Do you acknowledge the possibility that some reasonable people may not even know what encryption is?
But we have heard that the majority of people who own wireless networks leave them unsecured. What do you think is a more reasonable explaination of this fact: that a majority of owners of these networks made a considered decision to allow all comers to use their network, or that a large fraction of those who have their networks unsecured either haven’t considered the issue of security, or didn’t understand what or how to do it?
If most people leave their network unsecured by mistake, in what way can it be said that the machine reflects the intent of the owner?
People must be licensed to use a car because of public safety. People are tested as to whether they can operate a car correctly. There is no such test for ownership of computer equipment, therefore it is not necessarily reasonable to assume that everyone who owns computer equipment is fully proficient in its use.
But you aren’t simply arguing that the one homeowner in question decided to allow public access; you’ve been arguing that ANYONE who doesn’t secure their network is giving the public specific permission to use it, regardless of whether the person made that choice or not.
Just out of curiousity, do you work with computers? If so, what is your general impression of the general public’s knowledge of computer technology? Do you think that Joe Blow, who is not employed in the computer industry, is generally proficient in things like networking, or do you think that the average person still has a fair bit to learn about operating computers well?
More is better, and it says right there that encryption means more secure wireless communication. Don’t tell me they need to define “secure” and “communication” too.
Call tech support, who will gladly educate you for free.
It’s not different; he chose to leave it unsecured. He considered the steps he could take to secure his network and decided not to take them. If that doesn’t count as “telling the machine to let anyone use his network” in this case, then what would? Would he have to turn encryption on and then immediately turn it back off?
By choosing to remain ignorant about the device they purchased, they are choosing to accept the default settings as their intent. They’re saying “I don’t want to figure this thing out, so I’ll just use it the way it comes set up, however that is.”
It’s like signing a contract without reading the whole thing carefully. You agree to the terms whether or not you know exactly what they are. If you don’t want to be bound by something you were unaware of, it’s your responsibility to find out what the terms are before you agree to them.
Do you at least agree, then, that the one homeowner in question did authorize the use of his network?
I do work with computers, and my impression is that the general public doesn’t know as much about them as they should, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t responsible for the consequences of their ignorance. They have a choice: either learn how to use the device they just bought, or agree to the defaults.
I would hope so, but I wouldn’t expect it to happen. I’m not familiar with exactly what can be reexamined in a case that’s being appealed, though.
That whoever found this to be a case of unauthorized use is an idiot, and should be defeated the next time he’s up for reelection (if applicable). If it was found by a jury, I might have some unkind words for the people of Florida.
I would also worry that I, or some other innocent web user, might someday be found guilty of unauthorized use of a computer network for visiting a web site whose administrator has something against me, my ISP, or the place where I live, or wants to make a political point, or is simply an unpredictable ass.
The TV/movie analogies are false. If I watch your TV through your window, I am not affecting your ability to watch your TV. If, on the other hand, I’ve logged onto your wifi network and I’m now downloading a massive file through BitTorrent (and thus uploading simultaneously) for several days, I dare say you’ll notice a drop in your bandwidth. Furthermore, my mere presense on the network involves more than just passively receiving wireless signals.
Sure, it’s a good idea to secure your network, just as it’s a good idea to lock your house. But (as others have said) leaving a house unlocked isn’t an implied invitation to let strangers wander in and take what they want.
The house analogy is false too, I’m afraid, unless your kid is holding the front door open and handing out nametags to people. Open wireless networks don’t just sit there passively, waiting for a signal; they advertise their availability and respond affirmatively to requests from people who want to use them.
I’ve read a few articles on what happened, and it sounds like the homeowner decided to leave his network unsecured. One day, a guy parks in front of his house and starts using it. I believe that I read that the man was more or less chased away once, then came back, and the cops were called.
The problem is that it is not clear to me whether the guy had no problem with anyone using his network, and then decided that he didn’t want this guy using his for whatever sketchy purposes; or what else was his intent. But based on my sketchy account of what happened, I can’t say for sure what the facts are here.
In any case, however, just like the FAQ on the list of hotspots that you (I think it was you) posted earlier, the owners of a network can decide who they want on their network. If a business only wants paying customers to use the network, then nonpaying customers are unauthorized users. Same thing with a homeowner: I think he is within his rights to decide that he doesn’t want a particular person using his network.
What I can’t understand is your starting position that computer users are presumed to be allowed to access every network they can unless they are technologically prevented from it. I think it is only common sense and common courtesy for someone to ask permission to use a service – whether wifi or a bathroom – if there is any question whatsoever if the service is intended for the general public. What is wrong with computer users doing the simple courtesy of asking permission for something? Forget the law, does Miss Manners no longer have any standing in the 21st century?
I think you’re missing the point that these people are asking permission. They’re asking the router, “are you set up as a public network? Yes? Ok, I’m on the net.”
