[QUOTE=Musicat]
Isn’t it a general principal of US law that you are innocent until proven guilty? Wouldn’t the burden of proof be on the prosecution?
[/QUOTE]
That’s how it’s supposed to be, but I don’t have nearly the faith in our justice system as I used to. It was more in response to Bricker’s comment about having a “guilty mind” coupled with another thread about “thought crime” and the like. I don’t think it’s a stretch to think it could happen.
[QUOTE=Hilarity N. Suze]
Okay, thanks. Now a question.
Setting up that WEP thing is not all that easy. I did exactly what the manual said and everything looked just ducky (to me). Then my son told me that he could get my signal from the Starbucks across the street. (Whereas I have a hard time getting a signal on my laptop from my basement.) And to prove it he typed up a quick file and sent it to my printer.
So I said, “Okay, so they get my signal, so what?” He went on to detail dozens of bad things that could happen, including somebody getting into my secret files, but he was too busy making a gazillion dollars a year as a network programmer or something to fix it for me. To him it is easy, to me it is all one great big mystery.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t see the question there, but let me ask two questions. Did the manual instruct you to set up a secret code or a password on the network? (That’s essentially what a WEP was, but I just want to check that.)
Secondly… does your son have access to the code? If so, then it’s no particular problem that the signal reaches to the starbucks, because none of the people there should have your code. (Unless your son is really mean and posts it there or something.)
If he hasn’t been told the code and couldn’t reasonably guess it or find it, and yet he was able to print to your printer, then either the security isn’t tight, or he was doing something more than usually clever to hack into the system. I don’t know the details of what would be required for the latter.
With the APX I can set it up so that it is not only secured by password, but also invisible to the casual survey of local wireless hubs. I would assume it’s possible to make any hub sufficiently undetectable that you have to enter both its name and your password to log on. Casual users wouldn’t even see it, and hackers wouldn’t be easily tempted by it.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
How would she prove it was accidental and not an intention to commit a crime?
[/QUOTE]
The prosecution has to prove that the access was deliberate and not accidental.
However, this proof can be cirucmstantial – a fact finder can infer from the evidence that actions are deliberate.
If the evidence shows that you purchased fertilizer and diesel fuel, rented a truck, packed the truck full of homemade explosive, and drove it to the front of a local federal building, the jury can infer this wasn’t an accident, even though there is no specific testimony that “proves” it wasn’t an accident.
In cases like the one under discussion here, of course, it’s far less obvious. The prosecution would have to be able to point to some circumstance that a fact-finder would believe showed deliberate intent. It could be something simple, like timing: you start accessing your neighbor’s wireless signal, then cancel your own Internet service and continue to surf the web. That would allow a fact-finder to infer that you knew you were using someone else’s signal. Your prior record could be used to show an absence of mistake in this regard… if, for example, you had previously been prosecuted for such a crime, arguing that you made a mistake this time would be very difficult.
The prosecution could show that you only used the neighbor’s network to download porn, or large movie files, and used your own bandwidth to download innocuous files or with small traffic. That, too, would let a fact-finder infer that you knew the difference in networks and that there was no mistake.
These are simply examples. Any circumstance that would allow a reasonable inference of absence of mistake is fair game.
I have to wonder: Are there no legal provisions for stupidity or setups? Say I toss a gold-plated Rolex out in my front lawn right next to the sidewalk and leave it there. Several helpful neighbors inform me I’m practically begging for the theft of a valuable item, and I shrug it off. I like it there, I’m too busy, my back aches, whatever. Furthermore, I set up a camera in my living room, and wait until a passerby snags the watch. I then turn the tape over to the police.
Really, I don’t see my neighbor’s behavior as materially different than what’s going on above. She projects a coveted commodity, which she cannot be bothered to secure, literally into the property of other individuals, and then can reserve the right to press charges against anyone who uses it. Something about that, a bit like my hypothetical above, strikes me as absurd. As the law needn’t make any sense, I can certainly believe thefts of the above sorts are still fully prosecutable, but I hold out the glimmer of hope there’s some kind of sane alternative.
