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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

...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 )

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.

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.