Active Topics

 


Closed Thread
Thread Tools
penguinbait's Avatar
Posts: 3,096 | Thanked: 1,525 times | Joined on Jan 2006 @ Michigan, USA
#31
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.
 
barry99705's Avatar
Posts: 641 | Thanked: 27 times | Joined on Apr 2007
#32
Originally Posted by penguinbait View Post
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.
Yes, this is called wiretapping. If you use these passwords then it also becomes identity theft.
__________________
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.


SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
 
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#33
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.
 
iball's Avatar
Posts: 729 | Thanked: 19 times | Joined on Mar 2007
#34
Most states in the Untied States have laws similiar to this:

Originally Posted by Illinois State Law
(720 ILCS 5/16F‑3)
Sec. 16F‑3. Theft of wireless service.
(a) A person commits the offense of theft of wireless service if he or she intentionally obtains wireless service by the use of an unlawful wireless device or without the consent of the wireless service provider.
(b) Theft of wireless service is a Class A misdemeanor when the aggregate value of service obtained is less than $300 and a Class 4 felony when the aggregate value of service obtained is $300 or more. For a second or subsequent offense, or if the person convicted of the offense has been previously convicted of any similar crime in this or any other state or federal jurisdiction, theft of wireless service is a Class 2 felony.
(Source: P.A. 89‑497, eff. 6‑27‑96.)
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.

Originally Posted by Time Warner "Theft of Cable Services" web page
WiFi Theft - WiFi theft occurs when someone installs a wireless network in a residence or business location and intentionally enables others to receive broadband service for free over their wireless network.

Wireless networking is a great product, but when using a wireless network subscribers should always secure their home networks from unauthorized users. Unsecured wireless networks allow others to access a subscriber's network and potentially see all of the subscriber's personal files, allow potential criminals and terrorists to send untraceable communications or allow an individual to download illegal materials, such as copyrighted or obscene material that would lead back to the subscribers modem.
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.

Last edited by iball; 2007-08-24 at 00:20.
 
penguinbait's Avatar
Posts: 3,096 | Thanked: 1,525 times | Joined on Jan 2006 @ Michigan, USA
#35
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
 
barry99705's Avatar
Posts: 641 | Thanked: 27 times | Joined on Apr 2007
#36
Originally Posted by penguinbait View Post
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
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.
__________________
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.


SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
 
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#37
Wow, iball, that's some serious stuff!

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 )
 
penguinbait's Avatar
Posts: 3,096 | Thanked: 1,525 times | Joined on Jan 2006 @ Michigan, USA
#38
Originally Posted by barry99705 View Post
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.
Well, like I said "Taking reasonable measures to protect your property is just common sense."

Big Dog = Reasonable Measure
 
barry99705's Avatar
Posts: 641 | Thanked: 27 times | Joined on Apr 2007
#39
Originally Posted by penguinbait View Post
Well, like I said "Taking reasonable measures to protect your property is just common sense."

Big Dog = Reasonable Measure
Biiiiiig dog!

http://web.mac.com/barrywoods/Site/Grand_Puppies.html#2
__________________
Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have to form a full sentence.


SEARCH! It's probably already been answered.
 
iball's Avatar
Posts: 729 | Thanked: 19 times | Joined on Mar 2007
#40
Originally Posted by penguinbait View Post
Well, like I said "Taking reasonable measures to protect your property is just common sense."

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


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:38.