Slashdot Log In
Man Arrested for Using Open Wireless Network
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:02 AM
from the reefer-madness dept.
from the reefer-madness dept.
DaCool42 writes "In Tampa Bay, a man has been arrested for using a wide open WiFi AP. The St. Petersburg Times has the full story. 'It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft,' said Kena Lewis, spokeswoman for Bright House Networks in Orlando."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Open doors (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the poor guy admitted to using the connection too (unauthorized access to a computer network, which is a third degree felony according to the article). Now, if he would have just asked for a lawyer and then shut up, he probably would have gotten off with just a warning.
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Funny)
-your neighbor
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Funny)
For safeties sake lets just outlaw the internet.
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Funny)
isnt there some kind of patriot act violation there?
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Interesting)
It is completely opposite way of thought than how American's have previously thought about property. For example how many of you grew up and left doors unlocked to your house or car all the time. I for one never locked my car doors at home nor the front door to my house. It is your private property and you never expect anyone who wasn't welcome to break those boundries, but we have welcomed the Internet with it's complete opposite point of view.
I wonder if this same ideal is why people don't bother securing wireless even when most have some grasp of the reprocutions of not securing their wireless.
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same thing with Wifi: you have every right to be pissed off if someone tries to get stuff off of your computer, even if you're dumbass fault that they were able to. On the other hand, if someone is using your bandwidth, it might be sort of annoying to you, but unless you take steps to put a stop to it, it's your fault they're doing it.
The fact is, for most broadband connections, unless the person is file sharing or using VOIP, it's no skin off your nose that they're doing it. If for some reason, it bothers you to be neighborly, the onus is on you to secure your stuff.
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
What you are getting is not a property, is a service.
When using network sockets, there are well documented protocols being used.
So the client computer is basically saying to the server, or wireless router: can I connect?
and the server replies: sure, go ahead
It would be the same thing if a bartender gave drinks for free because he wasn't trained in asking for money in exchange.
Would the customers be liable of theft if they took advantage of this?
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
One could say you're using the light they paid for without their permission. On the other hand, they're letting the light spill out into public land.
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Funny)
Someone bought a wireless router to share his internet connection at home with the rest of his family, but he didn't bother to setup any security.
Then someone outside of the house connects to the wireless router to use the internet connection, without the owner of the router knowing or approving this.
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a close comparison, but ignores the fact that you need to physically trespass in order to accomplish it.
Or running an extension cord to a backyard outlet and stealing power.
Again, requires physical access, but also costs the neighbour money in a higher electrical bill, so it's not the same thing.
Or perhaps a cordless phone.
Even assuming that you don't use long distance, you're depriving the owner of the service, since he can't use the phone while you do.
Some other situations might be:
Running a movie or pay per view on your big screen tv which is visible from the street. Is someone walking by who happens to see the movie stealing from you? If you set up a viewing area in your front lawn and allow people to watch it from the street, are they guilty of CI, or are you?
If you play music in your house loud enough to be heard from the street, is someone who hears it doing anything wrong? What if, instead of casually hearing it, they sit on the curb in front of your house?
The critical fact here is that the wardriver is in a public area. By broadcasting your wi-fi signal into that public area, and not blocking public access (tacitly giving permission, thusly,) I think that it can be argued that you're providing a public service.
If a satellite company beams an unencrypted signal onto my property, I believe that I'm within my rights to watch it. If they encrypt said signal, on the other hand, I do not believe that I have the right to break it.
Same thing applies here, I think. If you take no measures to ensure the security of your network, once it leaves your property, it's fair game. Because the measures required are fairly insignificant, the burden should be on the wi-fi owner to lock things down, rather than on the wi-fi user to ensure that he's not impinging on someone's network.
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
And if the neighbor says "hey, those apples are mine - please let me come over and gather them up", my response would be "Okay. Don't forget to rake up the leaves that fall on my side this autumn too then".
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
It's even more than that. The wireless router received a standard, "can I have legitimate credentials on this network?" request in the form of a DHCP lease request. The wireless router replied with valid credentials for that network. The user did not make any malformed requests, did not use any information that he should not have rightfully posessed, and in no way forced his way into the network.
