Police say Benjamin Smith III, 41, used his Acer brand laptop to hack into Dinon's wireless Internet network.
Yeah, because we all know how much "hacking" is required to use wide open WiFi connections.
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.
Right now you're accessing network that you have no received permission to access. Guarenteed. How can I possibly know? Well heck, you're posting on Slashdot. The whole concept of the Internet is based around a default policy of openness. It is assumed that we have permission to access anything connected to the Internet and that assumption is only revoked by layering an authentication system on top. These people who buy a wireless router, connect it to their network, don't even bother to turn on the a
That is an interesting point that you've brought up.
It is completely opposite way of thought than how American's have previously thought about property. For example how many of you grew up and left doors unlocked to your house or car all the time. I for one never locked my car doors at home nor the front door to my house. It is your private property and you never expect anyone who wasn't welcome to break those boundries, but we have welcomed the Internet with it's complete opposite point of view.
It's like this: even if you don't lock your door, you still have a right to be mad when you walk inside and find someone eating the cookies in your kitchen. On the other hand, if you don't build a fence, you can't get mad when the neighbor walks his dog and it pees on your grass.
It's the same thing with Wifi: you have every right to be pissed off if someone tries to get stuff off of your computer, even if you're dumbass fault that they were able to. On the other hand, if someone is using your bandwidth, it
I don't think the open doors analogy is fit. What you are getting is not a property, is a service.
When using network sockets, there are well documented protocols being used.
So the client computer is basically saying to the server, or wireless router: can I connect? and the server replies: sure, go ahead
It would be the same thing if a bartender gave drinks for free because he wasn't trained in asking for money in exchange. Would the customers be liable of theft if they took advantage of this?
Or it's like this: Someone bought a wireless router to share his internet connection at home with the rest of his family, but he didn't bother to setup any security.
Then someone outside of the house connects to the wireless router to use the internet connection, without the owner of the router knowing or approving this.
No, it's actually quite easy to explain. Quick powerpoint slide show of the handshake involved. Show the secured one, and the open one. One says 'you have permission, proceed'. The other says 'you are not allowed'
Pretty simple. The process _directly_ translates to an in person conversation that everyone can easily understand.
I agree with you. The owner of the router is at fault.
Even though the poor guy only wanted to share his internet access with his family. His precious daughters and lovely wife. They're just a good ole all-american family wanting to share a healthy internet experience together while they wait for the apple pie to cool down on the window sill where Mr. Rogers, their neighbor, greets them every morning while dad drinks his coffee and read his newspaper and mom is hard at work cooking up some pancakes, eggs, a
That's a brilliant analogy! Intelligent yet succinct. I wonder if it holds up even when considering that using bandwidth might slow an internet connection, but using light spilling out onto the sidewalk doesn't darken the porch. Also, assuming unlimited broadband, the owner of the computer/access point doesn't incur a cost, but if enough people piggyback wireless, the provider will lose available bandwidth, hence money, because of it. The same can't be said of the light. It doesn't cost the electric company
actually while your splitting hairs I think your may be overlooking a few things. When the light from your porch strikes the person reading some of that light bounces back to the porch make the porch even brighter. If the light wasnt bouncing backing back towards the porch where we will place our observer you wouldn't be able to see the person reading from the porch. Assuming the goal of turning the light on was the illumnate the porch then the person reading by the sidewalk is slightly increasing effien
Theres a problem with your increased efficiency theory. If the person did choose a lower wattage lightbulb, then less light would be available at the street, thus less people would read by it. This would actually reduce the light on the porch. I think the guy should leave the light bulb alone!
It's more like sitting on the sidewalk outside someone's house at night. Their porch light is on and you're reading a book by that light.
I like your analogy, but I disagree. It is more like running a splitter and a cable and stealing your neighbors cable TV. Or running an extension cord to a backyard outlet and stealing power. Or perhaps a cordless phone. People accept that they have to pay for electricity, phone, but the internet should be free? why?
Wrong. So I have a power outlet at the front of my driveway to power lights for the front yard. It is open for anyone to use. It is my fault if someone plugs in and steals electricity?
