as p [pcmag.com]

By John C. Dvorak

To drive around looking for connections to open wireless access points is called wardriving. In Canada, people who are caught doing this can be arrested for stealing bandwidth. The legality of this practice in the U.S., however, is a bit hazy, and there are many mitigating factors. One is that several organizations deliberately leave access points unencrypted so that people can use them as necessary. Also, many computers with built-in wireless simply grab the first signal they detect. Then there's the trespassing issue: The wardriver isn't trespassing on the router, the router is trespassing on the wardriver's airspace.

Free Access

This issue was brought home to me recently when one of my laptops told me it was ready to install new Windows XP upgrades, even though the laptop was not on a network and my wireless access point was off-line. I discovered that a neighbor's wireless router, named "default," had provided the access. Using my Toshiba's View Wireless Connections option, I saw five nearby networks that I could grab, three of which were unencrypted. Obviously there's plenty of free access around for harried travelers. It seems to me that being able to download your e-mail at an open connection is a good thing.

Look into the legality of this, though, and you hear vague comments like "The FBI doesn't know how legal it is" or "It may be illegal, because you're using someone else's connection or you're spying on their network." This issue will create ridiculous legal problems, which is bad news for both consumers and law enforcement, unless a sensible, national policy can be developed.

Personal and Corporate Responsibility

Let me jump in and propose a simple, logical public policy. Law enforcement doesn't need to get involved whenever some guy in a doughnut shop poaches a nearby Wi-Fi connection to check his e-mail, thinking he's on the shop's network. This shouldn't be a crime, even if he's intentionally poaching. We must put the burden of responsibility on the broadcaster, not the end user. It has to be made clear that people sending open connections all over town should be responsible for them.

Here's what I propose: Once a wireless signal leaves private property, it becomes public domain. If the person transmitting the signal wants it protected, then encryption is up to him or her. If someone beams an Internet connection into my home and I happen to lock onto the signal, he is trespassing on me, not the other way around. Public policy must reflect this logic. Keep it out of my house if you don't want me using it. Keep it out of my car. Keep it away from me in public places.

The Public Interest

This policy makes sense because it lets anyone who wants to provide open access do so without hassle or fear. Groups in San Francisco and Seattle are openly promoting free 802.11 connectivity. Many coffee shops, restaurants, and community groups now provide free wireless access, and directories of these hot spots are easy to find online.

This ubiquity of access is to be encouraged as in the public interest. But it can't happen if the law doesn't make the person transmitting the 802.11 signal responsible, instead of blaming any roaming users who are simply grabbing open connections. If this means that a corporate network is wide open to hackers, because the company doesn't bother encrypting the signal it broadcasts all over town, then so be it.

We must not follow the Canadian model that views using unprotected 802.11 connections as bandwidth theft. My computer grabs wireless signals impinging on my house more often than it grabs my own 802.11 connection. It just does. Agencies shouldn't be required to sort this out; it would be a law enforcement nightmare. In fact, it's

Re:Open doors

[stry_cat]

It's even more than that. The wireless router received a standard, "can I have legitimate credentials on this network?" request in the form of a DHCP lease request.

I hope this guy uses this argument and the jury/judge can understand it as this is the key. You can't access a network without being given permission and that permission is usually giving by some automated process.

Re:Open doors

[Lord of Ironhand]

+5, Best Reply So Far!

The current situation in most (all?) western countries is that the legal system is walking after the facts when it comes to matters relating to computers, networking, etc. . This makes the more technologically aware part of the population quickly lose all faith in their legal system.

It also makes the world a more dangerous place to live in as such technologies become a more important part of our society: police, courts and similar institutions seem to regard any sufficiently advanced technology as a magical, unpredictable black box, and as such make essentially random decisions on what they will do about it. Court cases are no longer centered around using facts to convince the jury of the truth, but around trying to create in the minds of those concerned an arbitrary but believable idea of what the technology does.

It shouldn't be too hard to imagine how big this problem can become in the long term.

Re:Open doors

[NormalVisual]

The public is absolutely free to listen in on private systems (except for cellular) but not free to transmit on it. This is because of FCC regs, not because of some twisted interpretation of property law. Besides, we're talking Part 15 stuff when talking about Wi-Fi, so it's not a good analogy anyway. You generally can't transmit on a frequency you're not licensed to except in case of emergency, but that's not the case with Part 15 devices. In fact, one could argue that the owner of the open access point is the one at fault, since Part 15 clearly puts responsibility for preventing interference with the owner of the device, and I'd consider it interference if your neighbor's AP is putting our a signal strong enough to cause your wireless card to connect to it instead of your own AP.

