# Is using someone else's wireless network illegal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 14, 2005, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218 "2005-04-14T00:48:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Rico](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rico/32/3582_2.png) [@Rico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rico)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/61 "2005-04-14T13:28:31Z")
Here’s what a [law firm](http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:uWgWKnLlHfMJ:www.midwesttechjournal.com/modules.php%3Fname%3DNews%26file%3Darticle%26sid%3D384+stealing+wi-fi+laws&hl=en) has to say on the matter: > [@](#): > > Currently, there is no law, neither state or federal, that prohibits the interception of a Wi-Fi signal that is unencrypted. Similarly, there is not a single instance where a person in the United States has been prosecuted for simply accessing a WLAN signal. and > [@](#): > > Although no courts have directly dealt with the issue of accessing WLAN signals, others have come close. In one instance in 2004, a Los Angeles man pleaded guilty to distributing pornography spam e-mails that were sent out using other people’s Wi-Fi connections, which he accessed from inside his car. And in 2003, a man in Toronto was arrested for downloading child pornography using other people’s unsecured wireless networks. > > In both of these cases, though, individuals were prosecuted for what they did AFTER they accessed the Wi-Fi connection - - NOT for act of accessing the signal. Please understand the difference, because this is one of those great examples of how the law simply cannot change fast enough to keep up with ever-changing technology. Any questions? ---
**Author:** ![mittu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@mittu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mittu)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/62 "2005-04-14T13:39:12Z")
So are we all agreed now that it is legal as long as you don’t perform illegal acts whilst connected? The real criminals in all this are people like this guy (taken from my earlier cite > [@](#): > > Wardriver Rick Farina of Robinson says he is doing good by identifying unsecured wireless networks and, for a starting price of $75, offering to help their owners protect them. He charges a _starting_ fee of $75 to tell people how to protect their connections. Some people are always willing to profit from the ignorance of others it seems. Anyway back on subject all the posts so far seem to add up to something along the lines of: “It probably should be illegal but at present there are no specific laws relating to it and no attempt has ever been made to prosecute someone accessing a wireless connection without expressed permission.” At least that’s how I see it 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/63 "2005-04-14T13:53:05Z")
I would have to say it is as immoral as tilting a bottle, without opening it, to see if you won a prize, and as illegal as running a lemonade stand, without giving even the least share of the profits to the IRS, unless the person doing so files trades to excess. Note I said, “To excess”, and not file trading, period. That is just my opinion, how ever, and does not represent the views of The Chicago Reader™ in any way, shape or form. ---
**Author:** ![Gest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9d8465/32.png) [@Gest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gest)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/64 "2005-04-14T13:55:26Z")
> [@mittu](#): > > Anyway back on subject all the posts so far seem to add up to something along the lines of: > > “It probably should be illegal but at present there are no specific laws relating to it and no attempt has ever been made to prosecute someone accessing a wireless connection without expressed permission.” I certainly don’t think it should be illegal. If the intent is to stop people from using other’s bandwidth without explicit permission then this is better achieved, presumably in Windows, by ticking a couple of boxes and supplying a non-obvious alphanumeric password. Such a law would help _only_ those who are too lazy or ignorant to do even that whilst criminalising many people who use open networks everyday in the course of their work. For me, the whole point of it is that this is so easy to do that I now regard an open network as someone’s consent to use its bandwidth. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/65 "2005-04-14T13:59:52Z")
How do you balance my willingness to share vs. my neighbor’s unwillingness to do so when we both have exposed networks? By default if a service is present and unidentifiable, the logical assumption is that there is a wireless network available for public use. If the network name were “I’m Brecker Stingy Bastard Leave My Bandwidth Alone” then I might assume that the network isn’t supposed to be publicly available. But then I’d just laugh at this stupidness for having changed the network name without just hiding the network or securing the network in the first place. In the way of cites, I’ll point out that Toronto is mentioned above, but that Toronto isn’t in the United States yet. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/66 "2005-04-14T14:02:10Z")
