Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

Seen this on slashdot ? It's made me think about what I do when walking down the street with my n800 :eek:

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

That's a good point... I haven't thought about it too much, but it's certainly on my mind more. If I'm outside or nearby a coffee shop with free WiFi, I make a point to buy a coffee if I'm really only interested in the WiFi access. One nearby shop has a router with great coverage, so it's possible to stay outside or go to the park while still using their connection. I still order a large mocha for their generosity.

With local or residential WiFi, I'm definitely gray on the idea. I know when my own access points were unsecure, I had neighbors using my 30Mb/s fiber. Unsecure access points are definitely an "open invite" for anyone's access.

How polite are others with their N770 or N800's?

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

The BBC carries the story too and I am fascinated by peoples comments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6960304.stm

Our collective moral compass is all over the place. For example some people seem to feel that theft is ok if the door is left open. I like the analogy of reading by the light from someone elses window.

We can argue over the morality and ethics of it but the law is clear.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

I guess if he'd knocked on the door of the house and asked he'd have been alright.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

The analogy of "reading by your neighbor's light" or "eating apples from your neighbor's tree from branches that overhang yours" are both apropos. In the absence of a common moral compass, I don't think the law (at least, in the US) is too clear. In Florida, Ben Smith (ST. PETERSBURG) was arrested for WiFi theft from a residence. In the US, the Sparta, Michigan case was well publicized because it was a gentleman using a cafe's WiFi without buying anything, and WITHOUT the proprietor pressing charges.

The clearest choice might be not to use any WiFi, unsecure or no, unless given express permission? I just don't think too many of us would live by such a stringent code of ethics.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

I remember we debated this before and some posters here were saying theft of bandwidth was okay.

Given the obvious decline of ethics, I really wonder what business models will look like, say, 20 years from now. Here the US is moving toward a service-based economy and even services can be stolen...

My response to the OP's blog article:

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

this is silly. most computers automatically connect to wifi signals when they are turned on. most users don't know what signal they are connected to and don't care as long as it 'works'. if the law is interested in restricting use of open wifi signals it needs to go after either the way software connects or the way users set up their signals (for example, if a signal is carelessly left open a surfer can't be prosecuted for using it). sure, the person who uses the wifi that just 'works' is careless too, and some know what they are doing. but does the fact that the wifi owner pays for the signal give him a free pass to be careless?

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

deb, you're also missing the essential point. It all comes down to permission. If it's granted, no problem. If it isn't, the law prevails.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

D-Link, Linksys (Cisco), and Netgear have all been very good at updating their firmware as new vulnerabilities are made known. I think every OEM is aware of the free/not-free internet debate, but they don't want to build security as default out-of-the box. While I'd hate to be tech support at any company that did, having a bright orange "WARNING" pamphlet telling users that they're subject to anonymous freeloaders should be a requirement.

In the US, we have "Surgeon General's Warnings" on beer and cigarettes. If we have common sense warnings ("warning: this may kill you") on goods, we might as well have a federally-mandated ("warning: your neighbor might get free internet access") common sense labels on your WiFi AP from Best Buy. :)

If it's on the public airwaves like cellphones, radio, and WiFi, the best way to regulate it is to add security. If the security's broken, then you can prosecute for theft/misuse (no different than DMCA and DVDs).

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

I have a feeling the reluctance toward default security will be overcome, for better or worse. Microsoft is a prime example.

No company wants to foist the burden of security management on their customers, but unfortunately it's inevitable. In the meantime, just because someone has made wifi available, wittingly or unwittingly, doesn't automatically mean they're sharing-- regardless of how hotspot seekers work (technological ability or process does not trump law). It's always best to get permission. However, I expect very few prosecutions so jumping on the occasional news release of one here or there is probably exaggerating the situation.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

hi, i understand that the law does not allow people to use open wifi signals unless they are designated for public use (how should one know? is the computer user required to know enough to check what signal his computer is connected to and do research to figure out if it's open to public access and then seek permission if it is not?). i think the law is wrong. i think the law should say that permission is granted when the signal is left unprotected. my computer could breathe dust from my neighbor's dirt road, it's software, by default, could breathe any open signal. does the fact that the wifi signal would benefit me while the dust would cause me problems make one ok and one not ok?

