# 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:** 7
**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, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/121 "2005-04-14T21:45:05Z")
Huh, well I might be wrong, I definately will say that it wouldn’t be the first time. Well, the best way to learn… and all that. 😃 ---
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/122 "2005-04-14T21:49:26Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > I don’t understand how anyone that knows how to plug in a computer and turn it on wouldn’t realize that, “hey, my computer is talking wirelessly to this box” doesn’t also think, “hey, another computer can talk wirelessly to this box.” > > Lack of common sense is a much worse crime than using their open network. Heh – easy thing for a software engineer to say. It’s easy to assume what is common sense when one is familiar with a topic. For example, I’m sure lots of farmers are full of common sense that us city folk have never heard of. Common sense is notoriously subjective, and irrelevant to the question at hand. ---
**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, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/123 "2005-04-14T22:16:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because the law doesn’t permit you to assume consent. The law requires you to have affirmative evidence of consent. The open network is affirmative evidence. Hell, I should sue _you_ for allowing my son to view pornography. You’re providing an attractive nuisance. ---
**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, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/124 "2005-04-14T23:44:36Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > The open network is affirmative evidence. Hell, I should sue _you_ for allowing my son to view pornography. You’re providing an attractive nuisance. It’s true that a finder of fact could conclude that an open network meant consent. But ehre’s the key fact: a finder of fact could also conclude, on the same record, that it did not imply consent. So on the facts presented, you could be found guilty. Is stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving nephew (since **Scott\_plaid** likes the literary allusions) illegal? Of course it is – even though a finder of fact could find you not guilty. But it’s illegal – because on the facts, a finder of fact could find you guilty. There is nothing in the law that would compel a finder of fact to agree that an open network is affirmative evidence. Is there? ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/125 "2005-04-14T23:59:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is nothing in the law that would compel a finder of fact to agree that an open network is affirmative evidence. No, you’re right about this. I think, though, that _no one_ has presented evidence that it’s legal or otherwise not legal. Nothing cited it substantially leaning one way or the other. What we really need is a test case, as you said. And despite your earlier example, copping out by pleading guilty does not lend that same weight as a court decision. If I ever have the opportunity to be a test case, I will – if you can get anyone to arrest me. Until then, I’d err on the side of it being legal _and ethical_. We’re not going to solve this here without a court. For those that fear of breaking a law that doesn’t yet exist and may never, then you’ll want affirmative consent, so, well, you all have mine if you near my routers. ---
**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 15, 2005, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/126 "2005-04-15T00:13:50Z")
Consider: An insecure wireless communications system, such as the old-style cordless telephones - would it be illegal for someone to access my telephone line and make calls without my consent? (lets assume I have a flat-rate billing plan, so I won’t notice, and their call _may or may not_ tip me over my usage limit and cause me extra expense). I can’t see how it _wouldn’t_ be anything other than illegal. So what difference does it make if the system is _capable of being secured_? it’s like (uh-oh, analogy time!) saying it’s illegal to enter my house if my door isn’t lockable at all, but not illegal if it is equipped with a lock that I simply don’t use. How does that make any sense? ---
**Author:** ![mr.meman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@mr.meman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.meman)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/127 "2005-04-15T01:39:20Z")
I haven’t read all the posts yet, but I want to clarify that we have no access to any of their computer files, or anything of their personal information. All I know that is illegal right now is my sister is file sharing with WinMX using their Internet connection, that they have left unsecured, unprotected, and available to use. ---
**Author:** ![mr.meman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@mr.meman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.meman)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/128 "2005-04-15T01:44:29Z")
Also, this has become an extreme debate, which was not what I was looking for. ---
