# Legality of using neighbor's unprotected WiFi internet access? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 29, 2004, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115 "2004-12-29T17:07:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/41 "2004-12-30T16:35:05Z")
> [@meowpossum](#): > > You’ve got me. I can’t cite any law or stature. > > But… There is no “but.” It is illegal. Period. > [@](#): > > I work on a large university campus and I am in and out of wireless network range all day, so my PC is set up to take advantage of the fastest available connection, WiFi if I’m near a hotspot or the modem if not. > > Often, I also work from home. I live in campus housing, so from some parts of my house, I can access the campus wireless network, which I am absolutely entitled to use. However, when I sit on my living room sofa, I connect with my neighbor’s network instead. > > Because I am located in my own property and because I have a legitimate reason for being set up to use the fastest available network connection, I really don’t feel like there’s a positive obligation on me to reconfigure my network settings every time I enter the south end of my living room simply because my next-door-neighbor’s wireless network is unprotected. There is. Oddly enough, if you didn’t realize that this was going on, you would not have the requisite _mens rea_ to be committing a crime. Since you do realize it, then you have an obligation not to connect to a network for which you are not authorized. ---
**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:** [December 30, 2004, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/42 "2004-12-30T16:36:48Z")
If you walk into a theater through the front door, and ask the ticket seller “Can I go watch The Aviator?” and they say “Sure! Right through that door.” and let you right in to watch without paying, are you stealing that movie? You asked to watch the movie, they gave you permission. The reality is that the network owner has setup the network in a way that allows anyone requesting access the ability to use the network. Just like our theater owner hiring fools who forget to sell tickets. Our user has not forced their way in through a back door, has not hacked the password, has not snuck in through the fire exit or picked a lock, they walked right in through the open front door and, plain as day, requested access and were granted access. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you do not get access to these networks without a signal requesting access and a return signal allowing it. It is this that distinguishes our user of open networks with the guy who cracks weak passwords. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/43 "2004-12-30T16:39:20Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > If you walk into a theater through the front door, and ask the ticket seller “Can I go watch The Aviator?” and they say “Sure! Right through that door.” and let you right in to watch without paying, are you stealing that movie? You asked to watch the movie, they gave you permission. > > The reality is that the network owner has setup the network in a way that allows anyone requesting access the ability to use the network. Just like our theater owner hiring fools who forget to sell tickets. > > Our user has not forced their way in through a back door, has not hacked the password, has not snuck in through the fire exit or picked a lock, they walked right in through the open front door and, plain as day, requested access and were granted access. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you do not get access to these networks without a signal requesting access and a return signal allowing it. > > It is this that distinguishes our user of open networks with the guy who cracks weak passwords. Are you arguing the conduct is legal? ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/44 "2004-12-30T16:41:10Z")
> [@paperbackwriter](#): > > The drive-in movie and overheard radio analogies fail because the “service provider” is sending out the signal and you are passively receiving it. Piggybacking on an unprotected WiFi port is not passive reception. This makes sence. Thanks, **pbw** ---
**Author:** ![Alvis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alvis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alvis)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/45 "2004-12-30T16:48:15Z")
> [@](#): > > The drive-in movie and overheard radio analogies fail because the “service provider” is sending out the signal and you are passively receiving it. Piggybacking on an unprotected WiFi port is not passive reception. It works for indoor theaters - consider one person watching a movie without paying once a week (sending a few emails) vs. two dozen people not paying and going to every show (tunning P2P software nonstop). At some point you’re going to displace a paying customer’s seat (saturate available bandwidth) but up until that point I can understand wanting to rationalize using something that’s going wasted. > [@](#): > > The reality is that the network owner has setup the network in a way that allows anyone requesting access the ability to use the network. Just like our theater owner hiring fools who forget to sell tickets… It is this that distinguishes our user of open networks with the guy who cracks weak passwords. Say someone lives in a good neighborhood and leaves his front door unlocked for conveniance. Maybe they assume that people will only try entering their own homes, so a lock isn’t needed. That doesn’t give you the right to just stroll in without permission, whether he notices you hanging out in his living room or not. ---
