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')."
Officially a crime? (Score:3, Interesting)
Authorization (Score:5, Interesting)
Open routers have a policy of allowing authorization by default. As such, using an open router is not illegal under this act. If you have to crack anything, then it is illegal. But a simple open router is no different than an open anonymous FTP site, web server, irc server, etc.
This story is stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
So the only way a person *knows* it's not intended to be a public network is by having someone complain about it after the fact. Lots of people leave their WiFi open at home as a "public service".
It's different to intentionally circumvent protections that are in place, like WEP or restriction by MAC address. That's prying open a locked door so to speak.
Sometimes I think these article summaries are intentionally worded to get slashdotters cranked up. Okay, it worked on me.
Not at all? (Score:3, Interesting)
Although I think the answer to that depends on how much (and how) we use it, I'd say that most people don't feel at all guilty about using any convenient access point for short, low-bandwidth activities.
If I need directions while out and about, I'll find an open AP and pull up Google Maps. No guilt whatsoever, and I wouldn't mind if someone used my AP for the same; In fact, I'd consider this one of the greatest side-effects of ubiquitous open WAPs, the ability to share a small trickle of a resource I never need all to myself (and to use it when I similarly need that small trickle of data).
Now, regularly using a neighbor's wireless to avoid needing to pay for your own ISP (unless you have an agreement to split the cost - Of course, the ISPs hate this, but I see no ethical problem with it) or downloading kiddie porn or sucking a large portion of the available bandwidth... That gets into abusive territory, and such people should feel guilty.
Blame Windows (Score:5, Interesting)
The power went off in my house the other day - and nobody noticed. The four or five laptops in use all silently switched over to a neighbour's network. I can't see that being considered a crime.
plenty of us just give it away... (Score:2, Interesting)
If this was wikipedia... (Score:3, Interesting)
If this was wikipedia, "stealing" in this context would be a weasel word...
If a router is handing out IPs, how is that stealing?
Unless we are talking wpa/wep encryption cracking, or possibly abusing the connection, I don't see what the problem is.
Crime (Score:3, Interesting)
Some people actually do live outside the US. This may come as a surprise to you, be we even have electricity and computers.
Also, in many places, the law is quite a bit more reasonable. Where I live, it is only illegal to access a system when a reasonable effort has been made to protect it (so an open access point doesn't count), and even then, they have to prove you intentionally did that.
Not at all, but... (Score:1, Interesting)
My point? If the technology isn't there to reliably and consistently allow internet access which is *being paid for* then I see no reason why we shouldn't piggyback off someone else until the problem is solved. Redundancy and all (isn't that how the Intertubules are designed anyway)
On the other hand, if we all did that and piggybacked, obviously it would be a problem.
"Stealing" isn't the right word. (Score:3, Interesting)
At some point, I think society would be better served by everyone leaving all of their access points open. I love the idea of mesh networks and eliminating the need for everyone to have a wired connection to the internet.
The fault is the tech (Score:3, Interesting)
If I want to share my WiFi it isn't easy to make it known of my wishes and my terms and conditions - after all, though I share it, I might say I log access, (mac addresses, urls etc) just in case someone does something illegal, so that if the cops come, I could throw them that bone to chew on, instead of them chewing on me.
If it were well thought out, it would be easy to have secure encrypted _anonymous_ connections:
1) no need for people to enter a password to get encryption
2) people cannot see each other's traffic - snooping is possible in some encryption modes, for example if everyone knows the WEP key, they can figure out each other's traffic, so you'd need some WPA mode, but these require username and passwords, you could give everyone the same username and password, but there's no standard for Windows, Linux, Mac to try "anonymous" usernames and passwords ala anonymous ftp.
And also there would be a standard way to get info about a wifi zone, and to prompt the user if the info/T&C changes, say when you computer connects to a different AP.
So the tech still needs a fair bit of work.
Lets Be Reasonable... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This can be argued, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Double that for access points in commercial places. You can argue (and I would disagree) that residential WLANs are meant to be private, but I would say that a business's hotspot is exactly as open as their front door. If it's unlocked and there's a sign saying "OPEN", then it's meant for me to use.
Re:Argh... (Score:1, Interesting)
(front door of a flat) without being invited in is legally trespassing. So if someone forget to close their door, we are still not supposed to enter.
I don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see what's the drama with open access. I leave my AP open on purpose, with an essid starting with "free_" to reinforce the idea, and a simple QOS setup to give me priority over my neighbors. I can't even notice when they're using the net, and I counted more than 10 different MAC addresses so far. More people using the net == good. It's not like I need all my bandwidth 24/7...
in b4 "but pedophiles will get you jailed, think of the children!!" -- I'm no more responsible for that than the hot dog vendor in the corner would be if ninja terrorists employed his hot dogs as lethal weapons.
oh boy (Score:3, Interesting)
i don't feel guilty at all and don't you dare start with the "two wrongs don't make a right" crap.