Just like driving and breathalyzers – “implied consent.” ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/67 "2005-04-14T14:08:44Z")
> [@mittu](#): > > So are we all agreed now that it is legal as long as you don’t perform illegal acts whilst connected? Actually, I’d say it is illegal, and has been prosecuted in the past, but it is unlikely to be enforced unless there are more serious crimes afoot. In the linked thread, the case cited (which might not link properly anymore) involved a prosecution where the defendant did nothing but check email over an open network. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/68 "2005-04-14T14:20:54Z")
> [@Epimetheus](#): > > Sounds like this is referring to computer hacking, which is illegal. By unlocking your wireless you grant ipso facto authority. If you lock your connection, anybody entering does so illegally. Not if you leave it unlocked. What is your authority for the proposition that leaving your wireless connection unlocked grants “ipso facto” authority? In other words, if you commit this act, and I, the prosecutor, go to a magistrate and obtain a warrant for your arrest, and we go to trial, I’ll produce my evidence that shows that you (1) willfully, (2) used a computer network, (3) with intent to obtain computer services (4) without authority. To establish element 4, the owner of the wireless connection will testify that he doesn’t know you, and never gave you permission to use his network. Now it’s your turn. What authority will you point to to convince the court that you had authority? > [@](#): > > Reeder is wrong, and so are you. No, I’m not. I’ve just given you the law in question. If you believe it doesn’t apply to a network without enryption, upon what legal authority are you relying for that belief? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/69 "2005-04-14T14:21:55Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > Just like driving and breathalyzers – “implied consent.” Implied consent is created by law. The law specifically creates implaied consent for breathalyzers for drivers. What law creates implied consent in this instance? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/70 "2005-04-14T14:28:15Z")
> [@Rico](#): > > Here’s what a [law firm](http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:uWgWKnLlHfMJ:www.midwesttechjournal.com/modules.php%3Fname%3DNews%26file%3Darticle%26sid%3D384+stealing+wi-fi+laws&hl=en) has to say on the matter: That is correct. There is no law against INTERCEPTING a WiFi signal. If I wanted to eavesdrop on your surfing habits, read your e-mail as you do, or see what kind of kinky porn you are streaming from your server to your laptop, I can legally do so. That’s not the subject under discussion. The subject is using the WiFi signal to connect to the network – two-way communication. THAT is illegal. He goes on to say: > [@](#): > > Keep in mind, when information is sent over a wire, there is no question that the owner of that signal has an expectation of ownership of that information. However, with a wireless network, the owner of the information (the home-owner), is purposefully sending this information into the air with no expectation of privacy or ownership. If the person WANTS to protect the information, the theory goes, then the home-owner would encrypt or secure the data. Accordingly, a lack of encryption or security equates to an absence of an expectation of privacy. He is talking about the privacy or ownership of the information transmitted… not the use of the network by an unauthorized person. As you as you are passively receiving the WiFi signal, you’re legal. The moment you CONNECT to the router and pur data from your side on the foreign network, your conduct becomes illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/71 "2005-04-14T14:33:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Implied consent is created by law. The law specifically creates implaied consent for breathalyzers for drivers. > > What law creates implied consent in this instance? It seems clear that _is_ no statutory or case law on this matter, but I think one could argue that by leaving the SSID to the default, broadcasting the SSID and not establishing a WEP code, implied consent was granted. To use another analogy, if I don’t fence off or post “No Trespassing” signs on my backwoods, you can assume the right to pass through. (Obviously, IANAL, etc.) ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/72 "2005-04-14T14:37:30Z")