[QUOTE=Loopydude]
I have to wonder: Are there no legal provisions for stupidity or setups? Say I toss a gold-plated Rolex out in my front lawn right next to the sidewalk and leave it there. Several helpful neighbors inform me I’m practically begging for the theft of a valuable item, and I shrug it off. I like it there, I’m too busy, my back aches, whatever. Furthermore, I set up a camera in my living room, and wait until a passerby snags the watch. I then turn the tape over to the police.
Really, I don’t see my neighbor’s behavior as materially different than what’s going on above. She projects a coveted commodity, which she cannot be bothered to secure, literally into the property of other individuals, and then can reserve the right to press charges against anyone who uses it. Something about that, a bit like my hypothetical above, strikes me as absurd. As the law needn’t make any sense, I can certainly believe thefts of the above sorts are still fully prosecutable, but I hold out the glimmer of hope there’s some kind of sane alternative.
[/QUOTE]
The example is not quite analogous. Using a wireless network involves repeatedly interacting with equipment inside the owners home. The neighbor isn’t just picking up something that appears to be free for the taking. He is making requests and taking the results.
Perhaps a better analogy would be using a universal remote aimed through a neighbor’s window to watch his TV.
[QUOTE=Loopydude]
I have to wonder: Are there no legal provisions for stupidity or setups? Say I toss a gold-plated Rolex out in my front lawn right next to the sidewalk and leave it there. Several helpful neighbors inform me I’m practically begging for the theft of a valuable item, and I shrug it off. I like it there, I’m too busy, my back aches, whatever. Furthermore, I set up a camera in my living room, and wait until a passerby snags the watch. I then turn the tape over to the police.
[/quote]
The police routinely set up stings like this, leaving a bait car or bicycle unsecured somewhere. When people steal it, they are arrested.
It boggles my mind that you would see that as some sort of problem. People are not permitted to steal gold Rolex watches, regardless of the security measures, or lack of security measures, that may protect the watch. Your tone of outrage suggests that people can’t really be blamed for stealing under those circumstances. I’m utterly baffled at such an attitude.
This is not a circumstance where the law leads to an absurd or undesirable result – either your hypothetical or the theft of bandwidth.
[QUOTE=Barrytown]
My tech knowledge may be insufficient, but how is this sort of thing traceable? In the case linked to above, a cop actually found the guy sitting in his car and getting his signal from there. In any other situation, I can’t think of a way it would be traced - how would it be discovered that one individual on their own individual laptop was doing this and could be charged?
[No, I’m not asking because I want to do this - I only have a desktop. Just curious.]
[/QUOTE]
This has been addressed, but to elaborate:
Assume that in your scenario, the intruder does not get caught (say it’s an urban area, lots of offices and apartments and he could be anywhere). While it’s true that MAC addresses are supposed to be unique, they don’t have to be. In fact, someone who specifically is trying to gain access to other wireless networks may be very likely to keep his MAC “on the move”, so to speak, to avoid detection (either by using MAC addresses of legitimate machines on the network, or simply to look like he’s actually multiple people accessing over time).
Also, even if the MAC was in fact unaltered from the original factory setting, this doesn’t give you much in terms of a way to trace him. MAC addresses are only visible on the local network segment so you wouldn’t have any fast method for determining who or where that associated network card was at any time. I guess you could try to get sales information from the NIC vendor but I don’t know if they even track that information.
Basically, from a technical perspective you’d have a hard time catching someone based solely on the information provided by your network. However, once you’ve caught him, the technology can help prove what he did through a variety of means, but this depends on the extent that he cleans up after himself. This isn’t going to be much different from most any other type of evidence gathering, though, it’s just digital.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Your tone of outrage suggests that people can’t really be blamed for stealing under those circumstances. I’m utterly baffled at such an attitude.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, please. It’s not a “tone of outrage”, more of serious doubt about where the line between theft and entrapment lies. Your example of the bait car is a better analogy to my gold watch, and, also, per TPC above, shows my hypothetical to be a a poor example in a number of ways. If my neighbor drops the gold watch in my house, and I wind it and carry it around to tell time, is that a better analogy? I don’t know. Probably TPC’s example of using the remote is better still, but nothing is really perfect. I’m still looking into my neighbor’s house to see her TV, which could be an invasion as well as a misappropriation.