Then what you are saying is the crime is based on intelligence. For instance. A hacker SMART enough to break in a to wireless network is a criminal, but the dumb hacker who only knows how to break in to a unsecured network is not a criminal because, hey, the network was wide open.
If I may extend your point, any crime a
but as someone else pointed out above, permission was asked of the equipment and granted. If your friend is sitting on the front lawn and i ask to use the power outlet and he says yes, am i commiting a crime? i believe it's your fault for not making it clear to your friend that he should say no.
Similarly, if your AP is happily giving access to anyone who __ASKS__ for it, it's your fault for not telling it to say no.
If the electricity were a flat-rate.. would you have such a problem with it? It's not co
the wireless connection is advertised by broadcasting the SID, then permission is granted by DHCP, the service is not metered and some places offer bandwidth for free.
This is more like - many people and companies are offering free outlets at the curb, electricity is unlimited access at a monthly fee but may pull down the voltage in your house if too much is used, you have an outlet on the curb and the person using the outlet asked permission from your daughter who said "yes". I
Then what you are saying is the crime is based on intelligence. For instance. A hacker SMART enough to break in a to wireless network is a criminal, but the dumb hacker who only knows how to break in to a unsecured network is not a criminal because, hey, the network was wide open.
I don't think intelligence or skill has anything to do with it at all. If the network is completely unsecured, I don't see how it is "hacking" or "breaking in" to connect to it. It could possibly be entering without permission,
If electricity was a flat rate and I was paying and my neighbor was not, then yes, I would have a problem with it.
Anyways, this is actually one of the more intelligent conversations I have seen around here in a few days!
But, _why_ would you have a problem with it?
Are you kidding? I don't work 70 hours a week so that my neighbor can mooch off my electricity. That is certainly not what I would call unmotivated selfishness.
My wife and I are VERY generous. That, however, does not mean I would be in favor of paying one flat rate electric bill so that my neighbor who sits on his ass all day can use my electricity.
if it was unlocked with the keys in it and you could take it in such a way that i was still able to use it at the same time and not incur any additional charge or cause me legal troubles, then sure.
if it's locked, then no.
if you don't want me using your AP given all the creiteria above, then lock it.
I like your analogy, but I disagree. It is more like running a splitter and a cable and stealing your neighbors cable TV. Or running an extension cord to a backyard outlet and stealing power. Or perhaps a cordless phone. People accept that they have to pay for electricity, phone, but the internet should be free? why?
Because I do not have to set foot on your property, or touch your property, to use your WAP, unlike tapping into your cable. Not only that, but if I am your neighbor (or even a passerby on t
I can see your points, but stepping on someones property is not the only way to commit a crime.
If someone logs on to that unsecured network and steals a paypal password and empties the bank account, can they say, "What? The network was unsecure, I thought it was my money!"
Im not saying the networks should not be secure, they should. But just because it isn't doesn't mean its free to hop on.
If someone logs on to that unsecured network and steals a paypal password and empties the bank account, can they say, "What? The network was unsecure, I thought it was my money!"
No, because they accessed an account they did not own and took money out of it. They had to enter somebody else's username, somebody else's password, and transfer money from that account into their own. I'm pretty sure somewhere on the PayPal page (probably in fine print, mind you), it mentions that accessing the accounts of o
no, because physically touching a connection is illegal and that's why police can't go around tapping everyone's phones. the fact that it is a wireless transmission is so very very important
It is more like running a splitter and a cable and stealing your neighbors cable TV.
This is a close comparison, but ignores the fact that you need to physically trespass in order to accomplish it.
Or running an extension cord to a backyard outlet and stealing power.
Again, requires physical access, but also costs the neighbour money in a higher electrical bill, so it's not the same thing.
Or perhaps a cordless phone.
Even assuming that you don't use long distance, you're depriving the owner of the service, since he can't use the phone while you do.