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

It doesn't matter if anyone thinks the law is wrong based solely on opinion, sorry. The law is based on reasonable concepts. The main one here is that if a person pays for a service, they alone are entitled to that service unless they give permission for it to be shared. So your default is 180 degrees off of what is reasonable.

Consider this scenario: Joe Blow gets broadband and a wifi router is included. He paid for installation and a service contract and just doesn't want to be bothered with security (or doesn't understand it) and unwittingly leaves his broadband open to the neighborhood. One by one his neighbors start jumping on his connection, paring his usable bandwidth down to the point that he might as well have dial-up. Being technically deficient, he just sees his internet performance decline.

Of course, Joe can look into the issue, gain an understanding of it, and either choose to accept being the local internet service (sub)provider or implement security that locks out his neighbors. But the point remains that his neighbors who pile on are reducing his service with no compensation to Joe and no civil request to take advantage of his service. THAT is the crux of the situation. Regardless of one's opinion here, the facts are what is paramount, and the facts are no one has the automatic right to do what's taking place in this everyday scenario.

The default behavior, which the law supports (and correctly so), is you do not infringe on anyone else in ANY manner without permission.

The excuses made to usurp bandwidth all fall flat when compared to other situations. Your neighbor also has an open electrical outlet outside his house-- can you just plug in and use it? No. What about his available water tap? His unused driveway space? Hey, he parked his car on the street-- can't my kids play on it?

No, no, no. And the same extends to his wifi service.

I am amazed that this fundamental legal concept (actually encoded in US constitutional law) is so misunderstood. That doesn't bode well for our society.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

hi,
if his wifi signal stayed in his house or on his property your comparisons make sense and i agree. i also agree that the law says that i can't use my neighbor's signal unless it is somehow designated for public use. i'm still not sure how that works. does my neighbor have to own a coffee shop? i disagree that my opinion doesn't matter. it matters because many people agree with me, and laws are made and changed by people. i don't know how many people agree with me. it would be interesting to see a poll. do people think that a wifi signal left open should, by law, be permission to use it? i don't think this would create problems or mass chaos. in fact, i don't think much would change.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

One more time, it doesn't matter if it's copper, glass, or radio, connecting to a network without permission is a felony in all 50 states. If you don't know if it's a free hotspot, then it probably isn't. Using some one's light isn't a good analogy for this. Sure it's still a em field, but light is a one way street. If you stood outside someone's bedroom window and shined a flashlight into it, sure as hell the police would be called and you'd be given a ride with them.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

What I did was to take one of my old wi-fi routers and reflash the firmware with OpenWRT and set it up on another subnet and route it through a VLAN'd port on my switch in the house. Now, when it goes through my main wi-fi router (also reflashed) the bandwidth it can use up is extremely limited, it's port 80/443 access only, and packets coming in from it have lower priority than the ones from the main secured wi-fi router (QoS enabled). The public router also reboots itself every 60 minutes to ensure that no one just sits there all the time.
That way I can provide the local neighborhood with free wi-fi web browsing while at the same guaranteeing my internal network is secure and all my internal traffic takes priority.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

The issue of free wifi usage indeed is a slippery slope that we can argue for ages and never get a real answer. If the law says its illegal, then the person in question will probably get in trouble for it if caught and prosecuted. But that does not mean that in the court of law, the person will be found guilty. A good lawyer can probably find reasonable doubt with the fictional scenario below:

If my neighbor does not want me to use his open wifi connection, then he needs to restrict his wifi coverage to be within the confines of his property.
If it extends to my property, then it becomes mine.

If he wants to charge or sue me for it, then I will have to sue him for listening to (enjoying) my stereo and tv when I bring them outside in my yard, as I paid for the electricity and the hardware. I may even charge him for breathing the air that my purifier has processed prior to it being blown over to nostrils in his front yard.

