FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Using Neighbor's Wireless Link: Probation





glenn83e
Quote:
SINGAPORE - A Singaporean teenager who illegally tapped into a neighbor's wireless Internet network _ an offense the city-state deems punishable by jail _ was placed on 18 months' probation by a district court Tuesday.

The court also ordered Garyl Tan Jia Luo, 17, to carry out 80 hours of community service after he admitted linking his computer to his neighbor's wireless router to access the Internet without permission.

Tan could have been jailed up to three years and fined 10,000 Singapore dollars (US$6,500).

Senior District Judge Bala Reddy cited a probation report as saying Tan had been addicted to Internet gaming at the time of the offense, adding the teenager had "few friends, if not none."

Reddy said Tan should seek "disciplined and structured psychiatric and psychological intervention" to cure his addiction.

Tan is the first Singaporean to have been prosecuted and convicted for tapping illegally into a wireless Internet network, an offense under the Computer Misuse Act, according to Tan's lawyer, Sam Koh.

A second Singaporean is currently facing 60 charges of illegally accessing wireless Internet networks.


Comcast.net Strange News

hahaha now this is funny. If only they enforced that law here in canada or in the states then everyone would be fined and charged for stealing internet. Who would have guessed that the same country who made it illegal to chew gum out in the streets would come up with a law where you can not use your neighbours wireless connection. true it is stealing but still I find it funny.
Animal
I think that it's quite right that people are being punished for accessing networks that they have no permission to do so. The dawn of Wireless technology has made it much easier for people to intercept and use networks without needing permission, and without the knowledge of the network owner. The simple fact is that this is computer misuse - why is it any different to connecting to (say) the FBI's network?

In truth, it's no different. Ok, there might not be so much sensitive information on a home wireless network, but it's still digitally trespassing. I think there need to be more cases like this to start making sure people get the idea that just because it's possible, doesn't make it ok.
odinstag
Unless the person did something to cause harm this is a load of crap. Secure your network and this isn't possible. You leave it unsecure and you have left your doors open.

Nobody gets put in jail for walking into an open house.
Animal
odinstag wrote:
Unless the person did something to cause harm this is a load of crap. Secure your network and this isn't possible. You leave it unsecure and you have left your doors open.

Nobody gets put in jail for walking into an open house.

Well, that's not true. If you enter premises without permission (even if it's not locked) then you're still trespassing.

However, WEP security is very easily broken with WEP Cracking programs that are widely available on the web. If you've got an old router that doesn't support WPA/WPA2, does that mean that you should expect other users to access your network? No. That's a rubbish argument.
Lord Klorel
That is also one of the reasons that i never will install a wireless internet system in my house. Even the greatst security can be cracked, so i say: NO WAY!!
I keep everything with wires, so it is a little more difficult to access a system. I will not say that this system is completly proof, but a least your bandwith can not abused if everything is secure.
Mannix
Any unsecured signal that is bouncing around MY HOUSE should be fair game as far as the law is concerned(though it could be considered "unethical").
odinstag
Animal wrote:

Well, that's not true. If you enter premises without permission (even if it's not locked) then you're still trespassing.

However, WEP security is very easily broken with WEP Cracking programs that are widely available on the web. If you've got an old router that doesn't support WPA/WPA2, does that mean that you should expect other users to access your network? No. That's a rubbish argument.


Well, that is not how the law works. Unless it is clearly posted as not tresspassing.

And most people do not use a program. They just start up their computer and search for an open connection. Most the time it just connects right up. No sneaky stuff at all.
Animal
odinstag wrote:
And most people do not use a program. They just start up their computer and search for an open connection. Most the time it just connects right up. No sneaky stuff at all.

That certainly doesn't make it legal to access a network without permission. As I said above: Just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's ok.
HoboPelican
odinstag wrote:
Animal wrote:

Well, that's not true. If you enter premises without permission (even if it's not locked) then you're still trespassing.
....


Well, that is not how the law works. Unless it is clearly posted as not tresspassing.
...


Actually, I think what you are describing is true for the exterior property only. If you walk into a house you know is currently inhabited and start using the contents, I am pretty sure you are trespassing, and can legally be shot in some states.

As to stealing a connection, I have to admit that I have done it at times when traveling. But even as I do it, I know that I am doing something illegal. Right? Wrong? Who knows. But if you break a law, you better be ready to accept the consequences.
Montressor
Technically speaking using somebody else's connection could be considered in the same light as using any other commodity/service/utility they buy/lease in that you are taking advantage of their "property". The trouble (at least as how I see it) is that you (as the thief) are stealing a non or not easily quantifiable resource. If you steal some bandwidth you aren't incurring additional charges on your neighbor (unless they are using satellite) then the resource itself becomes easier to dismiss as "worthless" to your neighbor since there are no direct negative effects of your theft upon your neighbor. As long as you do no harm with the connection, even the most idealistic person among us could rationalize this action.
If you go deeper, however, you can see a negative impact, and that is the fact that you are not paying for something that a company is providing. Your neighbor pays the company to provide his or herself with a service, and the company bases the fee off of how much (on average) bandwidth they will have to provide, and if you steal extra bandwidth, then the company will (in the long run) have to charge higher fees for the service.
You can debate how ethical the telecommunications companies are in their pricing, but you have to acknowledge that the service you are taking advantage of is not "free" and that it does indeed cost someone something. Just because the companies charge a flat fee of $X+profit, does not mean that Joe Neighbor actually cost the company $X, but that the average customer cost the company $X. If Joe Neighbor all of a sudden ups his usage (or you up it for him), then the average customer's usage increases as well and the company either looses out or charges more.
This is all based on my very finite supply of knowledge of how the telecommunications industry works...
joshumu
I think as long as net neutrality holds up, it wont be long untel there is free wireless in all urbanized areas of the world. Im in mexico right now, a small town called San Felipe in Baja california. Im using free wireless right now. There isnt a place i cant get free wireless at home in telluride. And as the technology gets cheaper and faster, it seems enivitable that this will be common place all over.
That is what i hope we see in the time to come.
suntzu3500
Animal wrote:
odinstag wrote:
And most people do not use a program. They just start up their computer and search for an open connection. Most the time it just connects right up. No sneaky stuff at all.

That certainly doesn't make it legal to access a network without permission. As I said above: Just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's ok.


I disagree... If people are protective of them they should learn to secure them... hacking one should be a crime. If it's unsecured, accessing it should not be a crime.
warallthetm
I wardrive all the time whn i'me on vacation, arrest me alimighty man, arrest me
Wow, arrested for wardriving, isnt that something?
Soulfire
This argument has probably been stated already, but it still applies: just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

Saying "The house was not locked so it wasn't trespassing" is not a valid argument at all. If you want to find out for yourself, do it and get caught - see what the judge says.
alkady
I'm surprised that it's still easy to steal a wireless signal, even in my neighborhood it's like that. But it's quite dumb to use a Computer since it obviously means you can get caught in a second.

But at the same time, there also the concern of this as aiding cybercrimes. Such as piracy, online pirates can upload illegal content to the internet on a laptop using a stolen signal. They can leave there laptop in a bush or a shack for example all night so people can have a few copies which they can reseed afterwards and so on.
Soulfire
People have parked in front of my house, taken out a laptop, and connected to our wireless connection once. I witnessed the entire affair, but I didn't think much of it because they only did it for a few minutes before they ended the connection.

