Some 12% of Consumers 'Borrow' Unsecured Wi-Fi 469
alphadogg writes "Despite the fact that it's often considered an illegal act, a sizeable percentage of the UK/US internet-using population 'borrows' unsecured Wi-Fi access. This is according to a study conducted by the group Accenture. 'The Accenture study found that computer users are still engaging in some unsafe computing practices. Nearly half of all respondents said that they used the same password for all of their online accounts, and only a quarter of them have ever encrypted files on their computers.'" My guess is the actual figure is higher than that.
Ideally, no one really cares. (Score:3, Insightful)
But if they start borrowing and eating your already limited bandwidth and start choking your connection. Then just use some form of encryption and be done with it (AES).
It doesn't really matter whether or not it's illegal, they put themselves at risk if they transmit wireless on an unencrypted connection
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
How the hell do you "consider" something to be illegal? It either is, or isn't.
How the hell is 12% a "sizeable percentage"?
Someone's really trying hard to make an article out of nothing.
Re:Gotta Remember, They're Users (Score:5, Insightful)
Same password? (Score:2, Insightful)
Stuff I vaguely care about, gets better passwords, and regular changes.
That's not 'insecurity' that's 'too many places insisting on registration'.
Re:And why is this bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:news.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe that sounds selfish, but it doesn't matter. If you can't afford your own connection - tough. The internet is a luxury, not an entitlement.
Re:news.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Same password = throwaway stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't particularly see that as an "unsafe" practice, since none of it really matters.
Things I actually care about (personal email, anything work related, etc) get real passwords, and things that can really cause problems (banking, etc) don't get done via the internet at all.
Re:news.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why can't I use a negligible amount of bandwidth when you are not using it?
Because you have no way of knowing whether or not a) it's a negligible amount of bandwidth and b) I'm using it.
Re:And why is this bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Higher figure? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:news.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I do, because Sympatico SUCKS. (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, if Sympatico are so bad, why don't you switch to the ISP your neighbour is using? Most of the time when people complain about their ISP, it's because there aren't any other options in their area. Clearly that isn't the case for you.
Re:And why is this bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
You cannot steal that which is freely offered.
Re:Gotta Remember, They're Users (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, some big multionaltional corporations and their stooges will have hissy fits. Too bad fo rthem, hooray for the rest of us. If I get a laptop, I'll have wifi set up on my desktop, and it will be open. Because I'm not a selfish asshole.
Re:Gotta Remember, They're Users (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that twenty years' experience, or one year's experience twenty times?
Bandwith is not a car (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:news.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I left my money, house, or girlfriend available on your property, I wouldn't really feel like I could complain if you helped yourself...That's what these people are doing. If I have a neighbor whose signal is strong enough to cause interference on my equipment, I feel no qualms about using his service.
If the WAP isn't even trivially secured, then that's an open invitation, same as having an FM radio signal crossing my property is an open invitation to monitor it. If you don't want other people to use it, don't leave it wide open.
Re:Higher figure? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the case where I live, but it ain't all that savvy a town, so a lot of the points aren't well labeled. I can guess that the strongest wireless signal is from the restaurant I'm in, but it could be from one of the dozen loft apartments on the second floor of the building, or it could be from a restaurant across the street.
Am I supposed to not use the internet because I can't tell where the hell the signal is coming from, when I know that at least some of the signals are open on purpose?
This is the kind of crap that people like you want to stick the rest of us with. Open up your laptop, get signal, and then have to wander around trying to find out where the hell its coming from and if it's okay to use! Jesus, it'd be easier if they just provided ethernet cables.
The burden of security HAS to be on the provider of the service. Otherwise the whole system is worthless.
Re:Bandwith is not a car (Score:5, Insightful)
And when the government subpoenas me because someone on my account was browsing child porn sites?
And when the RIAA files suit against me for 'making available' copyrighted material (off of your laptop, of course)?
But if those moral blinders are working for you, hey... who am I to disagree?
Re:Gotta Remember, They're Users (Score:3, Insightful)
Not knowing how to do something doesn't give those people who do the right to look down upon that person. Then again, that's not going to change - everybody wants to feel important. Looking down upon the "computer n00bs" is just a nerd's way of feeling important.
Re:news.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you leave your front door unlocked, you're probably not standing on the porch yelling "Free house, come and get it!" and handing out name tags. If you do, then you can't turn around and claim the guests were trespassing.