I will also charge him for trespassing my property with his Wifi Ghz waves

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

The wifi leaving the house is immaterial to the fundamental concept here. If you really want to understand the issue, you need to disabuse yourself of such simplistic notions. See the other examples I provided, all relevant in the current context. Another poster's comment about the provision and access being a TWO-way street is especially important here (Liam1, are you reading? or just intent on spewing more sarcasm?).

Raw opinions do NOT matter, especially in the formation or reformation of law. What matters are fact, precedent and INFORMED opinion. I am not meaning to insult you, but your opinion is apparently arrived at without full understanding of the core legal concepts in consideration. Even a poll is moot-- we shouldn't govern by polls. While the people have a right (and even a duty) to express their raw opinion, business and government have the right and obligation to explain the rationale behind legal decisions and thus hopefully cultivate INFORMED opinions. This is especially important when infringement is concerned.

Just keep this old canard from Justice Holmes in mind and you're 99% safe: "your right to swing your fists stops at the other fellow's nose." If you think about it, you'll see how that maxim applies to not just this wifi argument but almost every civil law (and many criminal ones) in existence.

Oh, and this appears to be overlooked as well by some: wifi blows right through most walls. The majority of existing homes canNOT contain it without extensive and expensive modification... rendering any arguments along those lines pointless.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

...I'm surprised that's never been done. I'd like to see that. On one hand we have "You can see my SSID on your property or public property, but you do not have permission to use it." and on the other hand "We have my services overflowing on to your property, and there's nothing you can do about it."

Legally, if a tree on my property has an overhanging branch on my neighbor's property, he can rightfully request that I cut it off. My neighbors have already gone to court over such a case. If the law applies to "physical" trespass, wouldn't it apply to "wireless trespass"? (playing Devil's Advocate here :) )

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

You ever read that little fcc tag on the bottom of your equipment? There's all kinds of "services" overflowing on your property. Satellite tv, cellular networks, military radio bands... Just because the signal is there, doesn't mean you have the right to use it.


Liam, you are a brave man. First ***** who sends threatening emails to "Dubua" and guess who the Secret Service is going to give the anal probe? Doesn't matter if you have an open access point. It's your internet connection it came from.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

Personally I think every wifi router should come with Fon capability built in

http://www.fon.com/en/

That way we have almost universal wifi and clear permission to use it.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

I don't know where YOU live, but here in the United States the FCC specifically states in their rules that any consumer-level wireless device MUST accept interference from any other wireless device.
And since most countries allow a device that's been through the FCC ringer to be used in their country (notable exception is Great Britain when it comes to FM iPod transmitters but that ban has been recently overturned) then it means they KNOW wireless signals cannot be stopped easily.

Also, if you went out and bought a Sky box and then proceeded to slap a hacked card in it to unlock all the premium signals coming in "over the air" then you would be immediately arrested and charged if they found out.

You also need to go look at your country's rules an regulations regarding public non-regulated radio frequencies.

When it comes to wi-fi though, it's a little different in the fact that it's much more "proven" since your traffic of course is going over the air but when it hits the actual WIRED connection then you're screwed. So yes, while you might get off the "borrowed wi-fi" charge, you'll never get off the "theft of services" charge since your data packets were travelling through something that was inside someone else's property (the actual router) and out the physical wire itself.
The same theft of service rules that came out when cordless phones started becoming popular apply to 802.11 wi-fi signals as well as any other unregulated wireless signal out there.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

You'd still most likely be breaking your TOS with your service provider. Most of them don't allow sharing your internet connection. I read somewhere a while back one of the bigger providers in the lower 48 was actually going around looking for open wifi and shutting down people's internet connection. I'll look around and see if I can find the article.

Found it.


http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,14759343

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

Texrat,

Do you have a personal issue with my posts? A lot of other posts do not agree with your views, but I do not see you taking your precious time for personal attacks on them.

I did not comment on the 2-way argument as it is flawed to begin with, however you seem to conveniently agree with anything that remotely agrees with your views, and disregarding multiple posts by different people that have other ideas on the issue.