Turns out it was my neighbor's niece visitng who thought she had connected to their wireless internet, and it was just to check e-mail, so hey, we didn't mind.

It's VERY easy to connect to someone else's wireless internet.
alkady
@Soulfire

That would explain why I see alot of people around town parked in their cars on a laptop. I always thought they where just killing time or something.
X3 Talk
I see no issues in regard to 'stealing' people's network. Where did it say that they are not allowed to? You have to secure your own network. I live in a built up area and there would be about 5 people around who could steal internet. As it is, my internet allowance per month is tight. If you don't secure it, you can't blame someone else for using the service that was available to them because it never said anywhere that they were not allowed.
X3 Talk
Soulfire wrote:

It's VERY easy to connect to someone else's wireless internet.


When you say that, how easy would you say it would be to break into an encrypted network?
HoboPelican
X3 Talk wrote:
I see no issues in regard to 'stealing' people's network. Where did it say that they are not allowed to?...


Is stealing cable service "stealing"? Similar concept. I think you are trying a bit too hard to justify your actions. It is a service that a company is selling. You aren't paying for it. I think it is pretty obvious that that is theft.

Your argument about it being the responsibility of the home owner to secure the wireless is not really convincing. If a homeowner doesn't install deadbolt instead of cheaper locks, does that make it ok for a robber to break in? An alarm system? Hire a guard? Any protection can be bypassed by a determined thief. I don't think poor security has ever been an justification for theft.
X3 Talk
Put protection on your network, isn't that standard with every wireless router? I suppose what your saying is right, but you can't own a wireless signal if it is on someone else's property.

And back to my original question. How easy is it to hack into a wirelss network, or is it quite secure?

Should I be trying to put more security onto my network, to protect my internet and, more importantly any private documents?
HoboPelican
X3 Talk wrote:
Put protection on your network, isn't that standard with every wireless router? I suppose what your saying is right, but you can't own a wireless signal if it is on someone else's property.


Based on what legal precedence? Why do people keep making these sorts of statements without backing it up? Consider this, try tuning into a cell phone frequency with a scanner while on your own property. Any recent US scanner has those frequencies locked out. Why? Because it is illegal in the US to monitor those frequencies. Simply because you are on you own property does not make everything legal.

Here is a short excerpt from site devoted to breaking this law.
Quote:

First off I would like to tell you that listening to any wireless phone conversation is now Cellphone!illegal. New laws were passes back in the 90's to keep manufactures from making and selling scanners capable of receiving the cellular band. I don't care what you have been told, it is illegal to listen to ANY phone call. It's quite legal to own a cell capable scanner which was made before the laws were passed but it's illegal to listen to cellular phone calls. Two totally different things. Its kind of like owning a legal gun, but it's illegal to kill someone just cause you want to.
Seiji
I live in an Apartment Complex and there are many open connections.....which I don't use. I guess thats a fault in having Wireless Connection unless you keep your internet protected.
Montressor
HoboPelican wrote:
Based on what legal precedence? Why do people keep making these sorts of statements without backing it up?
I suppose one reason it is quite easy to justify is because someone else's wireless signal isn't a physical/tangible property. Much like abusing intellectual property is easy to dismiss (for far too many people).
Manus et Therion
I guess I'm the fortunate one. I like to drink beer and I don't like to drink alone. So first I convinced the owner of my favorite bar to hook up with wireless. Now I get wireless free as long as I go to the bar... which, well, isn't exactly a free experience. But it is something I do twice a week sometimes anyway.

Then I got new neighbors in the house next door. Five University students. And they like to play one of those online war games and they all hook up. So I got to know them, I bought a few beers. Yeah. So once in a while I buy the beer and they said they don't care that I am getting their access.

So it's a deal.

Now... would I have stolen it if they hadn't allowed me? No! I can tell that when we are all on, the connection is way slower... so yes, there are issues to consider. You are affecting someone.

But I also support the concept that the Internet should be free. Cities across the United States are starting to agree. Even here in my town, the Mayor is promoting a free wifi infrastructure for the city. And it's a great idea and it has its justification - American tax dollars started the Internet, and corporate greed has put it way out of most people's reach.

So I am predicting a not so distant future when this will no longer be an issue.
HoboPelican
Manus et Therion wrote:
..
So it's a deal.
....
So I am predicting a not so distant future when this will no longer be an issue.


I love your sense of bargaining! Beer for Web access. Brilliant. Laughing

And you are right, free WiFi spots are popping up all over and I also saw that some cities are working on free access also. I hope the idea catches on and makes this whole argument moot. Heck, seems like a good use of our tax dollars to me!
X3 Talk
Yes, there are lots of WIFI 'hotspots' around but they are not cheap. You really need your own WIFI for more than the internet, but for firesharing etc.

I have been convinced that yes, it should be made illegal to browse other's wireless network. But put a password on it!!!
deep_space_waffle
Quick question. If it is a wireless signal, then how can you know it is "your" property? That's like saying the heat from a fire you made belongs to you. Now, more people near the fire would cut down on the thermal absorbtion individuals would experience, but would you prosecute someone for stealing your heat? Point is, prosecute them for using the router, not the signal. Just wanted to clear that up.
glenn83e
deep_space_waffle wrote:
Quick question. If it is a wireless signal, then how can you know it is "your" property? That's like saying the heat from a fire you made belongs to you. Now, more people near the fire would cut down on the thermal absorbtion individuals would experience, but would you prosecute someone for stealing your heat? Point is, prosecute them for using the router, not the signal. Just wanted to clear that up.


It's a wireless signal comming from your gateway that you pay a monthly service fee for, so it is infact YOUR wireless signal.
HoboPelican
glenn83e wrote:
deep_space_waffle wrote:
Quick question. If it is a wireless signal, then how can you know it is "your" property? That's like saying the heat from a fire you made belongs to you. Now, more people near the fire would cut down on the thermal absorbtion individuals would experience, but would you prosecute someone for stealing your heat? Point is, prosecute them for using the router, not the signal. Just wanted to clear that up.


It's a wireless signal comming from your gateway that you pay a monthly service fee for, so it is infact YOUR wireless signal.


and as pointed out earlier, it is a service that is SOLD and someone who uses it it with out paying, is stealing. Why do people consider something easy to steal fair game?
SyNMaN
It's fair game because it's out in the AIR. Ever heard of free to air sattelites? Same logic. First off, there was nothing telling the kid he couldn't do it, there was no "no trespassing" sign. It's in his home, so I don't even see how it could be considered theft. Did he crack any passwords? Bypass any tough security measures? Or did he see an open network and get on it? Hell sometimes you don't even know if you're not suppossed to use the wireless connection. Example: My school has a wireless network where students can connect using wireless devices. Yet the diner across the street has the same thing for their offices I guess. People outside with laptops were seeing both the schools and the diners network. They were signing on to whichever. The school actually sent out a letter on this after the diner secured their router(s). So now what? charge everybody for accidently using others connections? If you have no warning to stop people or take security measures to protect yourself. You're free game. There is nothing illegal about free to air.
HoboPelican
SyNMaN wrote:
.... You're free game. There is nothing illegal about free to air.


