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.
I've heard all about this wonderful WiFi thingamajig that Microsoft is providing that allows me to connect to my email anywhere. I bought this laptop with this wonderful WiFi and to my delight I find that it is all true. Amazing, what technology can do today.
So...does this make Microsoft/Intel abettors of the crime?
The prosecuter's office that is handling this case can be reached at 727-464-6221.
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.
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.
And if you leave your front door unlocked you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter. NOT!
Come one folks, just because you easily CAN do something doesn't mean it's ethical or right. I think that if you use somebody's network, it limits their own bandwidth, doesn't it? If not, then I'd agree it should not be illegal. But if so,
Not at all. If the network had WEP (or any other protection enabled) and the admin had handed out the password, then your keys analogy would be the same. Since there was NO protection on the network no key was handed out, or stolen, to provide access; hell there was no door for the key to go in.
Two things in the transaction could be percieved as "permission". Firstly, the access point is (presumably) periodically advertising itself to the world, inviting any nearby computers to connect. Some computers will do this automatically without prompting, as mine did when I turned it on in my new office the other day and it discovered the access point in the office next door. Secondly, once the computer had associated with the access point it sent a DHCP request onto the network. Think of this as walking up to someone's open door and yelling "Can I come in?". The DHCP server then responded "Sure, you can come in and sit in this seat!" (you can use this IP address). This is also often done unattended by a computer once it has completed the previous step.
Not only, then, is the wireless network sending out periodical invitations to everyone, but when they respond it is helping them to get connected. This guy might be able to claim "hacking" if neither of these were true, but I think in this case it's clear to me that the owner of the wireless network has the liability for sharing his Internet connection in breach of his ISP contract.
As a side note, I was taught in school that in the UK you can legally access any system which doesn't make attempts to stop you. Of course, if you then go ahead and break it or cause disruption you can be charged with damage to property and other such crimes, but just "seeing what's out there" and making use of what you find is legal, assuming what I was taught in school was correct. If this wasn't true, it would be illegal to connect to amazon.com on port 80 without prior permission; the fact that it isn't restricted implies permission to use it. If it required a password and I brute-forced the password to gain access, I would be breaking the law.
Also, it is relevant that many establishments and individuals intentionally provide free WAPs as a public service.
So, if I am parked outside Starbucks and access their network it is ok, because they intended to share it, but if I am parked on this guy's street and access his network it is a felony? How am I supposed to know the difference?
Not at all. If the network had WEP (or any other protection enabled) and the admin had handed out the password, then your keys analogy would be the same. Since there was NO protection on the network no key was handed out, or stolen, to provide access; hell there was no door for the key to go in.
Perhaps there was no door....but there was a banner out in the street that said "open doorway over here" (SSID broadcast) and a guy standing in the foyer (DHCP server) stamping hands (assigning IPs) for the keg pa
The problem with your logic is there's no way to put up a sign that says "Come on in" with WIFI. I leave my AP open so that anyone can use it, in the hopes someone returns the favor. Some nice guy has an open AP at the pool in my community, so you can 'work' from the pool. How can you differentiate between someone letting you have access to their WIFI and someone too stupid to password protect it? Answer: You can't. So it should be assumed that an open hotspot is just that: OPEN.
Some nice guy has an open AP at the pool in my community, so you can 'work' from the pool.
How do you know he lets you use it on purpose, and he's not just someone who doesn't know how to secure his connection? Did he tell you? Did you ask him?
If you can see you're neighbor's wireless router from your living room PC, how about knocking on his door and actually ask him if he's sharing his connection as a favor? I guess that would be one way to differentiate between nice people and stupid people, right?
What if I'm at a restaurant, and I leave my wallet on the table while I'm using the restroom... am I letting you have access to my credit cards or am I too stupid to conceal my wallet? How can you differentiate? You can't, so you'd just take my wallet without asking?
GODDAMMIT! How many of you people have to make these absolutely banal unlike analogies!? For this to be the same, your wallet would have to somehow be broadcasting that it is there and available, and would have to somehow have to be actively
The analogy is an open wallet on a restaurant table. I'd say that's pretty open. It does broadcast that it's open, using visible light. The "fucking thing is offering free money!!!!!" The point is that the user did not intend it to be open, but it is.
I thought the post about asking the owner was a good idea. If you can't ask the owner, how about assuming that since it is not yours, you can't mess with it? How is that unreasonable?
I thought the post about asking the owner was a good idea.
Are you even reading these posts? You do ask the owner....it's called a "DHCP request" for a reason. You ask it for an IP, and if it gives you one, it has authorized you to be on the network. Come on now...this is really simple.
The analogy is an open wallet on a restaurant table. I'd say that's pretty open. It does broadcast that it's open, using visible light. The "fucking thing is offering free money!!!!!" The point is that the user did not intend it to be open, but it is.
Just one more time, this is not the same. The "broadcasting using visible light" business is horseshit; that broadcast is more analogous to how an AP still unintentionally announces its presence even if it isn't broadcasting the SSID. The difference is in on
How about taking some responsibility for your own equipment for once in your life, rather than pressing criminal charges when someone uses your AP for exactly what the AP was advertising?
If the grandparent ever has his wallet stolen, he'll have it coming. Leaving something like that out in the open to be stolen *IS* stupid. It's phenominally stupid. If he left a sign saying "free wallet" out with it, as is the case with ssid, it'd be even stupider.
What if I'm at a restaurant, and I leave my wallet on the table while I'm using the restroom... am I letting you have access to my credit cards or am I too stupid to conceal my wallet? How can you differentiate? You can't, so you'd just take my wallet without asking?
There's a very big difference between leaving your AP open and leaving your wallet on the table, er those who take up the opportunity. Using an open AP you're not denying the owner the ability to use it as well nor are you increasing their
Don't turn it into that sort of arguement. This isn't an ethical or moral arguement and doesn't have to be.
The AP is providing access, advertising it's presence, and allowing anyone with a wifi card to connect to it (something that every wifi device will do automatically).
This is a device giving implicit and explicit authorization, meaning that this charge is completely wrong. Calling it hacking is the same as saying that clicking on the link to the story above is hacking.
Calling it hacking is the same as saying that clicking on the link to the story above is hacking.
In no way is this hacking. I get on people and media often about thier use of the words "hack" and "hacker". Most people when they use the word hacker most of the tyme really mean cracker or script kiddie. If they must use hacker then say "black hat hacker" or some such as these people don't follow the
hacker ethic [fiu.edu] . If it weren't for hackers we wouldn't have computers on our desktops or sitting in our
It's maleable, but it's neither hacking nor cracking. It's hardware and software working exactly as it's designed to without any action on the part of the user. Drive by a house, you're connected to the internet. In a way, that's actually less than clicking the link, because you have to willfully click the link. In this case, all you have to do is open your web browser and start surfing.
