# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/81 "2005-04-14T15:07:17Z")
> [@Dewey Finn](#): > > 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. I think **yabob** might have a good point… From my ISP’s T&Cs in the UK: > [@](#): > > 11.5 When we provide you with the Service, it, and any associated software, it is intended for your use only. **Therefore, you must not re-sell, transfer, assign or sub-license the Service (or any part of it) or the associated software to anyone else.** IANAL but that would appear to suggest that I am unable to give consent (implied or otherwise) to a third party, particularly an unknown third party, to use my connection. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/82 "2005-04-14T15:08:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@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. **Bricker** : I was the first one to rasie the analogy between this situation and squatting (post #28), but no one has directly addressed that point. Can you explain why you think it’s “inapposite”? ---
**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, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/83 "2005-04-14T15:14:20Z")
Leaving aside the fact that at the time of my last post, this discussion appeared to have turned into an indeed technically incorrectly placed discussion of ethics, I would not trust you if you said the sky was blue, despite the fact that you appear to be entirely correct. However: > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. I REALLY WISH YOU WOULD STOP YELLING! Also, I believe the discussion of whether a thing should be legal, while not actually the question on hand, seems appropriate to the question of actual persecution, and arrests thereof, which seems implicit in the OP. ---
**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, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/84 "2005-04-14T15:19:26Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > **Bricker** : I was the first one to rasie the analogy between this situation and squatting (post #28), but no one has directly addressed that point. Can you explain why you think it’s “inapposite”? Because the right of passage through land, and implied easement, is a matter of common - and sometimes statutory law. That is, you have a general right to walk up someone’s sidewalk and ring the doorbell, even if you were not given explicit authority to enter their private property, as a matter of common law. Common law does not address access to computer networks. Of course, you may say, “I think the law SHOULD be written to conform to an analogy of land use.” As a useful model, I agree it has some value. I may equally well say, “I think the law should conform to a personal property model - you can’t use someone else’s car, even if the doors are unlocked and the key is in the ignition.” Right now, the law does not conform to your land use analogy. You are welcome to petition your legislators for change. But your analogy is inapposite because the state of the law, right now, treats computer networks like your car, not your land, in requiring permission before use. ---
**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, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/85 "2005-04-14T15:21:02Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > Leaving aside the fact that at the time of my last post, this discussion appeared to have turned into an indeed technically incorrectly placed discussion of ethics, I would not trust you if you said the sky was blue, despite the fact that you appear to be entirely correct. However: I REALLY WISH YOU WOULD STOP YELLING! Also, I believe the discussion of whether a thing should be legal, while not actually the question on hand, seems appropriate to the question of actual persecution, and arrests thereof, which seems implicit in the OP. And such a discussion would undoubtedly flourish in GD, or the Pit, or MPSIMS. In a forum devoted to factual answers to factual questions, however, it is not appropriate. ---
**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, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/86 "2005-04-14T15:22:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. As a lawyer, than surely you know that this argument is pure bullplop, at least as you write it. I can be charged with kidnapping the friggin’ queen of England, but that doesn’t make me guilty. _What was the outcome_, for crying out loud? ---
**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, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/87 "2005-04-14T15:28:50Z")
Boy, Bricker, you love to repeat yourself almost as much as I do. Your last post was pointless, for it simply repeats what I said in the very quote you ummm…quoted. See how the first section I bolded states the same point you are making when you keep harping on the word **inappropriate**? > [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > Leaving aside the fact that at the time of my last post, **this discussion appeared to have turned into an indeed technically incorrectly placed discussion of ethics,** I would not trust you if you said the sky was blue, despite the fact that you appear to be entirely correct. However: I REALLY WISH YOU WOULD STOP YELLING! Also, **I believe the discussion of whether a thing should be legal, while not actually the question on hand, seems appropriate to the question of actual persecution, and arrests thereof, which seems implicit in the OP.** ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/88 "2005-04-14T15:28:51Z")