I have no idea what "free to air" is or how it applies. The simple fact is that it theft. It is a pay service and if you don't pay, its stealing. No matter how "easy" it is. Same concept as listening to cell phone conversations. The ease of theft does not make acceptable.

A lack of a warning does not make something fair game. In a society, you are expected to use common sense about some things. If a store does not display a "no shoplifting" sign, does that mean you can take what you want? Of course, not. We all know that stealing is illegal. If a student finds a wireless network, they immediately know that it is a service that someone is paying for and that they are not paying for it, right? It might be a free access point, but it is up to them to confirm that first.

Your whole idea about "it is in the air" is not valid at all in the US anymore. It IS illegal to listen in on cell phone conversations (see earlier post) and they are in the "air". At one point, the US specifically allowed open listening on any wavelength, but that has changed over the years. Try getting pulled over with a radar detector in some states. "Listening" on those frequencies are also illegal in those states, even though it is "in the air".

So what is you logic now?
glenn83e
HoboPelican wrote:
and as pointed out earlier, it is a service that is SOLD and someone who uses it it with out paying, is stealing. Why do people consider something easy to steal fair game?


Probably because they can't think of anything else to steal... even though stealing is wrong to begin with lol.
Hogwarts
HoboPelican wrote:
and as pointed out earlier, it is a service that is SOLD and someone who uses it it with out paying, is stealing. Why do people consider something easy to steal fair game?


Because, in my opinion, if you're stupid enough to let something like that happening to you, you deserve it.

Still, I'm strongly against people connecting to wireless networks without authorisation. The person who accessed it, just like the person who left their network unsecured, got what was coming to them.

I guess what goes around, comes around.
HoboPelican
Hogwarts wrote:

Because, in my opinion, if you're stupid enough to let something like that happening to you, you deserve it.


I don't know... is that really fair? Securing a wireless network requires some skill and knowledge. Yeah, most of us here are pretty competent in using computers so it seems like a cake walk to us. But breaking into a house or a car is relatively easy, also. Are you stupid and deserve to have your house robbed because you didn't install deadbolts? I can pop a car door in seconds, but does that mean the owner was stupid for not putting in an alarm?

Remember, there things are sold to consumers, not just professionals and enthusiasts. They probably aren't even aware that this can happen unless the sales man took the time to explain it to them. The fact is that almost any network can be accessed by a person with the right knowledge and time (I have been told Wink that even 128 bit WEP encryption can be hacked in about 7 minutes).

I think being "stupid" is a relative thing and doesn't justify theft by someone "smarter".
Peterssidan
haha lol! Very Happy Do they have no password? or does he hacked in? If it was no password I can see nothing wrong in it. If he hacked in to it it is not good I think. If I'm at school I can use the wireless conection. nothing wrong I think.

How can it be stealing when he is bombed with waves from his nightbor? Use a wire next time!
SyNMaN
HoboPelican wrote:
SyNMaN wrote:
.... You're free game. There is nothing illegal about free to air.


I have no idea what "free to air" is or how it applies. The simple fact is that it theft. It is a pay service and if you don't pay, its stealing. No matter how "easy" it is. Same concept as listening to cell phone conversations. The ease of theft does not make acceptable.

A lack of a warning does not make something fair game. In a society, you are expected to use common sense about some things. If a store does not display a "no shoplifting" sign, does that mean you can take what you want? Of course, not. We all know that stealing is illegal. If a student finds a wireless network, they immediately know that it is a service that someone is paying for and that they are not paying for it, right? It might be a free access point, but it is up to them to confirm that first.

Your whole idea about "it is in the air" is not valid at all in the US anymore. It IS illegal to listen in on cell phone conversations (see earlier post) and they are in the "air". At one point, the US specifically allowed open listening on any wavelength, but that has changed over the years. Try getting pulled over with a radar detector in some states. "Listening" on those frequencies are also illegal in those states, even though it is "in the air".

So what is you logic now?


It does so apply. Free to air is basically if it's in the air without any warnings or security measures then it is free to use by anybody. See directTV, it won it's case based on the fact that you need a specific key code to access it and not because it is a known pay for service. How would I know the other person pays? How would I know the other person does not want me to access his connection? See: hotspots and my schools dilema that I mentioned. Logic stands, if you're not told or shown by security measures that you are not allowed to access this persons network then you are allowed to access said network. There is no US law that says otherwise. Therefore in the US it is not illegal, ask a lawyer. I support this 100%.

However, most kids aiming at becoming programmers or network admins or network enginears or any field of computer IT ussually end up "hacking", I use the word loosely because most of the time it is not damaging and they ussually kiddy script the tools they use. Ussually these kids don't go beyond minor DOS or DDOS attacks or messing with a persons computer/network in a non-damaging way. For example, when I was a kid I put up a bunch of text files with a curse word on somebodies desktop, I used an old XP IE exploit where I deleted files off somebodies computer(although, they were recoverable). When I had webTV I changed people's passwords(once again recoverable). Nothing damaging, just annoying. Should this be allowed? NO! However, most of the major exploits discovered are by people who don't wish to do major damage and if it was left to the few who want to immensly damage people's computers and/or networks then the online scene would be in disarray..
mikethm
X3 Talk wrote:
I see no issues in regard to 'stealing' people's network. Where did it say that they are not allowed to? You have to secure your own network. I live in a built up area and there would be about 5 people around who could steal internet. As it is, my internet allowance per month is tight. If you don't secure it, you can't blame someone else for using the service that was available to them because it never said anywhere that they were not allowed.


In effect, you are arguing it is ok for thieves to enter your house and steal your stuff if you did not secure the premises. Since you never locked the doors, you are telling the world that it is ok to bulgarise your home?

As regards the original post which mentioned that there is a 2nd guy being charged... 60 over charges seem excessive until you realise that western media seems to hold asian countries in contempt... what the report failed to mention is that the guy accessed the neighbour's network to make a post that a bomb have been planted at a town center. Which is why the police launched a year long investigation to track him down.
HoboPelican
SyNMaN wrote:
...Therefore in the US it is not illegal, ask a lawyer. I support this 100%.


Well, I obviously am not going to spend bucks to ask a lawyer anymore than you are. But the FCC makes a major distinction between broadcasting and two way communications. Remember that even listening to a cell phone conversation is illegal (I think I posted that link earlier). But if you are stating flat out that accessing a wireless link is legal in the US, what is your response to the following story of a guy busted for doing just that? Apparently there IS a law in Florida relating to unauthorized access .
Quote:
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Police have charged a Florida man with a third-degree felony charge, after he was arrested for accessing a St. Petersburg resident's wireless Internet network without permission.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/07/technology/personaltech/wireless_arrest/

I don't know the final disposition of that case, but either way, there IS a law on the books about this. Do you have a good citation stating that it IS legal?

I think the case above is decent indication that it IS illegal, at least in parts the US. But besides that, ethically you know it is a pay service and you know you didn't pay for it. Is that sort of thing ever acceptable?
Kelvin
wow... that's new. actually how would people know if the wireless connection is free for sharing or not? YOu just detect a wireless connection available, say SSID: LinkSys and you connect or your computer auto connects. Then you get persecuted for using a non secure network. How would one know if it is a hotspot or a private signal which is unsecured but illegal to use?

the thing is there are so many wireless connections in Singapore that are not even custom configured with a unique SSID, thus having multiple duplicates of the same SSID in a single flat or apartment. These people won't even know if they are loggin into the right WLAN connection. They will also encounter connection issues.
SyNMaN
HoboPelican wrote:
SyNMaN wrote:
...Therefore in the US it is not illegal, ask a lawyer. I support this 100%.