If you have a sign that says "Wallet here!", just like an ssid, then yes, you are leaving your wallet to be taken. If you put the sign up and you don't think it means someone will try to take your wallet, you are stupid.
That's the critical distinction here -- we're not talking about someone leaving their bike on their front lawn, we're talking about someone leaving their bike on their lawn with a sign saying "free bike".
This isn't even a matter of just securing a connection, it's a matter of telling a con
The problem with your logic is there's no way to put up a sign that says "Come on in" with WIFI.
Actually, there is. It's called broadcasting your SSID, using no authentication, and offering DHCP leases without restriction. That combination quite literally invites everyone onto the network.
I ask my clients if they want to provide open access or not.
I explain the risks and if they still want to provide open access, I tell them to change the SSID to somthing inviteing like
Short_use_ok
Otherwise you should ask if possible before use.
Many laptops will auto connect to any wireless network automatically. You can make it illegal to ship laptops to consumers configured this way, but how an accedental connection can be illegal is beyond me.
Please note that the home owner was deliberately sharing
No... I don't think that simply because someone else uses your unsecure, open wi-fi network, the mere fact that they temporarily "limited your bandwidth" constitutes "stealing" on their part.
Most consumer broadband services don't guarantee you a specific amount of bandwidth to begin with! They tell you "rates of up to X" speed. In the case of DSL service, Customer A who is lucky enough to live a few houses down from the central office probably gets as much as 2 or 3x the bandwidth for his money as Custom
But he was served an ip over DHCP, which is basically like sitting outside saying "HEY can I come in and have a seat?" And you replying "Yes, sit in that seat there"
No, but if someone buys a TV, puts it on their sidewalk, and turns it on, they shouldn't be suprised if a few bums come and watch it.
Sure, I have gripes against spammers using my bandwidth, but I have absolutely no sympathy for people complaining that spammers are abusing their open relay.
he can claim ignorance like the lady who burned herself on McDonald's coffee and got a million in settlement. Microsoft only tells you that you need to click OK to join an unsecured wireless network, not that you might be breaking laws by joining said unsecured network.
Who they should really sue is the person who left the network unsecured as it is they who agreed to some ULA saying they couldn't share the connection.
The suit will go nowhere unless they berate him into a settlement...
he can claim ignorance like the lady who burned herself on McDonald's coffee and got a million in settlement.
You mean the lady who had 3rd degree burns over a significant portion of her body, requiring tens of thousands of dollars of medical care, *only* because McDonalds knowingly served coffee at a temperature which violated local health retrictions, despite repeated warnings. That lady? Who only sued after McDonalds refused to pay her medical expenses after injuring her through willful and deliberat
Yeah, it's the rape victim's fault for dressing like that, she had it coming! An open door is *not* an invitation, no matter how much you might want what's inside.
Is this where I insert a reference to the Nazis/Hitler?
radio waves are broadcast ad hoc for hundreds of feet. there IS no comparison to an "open door".
they are going after the wrong person.
If my chordless phone picks up a neighbor's phone conversation, it is not my fault if I am able to hear it or even use their handset to connect to someone else's base and make phone calls. Wireless is inherently insecure and we all run a risk when using it.
The bottom line is that when you sign up for any internet connectivity, you are agreeing to abide by a ULA. If thei
Not true re: phones. You can listen in on wireless conversations, but you can't act on information you obtain or use other peoples' wireless equipment. At least, these are the laws that apply to ham radio ops, who are more than capable of listening in on things.
The hosts need to be more clear about not providing access to third parties and explicit about the danger of unsecured wireless access points. (This usually isn't made clear by, say, your average ISP.) I'd say the same goes for wireless access point
Just because your neighbor lacks the technical ability to prevent you from listening in on his phone calls is not a license to eavesdrop on his conversations! Why do you believe you have the right to do anything you have the power to do? So much evil has been done throught history with this rationalization, it saddens me to hear it from geeks who would never condone taking something by physical force just because they were physically stong.
I'm not saying its morally right, I am saying it shouldn't be legally wrong. Now today, we find out Florida has made war driving illegal. Does that mean I can go inside a Panera to get free wireless, but I can't do so from outside in my car?
Don't take someone's bandwidth without asking. Why is this even a little complicated?
Should it be legally wrong for me to take $1 from your wallet because I'm physically stronger? Should it be legally wrong to use a fraction of your badwidth because I'm technically stronger? Why should there be a difference?
First, good points on the McDonald's case. I hate it when people start bitching about that one. She had 3rd degree burns on her fucking vagina for christ's sake. And it was 4 million if I remember right, which is a perfectly reasonable amount of punitive damages when the defendant is as huge as McDonald's and thus won't be punished by a smaller verdict.
However, then you slip into pure ignorance with this:
Yeah, it's the rape victim's fault for dressing like that, she had it coming! An open door is *not* a
Yes, this thread is just full of self-serving analogies.;)
I'm only considering the case here where the WAP is clearly not being offered as a service to the community by an apartment complex or business or some such.
In the case of stealing your neighbor's bandwidth, you know full well the owner of the unsecured WAP had no intention of letting random strangers use his network, he was simply incompetent in securing it. Just because technically the router is handing out addresses is *no* reson to assume the
I'm only considering the case here where the WAP is clearly not being offered as a service to the community by an apartment complex or business or some such.
You've already screwed up. This is not possible to determine in many cases, and thus is an unreasonable basis for judgement.
In the case of stealing your neighbor's bandwidth, you know full well the owner of the unsecured WAP had no intention of letting random strangers use his network, he was simply incompetent in securing it.
My point is that you have no reason to assume anything about an unsecured access point, except that it is a network resource which is there and publicly available.
You can't asusme anything about an unchained bicycle except it's there and publically availble?
Don't take other people's stuff without asking. This is so amazingly simple. If you don't know who to ask, don't take it. Nothing could be more clear.
The only invitation that matters is the intention of a person. A DHCP lease is *no* reason to a
You are being intentionally stupid. Is your unchained bicycle sitting there with a sign on it that says "this bicycle was left here as a public service, feel free to ride it."?
If the only invitation that matters is that of a person, then we have to stop using the Internet. The Internet (and all computer networks) is entirely based on the idea that we can configure devices to control access for us automatically. If we just take that away and allow people to simply say "that's not how I meant to have my acce
We would have to first evaluate the wishes of every owner of every network resource.
Seriously. Say I put up a redhat 8 box, which default installs with apache. And then you go to my server on port 80. Is that unauthorized access?
Why is that a problem? The wishes of the owner of almost every network resource is already documented explicitly by contracts and agreements. And just because you're *able* to get to a resource on the internet doesn't make it *legal* to access, even today, though the exceptions
Is your redhat 8 box on the internet? If it's not intentionally connected to a public network, but instead connected to a private network that I'm not invited on to, then yes it's a problem if I attempt access.
If it's on a public network, then you give pretty clear permission for me to access it...