> [@Rico](#): > > Here’s what a [law firm](http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:uWgWKnLlHfMJ:www.midwesttechjournal.com/modules.php%3Fname%3DNews%26file%3Darticle%26sid%3D384+stealing+wi-fi+laws&hl=en) has to say on the matter: > > Any questions? Yes. What about the past thread, where I opined this: > [@](#): > > And I wonder in addition to that if the term “protected” will be extended to home wireless networks under the 1996 Amendments to the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). In Shurgard Storage Centers v. Safeguard Self Storage (119 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (W.D. Wash. 2000)). > > From: [http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/200...001-01-all.html](http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/200...001-01-all.html) > > > [@](#): > > > > The court noted that the 1996 amendments to the CFAA expanded the scope of the Act to cover so-called “protected computers.” As used in the Act, a “protected computer” includes any computer “which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication.” The court found that, although earlier versions of the CFAA addressed outside hackers who attacked federal interest computers, the subsequent amendments to the CFAA broadened the scope of the Act sufficiently to cover the behavior alleged in the case – namely, that of an employee who uses his employer’s computer system in a disloyal way. > > > > The judge concluded that the CFAA was “intended to control interstate computer crime, and since the advent of the Internet, almost all computer use has become interstate in nature.” The court had no difficulty in quickly concluding that Shurgard’s computers, attached to the Internet, were indeed “protected computers” within the ambit of the CFAA. > > > > **The Act makes it unlawful for any person to access a protected computer “without authorization.” That same section also forbids a person who has a legitimate and authorized right of access from “exceeding the authorized access.” If such an access “without authorization” or “in excess of authorization” results in the person’s obtaining information from the protected computer, and the conduct involves interstate or foreign communication, then a violation of the Act is established.** Is this law firm somehow unaware of the potential application of this clause? Or do they argue that it somehow does not apply? > [@Epimetheus](#): > > Sounds like this is referring to computer hacking, which is illegal. By unlocking your wireless you grant ipso facto authority. If you lock your connection, anybody entering does so illegally. Not if you leave it unlocked. That’s a very unusual thing to say. Do you have a cite for precedent of this? > [@mittu](#): > > Mike Godwin, legal director at Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C.-based technology think tank, said most consumers would not notice if a neighbor tapped into their network to surf the Web because it would not affect the speed or strength of their Internet connection. > > Godwin said it’s not illegal to utilize another person’s wireless connection, but polite neighbors might want to determine whose service they are borrowing and offer to help pay the cost of the high-speed cable or DSL Internet connection. Godwin is either a deliberate liar or an idiot because it is demonstrably false that use of any internet connection “would not affect the speed or strength of their Internet connection”. And many DSL contracts (such as mine) prohibit subleasing or sharing between houses, so Godwin appears to be advising people to violate the ToS of their ISP without being aware of the consequences. And, of course, he offers no evidence that it is legal. > [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > I would have to say it is as immoral as tilting a bottle, without opening it, to see if you won a prize, and as illegal as running a lemonade stand, without giving even the least share of the profits to the IRS, unless the person doing so files trades to excess. Note I said, “To excess”, and not file trading, period. That is just my opinion, how ever, and does not represent the views of The Chicago Reader™ in any way, shape or form. Good grief, what forum are we in? And why is an opinion with no backing, precedent, evidence, or cites worth anything on a legal question posted to the GQ forum of the SDMB? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/73 "2005-04-14T14:37:54Z")
In 2003, two men were federally prosecuted: they used an open connection owned by a Lowe’s store to check their own e-mail. No illegal activities, just checking his own e-mail through the Lowe’s network. Lowe’s became aware of the breach and contacted the FBI, who prosecuted the men for unauthorized computer access. [Story.](http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-5511068-1.html) IT IS ILLEGAL. 18 USC § 1030 \* et seq\* Federal law, and in Virginia, Va. Code § 18.2-152.6. There are LAWS AGAINST IT. IT’S ILLEGAL. THERE HAVE BENE PEOPLE ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH IT. No amount of wishing, hoping, offering poorly constructed analogies, or just being blind to the facts will change this. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/74 "2005-04-14T14:41:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not the subject under discussion. The subject is using the WiFi signal to connect to the network – two-way communication. THAT is illegal. > > He is talking about the privacy or ownership of the information transmitted… not the use of the network by an unauthorized person. As you as you are passively receiving the WiFi signal, you’re legal. The moment you CONNECT to the router and pur data from your side on the foreign network, your conduct becomes illegal. Trouble is (and despite my posts above regarding the two-way nature of the whole thing), I’m pretty sure the only way for the guy on the street to _passively_ access a WiFi signal is with one of those key fob hotspot detector things that are incapable of transmission. By the time your laptop/phone/PDA has detected a wireless network, two-way communication _will already have happened_ - even if it is just router solicitation packets etc. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/75 "2005-04-14T14:41:52Z")