Closed repeaters are also not a good analogy, as they occupy a gray area in the FCC regs, and have been controversial for some time. There are private property arguments, but I personally believe they're overshadowed by the fact that such repeaters are operated on publicly available bandwidth and thus there is no reasonably expectation of privacy or exclusivity of use. I've never heard of anyone being fined for intentional interference for using a closed repeater. The FCC regs clearly state that amateur frequencies cannot be used exclusively by any station, so for those that want a private network, go apply to the FCC for a frequency to run it on just like your local police department or Wendy's did. Besides, most operators of private repeaters do attempt to set some kind of access control using CTCSS tones, so once again the analogy just doesn't hold up.

Re:Open doors

[Sancho]

Only partially.

You have an agreement with your ISP that allows you to access their network. They, in turn, have agreements with their upstream providers to allow their customers access, and so forth. You only start getting into "non-authorized" access when you start talking about the end-points. But the traffic-passing request itself seems to be fairly locked down and, in general, considered NOT to be "open".

If you want to test this, tap into your ISP's line and start browsing from it. See how long be

Re:Open doors

[Sancho]

In general, cattle are stupid. In general, people who sit in front of a house with their computer accessing the Internet from an open access point nearby know what they are doing, and they probably know that the person with that access likely doesn't want them using it.

But let's take the Internet free/open bit a little further.

So I have a wireless router on my house. It's unsecured. You're claiming that somehow, this gives someone the right to connect to it. Fine. But why does it give them the right to connect to my Internet service? Simply because the router routes information by default? Rubbish.

Let's move to analogies. My property doesn't have a fence around it, so in theory, anyone can come up to my garbage can and put things in it. People without trash service could, in theory, drive up to my house with their garbage bags and place them in my trash can. Then, when my trash service comes to collect the trash, they take the other person's trash away.

Around here, that's called "illegal dumping" (laws may vary from municipality to municipality). Even though my property is open, my trash can is unlocked, and I don't have a no-trespassing sign up, I could call the cops and have someone hauled away if I caught them putting trash in my trash can.

Let's look at another example, this time with a slightly more plentiful resource than the small space in my trash bin. How about water? I have a water hose on the outside of my property. If I caught someone using it, I could have them arrested, despite my lack of a fence, surveillance, or a posted sign that says that no one is allowed to use the water.

Now in both cases above, it's pretty plausible to argue that someone has to pay for the service, and that unauthorized use of the service may cost someone money. Why isn't the same said of computers? There are plenty of ISPs around that still use metered service, and even if there weren't, anyone using my unlimited service may be infringing on my use of it if I am doing anything on the network at the time.

Regardless, it looks like laws vary from state to state.

Texas [state.tx.us], for example, seems to side with me. If you don't have the person's consent to access their computer, it is a crime to do so.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the owner.

New York [state.ny.us], however, sides with you, as there must be a posted notice before computer trespass occurs.

I don't particularly care to go through all the laws, however there is a listing at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/hacklaw.htm [ncsl.org] , and suffice it to say, I tend to side with Texas on this one. I should be able to leave my computer and network unprotected and have people assume that I don't allow access unless I give it. I'm not saying it's smart to do so, but the default status should not be, "if I can get to it, I can use it."

Of course, the catch ultimately is that, even in states like Texas, does the SSID broadcast count as consent? Possibly, but the intent behind the law seems to be that active consent is required, so it's impossible to know how such a case would be interpreted.

Re:Open doors

[Uncle Kadigan]

Let's look at another example, this time with a slightly more plentiful resource than the small space in my trash bin. How about water? I have a water hose on the outside of my property. If I caught someone using it, I could have them arrested, despite my lack of a fence, surveillance, or a posted sign that says that no one is allowed to use the water.

This is a flawed, or at least incomplete analogy. Let's further suppose that your water is used in a sprinkler which has a pattern that reaches a public sidewalk. If, on a hot summer day, I walk down the sidewalk and choose to stand within the coverage area, I am perfectly within my rights to do so.

The point is that if you want to secure your resources from being utilized when they impinge on public spaces, YOU are responsible for doing so. It is hardly the city's responsibility to move the public sidewalk whenever you water your lawn, or to mandate use of umbrellas when passing your house, or any other contrived solution.

An unsecured wireless network that intrudes on airspace beyond the owner's property is no less available to the public than is water from a sprinkler that wets public sidewalks. If you don't want others to use it, take steps to limit availability.

Re:Open doors

[Romancer]

It'd be interesting to see what OS he was using.

If it was Windows xp-pre-sp2 it would have automatically connected to the network.

He could have been lost, stopping to look up directions on his laptop when he noticed he had internet access, then went to mapquest. It's just a hypothetical but some wifi cards with connection software still auto-connect to unencrypted networks.

Is this scenareo against the law?

Re:Open doors

[boisepunk]

um... you might want to read this:

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/tt l18/ptI/ch119/sec2511.html [washingtonwatchdog.org]

specifically the part about electronic communications "made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public"

Mod parent up!