As I said in that other thread, I know next to nothing about wireless networking. It is all Greek to me. Until two months ago, I couldn’t tell you what SSID means, I still have no idea what WAP stands for (although I assume W stands for wireless), and I’m not very good at picking up new technological concepts. But I picked up a wireless router about six months ago for my new house. Never had one before. I had a bear of a time setting it up, and literally until that other thread came up, I had no idea from the confusing literature enclosed with my router that it was a very, very good idea to turn on encryption. At that time, I assumed that any security features would default to “on” if they were so important. After all, if security was so important, why would the manufacturer leave it off? So, most of you folks can go ahead and call me stupid for leaving my Wifi connection open for several months. Go ahead, do it. Now, if my neighbor started using my DSL via the wireless connection I left open, _please tell me how I would have, in any way, given him my consent to do so._ At that time, I never made a concious choice to leave the security off, for I had no idea that those features existed at all. I certainly haven’t talked to my neighbor to say it was okay for him to use my computer and my DSL. So how did I in any way consent to allowing my neighbor, or a total stranger, to use my wifi connection? Hint: Bricker is right. I never authorized anyone to use my computer network, and if I had magically caught someone doing it, I’d want them to be in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/89 "2005-04-14T15:29:07Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > As a lawyer, than surely you know that this argument is pure bullplop, at least as you write it. I can be charged with kidnapping the friggin’ queen of England, but that doesn’t make me guilty. _What was the outcome_, for crying out loud? Kidnapping _per se_ is still a crime though… You couldn’t be charged with breathing as it’s not a crime. Whether you’re guilty of a particular act or not is irrelevant in respect of whether the act itself is illegal. Maybe you need to re-phrase? ---
**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, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/90 "2005-04-14T15:34:13Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > As a lawyer, than surely you know that this argument is pure bullplop, at least as you write it. I can be charged with kidnapping the friggin’ queen of England, but that doesn’t make me guilty. _What was the outcome_, for crying out loud? According to Paul Timmin’s [live journal](http://noweb4u.livejournal.com/) he plead guilty and got > [@](#): > > Misdemeanor computer intrusion, 18 USC 1030 (a)(5)(A)(iii) > 2 years probation. > $100 fine. > $25 special assessment. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/91 "2005-04-14T15:34:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because the right of passage through land, and implied easement, is a matter of common - and sometimes statutory law. That is, you have a general right to walk up someone’s sidewalk and ring the doorbell, even if you were not given explicit authority to enter their private property, as a matter of common law. > > Common law does not address access to computer networks. > > Of course, you may say, “I think the law SHOULD be written to conform to an analogy of land use.” As a useful model, I agree it has some value. > > [snip] > > But your analogy is inapposite because the state of the law, right now, treats computer networks like your car, not your land, in requiring permission before use. Is this merely because the laws in question were written before network access was commonly wireless, when any unauthorized use of a computer by its nature involved knowingly violating someone’s property rights by physically tampering with the machine or the network cable? It is hard to conceive of anyone committing such acts innocently, but that is not the case with accessing a broadcast network signal. What determines whether something falls under common law? Could a reasonable case be made that wireless networks do fall under common law, not property law, because they are by their nature different from physical hardware? ---
**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, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/92 "2005-04-14T15:36:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. > > Oddly enough, I AM A LAWYER. Your analogy is inapposite. So it sounds like there has only been _one_ case in which this issue was addressed, and the court may, in fact, have ruled that the situation conforms to the “personal property model” you described. But I think others could argue successfully that the “land use model” is more appropriate. I don’t agree at all that my analogy was “inapposite.” I would like to see this settled, either through statutory law or through additional case law. And as for the issue of the Terms and Conditions of one’s ISP, that varies, obviously. The T&C for my home DSL account may prohibit my sharing my connection with those not in my household. (I don’t know what it says; I’d need to check.) But I suspect that a corporate T1 connection does not have that restriction. ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/93 "2005-04-14T15:39:15Z")
> [@Dewey Finn](#): > > But I suspect that a corporate T1 connection does not have that restriction. Maybe not from the ISP’s side, but our IT department would go ape-shit if they knew that there was unsecured access to our LAN :eek: It’s deffo against our terms of employment to do so, and would result in immediate dismissal. ---
**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, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/94 "2005-04-14T15:43:12Z")
Completely different. You can easily configure things so that others can access the public internet via your WiFi network without any access to your LAN. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/95 "2005-04-14T16:17:49Z")
> [@Gest](#): > > Laws don’t make things legal, they make them illegal. Not true. There are provisions in the U.S. Copyright Act, for example, that tell you things that are legal. ---