Well, I obviously am not going to spend bucks to ask a lawyer anymore than you are. But the FCC makes a major distinction between broadcasting and two way communications. Remember that even listening to a cell phone conversation is illegal (I think I posted that link earlier). But if you are stating flat out that accessing a wireless link is legal in the US, what is your response to the following story of a guy busted for doing just that? Apparently there IS a law in Florida relating to unauthorized access .
Quote:
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Police have charged a Florida man with a third-degree felony charge, after he was arrested for accessing a St. Petersburg resident's wireless Internet network without permission.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/07/technology/personaltech/wireless_arrest/

I don't know the final disposition of that case, but either way, there IS a law on the books about this. Do you have a good citation stating that it IS legal?

I think the case above is decent indication that it IS illegal, at least in parts the US. But besides that, ethically you know it is a pay service and you know you didn't pay for it. Is that sort of thing ever acceptable?


from that article it stated that the other person not just accessed his network, but his computer as well, and placed files on it... So from there it's hacking. In a mute point, it doesn't mention that the "victim" took any security precautions, such as encryptions or password authentication. Furthermore, as for cell phone laws, I have no idea about those, but Im guessing to listen in on a cell convo you need to do so much that it's basically should be known that the other person doesn't want you to access their phone and you shouldn't be doing it in the first place OR you need to bypass certain security measures.

As for a wireless network, if you detect it, then you detect it, who knows whether the other guy doesn't want you to access it. Can you tell me how I would know? And in another mute point, even if you don't think he does want you to use his network there is still such a thing as free to air, I think it might be a law, Im not sure, but it's definetly an accepted concept. No law exists that says you are not allowed to access anything that is on your property(free to air) while there is nothing telling you or signaling you that you are not allowed. If there is, show me.
HoboPelican
SyNMaN wrote:

from that article it stated that the other person not just accessed his network, but his computer as well, and placed files on it... So from there it's hacking. In a mute point, it doesn't mention that the "victim" took any security precautions, such as encryptions or password authentication. Furthermore, as for cell phone laws, I have no idea about those, but Im guessing to listen in on a cell convo you need to do so much that it's basically should be known that the other person doesn't want you to access their phone and you shouldn't be doing it in the first place OR you need to bypass certain security measures.

You mean "moot" I am guessing, not "mute". What he did on the computer and how the WAP was secured is irrelevant. The law that they used concerned the unauthorized access to a network. If you don't have authorization, it is breaking that law.

Quote:
As for a wireless network, if you detect it, then you detect it, who knows whether the other guy doesn't want you to access it. Can you tell me how I would know?

Haha. Yeah, did he tell you it was ok? That is what authorization is!

Quote:
.... No law exists that says you are not allowed to access anything that is on your property(free to air) ...
[url]
Yes, there is! The whole cell phone thing, remember? Here is one link.
http://www.snapshield.com/www_problems/Inter/All_you.htm[/url]

I've showed you one case were a law exists that specifically states that accessing a network without authorization is illegal. I've given a link discussing the the illegality of listening to cell phone signals. You won't address the basic ethics of using something without paying for it. You still haven't shown one thing that supports it being legal. The whole "free to air" thing doesn't really apply since it seems to apply to broadcast , not two way communication.

Do you have anything that is not simply an opinion?
SyNMaN
HoboPelican wrote:
SyNMaN wrote:

from that article it stated that the other person not just accessed his network, but his computer as well, and placed files on it... So from there it's hacking. In a mute point, it doesn't mention that the "victim" took any security precautions, such as encryptions or password authentication. Furthermore, as for cell phone laws, I have no idea about those, but Im guessing to listen in on a cell convo you need to do so much that it's basically should be known that the other person doesn't want you to access their phone and you shouldn't be doing it in the first place OR you need to bypass certain security measures.

You mean "moot" I am guessing, not "mute". What he did on the computer and how the WAP was secured is irrelevant. The law that they used concerned the unauthorized access to a network. If you don't have authorization, it is breaking that law.

Quote:
As for a wireless network, if you detect it, then you detect it, who knows whether the other guy doesn't want you to access it. Can you tell me how I would know?

Haha. Yeah, did he tell you it was ok? That is what authorization is!

Quote:
.... No law exists that says you are not allowed to access anything that is on your property(free to air) ...
[url]
Yes, there is! The whole cell phone thing, remember? Here is one link.
http://www.snapshield.com/www_problems/Inter/All_you.htm[/url]

I've showed you one case were a law exists that specifically states that accessing a network without authorization is illegal. I've given a link discussing the the illegality of listening to cell phone signals. You won't address the basic ethics of using something without paying for it. You still haven't shown one thing that supports it being legal. The whole "free to air" thing doesn't really apply since it seems to apply to broadcast , not two way communication.

Do you have anything that is not simply an opinion?


what are the requirements for that law? Is it unauthorized entry into ones machine? Or simply using their signal? Does there have to be security protocals in order to be guilty of the crime? Just because you kill somebody, doesn't mean it's murder, you have to meet certain criteria.

Furthermore, a lot of hotspots are just that, hotspots, just a network you see and can access without going in and asking for permission. How do you tell between those and people who don't want you to access their signal? Plus, it's just that, it's not accessing their network, you're accessing the signal...

Additionally, it's pretty obvious you have to do more than just see a network to access cell phones to make it obvious you shouldn't, plus exceptions can be made. You can pass a law for certain conditions.

Additionally, on top of the questions I asked up top, can you show me the actual florida law? Or other laws on the matter? By that I mean, the actual signed law with all the criteria listed? This is because the artical mentioned criminal acts of accessing ones computer. It doesn't state what the unauthorized entry was due to the access of the signal... You have a lot of holes in those posts.
simp
Instead of being punished, the lad should be rewarded for taking the initiative to put to use an obviously underutilized resource in his environment.

And whatever happened to children learning to share? Perhaps some adults need to learn that as well.
nikki
I do not think that the young man should be punished.

There is a dentist in one of our malls, and he has wireless internet, so a lot of people go to the mall and hang out on the floor below him and use their laptops.
Also our local cable company, is not a secure on and lots of people got the channels for free, now they scramble the channels and even the paid subscribers get interrupted service.

If networks are not secure, I believe the service provider should be held responsible, and certainly not the young man who utilized a "free service".
Kelvin
somehow having an open/unsecured wireless network is like walking around naked. You expose yourself to onlookers and people will look whether you permit them to or not. Some will take a glance, some will look, some will look hard, and some will stare and holler. The wireless router manufacturer suggests that you 'button' up with an easy to follow instruction on how to 'button your clothes' on the installation manual. How will you prevent onlookers from looking in an open public area?