[Stealth Potato]

The parent makes a good point. I'm not as certain about the state laws that may apply, but in any case, it's hard to argue that open WAP's are not configured to be available to the general public. It's not really a case of accessing a network without permission; it's a case of requesting permission to access the network and being granted that permission by the AP. The ability of the AP to grant that permission is, after all, entirely under the control of the user.

A poor analogy

[Jhon]

I dunno... I think a more appropriate analogy would be if one installed a huge arse window in the front of your house, then stuck a giant plasma TV in it and getting annoyed and frustrated when people stopped by and watched TV through you window.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's much better than the 'It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft' argument.

I dont want to bang on the "the guy had it coming" drum, but Dinon admitted he KNEW how to secure his wifi but declined because most of the people in his neighborhood are "older". That suggests to me, at least on this topic, that he wasn't acting like the sharpest knife in the drawer. But still, it's more than a little unsettling to have some 40-something guy sitting outside your house using your resources. While the article doesn't say he was a perv, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he was -- and pulling kiddie porn or somesuch.

Re:A poor analogy

[ne0nex]

no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft'

or better yet, continuing to use her flawed analogy:

It's like buying a Microsoft program, and leaving the open box, with the jewel case and installation media on the sidewalk in front of your house then bitching when someone walks by and installs it.

Re:A poor analogy

[jxyama]

>It's like buying a Microsoft program, and leaving the open box, with the jewel case and installation media on the sidewalk in front of your house then bitching when someone walks by and installs it.

Well, there's another aspect to this. This guy was around for hours - the article does not mention exactly how long, but definitely longer than a few hours. And he pretty much had no reason to be there except to mooch off the wireless internet.

I am not sure about calling the police but if some random person was hanging out in front of my house for hours for no apparent reason, I'd be a bit peeved and freaked out.

Re:A poor analogy

[fingerfucker]

Anyone hanging around my place ould be confronted within 20 minute. I'll offer help if they need it but I'll darn sure they know that someone has seen them and made a note of their presence. They stay there longer than what seems appropriate without a good reason, they can explaing themselves to the local constabulary.

It is none of your fucking business to decide how long is "appropriate" and what a "good reason" is for a person standing in a public place to be there.

If you believe a crime is being co

Re:A poor analogy

[IgnoramusMaximus]

It is none of YOUR fucking business to be hanging out in front of my house late at night for no good reason.

Depending on the area you live in, there could be a very large number of perfectly good reasons to do so. In many urban areas, on a street with 4 story condos back to back, you can't even tell whose house the person is standing near to. Yours? The dude's upstairs? Across the street? One window over? Etc.

Even in a sparsely populated (i.e. USA style urban sprawl) area there could be many legitimate reasons, such as your house having characteristics of a local landmark (or being near covenient cross-roads), which people use to meet each other by when without a vehicle. Which could easily result in someone standing there for 30 minutes at 6am, waiting for his idiot carpool buddy who overslept. And so on.

Your attitude is typical though of many people who are violently and pathologically territorial and consider not only their house, the lawn in front of it but 200 meters of public road in any direction "their Gawd given property, dammit!". You know, the kind who has a semi-automatic rifle collection, 360 degree security cameras on the roof, barbed wire fence and four pit-bulls with spiked collars for pets (and more often then not a meth lab in the basement).

Re:A poor analogy

[MightyMartian]

It's not brain surgery to secure a WiFi connection. If this guy intentionally transmitted and received radio packets, then perhaps he should be prosecuted by his ISP.

Re:A poor analogy

[teksno]

well i actually think a approtite analogy would be if i set up a web server for a page that only i wanted to view. say some pictures of your girlfriend naked...now unless i protect that site with some sort of authentication, whats to stop you from entering the url and seeing the pictures i took of your girlfriend...

nothing.

same sort of deal IMO...

or what if you play you stero so loud that you neighbors can hear... are you going to call the cops saying that your neighbors stole your sound waves by listen

Re:A poor analogy

[jamesh]

Or worse still, he could have been spamming!!!

The person being arrested should be the one with the open access point. The owner could be committing all sorts of illegal acts and can then claim 'But my access point is open. It could have been anyone. Prove it was me!'

How can he be arrested for using a resource which was advertised publically? The guy was broadcasting his ssid with no security on it, which sounds like an invitation to me

Re:A poor analogy

[HardCase]

I think a more appropriate analogy...

How about not using any analogy at all - this isn't exactly rocket science. Don't screw it up by suggesting another bad analogy to explain a simple situation.