Some other situations might be:
Running a movie or pay per view on your big screen tv which is visible from the street. Is someone walking by who happens to see the movie stealing from you? If you set up a viewing area in your front lawn and allow people to watch it from the street, are they guilty of CI, or are you?
If you play music in your house loud enough to be heard from the street, is someone who hears it doing anything wrong? What if, instead of casually hearing it, they sit on the curb in front of your house?
The critical fact here is that the wardriver is in a public area. By broadcasting your wi-fi signal into that public area, and not blocking public access (tacitly giving permission, thusly,) I think that it can be argued that you're providing a public service.
If a satellite company beams an unencrypted signal onto my property, I believe that I'm within my rights to watch it. If they encrypt said signal, on the other hand, I do not believe that I have the right to break it.
Same thing applies here, I think. If you take no measures to ensure the security of your network, once it leaves your property, it's fair game. Because the measures required are fairly insignificant, the burden should be on the wi-fi owner to lock things down, rather than on the wi-fi user to ensure that he's not impinging on someone's network.
If a satellite company beams an unencrypted signal onto my property, I believe that I'm within my rights to watch it. If they encrypt said signal, on the other hand, I do not believe that I have the right to break it.
Same thing applies here, I think. If you take no measures to ensure the security of your network, once it leaves your property, it's fair game. Because the measures required are fairly insignificant, the burden should be on the wi-fi owner to lock things down, rather than on the wi-fi user to
If a satellite company beams an unencrypted signal onto my property, I believe that I'm within my rights to watch it. If they encrypt said signal, on the other hand, I do not believe that I have the right to break it.
That's not the same thing. The satellit company is essentially (for analogy) throwing an encrypted copy of a book into everyone's yard, and then offering to sell the decryption key. Is it really immoral if you figure out it's (say) only reverse printed and read the book in a mirror for free?
It's only like your analogy if you split the cable yourself and ran the extra end out to your neighbor for him, whether you intend them to use it or not.
As others have mentioned, the WAP gives PERMISSION to connect, unless it is configured NOT to. There is no hacking or cracking involved, which would be analogous to running a cable splitter.
And from the other side, if one finds a WAP signal, and it's open, how is one supposed to know that it's not there _for_ public use? Hmm? It gives you permission to co
It's only like your analogy if you split the cable yourself and ran the extra end out to your neighbor for him, whether you intend them to use it or not.
Well, how about this. My cable tv lines here are all above ground and run from the power poles to my house. The power poles are on a very thin strip running along our back yards. We have been told that the thin strip is not our property. Now the cable coming to my house originates right there. They could split it there.
I know...devils advocate. Bu
OK then. Neighbor would be stealing cable. Not from you however, but from the cable co.
Still entirely different from the issue at hand. Cable connections do not do authentication, whereas WAP does. If yo can successfully connect to a WAP, it has _explicitly_ given you permission. Big difference from the cable analogy.
Actually, being a wireless transmission makes all the difference. The router is allowing the person access from outside their house. The key word is allowing. Sure, the owner may not be giving the express permission to use the network, but by leaving the default settings there, they are allowing the router to give permission to anyone that wants access.
I find your cable/power analogy good, except for one thing. The person taking the bandwidth isn't doing anything to take it. It would be more along the li
It is more like running a splitter and a cable and stealing your neighbors cable TV.
Morally, I agree, it's the same thing. Legally, it's much different though, as the cable companies have convinced the government to pass laws protecting them, and cable television is usually copyrighted, whereas internet traffic may or may not be (and usually the receiver has permission to access that content).
Or running an extension cord to a backyard outlet and stealing power.
It is more like running a splitter and a cable and stealing your neighbors cable TV. Or running an extension cord to a backyard outlet and stealing power. Or perhaps a cordless phone. People accept that they have to pay for electricity, phone, but the internet should be free? why?
If you want to compare it to using someone else's power, I'd say it's more like finding a power outlet in a public place with a big label on it "For Public Use... You May Use This".
