Slashdot Log In
Jailtime For Leeching Wireless?
Journal written by jginspace (678908) and posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:23 AM
from the thats-gotta-suck dept.
from the thats-gotta-suck dept.
jginspace writes "A 17-year-old from Singapore is is facing three years' jailtime for accessing his neighbor's wireless network.
His neighbor complained and now the unfortunate Tan Jia Luo is facing charges under the computer misuse act and is scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday."
This discussion has been archived.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.
More info (Score:5, Informative)
More details at the local HardwareZone Forum [hardwarezone.com]:
Teen, 17, first to be charged with unauthorised wireless Net access
By Chua Hian Hou
A 17-YEAR-OLD polytechnic student has become the first person here to be charged with piggybacking on someone else's wireless Internet connection.
Garyl Tan Jia Luo was accused yesterday of using a laptop computer to gain unauthorised access to a home wireless network on May 13 this year.
If convicted, Tan faces up to three years in jail and fines of up to $10,000 under Section 6(1)(a) of the Computer Misuse Act.
Tan was released on $6,000 bail and is scheduled to appear at the Subordinate Courts on Wednesday.
Court documents did not describe the circumstances in which Tan was arrested, but The Straits Times understands that a neighbour near his Casuarina Walk home had lodged a complaint against him.
While there are no statistics on how commonplace the practice of piggybacking unsecured home wireless networks is, networking firm Cisco System's spokesman, Mr Rayson Cheo, said it is probably quite widespread here.
Most modern notebook computers and personal digital assistants (PDAs) have the ability to sniff out unsecured networks and hop online for free with just a few clicks.
There are numerous guides online that describe how to do this and the low cost of wireless networking equipment means that most HDB or condominium blocks have unprotected networks users can log on to.
Said Mr Cheo: 'People assume, wrongly, that since it is there, it is okay to use it.'
Mr Aloysius Cheang, the chairman of local infocomm security association, the Special Interest Group in Security and Information Integrity, said: 'Most people probably do it because it is convenient, or because they are cheap and want free Internet.
'But, for some, it is because they want to do something illegal like defaming someone or downloading pirated MP3s, and they don't want the activities traced back to their own network.'
In the online world, there are even special terms for it, like 'wardriving' and 'Wi-Fi mooching'.
The problem, said lawyer Bryan Tan, is that while most people know that mooching is not quite legitimate, they probably do not know that it can be treated as a serious offence.
'Blinkered by the convenience and allure of ?free Internet', people don't realise that mooching is the virtual equivalent of trespassing,' he added.
Likewise, many users do not seem to realise that they can block moochers simply by installing a password on their Internet connections.
For most users, the only indication they get that someone is mooching is when their connection speed slows down, though Mr Cheo said software tools are available for download that can track who is using a network and what they are doing on it.
While the case is the first of its kind here, there have been at least two similar arrests and convictions in the United States.
In some countries like Holland, Mr Tan added, Wi-Fi network owners can even be held liable by the courts for crimes committed on their unprotected networks.
chuahh@sph.com.sg [mailto]
Re:More info (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's called your router's software.
My old 802.11b wireless router died a few years back. I didn't have a laptop at the time, but my girlfriend did. It was literally 6 months before we noticed that her laptop wasn't connecting to our router, but rather a unsecured wireless router in the building. It was just automatically connecting to what's available.
This is not "stealing" network access, or "breaking in" to your house. This is a device, available for everyone nearby, which is constantly broadcasting packets saying quite literally "Hey, I'm here! Does anyone want to connect to me?" Your computer then says "Hey, I'm a laptop. This is my network card identification. Can I get on your network?" The router then says "Sure, hop on. I'll route your packets."
This is not someone coming to your house and attaching alligator clips to your phone line. This is YOUR router, working in YOUR stead, behaving exactly as YOU have configured it to. This is like a secretary whom you've told to let anyone into your building. If you can't be bothered to train the secretary in the simplest of fashions (and putting a password on a network isn't exactly rocket science), you shouldn't envoke the police when you find they have let random people into the building.
If you can't spend the ten fucking minutes to put a password on your network, you shouldn't waste the judicial system's time when people access it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, it's possible to open a typical house lock in about 30 seconds with a lockpick. This does not make it OK to break into someone's house. It's possible to snoop on someone's cordless phone. This is illegal. Using a wireless network without permission is the same thing.
