If the owner were to name the wifi connection: “Hey everyone, use me, free internet connection,” then yes, that would be the equal of a sign that says “free movie screening.” But the owner isn’t doing that. The owner, in all likelihood, simply isn’t knowledgable enough about computer stuff to realize what he’s doing (or not doing).
I think it was Bricker that mentioned that an unlocked door – or even a door that automatically opens for you – is not an invitation for any person to walk in. Just because someone does not lock their door or does not encrypt their wireless internet is NOT constitute an invitation for anyone to go ahead and make themselves comfortable. One shouldn’t assume that they have the invitation to do so simply because a machine is not stopping them from doing something.
Oh, and I’m saying this as someone who is not that computer savvy and who has recently set up a wireless network in my house. My girlfriend had to tell me to turn on the security features. My incompetence in setting up these stupid things certainly shouldn’t be construed as a welcome mat for anyone in my vicinity to use my $36 a month DSL connection, should it?
But if you anything with that signal other than notice that it’s there, you are transmitting back to the wireless device requests to use the Internet connection, and redirecting a portion of that bandwidth to your house. It’s no different from stealing your neighbor’s cable signal or electricity, only you don’t need to run wires to do it.
Actually, I think in a way it should be, in the way that leaving your garage door open is a clear invitation for someone to clean it out. Yeah, it might not be “right” that someone would burglarize your open garage, but it’s going to happen. Pleading incompetence in this matter is no different than if you were to go to the police and say “someone stole my lawnmower because I don’t know how to lock my garage door.” Is it right for someone to steal it? No. Will it happen? Definitely. The onus is on the owner of the signal, not everyone else in creation to listen to their conscience.
I piggyback off of the local university’s signal; however, I’m fairly certain it’s intended for public use, though that’s probably for students and not for freeloading townies.
You know, once a bum came and sat on my porch and started reading. It’s a small porch and not that pleasant- his only motivation was clearly a light to read by. I was kind of concerned at first, because I had company over and there was a bum on my porch and all. And then I realized he wasn’t hurting anything, my light was going to be on regardless, and that if I were a bum I’d sure miss reading at night a lot.
What I’m saying is, that if it isn’t hurting anything, I don’t see the point in getting all worked up about it. An open network is unlike cable because it does not need to be decrypted. It is unlike electricity because it is not metered. Light web browsing, especially if timed right, can entirely be done without any noticable reduction in quality of service. And as long as the ISP allows invited guests on to home networks, I don’t see how they can get too upset about univited ones.
So what is the real argument here? It boils down to “it’s mine and I don’t wany anyone to touch it”. I can understand that need for a secure network, and have administed my own secure networks. In fact, I’ll venture that it’s a little on the dumb side to leave your network wide open.
But I’m also an explorer. I’m in love with computers. I’m in love with networks. I’m in love with all the signals bouncing around- all the information going back and forth- and all the nebulous connections and structures present in the air around us. I’m the kind of person that walks around with bluetooth always enabled on my phone just because I like to see who else is around. I was facinated by the police scanner as a kid. Even radar detectors give me the shivers. To walk around without my laptop feeling away trying to see whos there just seems wrong to me.
I don’t think anyone has the right to stop people from sitting in their homes or in public areas and exploring what is wide open all around them. If you want a secure network, by all means secure it and anyone breaking in should be prosecuted. But if you are going to create an open network in public space, you can’t be too shocked or upset when the public finds it. We’re talking about the equivelent of a paper “No trespassing” sign. Just a little something to make sure people know that you don’t want them there.
In Sweden, they have a law. If you are reasonably far away from any houses or development, and you clean up after yourself, you can camp on whatever private property you want. That, of course, will never fly here. But I can’t really bring myself to accept that our way is better.
Dangerous line of thinking. “Yeah, it might not be ‘right’ that wearing that short skirt and taking the short cut through the alley got you attacked and raped, but it’s going to happen.”
However, the LAW doesn’t say anything about what the name of the wifi connection is, so if I used it, I could still be brought up on federal charges and thrown in jail.