**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, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/96 "2005-04-14T16:19:11Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > According to Paul Timmin’s live journal he plead guilty and got > > > [@](#): > > > > Misdemeanor computer intrusion, 18 USC 1030 (a)(5)(A)(iii) > > 2 years probation. > > $100 fine. > > $25 special assessment. FTR, 18 USC 1030 is the CFAA which I cited above when I brought up _Shurgard Storage Centers v. Safeguard Self Storage (119 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (W.D. Wash. 2000))._ > [@Dewey Finn](#): > > The T&C for my home DSL account may prohibit my sharing my connection with those not in my household. (I don’t know what it says; I’d need to check.) But I suspect that a corporate T1 connection does not have that restriction.But I suspect that a corporate T1 connection does not have that restriction. Why do you suspect this? I mean, what reason leads you to suspect this? The line is leased from a provider, and the provider often does not allow subleasing or sharing of the lines with other legal/business entities without some sort of compensation. FTR as well, at my sample size of one company, my IT staff who I called just now claim that the standard package which our T1 and other digital lines fall under absolutely prohibit any subleasing or sharing whatsoever whatsoever. In addition, we are under contractual compunction to “maintain network security to prevent unauthorized use” along those lines…whatever that’s worth. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/97 "2005-04-14T16:21:53Z")
By **e-logic** ’s contract with his ISP, any roommates using the service and or paying part of the bill for this service is in breach of contract. After reading some of the links I guess I conceed that there are some states that apparently have laws governing this. I also would like to point out, Like **Dewey** did, that there is a different between acessing files in the network and acessing the internet. I personally have my whole network set so that no file sharing is possible, and no acess other than internet is available. Of course, I not only have my service encrypted, I have my network hidden from view so people driving by don’t even know I have one. I think there will be a distinction made in the law in this. In this regard, as technology grows and more and more businesses allow open networks for the public, laws will change, and these silly lawsuits by big companies that have unencrypted networking (stupid stupid stupid) will be a thing of the past. If acessing open networks that aren’t yours is illegal, IHOP, Barnes and Nobles, The library, the schools, Starbucks, and the handful of other businesses or public places would not be allowed to have open networks, or lots of people would be getting prosecuted. If any laws need to be passed, it be that wireless routers be legally required to have auto-encryption for those that don’t know how to turn them on. SBCs routers automatically have them encrypted, and in fact it is impossible to alter them. My router I had to set to be encrypted, but it should be the default. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/98 "2005-04-14T16:25:23Z")
A Pennsylvania statute, 18 Pa. Con. Stat. Sec. 3926 – > [@](#): > > § 3926. Theft of services. > (a) Acquisition of services.– > > (1) **A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains services for himself or for another which he knows are available only for compensation** , by deception or threat, by altering or tampering with the public utility meter or measuring device by which such services are delivered or by causing or permitting such altering or tampering, **by making or maintaining any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically or inductively, to a distribution or transmission line** , by attaching or maintaining the attachment of any unauthorized device to any cable, wire or other component of an electric, telephone or cable television system or to a television receiving set connected to a cable television system, by making or maintaining any unauthorized modification or alteration to any device installed by a cable television system, or by false token or other trick or artifice to avoid payment for the service. > > (1.1) **A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains or attempts to obtain telecommunication service** by the use of an unlawful telecommunication device or **without the consent of the telecommunication service provider**. ---
**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, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/99 "2005-04-14T16:31:22Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > As a lawyer, than surely you know that this argument is pure bullplop, at least as you write it. I can be charged with kidnapping the friggin’ queen of England, but that doesn’t make me guilty. _What was the outcome_, for crying out loud? Guilty plea accepted by the court. I say “accepted by the court” because that’s relevant to the point you’re making. If you were charged with kidnapping the friggin’ queen of England, and decided to plead guilty, the court will not simply say, “OK, he’s charged and he’s pleading guilty, so I’ll find him guilty.” The prosecution must lay out the factual basis for the charge, and you must admit to the elements of the crime. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/100 "2005-04-14T16:31:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. According to the story, these people did more than just check their email. If you read the whole article, they caused 2.5 million dollars in losses by accessing credit card information and a variety of other acts. If they had checked their email and never returned to do cause havoc, they would never have been prosecuted. So, do you have a case in which somebody was prosecuted by “18 USC § 1030” for merely accessing the network for internet access alone? You know, in cases where computer hacking has not been the major crime? For those not aware of what 18 USC § 1030 refers to, here is a link: Notice how quotes have been taken out of context to imply that merely accessing somebodies internet connection is illegal. [http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030\_new.html](http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030_new.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218.md?page=6)