Man Arrested for Using Open Wireless Network 1443
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."
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:3, Informative)
Dont lots of businesses leave open wifi connections for customers to use?
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".
Re:A poor analogy (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Open doors (Score:2, Informative)
Unless they can prove that what he did was against the law and charge him with that, he wouldn't be convicted here where I live but in USA I wouldn't be surprised if he got 10 years in the electric chair.
Frankly, I think that everyone that has an open WIFI (unless its actually supposed to be open like in coffee shops etc.) should be charge with aiding to commit a crime. Its easy to secure your network and if you cant do it then call someone to do it for you. I am sure that someone are willing to do it for you for a price.
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
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
Re:doing strong wireless encryption AIN'T that eas (Score:3, Informative)
And if this SUV guy had cracked through the weak WEP protection he wouldn't have any leg at all to stand on in the I was just using an open AP argument.
WEP should be used like a No Tresspass sign - it doesn't stop anyone who wants to enter from entering anywhere - but it does inform them they are not welcome to enter the property and are violating the law if they enter.
Re:Open doors (Score:4, Informative)
Closed repeaters are also not a good analogy, as they occupy a gray area in the FCC regs, and have been controversial for some time. There are private property arguments, but I personally believe they're overshadowed by the fact that such repeaters are operated on publicly available bandwidth and thus there is no reasonably expectation of privacy or exclusivity of use. I've never heard of anyone being fined for intentional interference for using a closed repeater. The FCC regs clearly state that amateur frequencies cannot be used exclusively by any station, so for those that want a private network, go apply to the FCC for a frequency to run it on just like your local police department or Wendy's did. Besides, most operators of private repeaters do attempt to set some kind of access control using CTCSS tones, so once again the analogy just doesn't hold up.
Re:Attractive Nuisance (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Open doors (Score:4, Informative)
I suggest we let them know that if you broadcast an SSID into the public airwaves and then grant DHCP leases across it you are authorizing access to your network.
Wrong analogy (Score:2, Informative)
Comcast says you're responsible... (Score:2, Informative)
You are responsible for any misuse of the Service, even if the misuse was committed by a friend, family member, or guest with access to your Service account. Therefore, you must take steps to ensure that others do not use your account to gain unauthorized access to the Service by, for example, strictly maintaining the confidentiality of your Service login and password. In all cases, you are solely responsible for the security of any device you choose to connect to the Service, including any data stored or shared on that device. http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp [comcast.net]
Re:Darn (Score:3, Informative)
Legal Precident (Score:2, Informative)
Expectation of Privacy.
Ok, IANAL, but here's the rough version as I understand it; if you have a conversation on the phone, it's private, and can't be recorded, etc. If you're on a speaker phone, in a public place, there's no expectation of privacy, so you can record whatever you want, use it as evidence later, etc.
So, if you have your unsecured wireless device hanging out there in public, there's no expectation of it remaining private. Which makes "listening in" or hopping on the system, perfectly legal.
It's silly, and quite obviously so, that this guy got charged. Then again, it's the florida government. They can't even count properly. </cheap shot>
Re:CHild Porn and Wardriving. (Score:2, Informative)
"I'm mainly worried about what the guy may have uploaded or downloaded, like kiddie porn," Dinon said. "But I'll probably never know."
Something close to this has actually been to court (Score:3, Informative)
Now, consider that anyone having conversations of an even vaguely secretive nature - that is, conversations they wouldn't want public - would be a fool to use such a cordless phone. However, people did, and sometimes their neighbors recorded the conversations, and the whole situation wound up in court. The case is McKamey v. Roach [findlaw.com]. The court found exactly the standard being advocated here - that there was no expectation of privacy when speaking over an open-air medium. In other words, your neighbors are completely free to record your conversations when they're conducted over analog broadcast signals. The courts have already ruled on this: if you become a broadcaster, you give up the right to refuse people to receive your signal, even if you became a broadcaster by buying a piece of consumer electronic equipment.
The obvious extension to sniffing unencrypted wireless packets is left as an exercise for the reader.
Wrong channels (Score:2, Informative)
You mean 1, 6, and 11. Channels 6 and 10 technically step on each other.
Although you can also use 1, 5, 8, and 11 together, without interference getting high enough to cause any noticable delays.