A wifi stream can only be two way like the light and flashlight example, if somebody retaliated with another wifi stream into the initial wifi stream owner's house. Then its a two way wifi stream, just like the flashlight example. As you can see, the two way stream is not a valid argument, and so is the flashlight example.

Arguing on analogies for this issue is futile, which as I said is a slippery slope. My only point was (which you conveniently ignored) while the law deems unauthorized wifi usage illegal, reasonable doubt can immediately be established by a competent lawyer.

Thats it. Please continue to make personal remarks as you wish.

And Iball, the quote that you gave below is again different than what I said. I said that the Wifi stream trespasses my property, and I was not referring to wireless device interference. Suing for wireless trespassing is just like suing for excessive noise or an offensive odors.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

As long as it's within fcc limits, there's absolutely nothing you can do. It's within the unregistered public range. The only way I could see you actually being able to sue any one for their wifi intruding into your house is if it was screwing up some kind of medical equipment. Even then you'd have to prove it was doing this. The flashlight analogy I gave was for connecting. To be able to actually use a wifi connection, you have to transmit back to the access point, at which time you are connected to their network.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

No personal issue, just that in 2 threads now you show a tendency to prefer sarcasm and disingenuity over reasonable discourse, and I pointed it out. Your right to use whatever mode of communication you like, of course, but surely you're aware that such tactics will be taken to task.

I am not going to rebut every single post created, either, but rather the most egregious examples of flawed reasoning. I'm also not going to argue with those with whom I mildly disagree, either, or over points of pure opinion.

I'm sure if you think about what you just said about agreement there you'll be able to spot the silliness. And the 2-way argument is not flawed at all, but critically relevant to the issue. That should be self-obvious and needing no further explanation than what has been provided.

No. Completely wrong. It is 2-way because there is advertisement (out) and usage (in).

And you misunderstand the flashlight example. Try again (see Barry's clarification).

Your last comment is why we have a legal system. Every accused has his/her right to plead their case. Now, if you want to posit that arrest for wifi infringement is over-the-top, I'd be inclined to agree. I think it should be a civil fine.

As far as analogies go, arguing valid ones is only futile when people argue to win, or solely to argue, as you appear to do. Get in line though; you have some competition here on those grounds. You'll find such trolling is not very welcome here.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

No, it's not. Why? Because you CANNOT prove in a court of law that there was any damage to you or your property from someone else's 802.11 signals somehow winding up on your property. And it would be VERY hard to prove since - by law - unlicensed 802.11 spectrum MUST accept interference from any other device.
That's why you have no civil - and definately no criminal - case at all. No lawyer is going to even attempt to try that case.
Let's say YOU were running your own 802.11 wi-fi lan and the neighbor's wi-fi router was "jamming" you up somehow, probably because you're both running on the same channel.
Not a damn thing you can do other than jump channels (freqs) since both devices are operating in accordance with the law.
But that's what the "auto" setting on most wi-fi routers is there for.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

Iball, understood. Your example is almost the equivalent of saying in a noise disturbance, as long as no damage is done or there is no one in the house actually listening to the noise, then there is no case. It is only when the noise interferes with the listener (eardrums aching etc) is when there is a case. Good explanation.

Thank you Barry for the clarification. I understood your initial post, but I just wanted to point out that the flashlight analogy wasn't analogous an actual unauthorized wifi access, thats all.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

There are noise ordinances though. So the sound noise thing doesn't really apply. I also don't see why the flashlight analogy doesn't work. That's about as close as you can get in layman's terms.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pag...ne/6960304.stm

kind of apropos.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

As I see it the flashlight analogy is employed to demonstrate the differences between accessing a 1-way service versus a 2-way service.

If I willingly receive stray light from my neighbor, and take advantage of it without affecting his own use, there is no harm.

If I tap into his wifi without permission (note that a wilful act is required in initiating and/or accepting the connection, whereas receipt of stray light is passive), which automatically and unavoidably affects his own use, there is harm.