Yes. The redhat box is on the public Internet. Just exactly 100% like the AP in this situation was attached to the public Internet. That's pretty much exactly my point; thanks for making it for me. Installin
So why do we have firewalls? You're saying that making a connection between some portion of your home LAN and the internet is granting access to all of your machines to everyone on the internet, right? Or perhaps you'd prefer visitors to stick to the content that you're serving, instead of the content they might have the technical prowess to access.
Look, if your parked in front of some strangers house, and he's asking you to leave, it's *not hard* to determine his intentions. You can insist all you want
Or perhaps you'd prefer visitors to stick to the content that you're serving, instead of the content they might have the technical prowess to access.
Right. Precisely. That's what I've been saying all along; it's not ok to break into things...using someone's weak password, cracking wep, or even probably assigning yourself a static IP on their wifi. But it is ok to make normal requests for network access using standard protocols, and if their server answers in the affirmative, it's ok to use the resources
It seemed clear to me that the actual circumstances in TFA were a homeowner and a cop conspiring to find any way to get rid of a stranger parked in front of his house. The whole tech aspect of it was incedental. If you've ever been a homeowner working with a friendly police officer to get rid of a prowler (one who's not doing anything blatently illegal), you'll know that if the cops decide you're a Good Guy, they'll try every crazy law they can think of to remove the Bad Guy.
Please be quiet if you don't know what you're talking about. It just makes you look like an ignorant fucktard.
From Stella Awards (stellaawards.com):
"# Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup. # Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation,
Nope. Sadly, you ignorant fucktard, you made the mistake of making it sound, like an ignorant fucktard, like there's nothing McDonalds could have done. 85 degrees celcius is not fit for human consumption. Far from chastity belts being the only possible way this could have been prevented, a modest drop in the storage temperature could have prevented the lawsuit.
Sadly, I'm going to have to stop arguing with you, since you're an ignorant fucktard, and basic logic doesn't actually function correctly for you.
Yeah, it's the rape victim's fault for dressing like that, she had it coming! An open door is *not* an invitation, no matter how much you might want what's inside.
A door is the barrier between a public space and a private space. A wireless broadcast that crosses into public spaces, or even someone else's private space, can hardly be compared to walking through an open door to trespass on private property.
And comparing this to rape! Holy cow. You are using people's emotions to spur illogical conclusio
Yeah, it's the rape victim's fault for dressing like that, she had it coming! An open door is *not* an invitation, no matter how much you might want what's inside.
Open APs have no password, which could be considered roughly equivalent to the arorementioned girl wearing no clothes to prevent someone from gaining access to her.
Open APs broadcast their SSID, which is a lot like the theoretical girl walking around periodically yelling "anybody! fuck me! I'm easy!"
All she asked for was compensation, but she deserved more. This wasn't merely negligence, where McDonalds unknowingly put someone at risk. This was gross/willful negligence, where McDonalds *deliberately* changed the risk to the customer from minor burns into 3rd degree burns in order to save a few cents, knowing full well what the risk was.
Customers at a business are entiteled to a reasonable expectation of safety. That doesn't mean spill-proof coffee - no reasonable person expects that. It means food
"And if you leave your front door unlocked you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter. NOT!"
This is more like leaving your front door wide open and handing out floor plans to people passing by on the street, any reasonable person would assume that you wanted them to go inside.. and I think that is all that needs to be proven in court... what a reasonable person would be expected to think...
But I don't think that's what I reasonable person would think. Perhaps a reasonable and well informed person. But the general public doesn't know anything about wireless security. They simply know to "plug and play" and when they do they leave the environment open. Does that mean that they want and expect anyone other than themselves to use that network? I don't think so. I just think they're ignorant.
Personally, I think the guy knew he was doing something wrong when he tried to hide what he was doin
Is Ford to blame when your car dies a horrible death because you were ignorant about how your car worked and never bothered to change the oil?
Ignorance is no excuse, and it DEFINITELY isn't an admissable legal OFFENSIVE. If it's that important to you that it'd turn into a court case, then it's important enough for you to learn how to lock up your access point.
I'm not suggesting that the wifi provider should be the one to blame. I'm suggesting that the guy who was snooping around some other guys house knew that he was doing something wrong and that he should have been arrested.
People around here seem to think that if you leave your wifi open that you're intentionally inviting someone to connect to it. Ok, if this guy thought that he was invited to join the wifi network, he wouldn't have run when someone came to ask what he was doing. In exactly the same way t
Well, then maybe it's the manufacturers fault for the defaults being so open? I'm normally not one for "lets sue the corporations" on a whim or percieved insult, but this does seem like almost blatant neglect. Although I haven't actually set up a wireless router myself, I do know how easy it is to connect to one that's not secured. And setting up security is really not much harder. It should actually be kinda of a pain to make it unsecured, at the very least clicking through a bunch of "setting this opt
This is more like leaving your front door wide open and handing out floor plans to people passing by on the street, any reasonable person would assume that you wanted them to go inside.
I think, to take it further, it would be if the developer in your city left the front door open with a sign out front having the floor plan. Or even a lock on the door and the code on the sign.
Of course, everyone moving in will take the sign down and shut and lock the door. Who wouldn't? That's cause everyone knows ho
Ignorance is no excuse. The fact that you don't want to learn how to maintain the network you've set up does not allow you to legally attack people who use the advertised service.
It may be polite to ask first, but the AP implicitly and explicitly authorizes network access, meaning that this is NOT illegal.
If this IS illegal, that means that anything digital turns into the sort of laws I'd expect from a woman. "I know I told you it was ok to connect, but you should have known what I really meant was that i
"This is more like leaving your front door wide open and handing out floor plans to people passing by on the street, any reasonable person would assume that you wanted them to go inside.. and I think that is all that needs to be proven in court... what a reasonable person would be expected to think..."
No, it's more like expecting people to stay the hell off your lawn even though you didn't put up a fence or a no trespassing sign. Just because the technology invited you does not mean the user of the technol
And if you leave your front door unlocked you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter. NOT!
I don't know about the ethics of the crime itself, but most insurance companies have clauses saying if you fail to lock your doors on house or car they aren't liable to damages or loss because of theft.
And if you leave your front door unlocked you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter. NOT!
Uhh, our analogies need some work. For one thing, the "resource" in question was available off the property of the "victim".
That said, I'd like to respectfully suggest that this is less like eating a pie that the homeowner left cooling on the sidewalk, and more like collecting water that is running into the gutter since the homeowner left his hose on.
If you knock on the door and someone GRANTS YOU ACCESS (let's you in) then what?
I am tired of the "open front door" comment everyone that doesn't understand how DHCP works tries to use for an excuse for being too stupid to lock down their wireless.
DHCP - you ask for a IP and it gives you one and also gives you a valid DNS and gateway address and then you are on. How's that for GRANTING ACCESS?