What makes sense or not is all up to the individual.
X3 Talk
It is an expectation that, to avoid thieves, you fortify your house and other property. Why do you have a password to use this system?, so on so forth. If you don't SECURE your wireless network, it is basically an invitation for thieves. If, when searching for wireless networks you see Jones Wireless- Unsecured Wireless Network, it is basically an invite. You must keep your data and internet secure. If you don't you deserve to have it stolen. From what I can gather, encryption is a standard wireless feature.
HoboPelican
SyNMaN wrote:
Quote:

Do you have anything that is not simply an opinion?


what are the requirements for that law? Is it unauthorized entry into ones machine? Or simply using their signal? Does there have to be security protocals in order to be guilty of the crime? Just because you kill somebody, doesn't mean it's murder, you have to meet certain criteria.

Furthermore, a lot of hotspots are just that, hotspots, just a network you see and can access without going in and asking for permission. How do you tell between those and people who don't want you to access their signal? Plus, it's just that, it's not accessing their network, you're accessing the signal...

Additionally, it's pretty obvious you have to do more than just see a network to access cell phones to make it obvious you shouldn't, plus exceptions can be made. You can pass a law for certain conditions.

Additionally, on top of the questions I asked up top, can you show me the actual florida law? Or other laws on the matter? By that I mean, the actual signed law with all the criteria listed? This is because the artical mentioned criminal acts of accessing ones computer. It doesn't state what the unauthorized entry was due to the access of the signal... You have a lot of holes in those posts.


You still haven't offered one bit of evidence that it is legal. You are asking me to supply the text of a law referenced in valid sources when you won't even offer a single item to back up your claim. Do some research yourself and give us some valid reference that it is legal. The story I quoted stated clearly that the guy was busted for "unauthorized access". Not damage, not stealing data. Access.

And what is your distinction on the cell phone issue? Your sentence made no sense to me.

Holes in my post? You are faulting me for not going to excessive lengths when you can't even find any reasonable source to back up your claim? You find the law referenced and show me how it doesn't apply. Come on, fair is fair. Do some research.

And you still don't address the ethics of using a pay service without paying.


I'll be looking for some decent references in your next reply.


Quote:

If you don't, you deserve to have it stolen. From what I can gather, encryption is a standard wireless feature.

It should be, but it isn't. And I gotta repeat what has been said before. The whole idea that if you don't do enough to secure your belongings they deserve to be stolen is really ignorant. Any house, car network etc can be broken into. You cannot make anything safe from a determined thief. People who say stuff like that are just rationalizing their decision to steal.
Tiger
suntzu3500 wrote:
I disagree... If people are protective of them they should learn to secure them... hacking one should be a crime. If it's unsecured, accessing it should not be a crime.


If you leave the door to your house open, and don't have a "No Tresspassing" sign up, and a stranger walks into your house off the street, makes and eats a meal, watches your woman take a shower, then leaves taking one of your favourite videos with him, how is that different to accessing your wireless network, downloading your favourite software, checking out your photos and using your bandwidth?

By accessing a wireless network and using the bandwidth, you are costing someone money and using their resources without their permission or knowledge. Some people are ignorant, some are negligent - that does not justify using their resources and possibly breaching their rights to privacy!
SyNMaN
HoboPelican wrote:
SyNMaN wrote:
Quote:

Do you have anything that is not simply an opinion?


what are the requirements for that law? Is it unauthorized entry into ones machine? Or simply using their signal? Does there have to be security protocals in order to be guilty of the crime? Just because you kill somebody, doesn't mean it's murder, you have to meet certain criteria.

Furthermore, a lot of hotspots are just that, hotspots, just a network you see and can access without going in and asking for permission. How do you tell between those and people who don't want you to access their signal? Plus, it's just that, it's not accessing their network, you're accessing the signal...

Additionally, it's pretty obvious you have to do more than just see a network to access cell phones to make it obvious you shouldn't, plus exceptions can be made. You can pass a law for certain conditions.

Additionally, on top of the questions I asked up top, can you show me the actual florida law? Or other laws on the matter? By that I mean, the actual signed law with all the criteria listed? This is because the artical mentioned criminal acts of accessing ones computer. It doesn't state what the unauthorized entry was due to the access of the signal... You have a lot of holes in those posts.


You still haven't offered one bit of evidence that it is legal. You are asking me to supply the text of a law referenced in valid sources when you won't even offer a single item to back up your claim. Do some research yourself and give us some valid reference that it is legal. The story I quoted stated clearly that the guy was busted for "unauthorized access". Not damage, not stealing data. Access.

And what is your distinction on the cell phone issue? Your sentence made no sense to me.

Holes in my post? You are faulting me for not going to excessive lengths when you can't even find any reasonable source to back up your claim? You find the law referenced and show me how it doesn't apply. Come on, fair is fair. Do some research.

And you still don't address the ethics of using a pay service without paying.


I'll be looking for some decent references in your next reply.


Quote:

If you don't, you deserve to have it stolen. From what I can gather, encryption is a standard wireless feature.

It should be, but it isn't. And I gotta repeat what has been said before. The whole idea that if you don't do enough to secure your belongings they deserve to be stolen is really ignorant. Any house, car network etc can be broken into. You cannot make anything safe from a determined thief. People who say stuff like that are just rationalizing their decision to steal.


seems you are refusing to answer pretty blunt questions. I repeat, how can you distinguish a network that wants to allow you access and one that doesn't? What law actually states that you are not to allow to access an available network? Also why do I have to prove it is legal. Show me a law that says it legal to access the website "frihost.net". What I meant by cell phones is that you actually have to either crack an encryption, hack a password, or go through clear illegal means of accessing the cell phone. In addition, laws can be passed to ban specific things. For example, bluetooth, on G4TV I forgot the show name, it's that one hour long tech show. They stated that it is now illegal to use the bluetooth hacking method, at first called the "bluetooth gun". Ignoring th everything above this line, my main question still stands.

How can you distinguish a network that wants to allow you access and one that doesn't?

I repeat

How can you distinguish a network that wants to allow you access and one that doesn't?

Once again:

How can you distinguish a network that wants to allow you access and one that doesn't?
HoboPelican
SyNMaN wrote:

seems you are refusing to answer pretty blunt questions. I repeat, how can you distinguish a network that wants to allow you access and one that doesn't? What law actually states that you are not to allow to access an available network? Also why do I have to prove it is legal.


You keep demanding that I answer you questions, but where are the answers to mine? Here, I'll throw you a bone. How do you know? You ask! Same way you know if you are allowed in a house. You don't assume access is allowed to start with. Is that so tough? I actually think that was said earlier, but apparently you missed it.

Now, your turn. I have shown one link from a hacking site that says up front it is illegal (I use them because a hacking site is more likely rationalize it's legality, if possible). I have also shown a case where a man was arrested for "unauthorized access" of a network. Not vandalism or theft....just access". If you dispute those sites, do the research and show us the error. So far you have offered nothing in support of your claim it is legal. You may be right, but show us. Or give it up if you can't.

I'm betting you won't make any effort and will simply answer with more demands.

EDIT
Quote:
What I meant by cell phones is that you actually have to either crack an encryption, hack a password, or go through clear illegal means of accessing the cell phone.
Not true. I can take an old scanner and quite easily access the freq used for cell and wireless phones. Newer scanners have those freq blocked, but older ones do not. But it is still illegal to listen....no matter how easy it is.
Montressor
SyNMaN wrote:
seems you are refusing to answer pretty blunt questions. I repeat, how can you distinguish a network that wants to allow you access and one that doesn't? What law actually states that you are not to allow to access an available network? Also why do I have to prove it is legal. Show me a law that says it legal to access the website "frihost.net".