If you don't secure your wireless network,
But you don't have to enter their house or anything. It's like using a plug on the outside wall, or something. As for why the internet should be free, it's because it doesn't really cost anything. All you connect to is other people's servers. If I'm serving web pages on my system, and getting pages from other people's systems, why should any of us have to pay? The only thing that costs is the links between us, but often they're maintained for everyone by universities or similar. That's how it started anyway
I take it then that the servers hosting all these web pages cost nothing? And the power to run them is free? And the time involved in programming was all donated? And the universities print their own money to maintain the connections?
That is why it isn't free.
Besides, if you want free internet, then go the public library and use their machines. If you want the conveinence of using it at home or at work, then you pay.
You're intentionally muddying the waters by conflating free (unconstrained access) with free of charge.
How does a layperson user differentiate from the freely accessible municipal wifi and some neighbor's open wifi AP? Both are free of charge, and both are arguably unconstrained access.
Really? So no one on the net should be allowed to make money? And if they do, they should feel guilty about it?
Oh, and plenty of things are the library are free that aren't free at home. They're called books, and they are written by people called authors who usually like to get paid for their efforts.
So if you want a copy of the book at home, to keep forever, then no, it is not free. And if you want your own persistent connection to the net at home, then no, that isn't free either.
Everybody on the net should be free to do whatever they want. If you can make money, great. If you wish to secure your web site so I can't access it without paying you, that's fine. If you get grouchy with me because I access your unsecured web site without cutting you a check, you're silly.
"connection to the net at home, then no, that isn't free either"
Unless, as I pointed out earlier, there's a municipal wifi network. Or a library next door with an open AP.
Really? So no one on the net should be allowed to make money? And if they do, they should feel guilty about it?
That's not what I said at all. Of course you can make and spend money on the net, but you shouldn't assume you have to. I don't know how on earth you managed to equate "you should be able to access the net for free" with "you shouldn't be able to make money on the net".
Oh, and plenty of things are the library are free that aren't free at home. They're called books
It is more like running a splitter and a cable and stealing your neighbors cable TV. Or running an extension cord to a backyard outlet and stealing power. Or perhaps a cordless phone. People accept that they have to pay for electricity, phone, but the internet should be free?
That analogy doesn't really work either. Splitting off cable TV for a neighbor's house generally violates the cable company's ToS. Power is a metered service. Both of these also require physical tresspassing to access. The fac
I agree that the analogy is not completely accurate, but a better analogy can't be found easily.
splitter on stealing cable: direct property is damaged and interfered with and no permission was asked to use the access. Specific contract limitations on rebroadcast and usage of cable with cable company extension cord to stealing power: electricity is metered and therefore has a direct cost for usage. cordless phone: no parallel service, outside usage interupts inside usage, possible unencryption of privacy c
If the wireless network in question was secure, I could agree with what you're saying. However, it was not, and as such it took no real work on part of the person using the access point. Putting in a splitter to steal cable, or electric or water takes actual effort, whereas in this case, anyone with a PC and a WiFi card could utilize the open access point.
Ultimately, the fact that it was an open wireless connection is anything but moot, and is the heart of the issue at hand. While actually cracking WiF
Presuming beacons are on (the default, and with no other measures taken, a reasonable assumption), the WAP is broadcasting a "please connect to me" signal. The guy on the street was explicitly invited to join the network. That the owner of the WAP was too stupid to know he left a "please come in my house and eat my cookies" sign up on his door when he bought it doesn't mean it would be illegal for someone to walk in the advertised, unlocked door and eat the cookies advertised.
People accept that they have to pay for electricity, phone, but the internet should be free?
Where I live, I am charged by the utility company for the amount of electricity that I use. I am charged by the phone company for the phone calls I make. However, I am not charged by the number of bits that I transfer over my internet connection.
With the cable, you are trespassing on his property, modifying his cable hookup, possibly getting him in trouble with the cable co if discovered. He pays a fixed price for service and you are not denying him any of what he paid for unless you degrade his signal.
With the power, again you are trespassing but now you actually "stealing" because the service is metered. He pays by the kilowatt and you are making the meter spin.