Not any network. Just one that’s broadcast through public spaces, and has an explicit access mechanism that grants or denies access, and grants me access.
It’s clear that you’re never going to agree on this. You really want us to just know that a network marked “public” is not really public, because we oughta know the intent of the owner. This brings me around to Mr2001’s concern that this rule could be applied in a lot of inappropriate ways. I currently have a web server set up on one of my computers. Its purpose is to share files with the other computers in my house, not with people on the internet. However, I’m not preventing anyone on the internet from accessing it, should they happen to find it (these files are not sensitive, so I’m not terribly worried about it). So what’s the legal status? The position that seems most reasonable to me is, “if you put the thing out in public with a sign on it that says ‘public’, it’s your responsibility to make sure people can’t use it if you don’t want them to.”
Especially in a wireless world, where it’s actually pretty unreasonable for you to expect the user to even know where the network is coming from. How is he even to know whose network he’s using and who to get permission from? What if some liar standing near your house said, “oh yeah, that network called ‘RavenManNet’? That’s mine. Feel free to use it.” In this situation, it makes the most sense to put the burden on the person spraying his network all over the neighborhood: you don’t want people to use it, you damn well better not have it set up as “free access for everyone”.
And, no, the argument that setup of these things is difficult doesn’t really get much sympathy from me. Yeah, it’s hard, and that’s not the fault of Joe Schmoe. But that’s what you get when you decide to set up a piece of equipment that does things you don’t know how to control: you accept the consequences. And having your internet service “stolen” is, in practical terms, a pretty damn mild consequence in the grand scheme of things. Live with the situation you’ve put yourself in or learn how to fix it.
And for Bricker’s benefit: I’m definitely arguing what the law ought to be, and how I might try to convince a jury were I ever in the situation of having to do so. Definitely GD territory here.
And once more, how about my hypothetical, where it’s extremely clear how to set your network up to be “private”. How do you people feel about a network which is absolutely, without a doubt, set up as “public” with the owner’s knowledge but no permission has been gotten directly from the owner? Fair game? I’m really curious.
I must have missed the Miss Manners column in which she says that “speaking” to computers is an acceptable substitute for speaking to a person.
The dog that hasn’t barked in this whole discussion is the intent of the wifi thief in the news story in Florida. From what has been described, it seems reasonable to conclude that this guy was driving around residential neighborhoods searching for open wifi networks in order to access the internet. Why couldn’t he have simply gone to a coffee shop that makes a point of offering wifi service to the public? The guy was in St Petersburg, if I recall, and I’m sure there are a million Starbucks and hotels and whathaveyou in the area.
But instead, it seems quite apparent that he was looking to freeload off of private individuals, regardless of the intent of whichever homeowner ended up having his wifi signal stolen. Knowing what little I do about all this stuff, it seems to be acknowledged by both sides that many private individuals leave their networks unsecured by sheer ignorance, not because of a thought-out choice of the network’s owner. Does anyone here dispute that?
If someone is driving around searching for unsecured networks, surely he understands that this is the case – he’s not driving around looking for a Starbucks, he’s driving around looking for, most likely, a sucker. I think that puts this man in a position of wanting to take advantage of someone without their knowledge, cooperation, or say-so, for his own benefit, whatever that may be. I think that is the hallmark of at least a rude person, and in this case, almost certainly a lawbreaker. But that’s for a judge to decide, of course.
Now, if I mistakenly left my network open and my neighbor is as technologically illiterate as I happens to start using it, perhaps because the Best Buy salesman who sold him his computer talked a lot about Internet access and he thinks that the Internet fairy has blessed him with access on this day, I don’t think there’s a criminal case against such a person. I don’t think this person has any intent to steal my bandwidth or whatever.
If someone sets up a network named FREE INTERNET FOR DC RESIDENTS in my neighborhood, I’d say that’s a good indication of someone’s intent. Insofar as the owner is confident that he’s not violating his terms of service with his ISP, and he wants to offer it to everyone, good on him. If people come to a well-reasoned conclusion that this guy has made a clear action to communicate his intent to open his network to others, they shouldn’t get in trouble if their conclusion is based on reasonable evidence.
What is not reasonable is an assumption that a default ID of a wifi network (which others have said defaults to “public”) is reasonable evidence of the intent of the owner. Especially for people who are more knowledgable about computers, if they find a network labeled “public” or “default” or whatever, and it is not encrypted, it seems to me that smarter folks should reasonably conclude that the owner of the network is an idiot (like I used to be), not making an attempt to offer his service to everyone. Those seem to be clear indications that the person isn’t good at setting up his network, otherwise wouldn’t he either encrypt it (if the person wants it to be private) or change the name to something non-default that communicates intent (like “13th Street Freenet” or whathaveyou)? If there is any doubt, I think people should respect each other’s private enjoyment of their property, and if there is any doubt, then you certainly don’t have someone’s permission to do something like connect to his computer.
