Pass the buck, pass the buck.
If you’re using software that is actively looking for open networks, you’re still at fault. No one twists anyone’s arm to buy that brand wireless card, with those drivers, that exhibit that behavior.
I think you’d be OK until you realize what’s happening and continue to use the card, despite it automatically connecting to open networks. After that, it’s your responsibility to stop using it or fix the problem.
Why wouldn’t an automated device explicitly granting access give me a reasonable assumption of permission? Wouldn’t a sign saying “Free movie screening” be such a device?
Assuming you guys are correct about the law, I hope that someday it ends up being challenged with a detailed trace of the conversation between the computer and the access point, where the access point explicitly tells the computer that it’s ok to use the network. Because that’s what’s happening. This is not “sneaking in the back door” or assuming implicit permission. This is buying a soda machine with the default price set to $0, and complaining that people keep coming by and pushing the button.
There’s a difference between saying “yes” and not saying “no”. If you ask to borrow my car and I don’t say “no” outright, you still can’t take it.
You know, I know several people who do leave their networks open on purpose. They like the idea of a city-wide wi-fi network and enjoy doing their part, despite the risks it entails.
There is no easy way to communicate this to others.
I don’t think the onus is on the user for this one. They shouldn’t be required to get noterized contracts in triplicate to latch on to a signal that is there in public space or in their own private space.
Er, ok, so if your network says “yes”, then I’m good to go, right? Seems some people (you included) don’t think so.
Even when that software is called Windows XP? I had to explicitly set Windows not to switch to whatever open network it could find, because it was switching away from my own encrypted network.
This is my problem exactly. However, I regularly (and legitimately) use three different WiFi networks (one at home and two at work), and I like the convenience of having my laptop automatically decide which one to use. The wireless card itself is built into the laptop, and the laptop is provided by my workplace, so I don’t even have much say in what hardware or software I use.
I wish that Windows XP had an “Ignore this network” option, rather than relying on the “Preferred network” option.
That’s a fine sentiment for GD. In GQ, the scope of this thread is, in my humble and non-authoritive opinion, limited to the legality of the practice.
And in my not-so-humble and more informed opinion, that question has been answered.
Maybe an SSID of PUBLIC-ALLWELCOME ?
The reason they started encrypting these signals was that at the time, the legal situation was unclear.
Senator Barry Goldwater, recent Presidential candidate and a Republican power in the Senate, strongly held that they were legal, and was frequently quoted as saying “any signal that falls on my property is mine to use”. His quote was a deliberate reference to the ancient British common law that says that “apples from a neighbor’s tree that fall onto my property are mine to eat”.
Legal doctrine at the time on “theft of services” was clear about cases where someone made a secret connection to services, like a tap into water mains or the electric company lines. It was much less clear about radio waves that were ‘trespassing without permission’ onto your own property.
So companies began encrypting signals, which made it possible to claim in court an analogy to a secret tap, in a ‘pirate’ decryption box. (Plus it made it just hard enough to prevent most people from bothering.)
Since then, these corporations have managed to have laws passed about radio signals and computer transmissions that clearly state that it is illegal for you to make use of the signals that they are sending onto your property. The corporations seem to have won this one. Many of the responses in this thread have cited such recent laws.
P.S. Barry Goldwater was an amateur shortwave ham radio operator, and often participated in ham networks providing communication in disasters. He pushed for NASA to include a ham radio tranceiver on their flights (and now there’s one on the Space Station). He also helped with ham operator networks that provided free communications between soldiers overseas and their families back home. This was opposed by the phone company, which thought soldiers should be required to use their overseas phone service (and pay their high charges). [Interesting, in light of an email I got recently asking me to donate to provide phone cards for soldiers in Iraq to call home. Have the phone companies managed to completely kill off the amateur ham network?]
The crime isn’t being committed against the network, it is being committed against the owner of the network. The machinery of the network has no ability to give legal consent. However, in this case, the only question being asked is to the network, which is not capable of reason, so there is no way that the network can give you a reasoned legally binding answer to the question of access. In the scenarios listed above, not once is the owner of the network being asked for permission to use his network.
I think the OP has been answered: It is illegal to “borrow” your neighbor’s WiFi.
If those of you who think the law is wrong would like to continue the discussion, you will find it over in Great Debates.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Much like a sign saying “free movie screening”, which itself does not have any capacity for reason, the network is controlled by the owner, and was set up in such a way as to say “yes, you may use this.”
I’m not sure what’s so complicated about the concept that putting out a resource that explicitly identifies itself as “publicly accessible” means that someone might reasonably interpret that as permission to use it. When you turn off security on 802.11a/b/g, you aren’t simply disabling the authentication stage of connection, you’re actually making it so that each client, when it asks to authenticate, is approved regardless of whether it’s got a security key or not.
Sorry, I’m definitely off topic in my argument. Didn’t see your response before my last reply.
Sorry, everyone was happily giving their opinion on the “morality” of the situation, and I thought I’d chime in with a few complications- like the fact that many networks are open for the purpose of public access.
Why both? I’m going to change the access points at work to MAC before things get out of hand.
MAC whitelisting alone is only enough to keep honest people honest. If your network is unencrypted, I believe anyone can listen in on the communications to find the MAC address of a computer that’s on the list, then change the address on his own network card to match it. As soon as the legitimate computer leaves the network, he can get online with his cloned card.
If you have encryption, MAC whitelisting is just an extra layer of security. Someone would have to find your WPA key and the MAC address of an authorized computer.
Apples and oranges hoss. The difference is the affirmative steps you’re taking to enter into the movie theater. Not to mention, the trespassing. In your own domicile, all you’re doing is turning your computer on, and the signal is coming right in. If you’re breaking some encryption, then i’d say you were being unethical, but your neighbor is offering up the hook up for anyone without having to physically remove it.
(ok, so technically turning on your computer COULD be considered an affirmative step, but not really)
Offer to pay part of his IP bill for use of the connection.
Horse Puckey.
The neighbor is stupid. That’s not a crime, but stealing his bandwidth is.