Cordless phone has a problem too. He can't use his phone while you are tying up h
I'm not so sure. This is not breaking in and doing nefarious things. And the fact that it's wireless is significant - because the broadcasts are going out into the public.
In this case, the router is actualy broadcasting to the public, saying, "Hi there - I'm WAP #12345. Would you like to connect to the internet?"
The computer's broadcasting, "hi there, I'm computer #67890. I'd like to connect to the internet."
The router says, "okay - here you go".
The computer guy did not hack the router - he was act
that might be a better analogy - its like using your neighbors garden hose to water your lawn. Afterall, the tap is not locked. Likewise the cost of the 'service' is similar and you using some one day for your lawn is not likely to be noticed.
No, it's more like if your neighbour has a sprinkler going that's spraying out on to the pavement, or part of your garden, or whatever, and you move some potted plants so they catch some of the water.
After all, using the hose deprives them of the ability to use it (while you're using it), and most likely requires that you go and get it and turn the supply on; none of those things are the case in using someone else's wifi connection. (Unless you saturate their bandwidth, in which case they'd have trouble us
I agree your point of depriving the use of that particular spigot, though of course they might have one in their backyard too. I've no idea the default settings on most wifi routers for most allowed connections (mine is secured), I guess 255 is the most on Class C. But one could argue that if a large number of people picked up on the open access they could in effect deny the owner his own open port (hopefully the dope would notice before then).
As for the physical vs virtual trespass.. it is not an area I know of m
If they placed their garden hose on MY lawn, with a note on it saying: "you can use this if you want". Then I'll go ahead and use it.
Same thing with WiFi. For some reason, the default behaviour is an open network, which reaches my house and quite explicitly tels me I can use it.
If all garden hoses came by default with a sign that lets others use it and a system that puts itself on others' lawns, will you still say it's wrong to use it???
No, it's not like that at all. That involves physical access (trespassing) and theft (water, which is charged for by how much you use).
It's like having a sign over your tap that says 'You have permission to use this tap'. So you do. Then the owner comes out and says just because the sign says so doesn't mean I did.
Beating a dead horse, but, if you don't secure your WAP, you are granting permission for others to connect. Period.
that might be a better analogy - its like using your neighbors
garden hose to water your lawn. Afterall, the tap is not
locked. Likewise the cost of the 'service' is similar and you
using some one day for your lawn is not likely to be noticed.
Using the water, however, requires physical tresspassing on the property. Regardless of whether or not the tap is locked, in order to connect a hose or open the valve, the physical property must be entered. So regardless of the legality of the use of the wate
No,... it is more like walking up to the phone junction you and your neighbor share (possibly on neutral territory), hooking up your lineman's handset [wikipedia.org] to their phone line and making long distance calls.
Fair enough,.. then it is like making local calls at no additional cost. You are still preventing the occupant from making full use of his bandwidth that he paid for. You are stealing that portion of bandwidth that he paid for but can not use do to your traffic.
> Can someone please post some more analogies? Perhaps something involving a duck and a landmine.
Well, it's like this. If you were walking in a public park, and you stepped on a landmine, would it be a crime if I duck as your dismembered head flew through my personal space? Of course not.
No, it's more like the poultry farmer who slaughters his ducks by sending them walking out into the minefield he planted next to his neighbor's house. The neighbor collects the choice bits that land on his porch and gets arrested for theft.
It is more like running a business in a strip mall. If you don't lock the doors and put out a "closed" sign people will expect that they are allowed to come in.
Open doors (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, because we all know how much "hacking" is required to use wide open WiFi connections.
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:5, Insightful)
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Interesting)
It is completely opposite way of thought than how American's have previously thought about property. For example how many of you grew up and left doors unlocked to your house or car all the time. I for one never locked my car doors at home nor the front door to my house. It is your private property and you never expect anyone who wasn't welcome to break those boundries, but we have welcomed the Internet with it's complete opposite point of view.
I wond
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same thing with Wifi: you have every right to be pissed off if someone tries to get stuff off of your computer, even if you're dumbass fault that they were able to. On the other hand, if someone is using your bandwidth, it
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
What you are getting is not a property, is a service.