Re:Blame Windows (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not a thief (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, if you use an open network, you only use bandwidth temporarily. If you leave the network, the bandwidth will still be there. So it's more like entering an unlocked house to take a sip from the faucet. The only crime committed is that you didn't pay for bottled water.
Stop misusing the word "stealing" (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're going to cast "unauthorized use" in terms of robbery, then don't cry about how your rights are being taken away when you get prosecuted as a robber for making use of something that someone else couldn't be bothered to secure properly.
the US Gov does it (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Not a thief (Score:4, Interesting)
By contrast, the purpose of a router is to ALLOW access. Only the encryption routines and MAC filtering are there to filter that access.
Re:Not a thief (Score:5, Interesting)
Correct. Burglary is the act of breaking AND entering AND committing theft (logical AND; all three must happen). Theft is the intention to permanently deprive someone of physical property. Since accessing open WiFi does not involve depriving someone of physical property (neither permanent nor temporary), it is neither theft nor burglary.
Fraud covers many crimes such as obtaining goods or services through deception. Since there was no deception, there was no fraud.
A door does not reply with a message granting me access; the fact that it is open, closed, locked, unlocked, slightly ajar or otherwise is legally irrelevant - the important thing with burglary is that you had to break something to gain entry and then take something without permission, with no intention of giving it back.
An open WiFi router does specifically reply with a message granting me permission. The fact that it uses a particular protocol or particular encryption is legally irrelevent - the important thing is that it replied back with a message specifically granting me permission. Users are authorised.
(Declaration of interest: I run a deliberately open WiFi hotspot [framptoncottages.com] - albeit heavily firewalled and bandwidth-throttled. )
You can't use a laptop in a car? (Score:2, Interesting)
My laptop has an internal EVDO Rev A card that has become my primary mode of connecting to the net outside of my home. I've only had it for a month or so. I use this laptop in cars or other public spaces all the time. It seems unlikely that I'd be able to convince a police officer that I do in fact own the connection that I'm using to surf in a parking lot. It's an easy assumption to make that anyone using a laptop out in the open is likely using a nearby 802.11 network.
So, assuming the cop doesn't believe me, how is the fine given out? If I'm spotted, does the cop write me a ticket? Does he arrest me? Do I have to go to court and prove that I am, in fact, using a connection for which I've paid?
Hopefully there's more to that story than the article lets on. Hopefully showing the officer the "TELUS" logo on my connection app would be convincing enough. Otherwise, it seems like this sort of thing is very guilty-until-proven-innocent.
School Analogy (Score:2, Interesting)
Case 1: A university has a large sign out front broadcasting it's name and anyone can enter the campus. There are places you should know you shouldn't go on campus unless you are a student or teacher, and things you know you shouldn't do.
This is analogous to having a router with SSID broadcasting that assigns IPs to anyone automatically and gives them unrestricted internet access. You shouldn't access their computers or start printing stuff on their network printer. It's still assumed that you should use the router for legal purposes and it's polite not to kill it with bittorrent.
Case 2: A public school in a rural neighborhood has a sign out front, but you need to go to the front desk and get a nametag if you aren't a student. You need to state your purpose and leave when you're done. It would be trivially easy to go in a side door, but that would get you in trouble.
This is analogous to a cafe with a sign that says "Free wifi for customers." Sure you COULD access it out in the parking lot, but the legality of it is much more in the gray area, and it's possible they could attempt to bring charges.
Case 3: A private school in an urban area has no sign, and a large gate out front. You aren't allowed anywhere on campus without permission.
This is analogous to a wifi network with no SSID broadcasting and wep encryption enabled. It is clear that this network was not meant for your use.
Re:Not a thief (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose you bought a used car lot, but not to sell the cars, just to have a nice inventory onhand for your friends and family who live nearby. You want to make it easy and convenient, so you get all the cars rekeyed so the same key will operate them all. You want to announce this service and distribute the keys, but it's too much trouble to look up each person's mailing address. So you get 1000 copies of the key made and bulk-mail them to everyone in the zip code, addressed to "Occupant", with an invitation that says "Feel free to borrow one of my cars!"
Naturally, you assume that only the friends and family you intended will use the cars. Imagine your surprise when you see strangers borrowing the cars!
Is this bad? Well, it's not doing anyone any harm... as long as you have enough cars left over for your friends and family too... as long as the strangers don't run over pedestrians with your cars and get the cops on your ass... as long as the local car rental company doesn't find out and come break your kees for stealing their business... Hmm, all in all, maybe it'd be safer to give the keys out only to selected individuals!
Re:Not a thief (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not a thief (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed (Score:3, Interesting)