> [@Dewey Finn](#): > > It seems clear that _is_ no statutory or case law on this matter, but I think one could argue that by leaving the SSID to the default, broadcasting the SSID and not establishing a WEP code, implied consent was granted. Good luck with that. I cannot imagine any court making that finding, and, in fact, the federal court that convicted Mssrs. Timmins and Botbyl did not believe there was any implied consent on the part of Lowe’s hardware, even though they left their network SSID set to default. > [@](#): > > To use another analogy, if I don’t fence off or post “No Trespassing” signs on my backwoods, you can assume the right to pass through. (Obviously, IANAL, etc.) Oddly enough, I AM A LAWYER. Your analogy is inapposite. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/76 "2005-04-14T14:43:37Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Trouble is (and despite my posts above regarding the two-way nature of the whole thing), I’m pretty sure the only way for the guy on the street to _passively_ access a WiFi signal is with one of those key fob hotspot detector things that are incapable of transmission. By the time your laptop/phone/PDA has detected a wireless network, two-way communication _will already have happened_ - even if it is just router solicitation packets etc. Correct you are. But if that’s the only thing that happens, you’re not guilty of a crime – because you fail to satisfy the “knowing and willful” element of the offense. You didn’t access the network on purpose – it just happened. But the moment you act in a knowing and willful manner, you’ve crossed the line into illegality. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/77 "2005-04-14T14:45:15Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > I would have to say it is as immoral as tilting a bottle, without opening it, to see if you won a prize, and as illegal as running a lemonade stand, without giving even the least share of the profits to the IRS, unless the person doing so files trades to excess. Note I said, “To excess”, and not file trading, period. That is just my opinion, how ever, and does not represent the views of The Chicago Reader™ in any way, shape or form. This is GQ, and is an inappropriate place for you to share your unsubstantiated opinion. MPSIMS is available for this purpose, if you are truly driven to share an opinion unbuttressed by any citation to authority. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/78 "2005-04-14T14:53:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct you are. But if that’s the only thing that happens, you’re not guilty of a crime – because you fail to satisfy the “knowing and willful” element of the offense. You didn’t access the network on purpose – it just happened. But the moment you act in a knowing and willful manner, you’ve crossed the line into illegality. Dunno, I suppose someone could probably argue that _using a device that solicits connections_ is ‘knowingly’ enough. ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/79 "2005-04-14T14:54:03Z")
Criminal law aside, there’s also a matter of contract. I don’t think your neighbor can grant you permission to use their network, implied or otherwise. If your neighbor explicitly said “Yeah, go ahead and surf the web on my wireless network, I don’t care”, I suspect they are in violation of their contract with their ISP. They are providing residential broadband for the use of your neighbor and his immediate household and guests on the premises, not granting him the right to subcontract access to the rest of the neighborhood. If this gets to be a big problem, I suspect ISPs will explicitly say that any network you hook them to has to be secured. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them already do so. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/80 "2005-04-14T15:03:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Dewey Finn](#): > > > > It seems clear that is no statutory or case law on this matter, but I think one could argue that by leaving the SSID to the default, broadcasting the SSID and not establishing a WEP code, implied consent was granted. > > Good luck with that. I cannot imagine any court making that finding, and, in fact, the federal court that convicted Mssrs. Timmins and Botbyl did not believe there was any implied consent on the part of Lowe’s hardware, even though they left their network SSID set to default. > > > [@Dewey Finn](#): > > > > To use another analogy, if I don’t fence off or post “No Trespassing” signs on my backwoods, you can assume the right to pass through. (Obviously, IANAL, etc.) > > Oddly enough, I AM A LAWYER. Your analogy is inapposite. I appreciate your comments. Perhaps the custom should be that setting the SSID to “public” gives implied or even explicit consent, while the default SSID is _never_ set to public. That way, it’s clear to all what was intended. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218.md?page=5)