When using network sockets, there are well documented protocols being used.
So the client computer is basically saying to the server, or wireless router: can I connect?
and the server replies: sure, go ahead
It would be the same thing if a bartender gave drinks for free because he wasn't trained in asking for money in exchange.
Would the customers be liable of theft if they took advantage of this?
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
One could say you're using the light they paid for without their permission. On the other hand, they're letting the light spill out into public land.
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Funny)
Someone bought a wireless router to share his internet connection at home with the rest of his family, but he didn't bother to setup any security.
Then someone outside of the house connects to the wireless router to use the internet connection, without the owner of the router knowing or approving this.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
The same kinds of idiots who have no idea what WEP is will be on the jury. Talking about unsecure networks is going to sail just over their heads.
It would be just like trying to describe open source software to people who've never heard of a computer.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Pretty simple. The process _directly_ translates to an in person conversation that everyone can easily understand.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Even though the poor guy only wanted to share his internet access with his family. His precious daughters and lovely wife. They're just a good ole all-american family wanting to share a healthy internet experience together while they wait for the apple pie to cool down on the window sill where Mr. Rogers, their neighbor, greets them every morning while dad drinks his coffee and read his newspaper and mom is hard at work cooking up some pancakes, eggs, a
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Re:Open doors (Score:2, Interesting)
I like your analogy, but I disagree. It is more like running a splitter and a cable and stealing your neighbors cable TV. Or running an extension cord to a backyard outlet and stealing power. Or perhaps a cordless phone. People accept that they have to pay for electricity, phone, but the internet should be free? why?
The fact that it is a wireless transmission
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Then what you are saying is the crime is based on intelligence. For instance. A hacker SMART enough to break in a to wireless network is a criminal, but the dumb hacker who only knows how to break in to a unsecured network is not a criminal because, hey, the network was wide open.
If I may extend your point, any crime a
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Similarly, if your AP is happily giving access to anyone who __ASKS__ for it, it's your fault for not telling it to say no.
If the electricity were a flat-rate.. would you have such a problem with it? It's not co
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
the wireless connection is advertised by broadcasting the SID, then permission is granted by DHCP, the service is not metered and some places offer bandwidth for free.
This is more like - many people and companies are offering free outlets at the curb, electricity is unlimited access at a monthly fee but may pull down the voltage in your house if too much is used, you have an outlet on the curb and the person using the outlet asked permission from your daughter who said "yes". I
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
I don't think intelligence or skill has anything to do with it at all. If the network is completely unsecured, I don't see how it is "hacking" or "breaking in" to connect to it. It could possibly be entering without permission,
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Anyways, this is actually one of the more intelligent conversations I have seen around here in a few days!
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Are you kidding? I don't work 70 hours a week so that my neighbor can mooch off my electricity. That is certainly not what I would call unmotivated selfishness.
My wife and I are VERY generous. That, however, does not mean I would be in favor of paying one flat rate electric bill so that my neighbor who sits on his ass all day can use my electricity.
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
if it's locked, then no.
if you don't want me using your AP given all the creiteria above, then lock it.
FWIW, i lock my car.
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Because I do not have to set foot on your property, or touch your property, to use your WAP, unlike tapping into your cable. Not only that, but if I am your neighbor (or even a passerby on t
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
If someone logs on to that unsecured network and steals a paypal password and empties the bank account, can they say, "What? The network was unsecure, I thought it was my money!"
Im not saying the networks should not be secure, they should. But just because it isn't doesn't mean its free to hop on.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
No, because they accessed an account they did not own and took money out of it. They had to enter somebody else's username, somebody else's password, and transfer money from that account into their own. I'm pretty sure somewhere on the PayPal page (probably in fine print, mind you), it mentions that accessing the accounts of o
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Re:Open doors (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a close comparison, but ignores the fact that you need to physically trespass in order to accomplish it.
Or running an extension cord to a backyard outlet and stealing power.
Again, requires physical access, but also costs the neighbour money in a higher electrical bill, so it's not the same thing.