I know people who set their SSID and then expect people to use it, and say they don't care since they don't use a
That's a terrible metaphor. You know how I first discovered what turned into war driving? My friend and I were at an OS X demo. When it was over we went out to his car, he opened his powerbook to make some notes, and "OMG, what's this?? I'm online??" It was a complete ACCIDENT. If my Grandmother can accidentally stumble onto her neighbor's "illegally shared" internet then there is something seriously wrong.
It's not like walking into somebody's house, it's more like opening your bedroom window so you can listen to your neighbor's XM radio. You're not paying for that XM... you're stealing by listening to it without your neighbor knowing. Sure, you can't change the channel just like you can't reconfigure their router settings, but you ARE leeching.... whatever. It's absurd. It's asinine. It's not stealing if people are offering it, let alone broadcasting it out with an SSID beacon, and it shouldnt' be illegal if Apple and Microsoft are setting us up for these "illegal" activities by making their OS auto-connect to open networks. Am I the only one who's found himself accidentally using his neighbors signal instead of his own? It's not stealing if I go to my friends house to watch DVD's he rented or bought. It's not stealing when I flip through the channels on his TV even when he's not home. I do agree that saturating your neighbor's pipe is out of line, and using it without their knowledge might be a bit shady, but illegal? That's ridiculous. If they don't want you on their net then they should turn on WEP. If the internet companies don't want you sharing your pipe then they should charge by megabyte.
There is a key difference between listening to your neighbor's XM and using your neighbors Wi-Fi: Listening ot the XM is passive, and using the Wi-Fi is active.
Listening to your neighbor's XM is akin to listening to all the packets transmitted on your neighbor's wireless network. But your analogy breaks down when YOU transmit onto their network. It's a similar problem with the analogies about people watchingthe big TV or listening to their neighbor's music from the sidewalk outside: In both cases, the
If you want to further the metaphor, your neighbor having their window open is akin to them disabling WEP, allowing interference to come in, such as the sound of the trash truck on Friday morning, or any loud noise you happen to choose to make. If they close their window/network they are effectively guarding against those interferences, allowing them to experience their service in private.
No, it's not. Sound interference coming into their room doesn't propogate up the cable connection, using the open WiFi to get to the internet does.
The best analogy to going in an open access point is using a universal remote to change the channel on your neighbor's TV. Just because their cable box will allow any universal remote to communicate with it doesn't mean it's OK for you to use it.
Leeching your neighbors internet causes disruption of their internet service just as noise from outside causes disruption of their XM listening experience. In both cases they can still continue doing their thing, be it listening to XM or surfing the web, but they have to do it with the added noise of your actions. In both cases you are disrupting the placidity of their paid-for service.
So, in the XM scene, the neighbor can close the window and reclaim a peace
There's a pretty good chance you CAN reconfigure their router. If they're not smart enough to enable WEP or WPA, what makes you think they'd have a router password?
One of my neighbors was interferring with my connection because they used the same channel. So I connect to their network and suprise! 192.168.1.1 was the router, and 'admin' was the password.
I took the liberty of changing their channel. I doubt they even noticed any difference.
There's another problem here as well: Even if we assume that by leaving the Wi-Fi open your neighbor has given you permission to use their network, the cable company definitely hasn't given you permission to use their network.
If I connect to a wireless network, I am not connecting to the upstream bandwidth directly. I am connecting to a private network that has chosen to multiplex a number of computers onto a single connection. The decision to re-broadcast the signal from the ISP is entirely up to the o
Granted, they probably assume I'm only going to share it with members of my household, but if we're paying for the bandwidth, how can they dictate whether we share it with friends, neighbors, pets or strangers?
You no doubt agreed to some kind of terms of service when you signed up for your internet service, somewhere in most such agreements is some kind of provision that prevents you from reselling the internet connection or undercutting them by providing the same service for free to anyone who happens
Am I the only one who's found himself accidentally using his neighbors signal instead of his own?
Windows XP will detect the networks automatically, but it won't connect without an action by the user. Granted, once you've connected to a particular AP the first time, it assumes you want to connect to it later on.
That's assuming you're running XP SP 1 with patches applied or are running XP SP 2. Luckily everybody patches their system once a week, keeping up on all the latest trends in MS's implementations of various functionality. Luckily they're all that computer savvy and trust MS that much. Seriously, they do.
However, what about people who configured Zeroconfig so that it would connect to untrusted networks automatically (because they're sick of Mom calling them up asking for tech support or something)? And
Windows XP will detect the networks automatically, but it won't connect without an action by the user. Granted, once you've connected to a particular AP the first time, it assumes you want to connect to it later on.
You only need to connect to SSID "Netgear" the first time at your n00b friend's house. After that, your laptop will automatically connect to every other n00b's default configured WAP. Most people who don't turn on encryption also don't know how to change their SSID.
Yes, APs with identical SSIDs and security configurations look like the same AP.
This adds another dimension to the situation, and another analogy, imperfect as all in this discussion are:
Imagine someone coming upon a house that has the exact same design, coloration, address, and open door as that person's friend's house, one block over. Is it deliberate trespassing if they unknowingly enter the identical-looking house when they had explicitly been granted access to their friends house?
Yes, APs with identical SSIDs and security configurations look like the same AP.
This adds another dimension to the situation, and another analogy, imperfect as all in this discussion are:
Imagine someone coming upon a house that has the exact same design, coloration, address, and open door as that person's friend's house, one block over. Is it deliberate trespassing if they unknowingly enter the identical-looking house when they had explicitly been granted access to their friends house?
Of course, I said they were flawed, but perhaps not as deeply as you seem to think.
(a) If I was in the wrong house, the absebce of my friend or the presence of the stranger would clue me in that I was in the wrong place. (b) Didn't notice until I went to print something and found I was on network "MSHOME". Fixed problem by changing the SSID's for my friends, but if I hadn't tried to print, I would never have even noticed.
Word! I ran into a bit of trouble with Honeywell once upon a time, because I was working in an office that was right next to a Honeywell satellite office, and one of the Honeywell employees set up an unauthorized access point, wide open.
I discovered this access point when I brought my iBook in to work; Mac OS X automatically connected to the access point as soon as I woke the laptop from sleep. Once I realized it was a Honeywell access point, I continued using it because I thought they had set it up as a
If you want to do analogies. It's more like putting a sign on your door saying "Please make yourself at home, the door is open". DHCP is an active protocol that responds to requests with either a rejection or acceptance. It's NOTHING like a door lock, dhcp doesn't prevent you from using a network. It just makes it easier to configure yourself to the network.
How will we tell intentionally open wireless networks from those networks that are mistakenly left wide open if people aren't willing to enable DHCP o
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.
And if you leave your front door unlocked you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter. NOT!
Perhaps not. But what the parent said was more like a system that swings the door open whenever someone rings the doorbell. I think one could argue that opening the door, not leaving it open but opening it wide open and stepping aside when s
And if you leave your front door unlocked you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter. NOT!