Re:A poor analogy

[QuantumG]

Or it's like, umm, leaving a hotdog on the front seat of your car in the midday sun.. it just keeps gettin' hotter man. Ya know, prior to The Enlightenment there was only two forms of argument. The first form was the usual "appeal to your sense of humanity" emotional bullshit argument favoured by mothers and republicans of all eras. This argument usually starts with the five most stupid words you can ever use to start an argument: How would you feel if.. The second form of argument available was the "appeal to analogy" style or, to use a fancy name for it, Case Based Reasoning. That's the kind that summary girl used and you just compounded, where you try to dumb down the situation so people who have never thought anything through in their lives can make a snap decision about the moral standing of a unique and complicated situation. Following the middle ages we received another kind of argumentive style. Some might call it a "modern" style of argument, but I prefer to say that it is a logical form of argument. This is where you state a number of basic axioms and then using easy to follow rules you present a string of statements which one can follow to arrive at the current situation. For example, you might present the axioms:

1. People exist in time.
   
2. People feel pain.
   
3. Pain is unpleasant.
   
4. Actions can be taken by one person to make another person feel pain.
   
5. Sometimes people can be provoked into performing such actions.
   
6. Causing pain without provokation is unjustified.
   

From these axioms you can easily make the argument that beating people up for fun is not justified. By introducing just a few more axioms you might make the argument that drivers should be licensed to ensure a minimum level of competency in order to prevent unprovoked pain to others, etc.

But hey, feel free to keep making arguments the old fashioned way. After all, it's not like you ever claimed you weren't intellectually lazy. It's not like you're posting on a site where one of the most treasured attributes of the target audience is their intellectual superiority or anything.

Re:A poor analogy

[TheoMurpse]

emotional bullshit argument favoured by mothers and republicans of all eras

I don't think it's only Republicans making the "think of the children" arguments.

Re:A poor analogy

[QuantumG]

Dude, no-one makes logical arguments. It's the final recourse of the educated to baffle the ignorant masses. Of course, Slashdot is supposedly populated by nothing but educated people, so there's no excuse for us to act like the simpletons that make up the majority of society. You choose your axioms based on common ground between yourself and those you are trying to convince. Pretty much every division in politics boils down to disagreement in two axioms:

1. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
   
2. The ends justify the means.
   

As such there's always 4 camps. Those who accept both of these axioms, those who accept the first but not the second, those who accept the second but not the first and those that accept neither. People can be swayed to tolerate an axiom they don't accept but hardly ever do they change their acceptance of these axioms.

I would tend to agree.

[jd]

This is one of those cultural things, and Florida is a strange culture. :) Actually, I'm semi-serious here, as the UK doesn't recognize trespass in general - you have to demonstrate an intent to keep someone out, you can't just assume they should know as if by magic. (Unless it's Paul Daniels.)

So, if you've an open field with no fences, no signs, no barriers of any kind whatsoever and no indication that it is private property, then it is generally assumed to be reasonable if you take a shortcut over it, a

But really.....

[DotNM]

How was the guy supposed to know that he didn't intend for the AP to be open to everyone.

AP makers should force, once the device is connected for the first time, for it to go to a config page which outlines all the security settings (WEP, etc.)..... maybe then some people will start to understand security.

Should charge the idiots who leave in unencrypted

[Anonymous Coward]

If microsoft left xp disks at street corners unattended complete with legal cororate serial numbers would they be surprised if people were using them? Same idiocy here. Leave a network open and someone's going to get in. If you're lucky it's just for free internet.

Well, the quote's naff...

[EvilMagnus]

...but the actual facts are more compelling. It seemas though the person using the unsecured wifi was engaged in less than legal activity. If the owner is lucky it was just spam - but it could well have been credit card fraud or even (gasp!) child porn.

The moral of this story? Don't switch wi-fi on unless you *really* know what you're doing.

Re:Well, the quote's naff...

[Burpmaster]

No, the story in fact does not mention any illegal activity that the person performed. It only says that the guy used the WiFi point, then it goes off on a tangent about illegal uses of WAPs, giving the impression that any use of WiFi is illegal, omitting the fact that criminals have HACKED INTO CREDIT CARD DATABASES, replacing that with "using an unsecured Wi-Fi network."

They try to lead you to belief that Smith was downloading child porn. This is a sensationalist article, and this person should sue for d

WTF?

[LearnToSpell]

"It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft."

No it isn't. It's not even a copyright problem. What, now I need an extra license if somebody's visiting and they want to check their mail?

It remains unclear what Smith was using the Wi-Fi for, to surf, play online video games, send e-mail to his grandmother...

Don't let that stop you from closing out the article with wild speculation though.

"I'm mainly worried about what the guy may have uploaded or downloaded, like kiddie porn," Dinon said.

Re:WTF?

[st0rmshad0w]

Sure you are giving permission, if your network hands out an address to anyone who comes along you have basically given them permission to use it.

Look at it this way, if you leave your porch light on, is it illegal for someone to use it to read by if they are out on the public street?

If I leave my back door open...