Re:More info (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, radio devices are not homes, WEP is not a lock, and accessing a device which sole purpose by design is sharing access is not invading private property. Metaphors are not real. Radio is not "yours", ideas are not "yours". Such semantic confusion -- intentional confusion -- leads to things like 17 year old kids going to prison for a crime that only exists in the the minds of hornswoggled. The thing to look out for in the years ahead is the first execution of a person for "stealing" a metaphor. Probably going to happen a lot sooner than even I believe it will.
Parent
Re:More info (Score:4, Informative)
Bumping a disk tumbler lock ? It doesn't have pins. The key doesn't have cut teeth, instead it has segments that rotate disks. Only when the disks have been rotated to the correct position relative to each other does the lock open.
Just see this PDF [toool.nl] for details :).
Parent
Re:More info (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said....with open wireless access points? Jail time? I mean, c'mon!! AS I posted on the story about 5-10 yrs. in prison for Dos attackers....let the sentence reflect the severity of the crime!!
Violent offenders can and do get off for less than 3 years!!!
If someone leaves an AP on and open...I think that is pretty much a free invite to join in...
And if not...well, for sure it isn't worth imprisoning someone 3 years!!
Parent
Re:More info (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree . If someone doesn't wont you to use their wireless , there are many ways to prevent it .
It's even possible to use their wireless unintentionally . if the signal is strong enough , your computer may decide to use that one . So you can go to jail because your computer screwed you over .
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An analogy since some don't like metaphors.. :P (Score:4, Insightful)
A wireless access point that is *announcing* itself as being open could be considered implied permission to use it. Note that the access point doesn't just have a sign on it that says "open". It is actively beaconing its "openness" to solicit users. This is all defined as part of the 802.11 "contract" between computer systems, and just because some owners don't understand what they're doing when they set up an 802.11 access point doesn't mean it's unreasonable for others to assume they do.
Of course, when the owner of the access point tells someone to stop using it, that implied permission no longer exists, just like a business owner can tell someone to leave their store. You've been asked not to use it, so any continued use is legally actionable (though it still may not be illegal, depending on the laws in your area).
Parent
Re:More info (Score:4, Informative)
Where I live, if I leave my front door open, and someone walks into the living room and sits on the couch, no crime has been committed. Depending on the jurisdiction, just wandering onto someone elses property is not a crime. Bad manners perhaps, but not a crime. And is wandering onto someone's wireless network analagous to opening a door, or walking onto the property outside of the house? I own rural land, and uless I post it with no trespassing signs meeting a certain criteria every so many feet, people are free to wander at will onto my property. Below are the legal requirements for posting land in my state.
I don't post, mainly because I don't mind people wandering around in my woods, so long as they don't take anything. This is true for many property owners in my area. I live next to a popular sledding hill, many people cross my property to gain access to the sledding hill. Since I don't put up any barriers or signs restricting access, they are free to do so. They know they aren't on property they own, and they don't have explicit permission to be there, but they know they can be there because nothing is telling them they can't be.
The following state regulations pertain to controlling access to property. They explain that the onus is on the property owner to make it clear that others are not permitted on the property.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.
A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of such land or other authorized person, or unless such notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.
My wife and daughter recently took a cross country trip together. They took along a laptop with wireless. I had assumed that they would use the wireless networks of the hotels they were staying in. It turns out they used what ever was available. My wife thought that when in a hotel she'd only be able to pick up the hotel's signal. She had no idea she could have perhaps been on networks outside of the hotel. She was also of the opinion that if people didn't want you to use their wireless network, why do they leave it open? From her perspective, wireless networks should be treated like access to real property. If you don't want other people on it, put up barriers or signs. Othewise, don't complain when you find someone camped on it. She's got a point. With real property you assume you can be there unless the owner let's you know in some manner you shouldn't be. Why aren't computer networks the same?
Parent
Re:More info (Score:5, Insightful)
What I find most interesting is that an open accesspoint is actually broadcasting invitations - if accepting an invitation is considered illegal, how is accessing a web server legal? I mean, a web server doesn't broadcast it's presence so you have to actively try and connect.
How can I tell the difference between an accesspoint that is intentionally open and one that has been set up by an idiot? Should I assume that everyone's an idiot? The next time I want to go to the pub, am I to assume that the building I'm about to enter isn't really a pub and the "Bar" sign hanging outside the door was put there accidentally?
When you associate with an open network, it's not as if you're going down the road trying doors to see if they're open - you're actually getting invitations broadcast to you and many devices will connect without asking - are you responsible for your computer connecting to a random access point without asking you first?