He also properly followed FCC rules regarding the use of wireless equipment.
If the owner of a wireless transceiver, a radio if you will, doesn't want to let that device communicate then they bear the burden of making it not communicate. If they leave it in a mode that allows any public access over frequencies that belong to the public-at-large then they bear the responsibility.
I'd like to see the ARRL and the FCC get involved in this, even though the odds are against this guy having any official licensing from the FCC.
Parent
The Looming Legal Threat to Wi-Fi (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1565274,00.as p [pcmag.com]
By John C. Dvorak
To drive around looking for connections to open wireless access points is called wardriving. In Canada, people who are caught doing this can be arrested for stealing bandwidth. The legality of this practice in the U.S., however, is a bit hazy, and there are many mitigating factors. One is that several organizations deliberately leave access points unencrypted so that people can use them as necessary. Also, many computers with built-in wireless simply grab the first signal they detect. Then there's the trespassing issue: The wardriver isn't trespassing on the router, the router is trespassing on the wardriver's airspace.
Free Access
This issue was brought home to me recently when one of my laptops told me it was ready to install new Windows XP upgrades, even though the laptop was not on a network and my wireless access point was off-line. I discovered that a neighbor's wireless router, named "default," had provided the access. Using my Toshiba's View Wireless Connections option, I saw five nearby networks that I could grab, three of which were unencrypted. Obviously there's plenty of free access around for harried travelers. It seems to me that being able to download your e-mail at an open connection is a good thing.
Look into the legality of this, though, and you hear vague comments like "The FBI doesn't know how legal it is" or "It may be illegal, because you're using someone else's connection or you're spying on their network." This issue will create ridiculous legal problems, which is bad news for both consumers and law enforcement, unless a sensible, national policy can be developed.
Personal and Corporate Responsibility
Let me jump in and propose a simple, logical public policy. Law enforcement doesn't need to get involved whenever some guy in a doughnut shop poaches a nearby Wi-Fi connection to check his e-mail, thinking he's on the shop's network. This shouldn't be a crime, even if he's intentionally poaching. We must put the burden of responsibility on the broadcaster, not the end user. It has to be made clear that people sending open connections all over town should be responsible for them.
Here's what I propose: Once a wireless signal leaves private property, it becomes public domain. If the person transmitting the signal wants it protected, then encryption is up to him or her. If someone beams an Internet connection into my home and I happen to lock onto the signal, he is trespassing on me, not the other way around. Public policy must reflect this logic. Keep it out of my house if you don't want me using it. Keep it out of my car. Keep it away from me in public places.
The Public Interest
This policy makes sense because it lets anyone who wants to provide open access do so without hassle or fear. Groups in San Francisco and Seattle are openly promoting free 802.11 connectivity. Many coffee shops, restaurants, and community groups now provide free wireless access, and directories of these hot spots are easy to find online.
This ubiquity of access is to be encouraged as in the public interest. But it can't happen if the law doesn't make the person transmitting the 802.11 signal responsible, instead of blaming any roaming users who are simply grabbing open connections. If this means that a corporate network is wide open to hackers, because the company doesn't bother encrypting the signal it broadcasts all over town, then so be it.
We must not follow the Canadian model that views using unprotected 802.11 connections as bandwidth theft. My computer grabs wireless signals impinging on my house more often than it grabs my own 802.11 connection. It just does. Agencies shouldn't be required to sort this out; it would be a law enforcement nightmare. In fact, it's
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine your neighbor has a TV going loudly - he has cable TV and you do not. You hear a show playing you've been meaning to see. You yell over the fence, "mind if I come over and watch that show?" The neighbor's butler yells back, "Sure, come around through the gate.". You go over, sit down and enjoy the show. After the show is over, the owner shows up, and is PISSED because you are there.
The neighbor has not lost any property, but has been denied payment for a service he has performed. (providing you with entertainment) Unfortunately for the neighbor, you were allowed free access to the entertainment indirectly by the neighbor. The neighbor has no legal grounds against you because you were acting with permission of an agent of the neighbor. (the butler)
This is very similar to the issue of open access points. The wireless router being the butler that's been told to allow anyone that asks to be given free internet access. Just because you get upset that the currentl policy of your own access point bothers you does not give you free license to sue someone that has taken advantage of your offerings.