FriHost is a published website, that is specifically made to have users access it, a personal wireless router is installed (not publicly published) only with personal (private) use as the intent. Hotspots, are generally networks that are labeled well (ie their name is "T-Mobile", "Public", "Such-and-Such University" etc). Not only that but hotspots (legal hotspots) generally inform people that they are a hotspot by posting in the store/mall/building/campus that there is free wireless access available.

SyNMaN wrote:
What I meant by cell phones is that you actually have to either crack an encryption, hack a password, or go through clear illegal means of accessing the cell phone.
Those clear illegal means are automatically placed on the phone, the user does not place them there (usually) through their own efforts/intentions. Wireless networks are not automatically secured, and the user setting up the network usually isn't warned enough to bother adding security.

SyNMaN wrote:
How can you distinguish a network that wants to allow you access and one that doesn't?
You ask.
SyNMaN
Montressor wrote:
SyNMaN wrote:
seems you are refusing to answer pretty blunt questions. I repeat, how can you distinguish a network that wants to allow you access and one that doesn't? What law actually states that you are not to allow to access an available network? Also why do I have to prove it is legal. Show me a law that says it legal to access the website "frihost.net".

FriHost is a published website, that is specifically made to have users access it, a personal wireless router is installed (not publicly published) only with personal (private) use as the intent. Hotspots, are generally networks that are labeled well (ie their name is "T-Mobile", "Public", "Such-and-Such University" etc). Not only that but hotspots (legal hotspots) generally inform people that they are a hotspot by posting in the store/mall/building/campus that there is free wireless access available.

SyNMaN wrote:
What I meant by cell phones is that you actually have to either crack an encryption, hack a password, or go through clear illegal means of accessing the cell phone.
Those clear illegal means are automatically placed on the phone, the user does not place them there (usually) through their own efforts/intentions. Wireless networks are not automatically secured, and the user setting up the network usually isn't warned enough to bother adding security.

SyNMaN wrote:
How can you distinguish a network that wants to allow you access and one that doesn't?
You ask.


well, you are right, wireless networks are not auto-secured, you're point? You still didn't show a law that states that US citizens are allowed to access frihost.com, you asked me for a law, but are not providing one yourself. Finally, lets put this to bed baby. Do your due dilligence next time:

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0815/ch0815.htm

seems that computer crimes law "815.06 Offenses against computer users" is not specific to just accessing somebodies internet signal, need a little more than that. Seems you either A) lied B) didn't and therefore jumped the gun due to not wanted others to access hotspots legitimately in order to punish those who want to access network signals without authorization.

Be sure to read section 815.03 which are the definitions in case you are in dispute.

Next time, know that a lot of laws may give a certain name which is completely different or misguided in the actual laws definition or requires more to it. See: murder, patriot act
HoboPelican
SyNMaN wrote:
Finally, lets put this to bed baby. Do your due dilligence next time:

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0815/ch0815.htm

Quote:

815.06 Offenses against computer users.--

(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:

(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network;
.....
commits an offense against computer users.


I have deleted additional actions only. The list is a an either/or sort of list of actions that are offenses. You don't have to perform ALL those actions to be in offense. The first one is the one that supports my position, so I didn't want to clutter up the post.

To make it more readable, here is the section without the formatting.
Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network commits an offense against computer users.

Sounds pretty clear cut. Got anything else?

EDIT
Quote:

Seems you either A) lied B) didn't and therefore jumped the gun due to not wanted others to access hotspots legitimately in order to punish those who want to access network signals without authorization.

I didn't lie at at any point and that is really uncalled for. I'm impressed that you actually did the homework there, but I think it only made my point.
Montressor
SyNMaN wrote:

seems that computer crimes law "815.06 Offenses against computer users" is not specific to just accessing somebodies internet signal, need a little more than that. Seems you either A) lied B) didn't and therefore jumped the gun due to not wanted others to access hotspots legitimately in order to punish those who want to access network signals without authorization.

the website you cited (for Florida) didn't back your point it states that
That Florida Constitution & Statutes thingy wrote:
815.06 Offenses against computer users.--

(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:

(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network;

(b) Disrupts or denies or causes the denial of computer system services to an authorized user of such computer system services, which, in whole or part, is owned by, under contract to, or operated for, on behalf of, or in conjunction with another;

(c) Destroys, takes, injures, or damages equipment or supplies used or intended to be used in a computer, computer system, or computer network;

(d) Destroys, injures, or damages any computer, computer system, or computer network; or

(e) Introduces any computer contaminant into any computer, computer system, or computer network,

commits an offense against computer users.

Note that if you willfully, knowingly access a network without authorization (that is you select the "Neighbor's Network" icon and click on it without asking your neighbor for permission), the you commit "an offense against computer users"...

these clauses don't have to be all fulfilled to commit an offense, for instance initiating a DOS attack on someone (clause b), but don't destroy, injure or damage a computer in the attack (clause d), you still are committing an offense against computer users, you do not have to fulfill all of the clauses, only one.
Montressor
SyNMaN wrote:
Seems you either A) lied B) didn't and therefore jumped the gun due to not wanted others to access hotspots legitimately in order to punish those who want to access network signals without authorization.
I believe we are all fine with people accessing hotspots (public free/paid wireless networks), the only bone of contention here is private wireless networks.
SyNMaN
Montressor wrote:
SyNMaN wrote:

seems that computer crimes law "815.06 Offenses against computer users" is not specific to just accessing somebodies internet signal, need a little more than that. Seems you either A) lied B) didn't and therefore jumped the gun due to not wanted others to access hotspots legitimately in order to punish those who want to access network signals without authorization.

the website you cited (for Florida) didn't back your point it states that
That Florida Constitution & Statutes thingy wrote:
815.06 Offenses against computer users.--

(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:

(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network;

(b) Disrupts or denies or causes the denial of computer system services to an authorized user of such computer system services, which, in whole or part, is owned by, under contract to, or operated for, on behalf of, or in conjunction with another;

(c) Destroys, takes, injures, or damages equipment or supplies used or intended to be used in a computer, computer system, or computer network;

(d) Destroys, injures, or damages any computer, computer system, or computer network; or

(e) Introduces any computer contaminant into any computer, computer system, or computer network,

commits an offense against computer users.

Note that if you willfully, knowingly access a network without authorization (that is you select the "Neighbor's Network" icon and click on it without asking your neighbor for permission), the you commit "an offense against computer users"...

these clauses don't have to be all fulfilled to commit an offense, for instance initiating a DOS attack on someone (clause b), but don't destroy, injure or damage a computer in the attack (clause d), you still are committing an offense against computer users, you do not have to fulfill all of the clauses, only one.


You missed 2-7 Smile no crime, no punishment ohhhh

and as for Montressor, how do you tell between a hotspot and a private network? ohhh, guess users have to roll a die on this one, huh?
HoboPelican
SyNMaN wrote:
.....
You missed 2-7 Smile no crime, no punishment ohhhh

and as for Montressor, how do you tell between a hotspot and a private network? ohhh, guess users have to roll a die on this one, huh?


