Such a list does not contradict what I said. By agreeing to be listed on such a site, or by putting up signs in their coffee shops saying “free wireless here,” these providers have given explicit authorization.
Rysto, I forbid you to click on that link. (Pretend I own the server.)
Should I now be able to sue you if you click on it?
But, if that sign says “Century 21 Open House Today” then you aren’t going to get far suggesting that I trespassed.
Some property is assumed to be publicly open, a restaurant or retail store, for instance. You do not need special authorization to enter, it is assumed that by opening for business, you WANT people to enter. Websites are thought of the same way. If you put an unsecured website on the internet, it is assumed that you want people to see it. If you wanted it private, there are no special steps you need to take. In fact all you need to do is avoid taking the special step of putting the website on a public server. If you want your dining room private, don’t put up a sign saying you’re a restaurant open for business.
I do think, like a restaurant, that you should be allowed to forbid access to people you choose to exclude. If you can prove they entered after receiving explicit instructions to stay out, then they should get in trouble.
That step isn’t as special as you might think. My home PC became a “public server” the day I got my cable modem hooked up.
Oh, nonsense. That link is pretty much exclusively a list of businesses that are offering wifi as a service to customers. And if you click on the FAQ link at that site, you will read in answer to the first question:
So, even this site says that the owners of these open wifi networks may intend that the services be used only by paying customers, and that freeloaders may not be welcome.
If it is known conclusively that businesses who offer this service to the public at large may restrict access to only paying customers, even if only on an honor system, then it is also reasonable that a private individual may restrict use of his network in any way he sees fit. Since homeowners generally don’t offer public conveniences in the way businesses do (ie, water fountains, restrooms, and arguably wifi access), it is only reasonable to start with the assumption that a wifi network is for the private use of its owner, unless otherwise made known.
And as far as the website question, I’d consider a website address to be treated substantively the same as a phone number, street address, or similar information. It is only common sense that people may presume that they may call a phone number, write a letter to someone, or link to a web address without prior permission. However, even this has limits: if someone goes beyond simply calling you, but starts trying to use your telephone or phone number in ways you never thought they would (charging long distance to your phone, trying to edit your website, or things like that) then those actions clearly go beyond a commonly understood and accepted use of the address.
I fail to see what this has in common with a wifi signal. In my view, a wifi signal is not a phone number, it is not a web page, it is not a TV in the window, and it is not a movie being played in the backyard. It is more akin to a cordless telephone, in which its use by people is not an invitation for others to join in on using it, but simply a technical convienience which, by the nature of the device, the broadcast range cannot be strictly limited to the interior of a house, regardless of the intent of the owner of the device.
By the nature of the device, it can be set up either for public use (no encryption, SSID broadcast enabled, etc.) or private use. This particular homeowner knew of both options and decided on public use. How is that not a statement of his intent?
I don’t know if this has been posted yet or not, but someone has been charged with stealing Wi-Fi in Florida. I saw this yesterday, but it has today’s date on it.
Someone has. It was the post that resurected this thred.
Simple question: are you arguing what the law is, or what it should be?
Do the people who set up wireless nets in their homes own dcommercial wireless nets? Do they customarily charge people for access to their bandwidth?
In both cases, data is being projected into a public area and people are accessing it. Don’t see any difference at all.
Because leaving a door unlocked is not an invitation to come in.
Further, simply because a wifi connection is not encrypted does not automatically mean that the owner made a conscious, well-informed decision to offer the service to everyone, regardless of what the facts may be in this particular case. As I’ve said many times before, I’m not good with computers, and for some time, I did not realize that my signal in my house was not encrypted. My assumption was that, based on all the advertising on the package, that encryption was the default. That does not mean that I intended everyone to be able to use the internet service that I pay for.
You seem to come from a position that, as someone who is apparently fairly knowledgable about computers, that you simply can’t understand how someone could not turn on the encryption. Well, it’s not that simple for most people. I’m sure there are various things that are common sense to others that is not common sense to you. If you were placed on a farm, or in a auto repair shop, or in a foundry, you might make silly mistakes, too. But those mistakes on questions of a technological nature should not give others cause to claim that a technological device is capable of making legal decisions for a human.
So, Mr. 2001, let me ask you a question: since most cordless phones are not encrypted, would a person be in the legal right to walk around his neighborhood with a cordless phone, trying to find a phone line he can make calls on without even talking to the owner of the house and phone line in question?
How about this question: imagine your wireless access point has a large switch on it that says “public – everyone allowed access” and “private – access prohibited”. It doesn’t change the encryption, it just causes the wireless network to enable or disable a single bit in its broadcast that says “I’m public”. Its default setting is “public”, and you leave it that way. Does that make it ok for strangers to access your network?
In other words, remove the “but technology is haaaaard and I didn’t know I was granting access” argument. Can someone reasonably infer authorization from your fully-informed choice to leave the network set to “public”?
As an aside, would there be anything illegal about me setting up an open wireless network that has my own dns servers and web servers, so that when you go to www.google.com, you get a phony google site that always returns search results like, “Asshole neighbor mooches wifi access – film at 11”? Is pretending to be google within the confines of your own network fraudulent? You could easily make a single website that acts as dozens of different popular sites (msn, yahoo, google, etc) depending on what name you use to access it.
You may mock it, but the knowledge and expectations of the general public, no matter how stupid you think they are, are very relevant to the law. I don’t think it’s as clear in this case – a court would have to take a serious look at what people are reasonably expected to know.
This wouldn’t be covered by theft of services law. Rather they could go after you under trademark and consumer protection principles, such as false designation, passing off, false advertising, unfair trade practices, etc. Even if it’s on your own private network, if it’s accessible to consumers, then you could be on the hook.