Looked at another way, if a store owner places a tray out in his grocery store labeled "free samples", and some kids come in and start eating the samples, the store owner has no right to prossicute the kids for theft just because it's not "what he intended". He has every right to change his mind and tell the kids to leave, but what's done is done. Give someone permission to do something, and you're just going to have to accept it when they've done it.
This second example has only one assumption to be made though... does an open access point imply a "free samples" sign? Surely we can agree it would not be the same if the tray was sitting in the store and did NOT have a "free samples" sign, surely anyone in the store would be apprehensive about taking something from the tray, and surely the store owner would have right to be upset if someone started snacking on his new display he was setting up. Unfortunataely, access points come from the factory open, and unedjucated consumers don't realize the door is open by default for the world, so they feel that their beliefs take precidence over their actions. This complicates the matter of assuming an open access point is intended to be a free access point, because it can't easily be said that most access points that are open are intended to be free. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the open access points in my city would get closed if the owner realized I had free and unimpeded access to them. Given that simple reality, I realize that most laws are made to protect the majority, sometimes from their own stupidity.
Should accessing open wireless access points be illegal? That is a tough question for me to answer. I believe the 'free' sign cannot be assumed because the majority of WAP owners simply don't realize the WAP is open to all - this is not something that anyone can effectively argue against. This makes the open access point much more akin to the plate of what appear to be free samples in the grocery store, but with no sign saying "free samples". This places Joe Public on much more shakey legal ground if he digs in. It could then be assumed that the onus is on the public to determine whether they really are free samples before digging in, and if they eat some and then the store manager storms out and is pissed because you are eating his display, I believe it could be assumed he has a right to be upset.
The simplest way to clear this up is to ship WAPs with free access disabled, OR to ship all WAPs with a label taped over the power jack, saying THIS ACCESS POINT SHIPS FROM THE FACTORY WITH ALL SECURITY AND PRIVACY FEATURES DISABLED. UNLESS THIS CONFIGURATION IS CHANGED BY THE CONSUMER, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT COMES WITHIN THE RANGE OF THIS DEVICE MAY HAVE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO YOUR INTERNET CONNECTION. With that in place, the onus then falls on the WAP owner to secure his access point, and we can more easily say the "free" sign is out on the WAP if it is left unprotected.
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
I was just thinking - this could be viewed from another angle as well. Imagine the owner of a new drive-in theatre, but he sets up no privacy fence along the back of his lot, which is exposed to a little cafe with outside seating. Lots of people come to the cafe each evening, and watch the show from there.
The drive-in owner gets pissed because people are obtaining a free service (entertainment) from him without his permission. It's possible to assume a dim bulb might not realize this is going to be a problem. There are privacy measures he can take (set up a fence) and should reasonably assume are required to insure his privacy. (you don't change into your swimsuit while standing by your pool in your back yard unless you have a privacy fence) In this respect you can say that a person's privacy is their own responsibility, and if they take no actions to enforce their privacy and it is violated, that it is their own fault.
Based on this argument, if I were hauled into court over accessing an open access point, the most important piece of evidence I would present would be the WAP's owner's manual. I would highlight the places in the booklet that described the security and privacy features available to the consumer, and highlight the places where it stated what the default behavior of the unit was. I believe this would be an adequate defense. If the consumer chooses to be ignorant about his property that is capable of interacting with the public, then they accept this interaction. Otherwise if they've read the manual and not used these privacy features, they have knowingly accepted the risk of having their privacy violated.
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Interesting)
But let's take the Internet free/open bit a little further.
So I have a wireless router on my house. It's unsecured. You're claiming that somehow, this gives someone the right to connect to it. Fine. But why does it give them the right to connect to my Internet service? Simply because the router routes information by default? Rubbish.
Let's move to analogies. My property doesn't have a fence around it, so in theory, anyone can come up to my garbage can and put things in it. People without trash service could, in theory, drive up to my house with their garbage bags and place them in my trash can. Then, when my trash service comes to collect the trash, they take the other person's trash away.