If you install an unsecured Wi-Fi gateway with DHCP, the device is yelling to everyone within 100 meters "Free network, come on in" and handing out IP addresses to any takers. It is _YOUR_ responsibility for leaving it open.
The argument against locking routers down by default, is that it's too complicated for the user. Bullshit! People use locks and keys all the time for their home, car, office, filing cabinet, safe deposit box... all things of value they wouldn't want to have stolen. How is your private, personal network any different ? If you don't want people poking around your shared files and internet access, then put a freakin' lock on the thing.
I have no pity for people who fail at common sense. Just because it plugs in the wall doesn't give you an excuse to be stupid.
Re:news.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Should I be required to get consent from VA Linux before I try to access Slashdot? Of course not. So why should I be required to do it when it's my neighbour?
Re:news.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad analogy? Maybe, but if so, that's because analogies really don't work well in this case.
*Bruce Schneier recently wrote an article on just this topic--the security mindset isn't a part of most people's thinking. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/the_security_mi_1.html [schneier.com]
Re:And don't paint it just like every other car... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And why is this bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the world is slowly moving one step after the other towards a new legal concept "Guilty until proven innocent".
a lot of people don't even know... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:news.. (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not saying "come on in". It's saying "here is network X, it is not secured". You can't legally find out if it's running DHCP without being authorised to connect, so that point is moot.
In the spirit of eco-friendliness, let's try a bike analogy. If you left your bike without locking it it would be advertising its presence by bouncing photons and those photons would encode the fact that it is unsecured. That doesn't make it an open invitation to take your bike. It's not advisable to leave you bike unlocked, not because doing so is an open invitation to use it, but because there are vile people like you about who can justify their morally abhorent behaviour to themselves.
Re:news.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:news.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Good to see that the entitlement complex is still alive on this site though.
Re:news.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:news.. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, yes, you actually do have a right to see what is on the screen of every CRT in your vicinity, provided you don't break other laws(trespassing for instance) in the process.
Re:news.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even in your example, it is the seller of the home who is at fault, and the owner for not reading the manual. Not the person who accepted the invitation. Especially given the fact that Windows XP will automatically use any unsecured WiFi it can find, and its technically difficult to stop it from doing so even if you realize it's happening at all!
MY router had WEP enabled out of the box. On the bottom is a removable sticker put there by the factory. It has a copy of the serial #, the device-specific WEP key, and the device-specific default password. It came with a nice thick manual, and a single sided single page colourful "quick start" card that tells you about the sticker and how to use this WEP key in Windows or on a Mac. Every WiFi router should be this way, and should have been from the start. If you can't read this ONE card telling you how to get started, you don't get Internet. Tough break.
Re:Bandwith is not a car (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a good reason for you to lock down your router. It isn't a good reasons for me to not use it to check my e-mail.
Re:news.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If I take your wifi, you can still use it, and unless I'm downloading movies or running a server, you most likely won't notice anything different.
Trying to fix the bike analogy is an exercise in futility, but I'll try anyway. First of all, your bike isn't any ordinary bike, it's a magical, electric bike. The magic makes it so that if anyone tries to steal it, the bike instantly creates an identical copy of it for that person to have, leaving your original bike untouched. The bikes are powered by a battery that is shared amongst the bike and all its copies, but any bike that's standing still recharges the communal battery.
Now, in this case, you're (almost) no worse off if a bunch of people "steal" your bike. The only disadvantages are:
1. If a bunch of people are using your bike all the time, you'll notice your bike's battery wears out quicker (internet is slower)
2. If someone is using your bike to go up hills all the time, the same thing will happen
3. If someone commits a crime on your bike (maybe they were desperate), you may well get pinned, if they can trace the serial number and such back to you.
Oh, and if you look in the manual for your bike, or ask a friend who has the same kind of bike (since in this analogy they're pretty ubiquitous), either will help you find the button to disable this functionality, or set it up with a passcode before anyone can grab a copy, so you can let your friends and family use it.
In this scenario, I don't see a problem. I'd buy a bike, and hey, if my neighbors wanted to use it on occasion, that's fine with me, it's not hurting me any. If it starts to be problematic, I'll put a passcode on it.
I could go further - viruses and such=damage, but then you would also have an infinite free supply of Rust-Eze and new tires (virus scan and such).