[EvilCabbage]

... I shouldn't expect to be robbed, or for someone to come in and watch my TV and drink my beer any time they like.
The cost of them watching my TV and drinking my beer might be minimal, but that's not the point. It's my TV and my beer.

This is the reason people lock their doors and close their windows. We shouldn't need to worry about people coming into our homes, but we do. These people need to learn to secure their wireless points.

I am in no way justifying what this guy did, but hopefully it will highlight something to Joe Average and get them to lock their AP's down tighter (or in most cases, lock them down at all).
On noting the open point, this guy should have at least tried to locate its owner and let them know about it, maybe even offer to help them fix the problem. Instead he took advantage for his own gain, just like any petty theft act really.

Re:If I leave my back door open...

[Mr2001]

But if you leave your TV facing the front window, and you don't close the blinds, you shouldn't be surprised when people on the sidewalk look through your window and watch the TV you're paying for.

An open wireless network is hardly a "back door" - it advertises its existence to the world, and it blankets an entire area. Walking in through a back door means targeting a specific house and looking for a way in, but it may not even be possible for the average person to figure out which house is hosting a particular wireless network.

If I leave my couch on the street...

[Shihar]

The analogy is a stupid one. I have a wireless laptop. When ever I turn it on, it automatically connects to the WiFi of the guy upstairs. In fact, I generally have four wide open connections blasting through my apartment at any one moment. In order for me to not connect to his connection, I need to go through and disconnect from his network each time I boot up. His connection is wide open. It would be one thing if I had to hack into his network and steal a password, but if you are blasting a signal wi

RTFA

[swtaarrs]

If you actually read the article you'll see that he was sitting outside someone's house in his SUV using his laptop. That is quite different from simply tacking onto your neighbor's network, he was outside the house sitting there for the sole purpose of leeching off his internet connection. While the Microsoft analogy is a bit stiff, at least read the article before you all go crazy.

Re:RTFA

[Penguin Programmer]

I fail to see a difference. If you go to a library solely use their internet, it's no different from if you go to get a book and happen to check your email while you're there. If you go and sit in your own car outside someone else's house and listen to the radio, it's the same as listening to it at home (well, it's a bit weirder to sit in your car, but equally legal). Fact is, the guy was on public property, accessing public, unencrypted radio signals. There's nothing illegal about that as far as I know

Re:RTFA

[ZhuLien]

um... I actually have a wireless network *specifically* for passers by wanting to browse my wirelessly delivered website. the fact that no-one has yet connected doesn't mean they aren't supposed to get in their SUV with their laptop - that's the whole point. If someone makes a publicly accessible network, it is publicly accessible right?

Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink

[DJ_Tricks]

and i supose if you go and drink water from a public fountatin i should be arrested too for the fact the water is open to the public and not locked down. Sounds like they dont want to take fault for not fencing up a public oasis in the middle of no where because you know if it isnt yours its owned already by some one else more powerful and richer then you. Also what if the wifi is a public wifi by choice for the people to use? is it still stealing then?

Re:Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink

[Alsee]

Read The Fine Article, the owner of the wifi did in fact deliberately leave the point open. If you come across unrestricted wireless access the basic assumption is - or should be - that it is exactly what it was intended to be. That there is absolutely nothing wrong in using it.

If you don't want to offer open access, fine, don't. But if I *do* want to offer an open access point then there is no reason people should be in fear of going to prison when my access point reaches out and greets their notebook.

-

Erm..

[mar1no]

I always thought stuff like this was a little weird.

It is like a radio station only allowing members to listen to their station, but broadcasting to everyone and saying if someone who isn't a member listens in, they are breaking the law. Either set up your shit so only authorized people can access it, or don't and not be permitted to have unauthorized people arrested for using it.

Re:Erm..

[st0rmshad0w]

Sigh, this is so annoying, you are comparing this to physical trespass. It isn't.

YOUR wireless is painting the entire area, so essentially YOU'RE forcing your signal into someone elses personal space, if you don't want it used secure it, or quit complaining.

Satelite radio is painted everywhere, can you just go ahead and use it? No you can't, you need an approved device and a subscription to decode those signals. Why would anyone expect otherwise with wireless? Not encypted its free to anyone. Notice also that little FCC statement that says you have to accept any interference yadda yadda sinced it is an unlicensed device. So what if YOUR access point is overpowered and suddenly you find YOUR pc on another's network? What now?

This guys is a jackass!

[ad0le]

He could have kept his mouth shut... blamed his "connection" on Windows XP's "auto connect" feature for WiFi devices and sued Microsoft for incured losses..... I'm resisting the urge to say .... Profit!!!

Not quite

[secondsun]

Ok, the headline should read "Man Arrested While Using Open Wireless Network." He was arrested because he had been sitting in front of a guys house all day in his suv on his computer. Whenever he was approached he would shut his notebook and look suspicious. After a few hours of the nonsense the police were called.