Again, in the case of an insecure WiFi network, it can easily be in my home. It can be so in my home that it’s easier to use than my own router, as experience has taught me many times after my signal gets dropped. True, I have to interact with it to use it, but it also interacts with my own equipment, which is designed to inform me of its presence, and even invite me to use it, depending on the configuration. Her router can interfere with my own router’s transmissions, and there’s no surefire way to prevent that without getting an antenna (channel changing is often imperfect, as routers can jump from channel to channel dynamically, and channels can overlap anyway), which will boost the radius of my signal enormously, and probably cause interference with other routers even hundreds of feet away.
So let me again apologize. My gold watch analogy really sucked. I can’t think of a good analogy now, and the more I ponder the issue, the more I conclude we’re still in fairly new territory, ethically speaking. A better fr’instance, perhaps, to illustrate some of my discomfort: If I can’t connect to my router because my neighbor’s router overpowers my signal (which does happen), yet I can log onto her router because she leaves it wide open, she knows this, she knows I know this, I use it, and she nails me, I’m still at fault. I’m not positive, but I don’t think I’ve any recourse at all, even if her equipment is actively screwing with mine, as she’s making perfeclty legal use of it. She could be well aware of this, and just sit there waiting to pounce on me if I try to use her connection, as far as I can tell. My only alternative may be to start a signal war, which compromises my own security. Where’s the failure here, the law, the technology, or a little of both? Conceptually the wifi legal issues seem straighforward, but in practice I can think of several real-world situations where the nature of the technology invites frustration and various forms of abuse, and the courtesy vs. criminal elements seem rather blurred in my mind because the laws don’t seem quite up to the real-world challenge yet.
Searching for a proper analogy will take all year. How’s about: my neighbour thrusts an extension cable into my living room. I plug my TV into it, then sit down to watch The Simpsons while eating the tasty apple pie my neighbour left to cool on my kitchen table. I am therefore a criminal.
[QUOTE=Loopydude]
…
Again, in the case of an insecure WiFi network, it can easily be in my home. It can be so in my home that it’s easier to use than my own router, as experience has taught me many times after my signal gets dropped. True, I have to interact with it to use it, but it also interacts with my own equipment, which is designed to inform me of its presence, and even invite me to use it, depending on the configuration. Her router can interfere with my own router’s transmissions, and there’s no surefire way to prevent that without getting an antenna (channel changing is often imperfect, as routers can jump from channel to channel dynamically, and channels can overlap anyway), which will boost the radius of my signal enormously, and probably cause interference with other routers even hundreds of feet away.
So let me again apologize. My gold watch analogy really sucked. I can’t think of a good analogy now, and the more I ponder the issue, the more I conclude we’re still in fairly new territory, ethically speaking. A better fr’instance, perhaps, to illustrate some of my discomfort: If I can’t connect to my router because my neighbor’s router overpowers my signal (which does happen), yet I can log onto her router because she leaves it wide open, she knows this, she knows I know this, I use it, and she nails me, I’m still at fault. I’m not positive, but I don’t think I’ve any recourse at all, even if her equipment is actively screwing with mine, as she’s making perfeclty legal use of it. She could be well aware of this, and just sit there waiting to pounce on me if I try to use her connection, as far as I can tell. My only alternative may be to start a signal war, which compromises my own security. Where’s the failure here, the law, the technology, or a little of both? Conceptually the wifi legal issues seem straighforward, but in practice I can think of several real-world situations where the nature of the technology invites frustration and various forms of abuse, and the courtesy vs. criminal elements seem rather blurred in my mind because the laws don’t seem quite up to the real-world challenge yet.
[/QUOTE]
Loopydude, the problems you describe seem to indicate poor placement of your access point, misconfigurations, malfunctions, or poorly designed equipment. Wireless is not a big portion of my work but this doesn’t sound at all normal. If your neighbor’s signal is stronger, your AP must be further away or placed behind barriers or just plain feeble. If channel jumping is a feature of your equipment, it should be possible to disable it. Channels overlapping shouldn’t be a problem - there should be ten or eleven to choose from. You should be able to configure your PC to not attach to unknown APs without your intervention. (It is your PC that invites you to connect to APs it sees. The AP does not interact with your PC until you request it to do so.)
jjimm, enjoy the pie. 