Around here, that's called "illegal dumping" (laws may vary from municipality to municipality). Even though my property is open, my trash can is unlocked, and I don't have a no-trespassing sign up, I could call the cops and have someone hauled away if I caught them putting trash in my trash can.
Let's look at another example, this time with a slightly more plentiful resource than the small space in my trash bin. How about water? I have a water hose on the outside of my property. If I caught someone using it, I could have them arrested, despite my lack of a fence, surveillance, or a posted sign that says that no one is allowed to use the water.
Now in both cases above, it's pretty plausible to argue that someone has to pay for the service, and that unauthorized use of the service may cost someone money. Why isn't the same said of computers? There are plenty of ISPs around that still use metered service, and even if there weren't, anyone using my unlimited service may be infringing on my use of it if I am doing anything on the network at the time.
Regardless, it looks like laws vary from state to state.
Texas [state.tx.us], for example, seems to side with me. If you don't have the person's consent to access their computer, it is a crime to do so.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the owner.
New York [state.ny.us], however, sides with you, as there must be a posted notice before computer trespass occurs.
I don't particularly care to go through all the laws, however there is a listing at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/hacklaw.htm [ncsl.org] , and suffice it to say, I tend to side with Texas on this one. I should be able to leave my computer and network unprotected and have people assume that I don't allow access unless I give it. I'm not saying it's smart to do so, but the default status should not be, "if I can get to it, I can use it."
Of course, the catch ultimately is that, even in states like Texas, does the SSID broadcast count as consent? Possibly, but the intent behind the law seems to be that active consent is required, so it's impossible to know how such a case would be interpreted.
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Interesting)
If it was Windows xp-pre-sp2 it would have automatically connected to the network.
He could have been lost, stopping to look up directions on his laptop when he noticed he had internet access, then went to mapquest. It's just a hypothetical but some wifi cards with connection software still auto-connect to unencrypted networks.
Is this scenareo against the law?
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Interesting)
The other day I was eating my lunch near some businesses, and I found 4 networks...3 of which were completely open.
I sat there and checked my e-mail while I ate lunch...not a big deal.
Then I went into one of the businesses (that is the reason I was out in front eating) and I saw a big 'free wireless networking' sign on their counter. And this was a physical therapy clinic...
Parent
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
Oftentimes (the way the nic drivers for my card worked) would cause my system to prefer the stronger signal, so I would waft onto one of the other networks. I was only free from the other nets when I logged into each one as admin (they were broadcasting the name "linksys" and had left the original admin accounts untouched) and add my MAC address to the deny list.
So, the question then becomes, when I was using their networks, was it because I was intruding onto their network, or because their network was intruding into my home?
I mean, at what point (other than logging into their WAP as "admin"
Parent
A poor analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a perfect analogy, but it's much better than the 'It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft' argument.
I dont want to bang on the "the guy had it coming" drum, but Dinon admitted he KNEW how to secure his wifi but declined because most of the people in his neighborhood are "older". That suggests to me, at least on this topic, that he wasn't acting like the sharpest knife in the drawer. But still, it's more than a little unsettling to have some 40-something guy sitting outside your house using your resources. While the article doesn't say he was a perv, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he was -- and pulling kiddie porn or somesuch.
Re:A poor analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
or better yet, continuing to use her flawed analogy:
It's like buying a Microsoft program, and leaving the open box, with the jewel case and installation media on the sidewalk in front of your house then bitching when someone walks by and installs it.
Parent
Re:A poor analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Depending on the area you live in, there could be a very large number of perfectly good reasons to do so. In many urban areas, on a street with 4 story condos back to back, you can't even tell whose house the person is standing near to. Yours? The dude's upstairs? Across the street? One window over? Etc.
Even in a sparsely populated (i.e. USA style urban sprawl) area there could be many legitimate reasons, such as your house having characteristics of a local landmark (or being near covenient cross-roads), which people use to meet each other by when without a vehicle. Which could easily result in someone standing there for 30 minutes at 6am, waiting for his idiot carpool buddy who overslept. And so on.