**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:** [December 30, 2004, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/46 "2004-12-30T16:56:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It seems like people have been focusing on whether using WiFi signals from one’s neighbor is a crime perpetrated on the neighbor. However, I fail to see how it is NOT a crime against the ISP. The ISP is supplying its services to the neighbor under an agreement only with that person, its customer. By using the WiFI connection, the WiFi sniffer is using the services of the ISP without consent. I see that no differently than tapping into a neighbor’s physical DSL line, from the ISP’s point of view. That is most certainly wrong. I would agree with this assessment. A very good analogy not involving computer services might be sticking your garbage in the neighbor’s garbage can. The collection service contracted to collect his garbage, not yours. Your garbage takes up extra space on the garbage truck, just like your requests take up extra bandwidth on the ISP’s network. Unless the neighbor’s contract with either the ISP or the garbage collection service allows him to subcontract (not likely), it’s still a violation of the contract. Even if the neighbor is actually cool with it. If a LOT of this started happening, I could see ISP’s starting to add explicit language to their contracts that customers must secure their wireless networks. Right now, I don’t think the level is enough to bother them. ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/47 "2004-12-30T17:03:10Z")
The continuing insistence that this conduct is not illegal is getting ridiculous. The conduct is “…illegal. Period”, as **Bricker** says. IANAL, but he is. Much more to the point, _Federal convictions for exactly the conduct proposed_ have established a precedent. This is the _definition_ of illegal. If the executive branch, the legislature, and the courts say it’s illegal, then it’s illegal. All the solipsistic reasoning in the world doesn’t change that. If you don’t like it, you can attempt to get the laws changed, but in the meantime that’s the breaks. The arguments that it’s the other user’s fault for “letting you in” are beginning to resemble the ones we’ve seen here for file-swapping or copyright violations. It’s the written equivalent of pouting, stamping your foot, and saying “But I wanna!” The fact that the standard protocol supports two-way access is not an open invitation for anyone strolling or walking by to come on in. Just ask Mr. Timmins. ---
**Author:** ![Caffeine.addict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@Caffeine.addict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caffeine.addict)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/48 "2004-12-30T17:32:41Z")
Do you have a cite for the federal convictions? I believe you when you say it is illegal. In fact, I don’t see how you could make a valid arguement that it isn’t. While some places may have hotspots, that are set up in such a way that you can use them, they are rare and getting rarer. ---
**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:** [December 30, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/49 "2004-12-30T17:46:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you arguing the conduct is legal? Not really, I’m really talking about the morality rather than the legality, so maybe I should have stayed out of it. Legality is a matter of law and precedent, not right and wrong. However, some of the comparisons made here suggest that requesting and being granted access to an open wireless connection is identical to hacking a WEP password or tapping into a physical DSL line. The first is like walking up to an open door and asking permission to enter, the second is pretending to be someone you’re not, the third is breaking and entering. The law may not distinguish between the them, but people can. ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/50 "2004-12-30T18:03:58Z")
> [@brujo](#): > > Do you have a cite for the federal convictions? It was in my earlier post, but I evidently mangled it. Apologies to one and all. [Here it is again](http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/AnchorDesk/4520-7297_16-5511088.html), see also the [Mercury-News](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/financial_markets/9320069.h) article. Timmins was one of three that plead guilty. He was the only one charged for merely unauthorized access like we’ve been discussing. His companions, who did some “actual hacking”, were charged for much more serious crimes. One now faces 12 years, the other 5 years, as federal prisoners. The penalties Timmins faces(d) are unspecified. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/51 "2004-12-30T18:44:58Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > If you walk into a theater through the front door, and ask the ticket seller “Can I go watch The Aviator?” and they say “Sure! Right through that door.” and let you right in to watch without paying, are you stealing that movie? You asked to watch the movie, they gave you permission. > > The reality is that the network owner has setup the network in a way that allows anyone requesting access the ability to use the network. Just like our theater owner hiring fools who forget to sell tickets. Uh, nope. In the theatre case, a person with apparent authority gave you access. Who is the person with apparent authority in the wireless case? There isn’t one; there’s just an automated device. The analogous theatre case would be if there were a robot ticket-taker who you fooled into admitting you with a forged pass. A human can give you (legal) permission; an automated device cannot. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/52 "2004-12-30T19:14:24Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Not really, I’m really talking about the morality rather than the legality, so maybe I should have stayed out of it. Legality is a matter of law and precedent, not right and wrong. > > However, some of the comparisons made here suggest that requesting and being granted access to an open wireless connection is identical to hacking a WEP password or tapping into a physical DSL line. The first is like walking up to an open door and asking permission to enter, the second is pretending to be someone you’re not, the third is breaking and entering. > > The law may not distinguish between the them, but people can. I’d say that morality of the practice is a GD topic, and legality a GQ topic. But in your first analogy, there is no “permission to enter” given by anyone. To expand the analogy, consider a home with a handicapped door entrance: pressing the button outside opens the door automatically, assuming it’s not locked. In fact, consider that the door has a sensor: merely approaching it triggers it to open. Merely because the door is unlocked and opens at your approach does not give you permission to enter. I’d recommend a GD thread to continue debate on the morality of the issue. I’d suggest that the legal question is answered. ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/53 "2004-12-30T19:26:50Z")