Conversely, if his lights intrude into my house I can file a civil complaint because visible spectrum isn't affected by the FCC interference code the way radio spectrum is.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

To me, not the law, but to me, it seems like if you do not want people to use your access point you should have to lock it down. If it is open to be connected to and available outside your property thats your fault.

I understand the argument if my door was open in my house or my keys were left in my car, yes nobody still has the right to touch your stuff or trespass on my property. But when you park your car in my driveway and leave the keys in it, do I have the right to move your car? I would think so?

The only real damages I see would be from comcast or SBC who is now providing internet service for multiple homes and only paying for one. I suppose real damages could be done to a consumer providing the bandwidth is constrained, but again it was there choice not to implement security, thus allowing anyone to connect.

What if I am sitting next door and just scanning and recording your network sessions, is this illegal if I do not associate with your network? If it is not encrypted every email you send and every website you visit can be seen, including some passwords.

This has been a problem for several years and there has been no good legal determinations made. If you want to prosecute people for hacking into your system on the internet, you must post a warning message on the system saying authorized use only all others will be prosecuted. Without this message there is no leg to stand on in court for people loggin in and looking around at your files. They could still prosecute you though if you did actual damages to the system, whether intended or not.

The law may be clear on this subject, but it is far from consistent with other similiar scenarios, and until it is seriously challenged it wont change.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

Yes, this is called wiretapping. If you use these passwords then it also becomes identity theft.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

I really don't understand this idea of "if you don't protect then it I have a right to invade it". Where does that line of thinking come from? There is no precedent for it in any other legal sense.

It's the same sort of thinking regarding digital media: "If it's digital then I shouldn't have to pay for it".

Theft of soft ware and services is still theft, no matter how one rationalizes it. It's really sad to me that somehow increasing numbers of people believe they have an automatic right to something simply because it's within their grasp.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

Most states in the Untied States have laws similiar to this:

And I'm sure Great Britain and other EU nations aren't far off.

And God help you if you're stealing from a [url=http://www.timewarnercable.com/corporate/customerservice/cablethefttypes.html]Time-Warner[/quote] customer.

I'm laughing at the "terrorist" mention, particularly the word "potential".
They're basically saying you're unsecured wi-fi access point is "enabling" terrorists to gain their full "potential". Laughable at best in these United States.
Most "terrorists" would just use any one a million Starbucks wi-fi access points on a pay-as-you-go basis using a disposable credit card bought by a unknowing third-party using cash in small denominations.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

There you go again Pot, reading my posts, I thought I was on ignore?

I never said "if you don't protect then it I have a right to invade it"

I said

"If it is open to be connected to and available outside your property thats your fault."

If you leave your keys in your car and someone steals your car, your a dumba**

If you leave you door to your home unlocked while your gone and someone steal your stuff, your a dumba**

Taking reasonable measures to protect your property is just common sense.

PS, I also never said it was ok to steal anything, digital or otherwise

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3602381

I am just saying there are better ways to fix the problem. Maybe we should make it so if you don't lock down your network, your internet provider can charge you a fee, that will wake some people up. Or perhaps its time to look at the industry and legislate some firmware upgrades removing wide open access points.

Again, don't steal kids :)

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

My doors are always unlocked. So is the two foot by three foot dog door in the living room. If some one was to walk into my house uninvited, if the dogs didn't kill them, I sure as hell would. I do lock the doors of my car when I'm at work, it's no longer on my property.

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

Wow, iball, that's some serious stuff! :D

I still think that the typical case should be no more than a small civil fine at worst. Leave it to the ISPs themselves to go overboard. And isn't wantonly invoking the "t" word a form of... um... "t"-ism itself?

(actual word omitted to spoof Echelon sniffers :p)

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

Well, like I said "Taking reasonable measures to protect your property is just common sense."

Big Dog = Reasonable Measure

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

Biiiiiig dog! :D

http://web.mac.com/barrywoods/Site/Grand_Puppies.html#2

Re: Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband
 

In most states you can substitute the "Big Dog" for "handgun".
Especially in Kansas. Hooray for expanded mobile Castle doctrine laws!