Parent
Re:More info (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't you get a jail sentence there for littering a cigarette bud, or something of that or similar "severeness"?
If things continue as they are in US, this may come here too.
Ever seen a new law or regulation coming out recently which gives more freedom or is sensible instead of making things tighter?
This whole mechanism and attitude of people pulling the strings goes towards more control and punishment. Totally senseless and idiotic!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
3 years for joining a WiFi network that was wide open to the world, and NOT doing any harm (this guy)?
6 or more years for breaking into networks but NOT causing harm, and reporting the vulnerabilities (mitnick)?
280+ years for not evading taxes, but structuring withdrawls to avoid dealing with complicated invasive paperwork (Kent Hovind), and using an IRS-appointed jury and disallowing the defense's evidence?
20+ years for dealing cocaine (one of my idiotic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somewhere, some company lobbied for "tough penalties for data theft".
This made their security somewhat easier to implement - as opposed to actually, you know, doing something credible to mitigate security risks - but you end up with crap like this. You can bet it's not homeowners lobbying for these laws.
So, you can kill a man and get off in 3 years, but annoy a corporation and they will cripple you for life.
Hey ho, it's a funny old world, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My new cunning plan (Score:5, Funny)
2. Rename wireless network free help yourself.
3. Insist that charges are pressed against my neighbours.
4. Buy their houses at low low prices and use the space for an indoor pool and a bowling alley.
Pretty open and shut (Score:5, Insightful)
I just hope the conviction isn't too harsh. A fine would be more appropriate than jail time.
[1] And yes, I have told him to fix it. Even did the neighbourly thing and secured his network for for him. The following day he removed my configuration because "he didn't like entering a password". He'll learn the hard way eventually.
Re:Pretty open and shut (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what? Fuck you.
I will be continuing to run my intentionally "unsecured" wireless network.
How come every random carrier gets to run a wireless network that anybody can use for $10/hour (and, yes, that can be paid anonymously in cash), but I should be punished if I choose to do the same thing for free? For that matter, how come the backbone ISPs get to carry traffic for everybody, everywhere, without asking any questions, but I shouldn't? How come (I suspect you think) they're not responsible for what their users do, but I am?
If you don't like freedom of communication, then get off the Internet.
Oh, and the kid was in the wrong only if he was somehow on notice that the network wasn't intended to be public. Otherwise my right to run an open network would be compromised.
Parent
Re:Pretty open and shut (Score:5, Informative)
For the same reason, you are the one signing the LA and because you are not an ISP, it is assumed that all traffic originating from you is yours/under your control. Certain liability has been waived from ISPs in regards to content because they are merely "keepers of the pipe" and have little influence on what goes through them - you do not fall into that category.
This is what I understand, but the obvious caveat to this is IANAL.
Parent
Re:Pretty open and shut (Score:5, Informative)
I think that you will find you are wrong. My ISP explicitly permits and encourages me to run a wireless network, which I may run as either paid or open. The agreements are in order all the way up the chain.
And it's a service agreement, by the way, not a license agreement.
Parent
Re:Pretty open and shut (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry; I missed the second part.
In fact, I am just the "keeper of the pipe" in the same way that my upstream ISP is. I AM a service provider for my wireless users, and all the protections applied to service providers apply to me. I have as much legal right, and certainly as much moral right, to act as a service provider as does any large, for-profit corporate entity.
The basic moral truth here is that I have an absolute right to provide any communication service I want to anybody. Where I am, the law doesn't forbid that right now. Changing or reinterpreting the law to forbid it, or to make it impractical by loading on a lot of stupid administrative and data retention requirements, would be evil and illegitimate.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, not for the citizens, because Singapore is hardly democratic; citizens certainly have no say in the way the country runs.
Heck, even the economic growth rate is a state secret!!!!
Feh. Singapore: Disneyland with the death penalty (William Gibson) [wired.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When I first turned on a new mac notebook recently, it auto searched for networks and found one. Would using that network be wrong?
Yes, it is wrong. The user agreement for virtually all ISPs does not allow their users to share their internet connection wirelessly, no matter how generous your neighbors feel. Permission is not theirs to give. If a friend of mine had 1 Bears football ticket and tried to snea
Re:This is absolutely right. -- Is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
False. Yes, most consumer ISP service agreements forbid this. There are significant exceptions. And almost any ISP that has any non-consumer operations will sell you a connection that you can share if you're willing to give them enough money. I have a "legal" open wireless network, with the permission of my ISP, and so do lots of other people. There is no reason my users should assume my network isn't legitimate.