Are you not reading? He and I both have pointed out you need to ask. Don't keep harping on a point already answered.

And what is your point about sections 2-7? Are you implying that there is no punishment itemized? An absurd point after we've shown that the law exists.... but here you go:
Quote:
(5) Any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, or computer data owned by a defendant which is used during the commission of any violation of this section or any computer owned by the defendant which is used as a repository for the storage of software or data obtained in violation of this section is subject to forfeiture as provided under ss. 932.701-932.704.

Is that a punishment enough? No? Ok, how about this?
Quote:
(4)(a) In addition to any other civil remedy available, the owner or lessee of the computer, computer system, computer network, computer program, computer equipment, computer supplies, or computer data may bring a civil action against any person convicted under this section for compensatory damages.

(b) In any action brought under this subsection, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.
Montressor
Crime and Punishment(a good read)
SyNMaN wrote:
You missed 2-7 Smile no crime, no punishment ohhhh
So committing
Florida etc wrote:
an offense against computer users.
is not a crime?
Last time I checked (my common sense) committing an offense is still illegal, and therefore (since it is contrary to the statutes of the law) is a crime.
And to add to the punishment
Florida, of course wrote:
2)(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), whoever violates subsection (1) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
So a felony of the third degree is not a crime?


How to ask for things
SyNMaN wrote:
and as for Montressor, how do you tell between a hotspot and a private network? ohhh, guess users have to roll a die on this one, huh?
If you didn't create the network, you should not access it unless you know that the person/company/legal entity that created it has given you express permission to access it. Otherwise you are
Florida again wrote:
willfully, knowingly, and without authorization
accessing someone else's network, which is an offense in Florida law, and is punishable by personal suit filed against you and/or state action against you and the property you used to access that network.
Captain Fertile
@HoboPelican

Quote:
I don't think poor security has ever been an justification for theft.


You clearly don't work for an insurance company!

"Oh so tiny the upstairs bathroom window was closed but unlocked when the thieves broke in through your triple dead bolted front door, sorry this means we dont have to pay you!"
Laughing
HoboPelican
Captain Fertile wrote:

You clearly don't work for an insurance company!

"Oh so tiny the upstairs bathroom window was closed but unlocked when the thieves broke in through your triple dead bolted front door, sorry this means we dont have to pay you!"
Laughing


Ya know, I was wondering about that. It doesn't really affect the legalities, but is that really true? And if so, do you know if it is true for all policies and companies? No offense intended to those in the industry, but I really think the insurance industry needs some serious butt-kicking....but that is a goo subject for different post....Smile
Captain Fertile
All I have to say is that Insurance Companies and Airlines get away with stuff no other companies would dare try AND they get away with it!!!

It’s like Human rights works in every aspect of life apart from those two industries.

Maybe its because they know they have us by the Nads! (especially Car Insurance companies here in the UK, they know drivers MUST have it so they just kill you and them come back for your eyes) GRR! SEETHE! FUME!!!

Okay, I’ll leave it there – sorry for taking this thread so far off topic – I am now going to lay down in my darkened room and have a quick rub-down with a wet lettuce leaf! Twisted Evil Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Evil or Very Mad
Montressor
Captain Fertile wrote:
All I have to say is that Insurance Companies and Airlines get away with stuff no other companies would dare try AND they get away with it!!!

It’s like Human rights works in every aspect of life apart from those two industries.
That's because Insurance is a purely mathematical industry, the actuaries sitting in seclusion at headquarters have no contact with you, and know you only by identifying statistics (name, age, years driving, accidents, eye color, gender, marital status, property ownership and many others). They "plug" any statistics they have on you into complicated formulas to determine how much risk is involved in insuring you, and charge you (supposedly) based on that risk with a (supposedly) slight profit. These math geeks (I love math myself) get all twisted up when you incur and accident/malady that they have to pay for if that bad occurrence isn't already accounted for in their numbers. The company, seeking to justify not paying you, or paying you the least possible, carefully scrutinizes the statistics that had on you, and the agreement of your plan to find some change that should have been remedied or reported by you. If they can find that (the unsecured door that wasn't the point of entry/egress), then they will do their utmost to refuse your claim. This is why (at least in California) there is a state-wide office of "Insurance Commissioner", an elected official who is supposed to regulate those math geeks and attempt to reintroduce the "human" into the industry.

So in essence the insurance company is not justifying the burglary, but is instead justifying their not paying what they should in compensation. They aren't saying that you deserved to be stolen from because of your unlocked door, they merely believe that they were not paid to assume the risk of that unsecured door (even though it wasn't used).

I actually considered an actuarial career at one point in time.

Go ahead, Captain, I want to see a Fertile rant on the Insurance and Airline industries (in another thread)
bongoman
I think its ridiculous that people should be expected to know to secure their wireless routers without being given the proper documentation to do so. Most people that return wireless routers to a store do so because they don't know how to properly set it up. I don't see what the big deal is if the connection is unlimited bandwidth or something like that, of course thats besides the point, because you are accessing it without your neighbors permission but if its an unlimited connection you aren't causing your neighbor any undue financial harm in using their service, it just may be ethically questionable to do so.
HoboPelican
bongoman wrote:
...but if its an unlimited connection you aren't causing your neighbor any undue financial harm in using their service, it just may be ethically questionable to do so.


Maybe no financial harm to the owner, but financial harm to the provider, because you are not paying for your own link. And you are effectively stealing bandwidth from the owner. And there might be other thieves hitting the same wap, so even if you are only surfing and not doing massive downloads, it can add up.

It isn't victimless situation.


BTW- I agree with Bongoman....The manuals and firmware that come with wireless access points is (or was last year) is very inadequate. The default configuration is usually wide open and there is not enough warnings about the importance of changing the settings...let alone good info on HOW to do it.
glenn83e
just recently had to put a passphrase on my wireless connection, found two people trying to use mine the other day. I don't mind people using it but when they are downloading a lot of stuff like movies it gets annoying as they are using your bandwidth
starfish2007
at home i have myown high speed internet but if myinternet gos down or im tralavaling i make use of any and all wierless networks I can find toget online inmymind if they do not want people using there net work they should set up apassword toaccess it not doing so is like leving your frount door wide open on your home and not expeting anyone to come in and steel from you wile your out
ralphbefree
when i leave my "private" house and venture out in to the "public" arena all my inherent "persons" become apart of the "public domain". My picture can be taken and transmitted without my consent, my personal vehicle is subjected to public regulations, and I am subjected and bombared with various "radio signals". These radio signals are regulated by the FCC a government agency; thus placing the licensing of these "signals" by a public agency. When a private person buys a wireless router they are not buying a private "radio signal" rather they are licensing the use of this "signal". It is thier right as a consumer to restrict the use of thier "leased signal", but it is not required. You can allow others to use your router by not securing it; this is your right. By sitting in a car on a public street and recieving a "signal", I have not violated any private property rights; rather I am still in the "public domain". To willfully violate a security code to access a wireless router is wrong. The person who payed for the lease of the signal did not wish to share thier bandwidth.
HoboPelican
ralphbefree wrote:
... It is thier right as a consumer to restrict the use of thier "leased signal", but it is not required. You can allow others to use your router by not securing it; this is your right. By sitting in a car on a public street and recieving a "signal", I have not violated any private property rights; rather I am still in the "public domain". To willfully violate a security code to access a wireless router is wrong. The person who payed for the lease of the signal did not wish to share thier bandwidth.