[QUOTE=Loopydude]
If I can’t connect to my router because my neighbor’s router overpowers my signal (which does happen), yet I can log onto her router because she leaves it wide open, she knows this, she knows I know this, I use it, and she nails me, I’m still at fault.
[/QUOTE]
I would think that if your neighbor knows that you are using it (perhaps you’ve talked and she’s said that you can use her connection), I don’t think that she can just arbitrarily nail you, no more than if I lend my girlfriend my car, I can’t just decide that it is suddenly stolen and have her thrown in the clink. If someone give permission for others to use their Wifi connection, then people who do surely aren’t breaking the law.
However, if someone decides to be a freeloader and takes bandwidth without permission, it stands to reason that taking something from others without their knowledge of permission is at the very least impolite, and very likely illegal.
[QUOTE=ThePCapeman]
Loopydude, the problems you describe seem to indicate poor placement of your access point, misconfigurations, malfunctions, or poorly designed equipment.
[/QUOTE]
All of this might be true, but I’m not sure about the legal relevence of any of it. That said, when your domicile is 16 feet wide, 38 feet long, and almost 30 feet tall, placement isn’t at all an easy nut to crack. Our homes are shaped like a pizza box, but our signals like a beach ball. Her router is indeed more powerful than mine, it would seem, and despite jumping from channels 1-11 and everything in between, I still get interference. Unfortunately, in tight quarters such as mine, these kinds of problems aren’t that uncommon.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
I would think that if your neighbor knows that you are using it (perhaps you’ve talked and she’s said that you can use her connection), I don’t think that she can just arbitrarily nail you, no more than if I lend my girlfriend my car, I can’t just decide that it is suddenly stolen and have her thrown in the clink.
[/QUOTE]
No, of course not. My assumption is I have not been given permission to use it, even though its presence precludes my using my own service. It some respects, it’s patently wrong for me to jump onto her service. In others, I dunno.
This law strikes me as being rather inane. The ‘theft of services’ angle amounts to about the same harm as grabbing a drink from an overzealous lawn sprinker as you walk by on the sidewalk.
Add to that the fact that if someone’s AP is set to default values, it might be impossible to avoid connecting to it, and it’s downright mean. (ie, you connect to a friend’s AP, which is un-secured and called ‘linksys’. If your laptop runs Windows XP (quite likely) and you happen to open my laptop on the way home for some reason, then if there’s an AP called ‘linksys’ in range, your PC will connect to it, and unless you’re paying close attention you might not even notice.
What about a related question–do police need a warrant to log onto someone’s unprotected wireless network?
Here’s a scenario: police in an unmarked van drive slowly down the street with a wireless-capable laptop. They try to connect with every network they detect. Once they connect, they access every computer they can without any security (so they don’t guess passwords or use any hacker tricks). They rummage through any files they can, looking for obscene pictures, terrorist manuals, illegal business records, etc. Sounds like a great way to clean up the neighbor, right?
So, is it legal?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Since hardware MAC addresses are unique,
[/QUOTE]
Funny story: I once worked as a programmer on a wireless access point/client board. We were a small company, so I asked my boss how we were going to get MAC addresses when we starting selling these things. His answer? “Oh, we’ll just use the MAC addresses that long-dead networking company used in its routers. They’re obsolete anyway, so no one probably uses them anyway, and the chances of someone using a router with the same MAC address as one of the clients is tiny. anyway.” :eek:
I don’t think that the project ever went into production, thank goodness.
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
So, is it legal?
[/QUOTE]
Good question. I think it’s legal for an officer of the law to enter your home if they see you doing something illegal from outside. In fact, IIRC, it’s legal for police to even use non-visible-light imaging technology, like IR imaging that can see lamps for hydroponic cannabis culture, to watch you from outside and bust you. If you leave yourself wide open, and a cop decides to take a peek, is it really different? I have no idea.
Ehhh, now that I think of it, the cops would have to click icons, open directories, open files, copy them, etc. These are things not in plain view, as it were, so perhaps it would be illegal search and seizure.