If you leave a network wide open, you are doing the only thing you can to invite people to use it. Absent information to the contrary, there's no reason it should be forbidden to assume the good faith of such an invitation. If your ISP service agreement doesn't permit you to share the bandwidth, then you need to close down the network, or somehow put people on notice that they can't use it. Only you, not the users, are in the wrong if you don't.
Parent
Re:This is absolutely right. -- Is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I assume that you call the operator of every Web server and get permission before you connect to it, right?
No. You don't. You don't because setting up a Web server, and not doing anything to restrict access to it, implicitly authorizes people to use it, at least in any "normal" way.
You also don't look around for an "OK to drink" sign before you use a public drinking fountain. Not even when that fountain is on private property. Also, by the way, you don't go around inquiring whether the drinking fountain operator has an agreement with the water company that permits her to give away the water. You just drink the damned water.
We're talking about what norms should be established in a relatively new case. I claim that the norms should be consistent (meaning that the same norms that apply to T-Mobile should apply to me), that they should be practical (meaning that there's a reasonable way to have an open network and an reasonable way to have a closed one), and that they should comport with the way the installed technology behaves (meaning that, since the default configuration of practically every computer is to connect with any available open network, that behavior should be expected).
The people who want closed networks already have methods available to them. It's trivial to mark a network as not being available-- don't beacon the SSID, or turn on MAC filtering, or turn on authentication or encryption. Those are simple, reasonable ways of marking the network as closed, and they work within the technological framework. Asking me to talk to every user or post a sign goes outside the technological framework and is an unreasonable burden.
Parent
open on purpose or not? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:open on purpose or not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Your ISP is not giving you a certain amount of bandwidth that you can give away if you arent using it. I worked at a small ISP about 7 years ago, and we had about 4000 users but only about 8 actual T1s for their connectivity. There was only enough bandwidth for about 190 users at any one time to be using a full DS0 line. The reason that our users only had a pay a small price was because we could assume that the average user would not be using their connection more than 5% of the time.
If all of our users started sharing their connection, we would have had to charge more. Same goes for your ISP. I get a 6 Mbps connection from my Cable provider, but it is only about $50/mth. At work we have a T1 that is dedicated for us at 1.5Mbps, but it is about $550/mth. See the difference?
Sure I get much better upload speeds with the T1, but the real difference is that with the T1 I actual own all of that bandwidth. With my cable connection I am only guaranteed a 6 Mbps when "I" need it, not all of the time. And if someone else is sharing it then I am breaking my user agreement.
What's the difference if you friend uses your computer or brings over and plugs in his own?
The difference is because once my friend brings over his computer he is within my household and therefore is not breaking the user agreement. If I can successfully argue at court that we like to picnic across the street at the park while using my wireless network, then it would still not break the user agreement. But if you just have your network open for anyone to use it at any time for any reason, you are breaking your user agreement.
It is usually pretty easy to tell when something is wrong, but most people will try to justify anything.
--
Parent
Yet another useless comment (Score:3, Insightful)
The only real solution I see to this is to secure ALL wireless networks out of the box. It would keep windows from auto-attaching, and would make anyone logging into one liable if someone complained. The argument "well I didn't know I wasn't supposed to be there" goes right out the window. Then, if you decide to unlock your network, everyone knows that you meant to, and not that you're some fool that said "I want a wireless network! yay!" without knowing what that really means.
How is this a crime? (Score:3, Insightful)
An open network is OPEN.
A password-protected network is CLOSED, but open to those who have the password.
If anyone hacks the password-protected network and bypasses the password protection, this is trespassing and misuse.
I live in a large house with lots of apartments with many neighbors who possess such unprotected networks. What if my router is down and my laptop connects to one of these networks? Am I then going to prison, because I never noticed it? Hell no.
Its a trap?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet access through a wireless network that is probably connected to a ADSL modem has fixed costs. The guy really didn't lose anything. So he just doesn't want anyone else to benefit from something he has paid for.
The charged teenager is 17 years old. The neighbor could have told his parents what he was doing and they could have told him to stop or take away his computer...
Sounds like the neighbor wanted someone to use his network, so he could sue them.
Western Decadence (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a saying... (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding is that Singapore's punishment for littering, vandalism, drugs, and most everything else, is far more severe than most liberal democracies would tolerate. It is NOT surprising, therefore, that he is facing 3 years / $10,000 fine in Singapore, whereas in a western country he would likely face < 1 year + < $3,000 fine for a first offence of a crime of this nature, unless he was caught using the wireless access to do something else illicit, like download child pornography.