The rest of the article is standard "open wireless is for kiddie porn and a gateway to identity theft" FUD. Of course, most people just use it to download music for free, but the warnings of consequences for the owner of the network are legit. If your network is used in-appropriatly, you ARE responsible.

Turn on encryption, add a password, add mac based filtering, turn off dhcp and you are pretty much set.

I Had A Client Doing This

[Master of Transhuman]

That is, piggybacking off someone else's wireless in the building. I told them it was not a good idea due to security and legal concerns, among other things, exactly like the article says.

How do you know what's coming over that Internet line you're piggybacking on? Okay, so it's not going to your MAC address based on your initiated connections, but how do you know what kind of worm or virus is running on that guy's machine - and what it's scanning for in terms of local connections? It's just dumb to piggyback unless you have a really secure setup, and if you know that much, why don't you have your own wireless?

It's also possible to find out who is piggybacking once it is noticed because all you need is a laptop with NetStumbler and walk around until you get a signal from a laptop and capture the MAC address. Then just knock on the door (if you're the building manager) and demand to see the computer - if the MAC matches, it's over. This is bad news for people who are in buildings that charge for wireless access. Fortunately for them, most of the management and other tenants probably aren't that knowledgeable.

As for this guy in the article, he was obviously stupid to hang out right in front of the victim's house, and then CONTINUE to hang around even once the victim had spotted him. Guy must have been desperate for that connection for some reason, which probably means it was something illegal he couldn't afford to be seen doing at the local Starbucks.

On the other side, I can't understand what the victim meant by not having security because other residents "were older". Was he sharing with the other residents in his neighborhood? If so, then wasn't HE screwing the service provider? Did I miss something here? If it's stealing to share an open wireless access point without someone's knowledge, then it's stealing to share one WITH someone's knowledge. I don't think the terms of use of most commercial providers allow for sharing access to anyone except perhaps ones immediate family at one location (unless of course it is a building-wide access point that is paid for by the building - which doesn't apply in this case because Dinon's is a residential home.)

So it seems like this guy got arrested for accessing an individual's network while the individual involved was sharing it with his neighbors probably in violation of his Terms of Use contract.

Re:I Had A Client Doing This

[Stalyn]

Then just knock on the door (if you're the building manager) and demand to see the computer - if the MAC matches, it's over.

I'm sorry but a personal computer is personal property and unless you have a warrant you have no right to look at someone's computer or even demand such a thing. Also a person would be in the right if they replied to such a request with a "Go Fuck Yourself". If you are so worried about people leeching off your WiFi just turn on the encryption. It's a lot easier then busting down doors and acting like a jerk.

Let's look at some facts....

[ZosX]

You guys need to calm down a bit and get rid of the immediate kneejerk reactions, though I do admit that the summary is a bit misleading.

I agree that a felony is a bit stiff for such a victimless crime, but for what it is worth, this guy was asking to be arrested. He sat out in front of the house in his SUV for nearly a whole morning before the police were called. If you are going to use someone's wireless AP, at least be a bit more covert about it. There are so many unsecured APs out there that you could easily exploit and never really be noticed. Go downtown, go to a park with business nearby. Sit somewhere where nobody would think twice about your presence there. I'm sorry, but sitting in front of someone's house for 5 hours and then even more stupidly admitting what you were doing is just asking to be thrown in jail.

This guy deserves everything that he gets. This isn't just a case of someone sitting somewhere and flipping open their notebook and noticing a connection. I do not have wireless at my house for a lot of reasons (asides from the fact that wired ethernet is an awful lot faster), but when I am sitting on my porch, I do admit that I sometimes use the neighbors AP. For my lightweight web browsing, I don't really think that I am interfering with their network or in any way damaging their equipment, thus creating a totally victimless crime. I never even bothered to look to see if they have open shares, but I digress. Also, unless you specifically know of a public access point any network you connect to is technically illegal trespass.

What I find amusing is that I can trespass on someone's property and I get a misdemeanor and when I do the same thing virtually, I'm looking at years in pound-me-in-the-ass federal buttlovin prison. I'm a good looking, somewhat effeminate male as well, so I doubt I would do very well with my future cellmate Bubba. The laws definately need to be rewritten quite a bit, and unfortunately with all the identity and data theft these days, I just see them potentially becoming worse and more draconian.

I will say that this guy is a total douche bag. Anyone that thinks it is ok to just sit in front of someone's house for hours without having a specific purpose is just asking to be stopped and harassed by the cops. If someone sat in front of my house for more than an hour, I'd be calling the cops too, regardless of why they were there. I don't agree with the statements that people have made that wireless access points should be required by law to be secure. Do we really need to waste tax payer money on attempting to enforce more unenforceable laws?