Or perhaps a cordless phone.
Even assuming that you don't use long distance, you're depriving the owner of the service, since he can't use the phone while you do.
Some other situations might be:
Running a movie or pay per view on your big screen tv which is visible from the street. Is someone walking by who happens to see the movie stealing from you? If you set up a viewing area in your front lawn and allow people to watch it from the street, are they guilty of CI, or are you?
If you play music in your house loud enough to be heard from the street, is someone who hears it doing anything wrong? What if, instead of casually hearing it, they sit on the curb in front of your house?
The critical fact here is that the wardriver is in a public area. By broadcasting your wi-fi signal into that public area, and not blocking public access (tacitly giving permission, thusly,) I think that it can be argued that you're providing a public service.
If a satellite company beams an unencrypted signal onto my property, I believe that I'm within my rights to watch it. If they encrypt said signal, on the other hand, I do not believe that I have the right to break it.
Same thing applies here, I think. If you take no measures to ensure the security of your network, once it leaves your property, it's fair game. Because the measures required are fairly insignificant, the burden should be on the wi-fi owner to lock things down, rather than on the wi-fi user to ensure that he's not impinging on someone's network.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Same thing applies here, I think. If you take no measures to ensure the security of your network, once it leaves your property, it's fair game. Because the measures required are fairly insignificant, the burden should be on the wi-fi owner to lock things down, rather than on the wi-fi user to
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
That's not the same thing. The satellit company is essentially (for analogy) throwing an encrypted copy of a book into everyone's yard, and then offering to sell the decryption key. Is it really immoral if you figure out it's (say) only reverse printed and read the book in a mirror for free?
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
As others have mentioned, the WAP gives PERMISSION to connect, unless it is configured NOT to. There is no hacking or cracking involved, which would be analogous to running a cable splitter.
And from the other side, if one finds a WAP signal, and it's open, how is one supposed to know that it's not there _for_ public use? Hmm? It gives you permission to co
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Well, how about this. My cable tv lines here are all above ground and run from the power poles to my house. The power poles are on a very thin strip running along our back yards. We have been told that the thin strip is not our property. Now the cable coming to my house originates right there. They could split it there.
I know...devils advocate. Bu
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Still entirely different from the issue at hand. Cable connections do not do authentication, whereas WAP does. If yo can successfully connect to a WAP, it has _explicitly_ given you permission. Big difference from the cable analogy.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
I find your cable/power analogy good, except for one thing. The person taking the bandwidth isn't doing anything to take it. It would be more along the li
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
It is more like running a splitter and a cable and stealing your neighbors cable TV.
Morally, I agree, it's the same thing. Legally, it's much different though, as the cable companies have convinced the government to pass laws protecting them, and cable television is usually copyrighted, whereas internet traffic may or may not be (and usually the receiver has permission to access that content).
Or running an extension cord to a backyard outlet and stealing power.
Using someone's power directly costs th
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
If you want to compare it to using someone else's power, I'd say it's more like finding a power outlet in a public place with a big label on it "For Public Use... You May Use This". If you don't secure your wireless network,
Re:Open doors (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
That is why it isn't free.
Besides, if you want free internet, then go the public library and use their machines. If you want the conveinence of using it at home or at work, then you pay.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
No, but I am, or should be, making my own contribution with my own server. Everyone helps out, as much or little as they want. It's a commons.
And the time involved in programming was all donated?
Well, since I'm running apache, yes.
And the universities print their own money to maintain the connections?
No, but they do it for the community, or often for the benefits to themselves. Like when IBM
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
How does a layperson user differentiate from the freely accessible municipal wifi and some neighbor's open wifi AP? Both are free of charge, and both are arguably unconstrained access.
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Oh, and plenty of things are the library are free that aren't free at home. They're called books, and they are written by people called authors who usually like to get paid for their efforts.
So if you want a copy of the book at home, to keep forever, then no, it is not free. And if you want your own persistent connection to the net at home, then no, that isn't free either.