**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 15, 2005, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/129 "2005-04-15T01:51:06Z")
??lthisar]No, you’re right about this. I think, though, that _no one_ has presented evidence that it’s legal or otherwise not legal. Nothing cited it substantially leaning one way or the other. [/quote] It seems to me you’re deliberately reading in an ambiguity that isn’t justified by the plain language of the statutes. If you think any court is going to look at this and say that they are not “substantially leaning one way or the other,” then you’re wearing blinders. > [@](#): > > What we really need is a test case, as you said. And despite your earlier example, copping out by pleading guilty does not lend that same weight as a court decision. No, that’s not how it works. If the court thinks that the facts that the defendant is admitting to do not constitute a crime under the statute, then it’s not going to find culpability. The law doesn’t allow prosecutors to invent new crimes so long as a defendant can be persuaded to plead guilty. [quote] Until then, I’d err on the side of it being legal _and ethical_. I wouldn’t; but that is, as they say, your lookout. > [@](#): > > For those that fear of breaking a law that doesn’t yet exist and may never, then you’ll want affirmative consent, so, well, you all have mine if you near my routers. I don’t know where you fall in the chain of service, but it’s clear to me that the _subscriber_ does not have the authority to give consent to a neighbour to access service provided by a service provider. ---
**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 15, 2005, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/130 "2005-04-15T01:54:14Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > No, you’re right about this. I think, though, that _no one_ has presented evidence that it’s legal or otherwise not legal. Nothing cited it substantially leaning one way or the other. It seems to me you’re deliberately reading in an ambiguity that isn’t justified by the plain language of the statutes. If you think any court is going to look at this and say that they are not “substantially leaning one way or the other,” then you’re wearing blinders. > [@](#): > > What we really need is a test case, as you said. And despite your earlier example, copping out by pleading guilty does not lend that same weight as a court decision. No, that’s not how it works. If the court thinks that the facts that the defendant is admitting to do not constitute a crime under the statute, then it’s not going to find culpability. The law doesn’t allow prosecutors to invent new crimes so long as a defendant can be persuaded to plead guilty. > [@](#): > > Until then, I’d err on the side of it being legal _and ethical_. I wouldn’t; but that is, as they say, your lookout. > [@](#): > > For those that fear of breaking a law that doesn’t yet exist and may never, then you’ll want affirmative consent, so, well, you all have mine if you near my routers. I don’t know where you fall in the chain of service, but it’s clear to me that the _subscriber_ does not have the authority to give consent to a neighbour to access service provided by a 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 15, 2005, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/131 "2005-04-15T02:08:21Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > No, you’re right about this. I think, though, that _no one_ has presented evidence that it’s legal or otherwise not legal. Nothing cited it substantially leaning one way or the other. What we really need is a test case, as you said. And despite your earlier example, copping out by pleading guilty does not lend that same weight as a court decision. > > If I ever have the opportunity to be a test case, I will – if you can get anyone to arrest me. Until then, I’d err on the side of it being legal _and ethical_. > > We’re not going to solve this here without a court. > > For those that fear of breaking a law that doesn’t yet exist and may never, then you’ll want affirmative consent, so, well, you all have mine if you near my routers. If - despite the fact that the conduct is prohibited by the plain language of the statute - you believe the issue won’t be settled until there’s a conviction… excuse me: by a conviction, following a trial (no pleas!) and an appeal all the way to the state or US Supreme Court - then I suppose there’s nothing else I can say to convince you. I shall, however, point out that this is a ridiculous standard. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/132 "2005-04-15T02:35:12Z")
[Mod hat on] This one, to my satisfaction, has been answered by Bricker(and possibly others). It is illegal. But, I don’t want to kill an interesting thread that touches on cutting edge questions, so I’m gonna move it to Great Debates rather than close the thread. Thanks to all who answered the OP with facts rather than opinions and guesses. It’s getting harder and harder to find that in General Questions. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![mr.meman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@mr.meman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.meman)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/133 "2005-04-15T03:21:56Z")
Ok, it has been clarified that it is illegal, but yet it is not because no law has currently been made. > [@](#): > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. [http://www.midwesttechjournal.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=384](http://www.midwesttechjournal.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=384) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/134 "2005-04-15T03:50:02Z")