Singapore is a police state. It is not a liberal democracy. It is unfortunate that he is facing such a harsh sentice for such a minor crime, but it should not be unexpected in an unfree country such as this.
Not to end on a trollish note, but honestly, if you believe that caning and a lengthy prison sentence is a fair and just punishment for spraypainting a wall, then I would suggest you try living in a country that practices such harsh punishments, and see how long you like it there.
Parent
Re:There's a saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, it's a mistake to force Western notions of freedom and morality on a culture that already has its own conceptions of both.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, can you point to a subway system where blocking a door doesn't prevent the subway from moving???
Also, some evidence of your claim about the reason for the ban on chewing gum would be appreciated. 'Cause I think you might be wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here are some other references to the chewing gum [expatsingapore.com] ban [usatoday.com].
Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)
As for the gum and the subway issue, I don't know where you live, but over here, automation means the lack of human oversight, so to err on safety is always better for commuters. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be flung out of a high speed train onto a set of electric rails just because they decided that hey, a door that won't shut isn't as important as sticking to the schedule. As a citizen and frequent user of said train system, despite what was reported, gum pretty much affected the running of the trains. What gum certainly was though was a public nuisance that stuck to your shoes or pants if you were unlucky enough. I'll concede that I don't think the magnitude of the problem back then was large enough to warrant a complete ban.
In any case, you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. Gum was banned in 1992, and your other posts on kids and drugs (categorically false BTW) makes it abundantly clear that (a) you've never stepped foot in Singapore (b) you have no idea what is going on in Singapore.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>Before everyone flies off the handle here, remember that this is happening in Singapore, who has much more draconian law enforcement than the US or Europe.
Examples:
However, law-abiding Singaporeans, though trouubled by the
Re:remember, this is SINGAPORE (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Says who? Do you own a provider that stands to profit from selling EV-DO service?
I have a (firewalled) access point that has the SSID "UseMe". I *want* people to be able to get free Internet access. They aren't able to jump onto my personal network, just use the Internet for free. Sometimes handy if you're driving, have a laptop, and need to pull up Google Maps for directions.
-b.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not just name it "JoeSchmoe" or whatever your name is and use strongest encryption? "GetOut" seems like waving a red flag in front of every 1337 script kiddie that wants to impress its friends by hax0ring.
-b.
Re:remember, this is SINGAPORE (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:remember, this is SINGAPORE (Score:4, Insightful)
How do I tell people it's free and available, without them connecting to me first?
I run a web site. I want customers to access it. How can I let people know it's free and open, without them connecting to me first (and potentially "tresspassing" in the process).
The answer to both is simple, and should be handled similarly to how physical property is handled. A front door is an invitation to tresspass, long enough to state your business (it has to be so, or you could never visit anyone). Trespass is when you extend your stay once you have been told to leave. With computer systems on publically accessible networks (internet), or publically accessable airways (wifi), the only sensible solution is to have a password or other authentication on things which shouldn't be public. When you get a big "Access Denied" message, it should be a hint that what you are accessing is considered private.
Do you really want to live in a world where you need prior written permission to visit a neighbor, visit slashdot, or use the wifi at starbucks?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The main question is..."if it is unsecured, is that a specific invitation to use it?"
Morally and ethically, if I buy a yard decoration that has "Dulces Libres Aqui" painted on it, I don't then get to turn around and sue a bunch of hispanic kids for trespassing because I don't know Spanish. We wouldn't have a problem if judges understood that internet protocols they've never heard of like SSID and DHCP broadcast
Re:remember, this is SINGAPORE (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. An unsecured wireles access point is constantly sending out an invitation to every device nearby. It's broadcasting "Hey, I'm here, connect to me!" to every device nearby.
So yes, leaving a wireless access point unsecured means it's constantly and actively inviting everyone to connect to it. It's not just sitting there waiting for connections (like a HTTP server, for example), it's like a spammer sending e-mails with connection instructions to everyone nearby.
This is not an opinion. This is how the Wi-Fi protocol works. Leaving an access point unsecured means it's constantly sending invitations to connect to every device nearby. Maybe that's not what the owner meant, but it's what his actions (or inaction) amount to anyway. And I, for one, am starting to get a bit tired on having to walk on eggshells because some morons can't be bothered to RTFM.
Parent
Re:remember, this is SINGAPORE (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope...just bought a new Linksys...and no security is on by default.