Sorry, but this analogy doesn't even begin to hold water. Closer would be:
And if you leave your front door standing open with a sign on it saying "please come in, party inside" and signs all the way down your block saying "party this way, door open, come on in." you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter.
And I'd agree with that. Don't forget, these broadcasts are public. They aren't limited t
It's a bad analogy. The guy wasn't going 'in' to a physical property. In that sense, it's much like someone running an ethernet cable out of their house, into the street, and connecting a large hub to it. And when they walk outside and see passersby plugging into it, they are shocked!, shocked!, that internet browsing is going on here.
This bill provides that the owner of a wireless computer network shall be responsible for securing such network and that negligent or otherwise inadvertent access to a wireless computer network shall constitute an affirmative
I called to make exactly this point and was routed between several operators. They gave me this address to write to:
State Attorney
PO Box 5028
Clearwater, FL 33758
Although it might be a good idea to call 727-464-6221 and mention that you'd like to write regarding the case yourself. If they keep getting calls about the issue it might get a little attention. Regardless, I'm writing a letter today.
The prosecuter's office that is handling this case can be reached at 727-464-6221.
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.
Actually, this time John C. makes sense. Should I get arressted, just because some hundred (possibly bad) decisions made by other people (AP owners and OS developers) make my machine connect to open AP's actively and automatically?
(As I use GNU/Linux, this doesn't happen that easily, but you get the drift for all those proprietary OS owners).
Pasco County Of,Pinella County of, State Attorney's Office, Clearwater - (727) 464-6221 - , Clearwater, FL 33755 - Google Maps 14250 49th St N, Clearwater, FL 33762 - (the number seems to be to a central switchboard for a bunch of offices - so if you call know who you are calling. - oh. Bernie McCabe handles both counties. Post Office Box 5028, Clearwater, Florida 34618 Telephone (813) XXX-XXXX Bernie McCabe Firm: State of Florida, State Attorney's Office, 6th Judicial Circ
"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."
Your can't use an analogy to prove intent. Yes, the technology granted the person access, but that doesn't mean the user meant to grant access. A key grants access to an automobile, but finding someone's key doesn't enter his house.
but that doesn't mean the user meant to grant access
Ignorance is no excuse for the law.
User A = wardriver
User B = inept technology-loving consumer
B wants wireless access, so he sets up a wireless access point. He uses the out-of-the-box configuration, including the default hostname, ssid, and control panel password, i.e. no encryption, no MAC filtering, no protections at all.
A drives up looking for points. His computer sends out the DHCP_REQUEST. B's router responds with a DHCP_OFFER and A's
I agree. But the reporter (whose number is at the bottom of the article) didn't know who the defense lawyer was except to say he was a public defender. Obviously, that suggests shoddy reporting, but more importantly, it makes the prosecutor's office the most reasonable place to try to get that number. I've since called the reporter back to try to get the case number, but got voicemail and haven't received a return call.
In any case, despite my agreement that the defense lawyer should be made aware, you clea
Please specify whether you are a lawyer or not next time. You have to. We depend on the law advice on slashdot; you know that. That's the only way some of us know what's legal or not. If you preface your statement with IANAL, I know you're some idiot with as much knowledge of the law as the packing material I just threw away. If you instead qualify your statement with IAAL, I'll listen to your legal advice, quietly cuss you out for being a snake with no morals, and go about my day (hopefully more informed t
Please specify whether you are a lawyer or not next time. You have to.
Actually, I don't have to.
We depend on the law advice on slashdot; you know that.
Sorry to hear that. Very naive of you. Even if someone tells you that he/she is a lawyer, and gives you advice on slashdot, it is no substitute for hiring one.
If you preface your statement with IANAL, I know you're some idiot with as much knowledge of the law as the packing material I just threw away.
What a charmer you are. I'm sure your online buddies just admire the heck out of you. It's always fun responding to a humorous response with a snarly "Fuck off" statement of your own. It was all in fun. So glad you understood that and responded in kind.
What a charmer you are. I'm sure your online buddies just admire the heck out of you. It's always fun responding to a humorous response with a snarly "Fuck off" statement of your own. It was all in fun. So glad you understood that and responded in kind.
I think perhaps the problem was that the joke was not particularly humorous. Subtle absurdity is vary difficult to pull off.
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, Funny)
Re:Open doors (Score:0)
I've heard all about this wonderful WiFi thingamajig that Microsoft is providing that allows me to connect to my email anywhere. I bought this laptop with this wonderful WiFi and to my delight I find that it is all true. Amazing, what technology can do today.
So...does this make Microsoft/Intel abettors of the crime?
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.
Re:Open doors (Score:2, Insightful)
And if you leave your front door unlocked you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter. NOT!
Come one folks, just because you easily CAN do something doesn't mean it's ethical or right. I think that if you use somebody's network, it limits their own bandwidth, doesn't it? If not, then I'd agree it should not be illegal. But if so,
More like keys. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:More like keys. (Score:1)
Re:More like keys. (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things in the transaction could be percieved as "permission". Firstly, the access point is (presumably) periodically advertising itself to the world, inviting any nearby computers to connect. Some computers will do this automatically without prompting, as mine did when I turned it on in my new office the other day and it discovered the access point in the office next door. Secondly, once the computer had associated with the access point it sent a DHCP request onto the network. Think of this as walking up to someone's open door and yelling "Can I come in?". The DHCP server then responded "Sure, you can come in and sit in this seat!" (you can use this IP address). This is also often done unattended by a computer once it has completed the previous step.
Not only, then, is the wireless network sending out periodical invitations to everyone, but when they respond it is helping them to get connected. This guy might be able to claim "hacking" if neither of these were true, but I think in this case it's clear to me that the owner of the wireless network has the liability for sharing his Internet connection in breach of his ISP contract.
As a side note, I was taught in school that in the UK you can legally access any system which doesn't make attempts to stop you. Of course, if you then go ahead and break it or cause disruption you can be charged with damage to property and other such crimes, but just "seeing what's out there" and making use of what you find is legal, assuming what I was taught in school was correct. If this wasn't true, it would be illegal to connect to amazon.com on port 80 without prior permission; the fact that it isn't restricted implies permission to use it. If it required a password and I brute-forced the password to gain access, I would be breaking the law.
Re:More like keys. (Score:2)
Also, it is relevant that many establishments and individuals intentionally provide free WAPs as a public service.
So, if I am parked outside Starbucks and access their network it is ok, because they intended to share it, but if I am parked on this guy's street and access his network it is a felony? How am I supposed to know the difference?
Re:More like keys. (Score:2)
Not at all. If the network had WEP (or any other protection enabled) and the admin had handed out the password, then your keys analogy would be the same. Since there was NO protection on the network no key was handed out, or stolen, to provide access; hell there was no door for the key to go in.