Your attitude is typical though of many people who are violently and pathologically territorial and consider not only their house, the lawn in front of it but 200 meters of public road in any direction "their Gawd given property, dammit!". You know, the kind who has a semi-automatic rifle collection, 360 degree security cameras on the roof, barbed wire fence and four pit-bulls with spiked collars for pets (and more often then not a meth lab in the basement).
Parent
Re:A poor analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Or worse still, he could have been spamming!!!
The person being arrested should be the one with the open access point. The owner could be committing all sorts of illegal acts and can then claim 'But my access point is open. It could have been anyone. Prove it was me!'
How can he be arrested for using a resource which was advertised publically? The guy was broadcasting his ssid with no security on it, which sounds like an invitation to me
Parent
Re:A poor analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
How about not using any analogy at all - this isn't exactly rocket science. Don't screw it up by suggesting another bad analogy to explain a simple situation.
Parent
Re:A poor analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
From these axioms you can easily make the argument that beating people up for fun is not justified. By introducing just a few more axioms you might make the argument that drivers should be licensed to ensure a minimum level of competency in order to prevent unprovoked pain to others, etc.
But hey, feel free to keep making arguments the old fashioned way. After all, it's not like you ever claimed you weren't intellectually lazy. It's not like you're posting on a site where one of the most treasured attributes of the target audience is their intellectual superiority or anything.
Parent
Re:A poor analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
As such there's always 4 camps. Those who accept both of these axioms, those who accept the first but not the second, those who accept the second but not the first and those that accept neither. People can be swayed to tolerate an axiom they don't accept but hardly ever do they change their acceptance of these axioms.
Parent
But really..... (Score:5, Interesting)
AP makers should force, once the device is connected for the first time, for it to go to a config page which outlines all the security settings (WEP, etc.)..... maybe then some people will start to understand security.
Should charge the idiots who leave in unencrypted (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
No it isn't. It's not even a copyright problem. What, now I need an extra license if somebody's visiting and they want to check their mail?
It remains unclear what Smith was using the Wi-Fi for, to surf, play online video games, send e-mail to his grandmother...
Don't let that stop you from closing out the article with wild speculation though.
"I'm mainly worried about what the guy may have uploaded or downloaded, like kiddie porn," Dinon said.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at it this way, if you leave your porch light on, is it illegal for someone to use it to read by if they are out on the public street?
Parent
If I leave my back door open... (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost of them watching my TV and drinking my beer might be minimal, but that's not the point. It's my TV and my beer.
This is the reason people lock their doors and close their windows. We shouldn't need to worry about people coming into our homes, but we do. These people need to learn to secure their wireless points.
I am in no way justifying what this guy did, but hopefully it will highlight something to Joe Average and get them to lock their AP's down tighter (or in most cases, lock them down at all).
On noting the open point, this guy should have at least tried to locate its owner and let them know about it, maybe even offer to help them fix the problem. Instead he took advantage for his own gain, just like any petty theft act really.
Re:If I leave my back door open... (Score:5, Insightful)
An open wireless network is hardly a "back door" - it advertises its existence to the world, and it blankets an entire area. Walking in through a back door means targeting a specific house and looking for a way in, but it may not even be possible for the average person to figure out which house is hosting a particular wireless network.
Parent
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is like a radio station only allowing members to listen to their station, but broadcasting to everyone and saying if someone who isn't a member listens in, they are breaking the law. Either set up your shit so only authorized people can access it, or don't and not be permitted to have unauthorized people arrested for using it.
Re:Erm.. (Score:5, Interesting)
YOUR wireless is painting the entire area, so essentially YOU'RE forcing your signal into someone elses personal space, if you don't want it used secure it, or quit complaining.
Satelite radio is painted everywhere, can you just go ahead and use it? No you can't, you need an approved device and a subscription to decode those signals. Why would anyone expect otherwise with wireless? Not encypted its free to anyone. Notice also that little FCC statement that says you have to accept any interference yadda yadda sinced it is an unlicensed device. So what if YOUR access point is overpowered and suddenly you find YOUR pc on another's network? What now?
Parent
Not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of the article is standard "open wireless is for kiddie porn and a gateway to identity theft" FUD. Of course, most people just use it to download music for free, but the warnings of consequences for the owner of the network are legit. If your network is used in-appropriatly, you ARE responsible.