I feel it’s a matter of personal responsibility over the design and programming of the computer system you own. Lots of people seem to think it’s fine to shove responsibility over to the system itself, basically saying it’s not their fault that it’s programmed that way. You own it, it’s your responsibility to have it programmed to your liking. If the computer is programmed to allow free and unlimited access to any local wifi enabled computer, then I assume that is what you wanted it to do.
Note, of course, that if some hacker breaks into your system and changes the programming, you are not responsible for that.
I would also like to point out that the open wifi system is also affecting all of the wifi enabled computers in its range. It sends out signals telling those computers that it is ready for a connection, the computers have to sort through the signals to find the right wifi network. We have posters here who mentioned that they would have to change the settings on their computer to prevent connecting to the open network. How is that sort of intrusion different than my connecting to the network? Both of the computer systems are “invaded” by unwanted signals and the owners have to spend time changing settings to prevent this invasion. I find it interesting that I have to change the settings on my computer because someone else doesn’t want me to use his resource, but there is no expectation that he needs to change his settings.
To take a contrarian view, I could claim that the network owner is hijacking my computer in an effort to make me use his network, and that if he doesn’t want to be brought up on charges, he should stop his network from shoving itself front and center every time I turn on my PC.
I’m pretty sure that the FCC, when it approves these kind of devices, also approves a right-of-way for the broadcast signals. That means that folks have legal protection for broadcasting, for their own use, whatever radio signals that may be used by devices approved by the FCC. People have no standing to complain that a particular radio frequency from an approved device is entering their home. If the people who pick up the radio signals of another have a beef with those signals reaching their house, their beef should be with the FCC, not the user of the equipment, so long as the device is being used in the way the FCC intended.
To put it another way, just because the signal from my cordless phone could be picked up by my neighbors, that does not give them the legal right to: (a) listen in to my phone conversations, (b) demand that the signals from my cordless phone NOT enter their house, or (c) buy a similar model handset and use it to make phone calls, whether they are free or long distance.
And if you find it such a chore to ignore a particular wifi broadcast, you could always ask around your neighbors for who is using the thing – I can’t imagine that those signals travel more than a pretty short distance – and give them some helpful advice about how to set up their equipment.
It’s not just that the signal comes in, it’s that it intrudes upon my computer, the new network appears in a list automatically, I have to sort through it to ensure I don’t use it. It is sending information to my computer without my permission. Information like the network name. I don’t want that crap clogging up my PC, but it’s there unless I take steps to specifically prevent that network from showing on my screen.
However when I send out a signal and information to his router, I go to jail. Doesn’t quite seem right. He doesn’t have to take steps to prevent my signal from going to his router. The network owner is allowed to be ignorant when setting up his router, but the computer owner isn’t, he’s a criminal and goes to jail.
If I don’t want to use his network, I am responsible for setting up my computer to ignore it. If he doesn’t want me to use his network, he is responsible for setting up his router to ignore me. Simple.
As I believe I mentioned above, ignorance of the facts here is a defense. If you had no idea your computer was connecting to a foreign router, you lack the requisite mens rea to commit a crime. You must knowingly access a computer without authorization. If you, in ignorance, take a laptop out of the box and start using it, and are amazed when your neighbor shows up with the cops and an arrest warrant because you were connecting to his network, then you are not guilty of any crime.
But if you know that your computer is connecting to an access point for which you are not authorized, you are guilty.
Out of curiosity, just how precisely do you have to know what you’re doing? I mean, I know a lot about computer networks, and for a computer with multiple network connections (say, my ethernet going to my DSL, plus my wifi that might be connecting to my neighbor’s open network), it takes a little more than just basic knowledge to be sure which network your traffic is going over. If you think you’re using your neighbor’s network, but aren’t sure, is that “knowingly” in the eyes of the law? How about if you think you’re not using it, but you aren’t sure? Would knowing about the possibility constitute “knowingly”?