Perhaps there was no door....but there was a banner out in the street that said "open doorway over here" (SSID broadcast) and a guy standing in the foyer (DHCP server) stamping hands (assigning IPs) for the keg pa
Re:Open doors (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
How do you know he lets you use it on purpose, and he's not just someone who doesn't know how to secure his connection? Did he tell you? Did you ask him?
If you can see you're neighbor's wireless router from your living room PC, how about knocking on his door and actually ask him if he's sharing his connection as a favor? I guess that would be one way to differentiate between nice people and stupid people, right?
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
What if I'm at a restaurant, and I leave my wallet on the table while I'm using the restroom... am I letting you have access to my credit cards or am I too stupid to conceal my wallet? How can you differentiate? You can't, so you'd just take my wallet without asking?
GODDAMMIT! How many of you people have to make these absolutely banal unlike analogies!? For this to be the same, your wallet would have to somehow be broadcasting that it is there and available, and would have to somehow have to be actively
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
I thought the post about asking the owner was a good idea. If you can't ask the owner, how about assuming that since it is not yours, you can't mess with it? How is that unreasonable?
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
I thought the post about asking the owner was a good idea.
Are you even reading these posts? You do ask the owner....it's called a "DHCP request" for a reason. You ask it for an IP, and if it gives you one, it has authorized you to be on the network. Come on now...this is really simple.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
The analogy is an open wallet on a restaurant table. I'd say that's pretty open. It does broadcast that it's open, using visible light. The "fucking thing is offering free money!!!!!" The point is that the user did not intend it to be open, but it is.
Just one more time, this is not the same. The "broadcasting using visible light" business is horseshit; that broadcast is more analogous to how an AP still unintentionally announces its presence even if it isn't broadcasting the SSID. The difference is in on
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
How about taking some responsibility for your own equipment for once in your life, rather than pressing criminal charges when someone uses your AP for exactly what the AP was advertising?
If the grandparent ever has his wallet stolen, he'll have it coming. Leaving something like that out in the open to be stolen *IS* stupid. It's phenominally stupid. If he left a sign saying "free wallet" out with it, as is the case with ssid, it'd be even stupider.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
What if I'm at a restaurant, and I leave my wallet on the table while I'm using the restroom... am I letting you have access to my credit cards or am I too stupid to conceal my wallet? How can you differentiate? You can't, so you'd just take my wallet without asking?
There's a very big difference between leaving your AP open and leaving your wallet on the table, er those who take up the opportunity. Using an open AP you're not denying the owner the ability to use it as well nor are you increasing their
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
The AP is providing access, advertising it's presence, and allowing anyone with a wifi card to connect to it (something that every wifi device will do automatically).
This is a device giving implicit and explicit authorization, meaning that this charge is completely wrong. Calling it hacking is the same as saying that clicking on the link to the story above is hacking.
hacking (Score:2)
Calling it hacking is the same as saying that clicking on the link to the story above is hacking.
In no way is this hacking. I get on people and media often about thier use of the words "hack" and "hacker". Most people when they use the word hacker most of the tyme really mean cracker or script kiddie. If they must use hacker then say "black hat hacker" or some such as these people don't follow the hacker ethic [fiu.edu] . If it weren't for hackers we wouldn't have computers on our desktops or sitting in our
Re:hacking (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
That's the critical distinction here -- we're not talking about someone leaving their bike on their front lawn, we're talking about someone leaving their bike on their lawn with a sign saying "free bike".
This isn't even a matter of just securing a connection, it's a matter of telling a con
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
The problem with your logic is there's no way to put up a sign that says "Come on in" with WIFI.
Actually, there is. It's called broadcasting your SSID, using no authentication, and offering DHCP leases without restriction. That combination quite literally invites everyone onto the network.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
I explain the risks and if they still want to provide open access, I tell them to change the SSID to somthing inviteing like
Short_use_ok
Otherwise you should ask if possible before use.
Many laptops will auto connect to any wireless network automatically. You can make it illegal to ship laptops to consumers configured this way, but how an accedental connection can be illegal is beyond me.
Please note that the home owner was deliberately sharing
RE: legality of using open wi-fi (Score:3, Insightful)
Most consumer broadband services don't guarantee you a specific amount of bandwidth to begin with! They tell you "rates of up to X" speed. In the case of DSL service, Customer A who is lucky enough to live a few houses down from the central office probably gets as much as 2 or 3x the bandwidth for his money as Custom
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Re:Open doors (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, I have gripes against spammers using my bandwidth, but I have absolutely no sympathy for people complaining that spammers are abusing their open relay.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Who they should really sue is the person who left the network unsecured as it is they who agreed to some ULA saying they couldn't share the connection.
The suit will go nowhere unless they berate him into a settlement...
Re:Open doors (Score:2, Troll)
You mean the lady who had 3rd degree burns over a significant portion of her body, requiring tens of thousands of dollars of medical care, *only* because McDonalds knowingly served coffee at a temperature which violated local health retrictions, despite repeated warnings. That lady? Who only sued after McDonalds refused to pay her medical expenses after injuring her through willful and deliberat
Godwin... (Score:1, Insightful)
Is this where I insert a reference to the Nazis/Hitler?
Re:Godwin... (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
they are going after the wrong person.
If my chordless phone picks up a neighbor's phone conversation, it is not my fault if I am able to hear it or even use their handset to connect to someone else's base and make phone calls. Wireless is inherently insecure and we all run a risk when using it.
The bottom line is that when you sign up for any internet connectivity, you are agreeing to abide by a ULA. If thei
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
The hosts need to be more clear about not providing access to third parties and explicit about the danger of unsecured wireless access points. (This usually isn't made clear by, say, your average ISP.) I'd say the same goes for wireless access point
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Should it be legally wrong for me to take $1 from your wallet because I'm physically stronger? Should it be legally wrong to use a fraction of your badwidth because I'm technically stronger? Why should there be a difference?
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
You keep making analogies that don't really apply.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
First, good points on the McDonald's case. I hate it when people start bitching about that one. She had 3rd degree burns on her fucking vagina for christ's sake. And it was 4 million if I remember right, which is a perfectly reasonable amount of punitive damages when the defendant is as huge as McDonald's and thus won't be punished by a smaller verdict.
However, then you slip into pure ignorance with this:
Yeah, it's the rape victim's fault for dressing like that, she had it coming! An open door is *not* a
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
I'm only considering the case here where the WAP is clearly not being offered as a service to the community by an apartment complex or business or some such.
In the case of stealing your neighbor's bandwidth, you know full well the owner of the unsecured WAP had no intention of letting random strangers use his network, he was simply incompetent in securing it. Just because technically the router is handing out addresses is *no* reson to assume the
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
I'm only considering the case here where the WAP is clearly not being offered as a service to the community by an apartment complex or business or some such.
You've already screwed up. This is not possible to determine in many cases, and thus is an unreasonable basis for judgement.
In the case of stealing your neighbor's bandwidth, you know full well the owner of the unsecured WAP had no intention of letting random strangers use his network, he was simply incompetent in securing it.