Turn on encryption, add a password, add mac based filtering, turn off dhcp and you are pretty much set.
Attractive Nuisance (Score:5, Interesting)
Signal Strength (Score:5, Interesting)
This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously- if he REALLY thought what he was doing was OK, why did he act all cagy and close the laptop/drive away every time the homeowner saw him?
WiFi or not, this guy was acting strange in front of someone's home in such a way that I think it would probably freak most people out. The cops used the WiFi excuse just to bust the guy and I say jolly good show on them. I would feel very diferently if the guy simply said to the homeowner who he was and the fact that he was surfing on his net connection, but he didn't.
Re:This Story Isn't About WiFi... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that he was creepy is precisely what brought him to the attention of local law enforcement. Rights, precedent and slippery slopes aside if you act like a creep while you are in clear violation of a law, you are gonna get hooked up with a set of handcuffs pretty rapidly. The local beat cop who arrested this guy probably doesn't know his WEP from his WAP, and he doesn't need to- that is exactly why we have courts and lawyers. The cop's job is to find, stop, detain and document what he reasonably assumes to be illegal activity and I think what he came across in this situation is pretty open and shut.
I say he was stupid because acting a bit more openly would have, I am 99% sure, prevented the whole thing from happening. He could have politely engaged the homeowner in conversation. He could have fessed up to using the homeowner's network. He could have simply driven away without ever returning. In the end, he decided to continue to act like a fucking stalker sicko and, need I remind you, a good portion of this country is in the midst of a manhunt for a little boy who's family was killed, who was kidnapped and raped along with his sister and who was probably executed himself all by a creepy, stalking sex offender. Yea, I want the local police to be a little bit jumpy about people stalking my home from the street- the constitution is not a suicide pact.
Parent
Re:It is theft (Score:5, Informative)
Even though it was an unsecured network, he was still stealing network bandwidth & accessing something he shouldn't be, its fair that he was caught & should be punished for it.
No. You do forget that we are discussing radio technology. The AP actually broadcasts an invitation beacon for wifi client devices to join the network. It is like having someone put up a big pile of things on a table, stand by it shouting "Here take some" and then calling cops if you do.
If you still have doubts, ponder this educational question: How can you tell a difference between a "public" open AP and one opened by mistake, while trying to browse the web from your laptop on a park bench downtown?
A: Unless the ESSID is "SEKRIT!" or "DONT_YOU_DARE!" you can't.
QED.
I wonder how long before we see a suit where a customer sues a manufacturer for not making security clear & easy enough to set up when they purchased & installed a router.
This is in fact a much wiser course of action. The wireless gear should come with maximum security on by default and require multiple prompts to lower the protection level. But blaming the "nefarious" "hacker" is far more sexy and easier for brain-dead prosecutors then going against a large multinational.
Then if the gear is left wide open, no idiot can claim "I didn't mean to do this, honest!". Otherwise (and from the vague statements of the "victim" in this case a likely scenario) it is simply an entrapment, vigilante excercise, a.k.a leaving a wallet on a sidewalk and then shooting anyone who tries to pick it up for "attempted roberry".
Parent
Re:It is theft (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a valid excuse? What happens if someone younger moves into the neighborhood? Do you enable encryption then? What if their grandchildren come for a visit and put your system into scriptkiddy hell? Do you enable it then?
At what point does common sense outweigh laziness for this jackass?
Parent
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Bigger issue - people are cowards (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason the guy didn't confront the other dude in the SUV is simple...people very often get shot/stabbed and killed for doing so. It happens on a regular basis in the US. There are a lot of mean and nasty motherfuckers roaming here.
I am not a small man. I'm 6 foot tall and weigh 300 pounds. But if I saw a guy I didn't know sitting in front of my house late at night doing something possibly naughty, my first instinct would also be to call The Law. The only way I would walk up to that vehicle myself would be with loaded shotgun in hand.
The man who called the law was not a coward. He was very very smart.
Parent
Re:Entrapment (Score:5, Informative)
Since, in general, a homeowner is neither an officer of the law nor an agent of the government, the prerequisites of entrapment are not fulfilled.
-Tez
Parent