Being the original poster, I thought I’d chime in. This has been a very interesting discussion. Being that there does not appear to be an example case concerning apartments, things are exactly clear cut yet. The Lowe’s case seems to be close, but those people also went driving around (and were probably on Lowe’s private property) to find an open connection. This is in contrast to a signal coming through my walls into my apartment. Either way, I am not going to use the wireless connection. I kept using the dial up more on ethical reasons than legality anyway, but I was interested in the legal issues. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/54 "2004-12-30T20:06:28Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > Being the original poster, I thought I’d chime in. This has been a very interesting discussion. Being that there does not appear to be an example case concerning apartments, things are exactly clear cut yet. > > The Lowe’s case seems to be close, but those people also went driving around (and were probably on Lowe’s private property) to find an open connection. This is in contrast to a signal coming through my walls into my apartment. > > Either way, I am not going to use the wireless connection. I kept using the dial up more on ethical reasons than legality anyway, but I was interested in the legal issues. What words in the law do you believe make an exception if the signal is coming into your apartment? ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/55 "2004-12-30T20:39:18Z")
> [@paperbackwriter](#): > > Simply put, **Maus Magill** , you are wrong. [US Code, Title 18, section 2511](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/119/sections/section_2511.html): [etc] **paperbackwriter** or **Bricker** , why isn’t the following (from **pbw** ’ link) applicable in this case? > [@](#): > > (g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person - > (i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public; That seems to say that if it’s readily accessible, you can legally use it. ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/56 "2004-12-30T21:20:00Z")
**Bricker** can probably answer this better. Until he does, I will mention that your quote is from Chapter 119 of Title 18 (which also contains Sec. 2511). The laws against unauthorized access to a protected computer, e.g., the ISP’s network, are in Chapter 47, not Chapters 119 or 121. I quoted Sec. 2511 because it directly addressed the interception of cellular-phone conversations **Maus Magill** asked about. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/57 "2004-12-30T23:21:21Z")
> [@zut](#): > > **paperbackwriter** or **Bricker** , why isn’t the following (from **pbw** ’ link) applicable in this case?That seems to say that if it’s readily accessible, you can legally use it. Your apartment is not “generally accessible to the public”. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/58 "2004-12-31T00:05:51Z")
[QUOTE=CheesesteakHowever, some of the comparisons made here suggest that requesting and being granted access to an open wireless connection is identical to hacking a WEP password or tapping into a physical DSL line. The first is like walking up to an open door and asking permission to enter, the second is pretending to be someone you’re not, the third is breaking and entering.[/quote] I don’t think you can really make a strong argument for implied consent. Nearly all wireless gear comes out-of-the-box with “pants-down protocol” to make it as easy as possible to get up and running. A network handshake isn’t equivalent to knocking on the door, because when you knock on the door, the homeowner knows somebody’s at the door, and makes a conscious decision to grant or deny access. In the case of a WAP, although it’s a bit sad, a huge amount of people simply don’t comprehend that people _can_ gain access to their network unless they take steps to control it. If you want to stick with a physical metaphor, it’s more like entering someone’s house through an unlocked cellar window. Thre probably _should_ be security bars, or at least a stick to hold it closed – but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to come in and curl up next to the furnace. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/59 "2004-12-31T00:09:47Z")
> [@zut](#): > > **paperbackwriter** or **Bricker** , why isn’t the following (from **pbw** ’ link) applicable in this case?That seems to say that if it’s readily accessible, you can legally use it. **paperbackwriter** is right on the money. The phrase you’re looking at is from the section of federal law relating to phone communcation. Access to computer networks is covered by 18 USC § 1030 (a) (2) (C), which prohibits, _inter alia_, anyone who “…intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access…” A protected computer is any computing or networking device used in interstate commerce or communication – in effect, any routing device connected to the Internet. There is no limiting language in this section – if you access without authorization, you’ve completed the crime. ---
**Author:** ![Kiminy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Kiminy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiminy)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115/60 "2004-12-31T01:11:37Z")
> [@Alvis](#): > > I get your point, but I think there’s an issue of choosing to engage. You have to select the specific WiFi network to access it - you know what you’re doing and choose to. It’d be hard to ignore a drive-in next door. That’s what I was going for in the movie example - that you could just be walking down a street (searching for all networks), pass a theater with its exit door ajar (find an unprotected network), and choose to go in (log onto said network). This is not always the case. I have a WiFi network that is both password protected AND MAC specific, so I’m relatively sure that my neighbors do not have access to it. I have also told my laptop that it should use MY network as the preferred network. However, I battle with my laptop on a regular basis about whether or not it is allowed to tap into one of my neighbors’ unprotected WiFi networks. _I_ do not choose to do so, but my laptop, for some inexplicable reason, often insists on connecting to an outside, weaker network, and I have little control over this. I did change the channel settings for my own network, and that seems to have solved the problem for now. When I set up my WiFi network a few years back, security was NOT the default, and I had to actually read the manual that came with the router to set up encryption and MAC recognition. It was also the only WiFi network in the neighborhood. However, I have set up wireless networks for friends several times in the last year, and the software set up actually walks the user through setting up encryption, as a default, and explains how to load the key into other computers. Given that these new WiFi networks in my neighborhood ARE new, it’s inexplicable to me why there isn’t any kind of password on the connection. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-using-neighbors-unprotected-wifi-internet-access/282115.md?page=4)