If something is, by default, set to a certain value, then the mere fact that the default seeting exists is not evidence that a person has made a decision to leave it at its default. It would make more sense to have it default to private, and therefore if someone chooses to make it public, then that would be reasonable evidence of the intent of the owner of the device. What is wrong with that?
This is gibberish to me. I guess technology is haaaaaard for me to understand.
I’m arguing what the facts are. The law prohibits unauthorized use; I don’t believe this was any less authorized than clicking on a link.
If you didn’t have to enter a password on your computer to connect to the wireless network, why wouldn’t you realize that no one else would have to enter a password either? I’m sorry you were mistaken, but I think your assumption was unreasonable.
If I were given an instruction manual on how to do some farming task, and I chose to ignore it, I wouldn’t expect to be working on that farm for very long. Someone who’s incapable or unwilling to follow the directions for securing his wireless network should either avoid using wireless networks, or find someone competent to set it up for him.
First, I don’t believe that’s an accurate description of the technology. Every cordless phone I’ve used in the past several years (since 900 MHz phones first came out) has used encryption, spread spectrum modulation, or some other method of associating the handset with the base and preventing other handsets from being used. I would view someone who goes out of his way to break the encryption as an unauthorized user.
But all right, let’s suppose it’s 1990 and everyone is using unencrypted analog phones. I wouldn’t call it authorized use, because there’s no “public/private” switch on the side of the base station that the owner can use to prevent others from using it. Every phone owner is at the mercy of whichever stranger walks past with a handset, and the only way to hope to prevent such activity is to make it illegal.
There’s nothing wrong with that, and frankly it’d be a great idea for WiFi access points to come with encryption enabled out of the box (even though it’d be harder to set up for the first time). Consumer demand, however, seems to favor something that can get them on the internet in 3 minutes without looking at the manual, rather than something secure.
But your logic is pretty shaky here. If we can’t assume that a router left on its default setting of public is meant to be public, then why would we think a router left on its default setting of private was meant to be private?
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that if someone is going to the trouble of taking his router out of the box it came in, removing the plastic wrap, plugging in the power cord, and attaching it to his cable or DSL modem, then he’s prepared to complete the setup process, and that once he’s finished setting it up, it’s configured the way he wants it to be.
How the hell should I know whether encryption requires a password to be entered every time? As far as I know, my cell phone is reasonably secure from others using it, and I don’t have to enter a password each time I use it.
… because we all know technical writers do SUCH a great job of writing instruction manuals that are accessible to the general public.
But you both keep dodging the central question: why should the settings on some gizmo override the intent of the owner? With whom should the law place the decision on whether a network is public or not – the intent of a human being, or whatever the settings happen to be on a machine? What sense does it make for a judge to say, “Sorry, Mr. Jones, you may have intended such-and-such, but in the eyes of the law, the settings on your doohickey are legally binding upon your intent. In essence, machines are dictating what you are legally assenting to.”
That makes no sense whatsoever in my mind; to elevate the legal status of the settings on a machine above the intent of its owner. It is frankly pretty scary to allow removing legal decisions from humans and allowing machines to make legally binding decisions in our stead.
I assume you connect your computer to your wireless network. Why on earth would you think it would allow yours, and no one else’s, if you didn’t have to set that up? Did the salesman tell you it came pre-programmed with the knowledge of which computers you own?
WiFi security doesn’t require a password to be entered every time, but it does require some initial setup. That’s the only way it can know your computer is authorized: you type a piece of secret information into the router, and the router verifies that your PC has the same piece of secret information before allowing it to connect.
This should be obvious to anyone who thinks about how else it could possibly work. If the problem is that too many people think WiFi is powered by magic elves who know when the computer that’s trying to connect belongs to their master, the solution is to educate them.
Here’s a quote from my router’s quick installation guide: “If you wish to use encryption for your 802.11g network, the DI-624 is capable of two levels of wireless encryption - 64-bit and 128-bit. By default the encryption is disabled. You can change the encryption setting for more secure wireless communication.” (Bolding in original.)
Next to that text is a picture of the screen where you enable encryption, with such cryptic wording as “If you wish to use encryption, enable it here and enter the encryption Key Values. Click Next to continue.” and “Input 10 HEX characters (HEX is 0~9, A~F, or a~f).”
Actually, except for “Auto Detecting WAN” and “Setup Completed”, I’d say it’s the simplest step in the setup process.
Because it’s reasonable to assume they reflect the intent of the owner, since they’re under the owner’s control, and they’re often the only way for a stranger to know what the owner’s intent is.
If you were driving, and you signaled left while you were turning right, the cop who pulled you over would not buy the argument that your (uncommunicated) intent should override the settings on your turn signal gizmo. You’re expected to know how to operate the turn signal if you’re going to drive, even if you happen to have some exotic car that requires a week’s study to know how to signal correctly, and you should be expected to know how to operate your wireless network if you’re going to have one.
Machines make those decisions based on what humans tell them to do. If you tell a machine to let anyone use your network, as the homeowner in this particular case did, you have no excuse to complain when it does just that.
Errr, what’s encryption? What’s an 802.11g network? What’s 64-bit? 124-bit? Bits of what? Encryption is disabled, so? Is that good or bad? I put in 0-9A-Fa-f but if didn’t work, what do I do now?
You seem to assume just because you can do something you should. Anyone who goes around sniffing for wi-fi hot spots knows there is a chance they are going to find networks that have been left unsecured because the owner didn’t have a clue how to make them secure, it doesn’t give you the right to use them.
But the owner in this case didn’t tell the machine to let anyone use his network. He failed to stop people from using it, which is different.