You can believe that if you want, but if you read the earlier posts here, you'll see that there are more and more states enacting legislation making any connection to a wireless access point illegal without specific authorization. You misstate your case, also, when you claim to be sitting and receiving a signal. You are not just receiving, but transmitting also. But that is just a minor point.

You equate stealing a wireless signal with property rights, but what you really are stealing is a service.

Since you seem to NOT have read the earlier posts, let me recap for you.

There ARE laws against it.
You are using a pay service you did not pay for.
You are affecting the bandwidth of a person who DID pay for it.
Radio signals are not completely free to receive anymore...even listening to a cell or cordless phone is illegal.

You can kid yourself about it, but it is stealing.
LumberJack
It is hard to say really. How do you know you are using a private signal instead of a public one. If you connect to a default because that is what your damn computer does automatically and the idiot didn't secure their wireless.

If you want your wireless secure, secure it. When you are not using it, turn it off, that simple Smile
HoboPelican
LumberJack wrote:
It is hard to say really. How do you know you are using a private signal instead of a public one. If you connect to a default because that is what your damn computer does automatically and the idiot didn't secure their wireless.


Why is the guy who didn't secure his wireless an idiot when someone who lets his computer connect automatically to any wap not an idiot?

It isn't rocket science. If you don't know for sure that you have authorization to connect, you shouldn't do it.
jmwarshay
You can usually tell a public network because it has the word "public" in it or something similar to let people know. A user has to select the network when connecting, so s/he is making a conscious decision.

The law makes it illegal to intercept someone else's wireless signals. Yes, the person should no be so foolish as to leave his/her network unsecured. I can see 3-4 other networks near my home, all secured. On the other hand, an acquaintance told me his neighbors have unsecured networks that he is using. Unless he received permission, he is breaking the law.

The purpose of the law is not that the use may be imposing costs on the owner. The law exists to prevent unauthorized use. There is civil liability, known as trespass to chattels (property).

Just because one can do something does not make the act right. Just because someone is foolish does not make it right to take advantage of him/her.

Stop freeloading on others and get your own connection.
LumberJack
HoboPelican wrote:
LumberJack wrote:
It is hard to say really. How do you know you are using a private signal instead of a public one. If you connect to a default because that is what your damn computer does automatically and the idiot didn't secure their wireless.


Why is the guy who didn't secure his wireless an idiot when someone who lets his computer connect automatically to any wap not an idiot?

It isn't rocket science. If you don't know for sure that you have authorization to connect, you shouldn't do it.


Write to windows then. Tell them to stop auto connecting to wireless routers without our acknowledgment.

Lots of people I know keep their default name on their router. They don't change it. So it auto connects.
HoboPelican
LumberJack wrote:
HoboPelican wrote:
LumberJack wrote:
It is hard to say really. How do you know you are using a private signal instead of a public one. If you connect to a default because that is what your damn computer does automatically and the idiot didn't secure their wireless.


Why is the guy who didn't secure his wireless an idiot when someone who lets his computer connect automatically to any wap not an idiot?

It isn't rocket science. If you don't know for sure that you have authorization to connect, you shouldn't do it.


Write to windows then. Tell them to stop auto connecting to wireless routers without our acknowledgment.

Lots of people I know keep their default name on their router. They don't change it. So it auto connects.


I could be wrong, but I think you'll find that auto-connecting is an option. You can turn it off. It is still your responsibility to not connect without permission.
indianinworld
If his / her wireless network should not be stealed, then that should secured in her own ways.

It is his talent that he used the unsecured network. Even in our country, i see wirless network in some of the public places. But it will not be accessible due to Rules / Permissions / Restrictions on them. Authorised persons will have restricted access or full access. Only thing that others can really see is that "A Wireless Connection" really "exists". But of no use to me.

Keep Smiling Smile
HoboPelican
indianinworld wrote:
If his / her wireless network should not be stealed, then that should secured in her own ways.....


Sorry, you're ignoring all the arguments already made. You know it is not a public access point, you know it is being paid for, you know YOU aren't paying for it. It is the same as stealing from a store when the owner is not looking and saying the owner should have taken more precautions.
missdixy
That's stupid. People should just password protect their wireless networks...and if they don't...well that's their stupid fault.
HoboPelican
missdixy wrote:
That's stupid. People should just password protect their wireless networks...and if they don't...well that's their stupid fault.


You are missing the point, I think. While the harm in bandwidth is to the owner of the access point, you are still effectively (and legally in some states) stealing from the ISP. Like I said above,
Quote:
You know it is not a public access point, you know it is being paid for, you know YOU aren't paying for it.
HollyK
My stance is that if it is an accident (such as the computer autoconnected to the router without your knowledge), then its no big deal, just switch back to your own system. If it was intentional, thats a completely different story.
roboguyspacedude
That is retarded. Internet should be free everywhere.
HoboPelican
roboguyspacedude wrote:
That is retarded. Internet should be free everywhere.


What you think should be and what IS, are different things. Until it is free, to use a connection someone else is paying for is basically stealing.
LumberJack
HoboPelican wrote:
LumberJack wrote:
It is hard to say really. How do you know you are using a private signal instead of a public one. If you connect to a default because that is what your damn computer does automatically and the idiot didn't secure their wireless.


Why is the guy who didn't secure his wireless an idiot when someone who lets his computer connect automatically to any wap not an idiot?

It isn't rocket science. If you don't know for sure that you have authorization to connect, you shouldn't do it.


Well now that I know about the feature, I might be inclined to use it. But I don't think I want to turn it off, I like the convenience. Lets just blame Microsoft Smile
McDucque
I've used other people's wireless internet in a pinch, like when I just moved into my new flat and I wasnt going to have internet for a couple weeks. I used it just to check email every once and a great while =P

I cant help it I'm dependent on this junk.
arathom
So if my computer is set up to connect any open wireless access, and i have internet access but not willingly, i can't be prosecute?

In the opposite way, if i look for an open connection, what i do is illegal?

The issue is that it is not that easy to set up an password on a router, especially if you can't access the administration tool because it is protected by the company who installed it. There is no way to prevent the signal from going outside your home. Imagine a fountain in your home and the water going to your neighbour's home. Can you prevent him from drinking the water?
GSIS
It's been a long time since I last set up a wireless connection. Remind me - do the wizards/software prompt and advise the installer to make them secure, or do they just create an insecure network and leave it to the installer to sort out security afterwards?

My thinking is that if the software doesn't assist the installer - especially as many installers will not have much experience - surely the suppliers are partly responsible for the lack of security?

Who, after all, would manufacture a car without locks on the doors?
Related topics
CSS tools
Remote Controlled Humans
problem with wireless network
gMail Signatures
Wireless Link Problem
Is Xbox a Money Pit?
Wireless networking advice needed.
Please participate in my research.
How to override a:link style
Warcraft III port forwarding
I need help with Category 5 cables
Has anybody upgraded to Ubuntu 8.10?
bandwidth priority?
Transferring data through wireless routers(wireless network)
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.