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
"connection to the net at home, then no, that isn't free either"
Unless, as I pointed out earlier, there's a municipal wifi network. Or a library next door with an open AP.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
That's not what I said at all. Of course you can make and spend money on the net, but you shouldn't assume you have to. I don't know how on earth you managed to equate "you should be able to access the net for free" with "you shouldn't be able to make money on the net".
Oh, and plenty of things are the library are free that aren't free at home. They're called books
But you don't get to keep the
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
That analogy doesn't really work either. Splitting off cable TV for a neighbor's house generally violates the cable company's ToS. Power is a metered service. Both of these also require physical tresspassing to access. The fac
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
splitter on stealing cable: direct property is damaged and interfered with and no permission was asked to use the access. Specific contract limitations on rebroadcast and usage of cable with cable company
extension cord to stealing power: electricity is metered and therefore has a direct cost for usage.
cordless phone: no parallel service, outside usage interupts inside usage, possible unencryption of privacy c
Re:Open doors (Score:2, Insightful)
Ultimately, the fact that it was an open wireless connection is anything but moot, and is the heart of the issue at hand. While actually cracking WiF
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
With the power, again you are trespassing but now you actually "stealing" because the service is metered. He pays by the kilowatt and you are making the meter spin.
Cordless phone has a problem too. He can't use his phone while you are tying up h
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Cable and internet are not metered, so your analogy breaks down. Like most of them do.
If you're paying per kilobyte, and I use your kilobytes, yeah that's bad.
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
1) the cable from the splitter is all the way in your house
2) your computer automatically looks for a cable to connect to
3) the computer asks for permission and the splitter actually grants permission to connect
but other than that, your analogy is dead on.
Wait... so, I guess the fact that the transmission is wireless is not moot, after all.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
In this case, the router is actualy broadcasting to the public, saying, "Hi there - I'm WAP #12345. Would you like to connect to the internet?"
The computer's broadcasting, "hi there, I'm computer #67890. I'd like to connect to the internet."
The router says, "okay - here you go".
The computer guy did not hack the router - he was act
Like Stealing Water (Score:2)
garden hose to water your lawn. Afterall, the tap is not
locked. Likewise the cost of the 'service' is similar and you
using some one day for your lawn is not likely to be noticed.
Re:Like Stealing Water (Score:2)
After all, using the hose deprives them of the ability to use it (while you're using it), and most likely requires that you go and get it and turn the supply on; none of those things are the case in using someone else's wifi connection. (Unless you saturate their bandwidth, in which case they'd have trouble us
Re:Like Stealing Water (Score:2)
though of course they might have one in their backyard
too. I've no idea the default settings on most wifi routers
for most allowed connections (mine is secured), I guess 255
is the most on Class C. But one could argue that if a large
number of people picked up on the open access they could in
effect deny the owner his own open port (hopefully the dope
would notice before then).
As for the physical vs virtual trespass.. it is not an area
I know of m
Re:Like Stealing Water (Score:2)
Same thing with WiFi. For some reason, the default behaviour is an open network, which reaches my house and quite explicitly tels me I can use it.
If all garden hoses came by default with a sign that lets others use it and a system that puts itself on others' lawns, will you still say it's wrong to use it???
Re:Like Stealing Water (Score:2)
It's like having a sign over your tap that says 'You have permission to use this tap'. So you do. Then the owner comes out and says just because the sign says so doesn't mean I did.
Beating a dead horse, but, if you don't secure your WAP, you are granting permission for others to connect. Period.
Re:Like Stealing Water (Score:2)
Using the water, however, requires physical tresspassing on the property. Regardless of whether or not the tap is locked, in order to connect a hose or open the valve, the physical property must be entered. So regardless of the legality of the use of the wate
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
For that analogy to apply, the wireless trespasser's activity would need to be leading to additional charges on the part of the trespassee.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Well, it's like this. If you were walking in a public park, and you stepped on a landmine, would it be a crime if I duck as your dismembered head flew through my personal space? Of course not.
See, it's just like that.
Virg
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Re:Open doors (Score:1)