Oh yeah? I've got an
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
You can't asusme anything about an unchained bicycle except it's there and publically availble?
Don't take other people's stuff without asking. This is so amazingly simple. If you don't know who to ask, don't take it. Nothing could be more clear.
The only invitation that matters is the intention of a person. A DHCP lease is *no* reason to a
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
If the only invitation that matters is that of a person, then we have to stop using the Internet. The Internet (and all computer networks) is entirely based on the idea that we can configure devices to control access for us automatically. If we just take that away and allow people to simply say "that's not how I meant to have my acce
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Seriously. Say I put up a redhat 8 box, which default installs with apache. And then you go to my server on port 80. Is that unauthorized access?
Why is that a problem? The wishes of the owner of almost every network resource is already documented explicitly by contracts and agreements. And just because you're *able* to get to a resource on the internet doesn't make it *legal* to access, even today, though the exceptions
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Is your redhat 8 box on the internet? If it's not intentionally connected to a public network, but instead connected to a private network that I'm not invited on to, then yes it's a problem if I attempt access.
If it's on a public network, then you give pretty clear permission for me to access it...
Yes. The redhat box is on the public Internet. Just exactly 100% like the AP in this situation was attached to the public Internet. That's pretty much exactly my point; thanks for making it for me. Installin
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Look, if your parked in front of some strangers house, and he's asking you to leave, it's *not hard* to determine his intentions. You can insist all you want
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Or perhaps you'd prefer visitors to stick to the content that you're serving, instead of the content they might have the technical prowess to access.
Right. Precisely. That's what I've been saying all along; it's not ok to break into things...using someone's weak password, cracking wep, or even probably assigning yourself a static IP on their wifi. But it is ok to make normal requests for network access using standard protocols, and if their server answers in the affirmative, it's ok to use the resources
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:The Vagina Coffelogues (Score:2)
From Stella Awards (stellaawards.com):
"# Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup.
# Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation,
Re:From the Stella Awards (Score:2)
Sadly, I'm going to have to stop arguing with you, since you're an ignorant fucktard, and basic logic doesn't actually function correctly for you.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
A door is the barrier between a public space and a private space. A wireless broadcast that crosses into public spaces, or even someone else's private space, can hardly be compared to walking through an open door to trespass on private property.
And comparing this to rape! Holy cow. You are using people's emotions to spur illogical conclusio
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Open APs have no password, which could be considered roughly equivalent to the arorementioned girl wearing no clothes to prevent someone from gaining access to her.
Open APs broadcast their SSID, which is a lot like the theoretical girl walking around periodically yelling "anybody! fuck me! I'm easy!"
To top it all off, most open APs also assi
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Not making her a lucky winner of the legal lottery.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Customers at a business are entiteled to a reasonable expectation of safety. That doesn't mean spill-proof coffee - no reasonable person expects that. It means food
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:4, Insightful)
This is more like leaving your front door wide open and handing out floor plans to people passing by on the street, any reasonable person would assume that you wanted them to go inside.. and I think that is all that needs to be proven in court... what a reasonable person would be expected to think...
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Personally, I think the guy knew he was doing something wrong when he tried to hide what he was doin
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Ignorance is no excuse, and it DEFINITELY isn't an admissable legal OFFENSIVE. If it's that important to you that it'd turn into a court case, then it's important enough for you to learn how to lock up your access point.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
People around here seem to think that if you leave your wifi open that you're intentionally inviting someone to connect to it. Ok, if this guy thought that he was invited to join the wifi network, he wouldn't have run when someone came to ask what he was doing. In exactly the same way t
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re: Open doors (Score:3, Insightful)
I think, to take it further, it would be if the developer in your city left the front door open with a sign out front having the floor plan. Or even a lock on the door and the code on the sign.
Of course, everyone moving in will take the sign down and shut and lock the door. Who wouldn't? That's cause everyone knows ho
Re: Open doors (Score:2)
Re: Open doors (Score:2)
It may be polite to ask first, but the AP implicitly and explicitly authorizes network access, meaning that this is NOT illegal.
If this IS illegal, that means that anything digital turns into the sort of laws I'd expect from a woman. "I know I told you it was ok to connect, but you should have known what I really meant was that i
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
No, it's more like expecting people to stay the hell off your lawn even though you didn't put up a fence or a no trespassing sign. Just because the technology invited you does not mean the user of the technol
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
I don't know about the ethics of the crime itself, but most insurance companies have clauses saying if you fail to lock your doors on house or car they aren't liable to damages or loss because of theft.
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Uhh, our analogies need some work. For one thing, the "resource" in question was available off the property of the "victim".
That said, I'd like to respectfully suggest that this is less like eating a pie that the homeowner left cooling on the sidewalk, and more like collecting water that is running into the gutter since the homeowner left his hose on.
Ok, maybe my analogies still need some work too.
Re:Open doors (Score:2, Insightful)
I am tired of the "open front door" comment everyone that doesn't understand how DHCP works tries to use for an excuse for being too stupid to lock down their wireless.
DHCP - you ask for a IP and it gives you one and also gives you a valid DNS and gateway address and then you are on. How's that for GRANTING ACCESS?
I know people who set their SSID and then expect people to use it, and say they don't care since they don't use a
Ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like walking into somebody's house, it's more like opening your bedroom window so you can listen to your neighbor's XM radio. You're not paying for that XM... you're stealing by listening to it without your neighbor knowing. Sure, you can't change the channel just like you can't reconfigure their router settings, but you ARE leeching.... whatever. It's absurd. It's asinine. It's not stealing if people are offering it, let alone broadcasting it out with an SSID beacon, and it shouldnt' be illegal if Apple and Microsoft are setting us up for these "illegal" activities by making their OS auto-connect to open networks. Am I the only one who's found himself accidentally using his neighbors signal instead of his own? It's not stealing if I go to my friends house to watch DVD's he rented or bought. It's not stealing when I flip through the channels on his TV even when he's not home. I do agree that saturating your neighbor's pipe is out of line, and using it without their knowledge might be a bit shady, but illegal? That's ridiculous. If they don't want you on their net then they should turn on WEP. If the internet companies don't want you sharing your pipe then they should charge by megabyte.
It's nothing like listening to your neihbor's XM. (Score:2)
Listening to your neighbor's XM is akin to listening to all the packets transmitted on your neighbor's wireless network. But your analogy breaks down when YOU transmit onto their network. It's a similar problem with the analogies about people watchingthe big TV or listening to their neighbor's music from the sidewalk outside: In both cases, the
No WEP == Open Window (Score:2)
Re:No WEP == Open Window (Score:2)
The best analogy to going in an open access point is using a universal remote to change the channel on your neighbor's TV. Just because their cable box will allow any universal remote to communicate with it doesn't mean it's OK for you to use it.