> [@mr. meman](#): > > Ok, it has been clarified that it is illegal, but yet it is not because no law has currently been made. > [http://www.midwesttechjournal.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=384](http://www.midwesttechjournal.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=384) I addressed, and debunked, this precise contention in [post 70](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6055210&postcount=70) of this thread. Did you read post 70 of this thread, **mr. meman**? ---
**Author:** ![spinky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@spinky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spinky)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/135 "2005-04-15T08:25:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Regarding point 4, put yourself in the defense attorney’s position. Given a log and explanation of the 802.11 packets showing an affirmative authorization packet sent from the access point to the accused’s computer, wouldn’t you have a pretty good chance of arguing that authority was granted? Authority can reasonably be assumed because a) the 802.11 protocol clearly defines the meaning of the authorization packet, and b) the AP represents itself as following that protocol, so we don’t even have to assume what the AP means by certain packets – it is well-defined. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/136 "2005-04-15T11:10:55Z")
> [@ntucker](#): > > Regarding point 4, put yourself in the defense attorney’s position. Given a log and explanation of the 802.11 packets showing an affirmative authorization packet sent from the access point to the accused’s computer, wouldn’t you have a pretty good chance of arguing that authority was granted? Authority can reasonably be assumed because a) the 802.11 protocol clearly defines the meaning of the authorization packet, and b) the AP represents itself as following that protocol, so we don’t even have to assume what the AP means by certain packets – it is well-defined. In the defense attorney’s position, I might try that, but it would be a desperation move, designed to confuse the jurors and create doubt about what authorization means. The prosecutor, however, would explain that if you use a stolen or hacked WEP encyption key to hack into a protected network, the router would issue the same kind of 802.x affirmative authorization packet… that such a packet is “authorization” between computer devices, but not authorization as required by the statute. The prosecutor would prove element 4, as I said in the original post, by putting the owner of the network on the stand to testify that he doesn’t know you and never authorized you to access his router. As the defense attorney, I might make some hay about why he left his router unguarded, but I doubt it – if he says that he simply didn’t know any better, that will resonate with the jurors and they’ll buy it. Ultimately, the judge will give instructions to the jury about what “authorization” means. And I guarantee you he won’t tell the jury that, as a matter of law, they can find authorization by means of the data packet contents passed between router and host. ---
**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 15, 2005, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/137 "2005-04-15T11:34:46Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I don’t know where you fall in the chain of service, but it’s clear to me that the _subscriber_ does not have the authority to give consent to a neighbour to access service provided by a service provider. I suspect that’s a bit greyer than it might seem (unless it is clearly defined in the contract) - if the service provider hasn’t forbidden it in the T&C, what’s the difference between sharing your internet connection and, say, granting permission for your neighbour (or a random stranger) to use your telephone? ---
**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 15, 2005, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/138 "2005-04-15T11:57:26Z")
Mangetout, I have not read up on the subject, but based on my experiences (post 107), and as I recall, that of others here, a wireless antenna hocked up to a high-speed internet connection can be shared between a large number of people, without loss, or it’s slowing down. However, should you attempt to get a large number of people to use the phone line at the same time, via some sort of phone phreaking, you get a party line. 😃 Whooo! Remember back in the 80s how people would do that on 1-800-numbers? It was great. Wait, where was I? Oh yeah. Such a thing would get annoying quickly, and would make normal communications impossible. So, once again, wifi, can be easily shared, normal telephone use can’t. ---
**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 15, 2005, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/139 "2005-04-15T12:00:03Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I\ - **if the service provider hasn’t forbidden it in the T&C,** \ My mind totally skipped over those words. :smack: Since diffrent companies have diffrent ideas of how much controll they want to give user, I have no idea via this topic. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218/140 "2005-07-08T02:16:49Z")
To directly address the OP : [It is in Florida](http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/07/wi.fi.theft.ap/index.html). Interesting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-someone-elses-wireless-network-illegal/299218.md?page=8)