With computer networks, it’s pretty easy to think you know what’s happening when you actually don’t. Sometimes I have to perform elaborate experiments to prove what I think I know about my own networks; proving what someone else knows about their network seems pretty difficult.
I live next door to a vacant lot. I’m pretty sure the city doesn’t own it. Sometimes there are a couple cars parked on it in a way that seems sanctioned by the owners.
Every day I cut right through that lot. If they put up so much as a paper “no trespassing” sign or a knee high fence, I’d stop. But since they left a big vacant lot smack in the middle of downtown with no marking or anything, I’m pretty sure that means they are cool with people cutting across it from time to time. Give me just one little sign and I’d stop. But I’m not going to spend my life steadfastly sticking to sidewalks out of fears that I might disrupt someone’s sacred propery rights by stepping on the wrong bit of land.
There are free signals everywhere. Governments set them up. Businesses set them up. Educational institutions set them up. Individuals set them up. It’s not my duty to sort through each of these signals I pick up at, say, a public park, and try to discern which one is which.
It’s a question of fact for the jury. If carnivorousplant gets on the stand and says, “Hey, my laptop says ‘wireless ready’ and ‘Intel mobile technology.’ I figured that meant I was buying a wireless hookup. How was I to know I needed a wireless access point in my house?” … and the jury believes him … then he’s off the hook. But if the cross-examination revealed that he was a network engineer and spends his days designing networking solutions and wireless security, the jury might not believe him.
Just like the “knowing” element of many other crimes, it’s simply a question of fact for the fact-finder to determine.
Yes, it is your duty, as the law makes clear. Perhaps you mean to argue it should not be your duty. I disagree, but reasonable minds may differ. There is no question that the law imposes such a duty, however.
So, basically, if I open by brand new wireless enabled computer and it automatically searches for and hooks up to my neighbors unprotected network, I can be:
arrested
fingerprinted
thrown in the local lockup
post bail of potentially thousands of dollars
pay for a lawyer
go through trial
hopefully be aquitted
always have an arrest on my record
Lovely set of laws we have. I sort of prefer my rules, where the aggrieved party has to actually secure his network or at least tell me to stop before I can be arrested for committing a crime. Like even sven’s vacant lot, I think the owner should at a minimum be required to make it known that transit is not allowed before it’s claimed that trespassing crimes are being committed and arrests made.
in my apartment (2nd floor apartment) my G4 Mirror Door can detect a “Linksys” wireless network, completely unsecured, in fact the owner hasn’t even bothered to change the default password, i can log onto his router, and have full run of the system, however, my PowerBook G4 Aluminum can’t detect it, even when it’s sitting on top of the tower…
in theory i could log onto his network, change his password, set encryption to on, and lock out any machine not using my IP addresses, essentially locking him out of his own connection and there’s nothing he could do about it other than a hard reset (and assuming he hasn’t bothered to change the password or even encrypt the signal, i’d take that as a sign he doesn’t know how to do it, not that he doesn’t care)
now, i WOULD NOT do this as it’s illegal and definite theft of services, but i want to find out who this person is and tell him his network needs to be secured
i’m assuming he’s using a pc, is there any way i can log onto his network from my machine and send him a message that he needs to secure his system?
Yes, theoretically. In practice, I doubt it, because a prosecutor would have to be crazy to go forward with those charges, and prosecutorial discretion is a key part of our justice system.
I think you’re right about the in practice part, since we can only seem to find one actual prosecution on these charges. That prosecution is due more to the guys circumstance, being associated with 2 men who used the open connection he found to steal credit cards, than to the importance of the crime.
Like sven’s vacant lot trespassing example, I think law enforcement is generally going to give you a “get off the property/network and don’t come back” warning before they arrest you. That, I think, is morally the right way to handle it.
Sure - and there is both a practical and a moral component to that. As I said, the state has to prove that you knowingly used the device. While they can investigate your background to see what training and technical knowledge you have, that level of effort is just unrealistic. Much more likely that they find you and give you a warning. Then there’s no question about “knowingly” in a subsequent prosecution for a subsequent offense; you were warned before, so you knew it was a problem…