Re:No WEP == Open Window (Score:2)
Leeching your neighbors internet causes disruption of their internet service just as noise from outside causes disruption of their XM listening experience. In both cases they can still continue doing their thing, be it listening to XM or surfing the web, but they have to do it with the added noise of your actions. In both cases you are disrupting the placidity of their paid-for service.
So, in the XM scene, the neighbor can close the window and reclaim a peace
Re:It's nothing like listening to your neihbor's X (Score:2)
One of my neighbors was interferring with my connection because they used the same channel. So I connect to their network and suprise! 192.168.1.1 was the router, and 'admin' was the password.
I took the liberty of changing their channel. I doubt they even noticed any difference.
Re:It's nothing like listening to your neihbor's X (Score:2)
If I connect to a wireless network, I am not connecting to the upstream bandwidth directly. I am connecting to a private network that has chosen to multiplex a number of computers onto a single connection. The decision to re-broadcast the signal from the ISP is entirely up to the o
Re:It's nothing like listening to your neihbor's X (Score:2)
You no doubt agreed to some kind of terms of service when you signed up for your internet service, somewhere in most such agreements is some kind of provision that prevents you from reselling the internet connection or undercutting them by providing the same service for free to anyone who happens
Re:Ridiculous... (Score:2)
Windows XP will detect the networks automatically, but it won't connect without an action by the user. Granted, once you've connected to a particular AP the first time, it assumes you want to connect to it later on.
Ease of Interoperability (Score:3, Insightful)
However, what about people who configured Zeroconfig so that it would connect to untrusted networks automatically (because they're sick of Mom calling them up asking for tech support or something)? And
Re:Ridiculous... (Score:2)
You only need to connect to SSID "Netgear" the first time at your n00b friend's house. After that, your laptop will automatically connect to every other n00b's default configured WAP. Most people who don't turn on encryption also don't know how to change their SSID.
Re:Ridiculous... (Score:2)
This adds another dimension to the situation, and another analogy, imperfect as all in this discussion are:
Imagine someone coming upon a house that has the exact same design, coloration, address, and open door as that person's friend's house, one block over. Is it deliberate trespassing if they unknowingly enter the identical-looking house when they had explicitly been granted access to their friends house?
Re:Ridiculous... (Score:3, Interesting)
These house ana
Re:Ridiculous... (Score:2)
Of course, I said they were flawed, but perhaps not as deeply as you seem to think.
(a) If I was in the wrong house, the absebce of my friend or the presence of the stranger would clue me in that I was in the wrong place.
(b) Didn't notice until I went to print something and found I was on network "MSHOME". Fixed problem by changing the SSID's for my friends, but if I hadn't tried to print, I would never have even noticed.
(a) and (b) don't appear to be significantly diff
Re:Ridiculous... (Score:2)
I discovered this access point when I brought my iBook in to work; Mac OS X automatically connected to the access point as soon as I woke the laptop from sleep. Once I realized it was a Honeywell access point, I continued using it because I thought they had set it up as a
How can we help this guy?!? (Score:2)
What can we do to help him and get the charges dropped? Is the Electronic Freedom Foundation sending a lawyer to help him?
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
How will we tell intentionally open wireless networks from those networks that are mistakenly left wide open if people aren't willing to enable DHCP o
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Perhaps not. But what the parent said was more like a system that swings the door open whenever someone rings the doorbell. I think one could argue that opening the door, not leaving it open but opening it wide open and stepping aside when s
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
And if you leave your front door unlocked you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter. NOT!
Sorry, but this analogy doesn't even begin to hold water. Closer would be:
And if you leave your front door standing open with a sign on it saying "please come in, party inside" and signs all the way down your block saying "party this way, door open, come on in." you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter.
And I'd agree with that. Don't forget, these broadcasts are public. They aren't limited t
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
It's a bad analogy. The guy wasn't going 'in' to a physical property. In that sense, it's much like someone running an ethernet cable out of their house, into the street, and connecting a large hub to it. And when they walk outside and see passersby plugging into it, they are shocked!, shocked!, that internet browsing is going on here.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
By not having a No Trespassing sign they are allowing you to enter their property.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2003/ H B0495.html [state.nh.us]
This bill provides that the owner of a wireless computer network shall be responsible for securing such network and that negligent or otherwise inadvertent access to a wireless computer network shall constitute an affirmative
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
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.
John C. Dvorak wrote a column about that some time ago.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1565274,00.as p [pcmag.com]
(QUOTE)
Personal and Corporate Responsibility
Let me jump in and propose a simple, logical public policy. Law enforcement doesn't need to get i
Re:Open doors (Score:1)
(As I use GNU/Linux, this doesn't happen that easily, but you get the drift for all those proprietary OS owners).
Re: venge of the smith (Score:1)
Pasco County Of,Pinella County of, State Attorney's Office, Clearwater - (727) 464-6221 - , Clearwater, FL 33755 - Google Maps 14250 49th St N, Clearwater, FL 33762 - (the number seems to be to a central switchboard for a bunch of offices - so if you call know who you are calling. - oh. Bernie McCabe handles both counties.
Post Office Box 5028, Clearwater, Florida 34618 Telephone (813) XXX-XXXX
Bernie McCabe
Firm: State of Florida, State Attorney's Office, 6th Judicial Circ
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Your can't use an analogy to prove intent. Yes, the technology granted the person access, but that doesn't mean the user meant to grant access. A key grants access to an automobile, but finding someone's key doesn't enter his house.
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Ignorance is no excuse for the law. User A = wardriver User B = inept technology-loving consumer B wants wireless access, so he sets up a wireless access point. He uses the out-of-the-box configuration, including the default hostname, ssid, and control panel password, i.e. no encryption, no MAC filtering, no protections at all. A drives up looking for points. His computer sends out the DHCP_REQUEST. B's router responds with a DHCP_OFFER and A's
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
In any case, despite my agreement that the defense lawyer should be made aware, you clea
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Please specify whether you are a lawyer or not next time. You have to. We depend on the law advice on slashdot; you know that. That's the only way some of us know what's legal or not. If you preface your statement with IANAL, I know you're some idiot with as much knowledge of the law as the packing material I just threw away. If you instead qualify your statement with IAAL, I'll listen to your legal advice, quietly cuss you out for being a snake with no morals, and go about my day (hopefully more informed t
Re:Open doors (Score:2, Insightful)
Please specify whether you are a lawyer or not next time. You have to.
Actually, I don't have to.
We depend on the law advice on slashdot; you know that.
Sorry to hear that. Very naive of you. Even if someone tells you that he/she is a lawyer, and gives you advice on slashdot, it is no substitute for hiring one.
If you preface your statement with IANAL, I know you're some idiot with as much knowledge of the law as the packing material I just threw away.
Then you don't "know" much.
If you instead qual
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
Re:Open doors (Score:2)
I think perhaps the problem was that the joke was not particularly humorous. Subtle absurdity is vary difficult to pull off.