If anyone should get upset, it should be the broadband provider, but I honestly don't think that even they could consider putting forth theft of service charges against people who run these networks, good samaritan or stupid joe blow. Maybe when cable services start becoming wireless or more broadband oriented, but that is a whole different story and a wholly different topic for right now.

Moral of the story is this: It is not against the law until you get caught and when you do, don't openly admit that you broke the law and get yourself a decent lawyer when the felonies start to roll over your head.

I hope they just give this guy community service or something, but that is me.

Common Law Says Otherwise

[MSTCrow5429]

If someone has a wide open WiFi network, how is one supposed to know it's not being kept open as a private public service? If you leave a desirable good out in the open, with no signs of ownership or desire to be kept private, I don't see a problem. If you want to keep your WiFi network private, encrypt it and turn off broadcasting. This is like a radio station or the police arresting you for receiving a clear over the air signal.

Bigger issue - people are cowards

[st0rmshad0w]

Why didn't this guy really confront the dude in the SUV?

First time be friendly and helpful. Hey how are you doing? do you need some help I noticed you've been out here a bit. No decent explaination, next time tell them to clear off, or you'll let the police know what his plates and description are and that he's been casing houses.

Everyday people never seem to take the initiative.

Re:Bigger issue - people are cowards

[davmoo]

I have some mod points this week, and I was all set to mod a few comments in this thread. Then I saw this post, and decided I'd rather reply in the thread than mod.

The reason the guy didn't confront the other dude in the SUV is simple...people very often get shot/stabbed and killed for doing so. It happens on a regular basis in the US. There are a lot of mean and nasty motherfuckers roaming here.

I am not a small man. I'm 6 foot tall and weigh 300 pounds. But if I saw a guy I didn't know sitting in front of my house late at night doing something possibly naughty, my first instinct would also be to call The Law. The only way I would walk up to that vehicle myself would be with loaded shotgun in hand.

The man who called the law was not a coward. He was very very smart.

doing strong wireless encryption AIN'T that easy

[iritant]

The reporter in the article seems to think that people can easily protect themselves on wireless networks, and we all know that just isn't true for several reasons:

- Depending on the card you buy PCs sometimes have trouble converting ASCII to bits in the same way. I have this problem with, say my NETGEAR and my Mac.

- WEP sucks and we all know it, so 15 minutes of a determined script kiddie's time and that's the ball game.

- WPA isn't yet available everywhere, and even it is supposed to be an interim standard to 802.11i.

In short, you can only avoid nuisance freeloading with WEP and it's a pain to use if you have multiple PCs. Especially if you're not the sort that reads /..

Attractive Nuisance

[cmd]

This seems to be similar to "attractive nuisance" violations: If a homeowner sets up a trampoline in his front yard he must also put a fence around it. Otherwise, he cannot complain about trespassers when all the neighborhood kids start jumping on it. Furthermore, without the fence the homeowner can (and has been successfully) be sued for negligence when one of those kids breaks his neck.

im curious..

[jnf]

So, say my apartment/house gets bombarded with the neighbors wifi? Whose property is it? I mean, surely its his radio signal, but its passing through my property. This is akin to running a telephone line through my house. I realize this is somewhat ridiculous, but seriously, your rights stop when they impede mine.

Let's suppose for a second that I sit at home in my bathtub wearing a tinfoil hat and that i don't feel comfortable with your radio waves passing through my house, is it within my rights to try and stop you?

if so, is it within my rights to use your internet?

Signal Strength

[kooshvt]

Ok lets just say for arguments sake that he wanders with his laptop to the opposite side of his house, far away from his own wireless access point. The computer sees the other access point has a stronger signal and latches on to it during a break in communication with his own access point. He is unaware of the change and continues with his business. Are the default settings for wireless access communication illegal? What would stop someone from plugging in a wireless access point boosting the signal strength and calling the police any time someone accidentally connects? I live in an apartment complex with about 7 other visible access points. I occasionally get bored and plug in a spare access point with no internet connection attached to see who accidentally locks on to me and loses their internet access.

This Story Isn't About WiFi...

[aluminumcube]

It is about the fact that the guy was a fucking creep.

Seriously- if he REALLY thought what he was doing was OK, why did he act all cagy and close the laptop/drive away every time the homeowner saw him?

WiFi or not, this guy was acting strange in front of someone's home in such a way that I think it would probably freak most people out. The cops used the WiFi excuse just to bust the guy and I say jolly good show on them. I would feel very diferently if the guy simply said to the homeowner who he was and the fact that he was surfing on his net connection, but he didn't.

Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi...

[aluminumcube]

The guy got arrested for being stupid.

The fact that he was creepy is precisely what brought him to the attention of local law enforcement. Rights, precedent and slippery slopes aside if you act like a creep while you are in clear violation of a law, you are gonna get hooked up with a set of handcuffs pretty rapidly. The local beat cop who arrested this guy probably doesn't know his WEP from his WAP, and he doesn't need to- that is exactly why we have courts and lawyers. The cop's job is to find, stop, detain and document what he reasonably assumes to be illegal activity and I think what he came across in this situation is pretty open and shut.