Let me throw a question back at you. In this Florida case, we know that it was a public network, but we don’t know what the network was called. What if the owner named it “Fred’s Private Internet Connection,” but it was unencrypted? Wouldn’t that be a reasonable indication that people shouldn’t just click into it?
How do you suppose a person who sees an open wireless network should know who to ask permission from?
The FCC’s enforcement team might be able to trace the source of a transmission with the right equipment, but Joe Schmo with his laptop sure can’t. If he’s on a residential street full of houses, it might not take too long to knock on every door within 100 yards or so, but what if there’s an apartment complex nearby? Knock on a hundred apartment doors and ask if anyone knows anything about a network called “default”?
Compare it to speaking to a person’s maid or child who answers the door.
I say that it is not stealing if they don’t have a password or other protection from people using their internet. Your not stealing, they are giving it away free.
Er, yeah, and there are actually private individuals that do, too. How does this information help us locate the owner? Have you ever tried to narrow down the location of an access point using only a five-bar signal meter as a guide? It’s very hard.
It’s all kinds of hard. However, if you don’t want me to have access to your system, don’t make it publicly available. I’m a hacker (which is different from a “cracker”, look up the difference.) If you leave your box open to all, I assume I am welcome to use it. Of course not to engage in Net abuse. If I can figure out your e-mail, I’ll probably contact you to secure your system. Over the years I have discovered numerous security holes in online systems. I consider it a duty to find such, and report them. The Internet would probably collapse without hackers. The vast majority of people are honorable. Odds are if you have a security hole, some hacker will find it and tell you how to close it. Since most people are honorable, in the long run this works.
The other day, I was walking through Seattle Center, and there was an arcade that I had never noticed before. It was late-ish, and most things were closed, but there were people inside playing games. I thought, “I wonder if they’re open,” but saw no signs, so I checked the door. I suppose I should feel pretty ashamed of myself for thinking that “speaking” to the door was an acceptable substitute for speaking to a person.
That’s a pretty reasonable guess, but not necessarily a reasonable conclusion. Another possibility is that he was driving around with his laptop on, and it made a noise and popped up a balloon that said “now connected to wireless network ‘default’”, and he said to himself, “oh, that’s nice. a public network. I’ll stop and check my email and remember this spot for later.” Yet another possibility is that he had it in for this particular homeowner and was sitting outside trying to hack into the guy’s PC to steal as much personal information as possible.
I’m sure this will come as a complete shock to you, but he was looking for a free network. As in, “one you don’t pay for.” You seem to think that “looking for a free network” necessarily means “looking for a network to use without permission.” It doesn’t.
Well, it’s annoying that you won’t address my hypothetical situation, but you’ll throw your own at me, but ok: yes, if the network is called “Fred’s Private Internet Connection”, then it’s probably not reasonable to conclude that it’s open for public use. That’s a little like putting out a plate of cookies with a sign that says, “FREE (but only for Fred)”, but ok, it tells us the intent of the owner.
But back to my hypothetical: what if it is known that the owner is fully informed about his decision to leave the network public? We haven’t determined whether he minds if other people use it, but we do know that he consciously set it to “public” and knows that this means people can use it if they try. Let’s imagine we overheard this conversation in the apartment building hall: Unidentified person: “Hey Fred, did you know your wireless network is set up so anyone in range can use it?” Fred, who lives next door: “Yeah, I left it that way on purpose.” <elevator doors close and both people are gone> Is use of Fred’s network unauthorized?
Oh, it turns out we’re on the same side of this issue and I misinterpreted your comment as an argument that it should be easy to locate the owner in order to ask permission.
In the never-ending attempt to find an apt analogy, I will add:
Normally, walking onto someone’s property without their explicit permission and taking a couch would be wrong. But a couch sitting on the edge of the lawn by the sidewalk is commonly used shorthand for “free couch.” In my town, if you want to decorate the front edge of your lawn with an old couch, you’d damn well better make sure it’s bolted down or someone is going to walk off with it, and if you called the cops on them, they’d probably have a pretty reasonable argument that they thought it was intended to be free, despite having no actual permission from you. Once you corrected their assumption, they’d have to leave the couch alone, but the next person who happened by wouldn’t. The cops would probably advise you to secure your couch or put up a sign that says “not a free couch” if you don’t want it taken.
To me, if it is commonplace for people (or businesses) to intentionally offer their wireless networks for use simply by leaving them open, then it becomes reasonable to conclude that an open wireless network is one which the owner doesn’t mind me using. It’s unclear to me how commonplace the practice would have to be in order for the law to accept it as a reasonable assumption. However, one thing that is clear is that the guy in the Florida case cannot use this argument, because he had been yelled at already, so his reasonable assumption was gone.
