Confessions of a Wi-Fi Thief 849
Michelle Shildkret from Time wrote in to tell us about a story about "the ethics of stealing Wi-Fi. Many of us been guilty of the same crime at one point or another — according to the article, 53% of us at least. But how guilty do we really feel? As it is officially a crime to steal wi-fi (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47 of the United States Code, which covers anybody who 'intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access')."
Re:Not a thief - depends (Score:5, Informative)
It depends from country to country:
Ahh.. the logic of law.
Does the law really say this? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-.html
In addition to "intention" there seems also to be a requirement for damage or fraud, or revealing atomic secrets. I don't think it is obvious that using a wi-fi router based on a DHCP reply is improper under the law, although the syntax of the law is complex. Walking up the front walk of a home to ring the doorbell isn't necessarily trespassing, even without permission.
Re:sure, we understand that... (Score:3, Informative)
In Germany, you are a thief (Score:2, Informative)
The DHCP package you take as an invitation was interpreted by the court as a telecommunication message not intended for the recipient and thus illegal to read.
Kismet found 150+ networks in my apartment complex (Score:1, Informative)
- a former CISSP but still a white hat hacker.
Re:Not a thief (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not a thief (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not a thief (Score:3, Informative)
The taking of the stuff is where the analogy breaks down.
Re:If this was wikipedia... (Score:3, Informative)
I have a limited supply of cakes, if I put up a sign saying free cake, then I get home and find there is no cake left for me, I can't cry that they all stole the cake. I foolishly gave away my cake. If the sign reads 'Private cake: only for eating by Oktober and his housemates' and it is locked inside a cage, then that would be a different situation. Claiming I didn't know how to configure my cake sign and I just left it with the default 'free cake' message makes no difference,
Re:Not a thief (Score:5, Informative)
There is a door, in that if you don't have an IP on that WAP for whatever reason, then it's not going to pass traffic with you. Once you associate with it and get a DHCP lease, that door's wide open.
Re:Not a thief (Score:4, Informative)
A door doesn't, it merely opens, after which you still haven't been offered, granted, requested or acknowledged permission to enter the house.
Mod Parent Down. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not a thief (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If this was wikipedia... (Score:3, Informative)
Just as I would see a difference between finding a book and finding a book saying 'Free Book'. If I was on my university campus and saw an unlabeled book left on a bench I would take it to lost property. If I saw a book saying 'free book', I might take it if it looked like it might be good.
The cage around the cake is not important, the sign is the important part. If I came upon a cake with a sign saying 'Anyone may eat this cake' or with a button saying press here if you wish to eat this cake, and pressing the button gave the message 'You may eat this cake, here is your cake eating number' then I would feel it is ok for me to eat the cake. If the sign said 'Only Bob McMonkey may eat this cake' or a button to press which then asked 'are you Bob Mcmonkey?' y/n, it would be clear that taking the cake and eating it would be wrong, and telling the sign that I was Bob McMonkey would be wrong too, even though it would be easy to do.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not a thief (Score:4, Informative)