I say he was stupid because acting a bit more openly would have, I am 99% sure, prevented the whole thing from happening. He could have politely engaged the homeowner in conversation. He could have fessed up to using the homeowner's network. He could have simply driven away without ever returning. In the end, he decided to continue to act like a fucking stalker sicko and, need I remind you, a good portion of this country is in the midst of a manhunt for a little boy who's family was killed, who was kidnapped and raped along with his sister and who was probably executed himself all by a creepy, stalking sex offender. Yea, I want the local police to be a little bit jumpy about people stalking my home from the street- the constitution is not a suicide pact.

No different

[Anne Thwacks]

It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program

Exactly - I can see it now Man arrested for using Microsoft Software See /. articles on how your Win machine will instantly become part of an intergalactic Beowulf cluster of anal probe gizmotrons on powerup.

Serious moron alert.

[stuartkahler]

Say I leave my sprinkler turned on to water the area around the city sidewalk in front of my house. Some neighborhood kids start playing on the sidewalk, in the water. I move the sprinkler to another section covering the sidewalk and the kids follow. Is it something they should be punished for, or should I move the sprinkler off the sidewalk, or just shut up and get on with my life?

I'll buy loitering, no problem. Felony computer network trespassing? No way. If the guy had issues with someone using his AP, he should have turned it off. Or simply told the persont o quit leeching his broadband. Either way, I bet the offending guy would have driven off right away.

Is accessing an open Wi-Fi network a crime?

[ptb]

Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.

My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic communications interception and interception of oral communications) from usdoj.gov [usdoj.gov]:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter [usdoj.gov] or chapter 121 [usdoj.gov] of this title for any person --

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not --

(A) scrambled or encrypted ;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25 [gpo.gov], subpart D [gpo.gov], E [gpo.gov], or F [gpo.gov] of part 74 [gpo.gov], or part 94 [fcc.gov] of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission [fcc.gov], unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 [gpo.gov] that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi [wikipedia.org] is ruled by part 15 [gpo.gov].]

I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov [usdoj.gov] applies:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo

Re:It is theft

[IgnoramusMaximus]

It is theft

Even though it was an unsecured network, he was still stealing network bandwidth & accessing something he shouldn't be, its fair that he was caught & should be punished for it.

No. You do forget that we are discussing radio technology. The AP actually broadcasts an invitation beacon for wifi client devices to join the network. It is like having someone put up a big pile of things on a table, stand by it shouting "Here take some" and then calling cops if you do.

If you still have doubts, ponder this educational question: How can you tell a difference between a "public" open AP and one opened by mistake, while trying to browse the web from your laptop on a park bench downtown?

A: Unless the ESSID is "SEKRIT!" or "DONT_YOU_DARE!" you can't.

QED.

I wonder how long before we see a suit where a customer sues a manufacturer for not making security clear & easy enough to set up when they purchased & installed a router.

This is in fact a much wiser course of action. The wireless gear should come with maximum security on by default and require multiple prompts to lower the protection level. But blaming the "nefarious" "hacker" is far more sexy and easier for brain-dead prosecutors then going against a large multinational.

Then if the gear is left wide open, no idiot can claim "I didn't mean to do this, honest!". Otherwise (and from the vague statements of the "victim" in this case a likely scenario) it is simply an entrapment, vigilante excercise, a.k.a leaving a wallet on a sidewalk and then shooting anyone who tries to pick it up for "attempted roberry".

Re:It is theft

[MonkeyBoy]

I think the most telling part of the article was the following line:

Dinon knew what to do. "But I never did it because my neighbors are older."

So this guy buys an access point, knows how to enable security, but doesn't because he thinks his neighbors don't know what they're doing.

That's a valid excuse? What happens if someone younger moves into the neighborhood? Do you enable encryption then? What if their grandchildren come for a visit and put your system into scriptkiddy hell? Do you enable it then?

At what point does common sense outweigh laziness for this jackass?

Re:Yeah...

[pmazer]

You could be arrested if your neighbor happens to also have a wireless network and your computer decides it likes that one better one day. That's egregious.

Re:Entrapment

[tez_h]

The homeowner KNOWINGLY left his router unsecured.

Since, in general, a homeowner is neither an officer of the law nor an agent of the government, the prerequisites of entrapment are not fulfilled.

-Tez

Re:Entrapment

[Alsee]

The owner of this access point DELIBERATELY left it open for other people to be able to use it. An access point that reached out, broadcasting a CONNECTION INVITATION to every computer that came within range.

It takes someone with a Very Special mind to see how that is obviously identical to breaking into someone's home when the power goes out.

-