Leeching bandwidth is stealing. The router/access point you're accessing is private property. The service you are stealing is a licensed service. SJC, 1) I assume he doesn't mind, because if he did, he could just use WEP. I assumed the owner of the house didn't mind me going into his home because if he did, he would have just locked the door. I did nothing wrong. 2) And how do I have the intent to deprive the "owner" of the access point of anything if I use his access point? Most accounts have business and residential versions. If bandwidth usage is "too" heavy on a residential account, you are asked to move up to a business account... at a higher cost. You and others like you that believe stealing bandwidth from an account by accessing wireless networks can definitely hammer an account's bandwidth usage.
Radio waves are public domain, free for everyone, and I'm sure it is illegal to build a black box to get Sirius radio just like it is illegal to program Directv cards to get there signal.
Maybe I'm not understanding, but : 1) Radio is a free service. Internet access usually is not. 2) Sirius/XM is not a free service and you must have a valid radio id to use the service.
Internet is a service that is sold. If you partake in that service without permission from the service provider or the person that is paying for the service, that is stealing. Plain and simple. If someone is paying for Sirius radio and is playing it so that everyone can hear it, that is their decision. If you went and tapped into their radio to play the music in your house without their permission, that is stealing. You are comparing two completely different scenarios. I have leeched off of a wireless internet connection but I'm not stupid enough to try and validate what I did wrong by saying they should have secured the connection. Wrong is wrong and what you are saying is wrong no matter how you try to make excuses for it.
Does it matter that they're beaming the signal through my livingroom? Sort of like purposely delivering a paper to my door, but then telling me I shouldn't read it! (not that I would have ANY idea about this stuff...i'm still solidly a wire connection guy...and all this talk about how easy it is to tap into wireless networks is doing nothing to change that!).
My cell phone signal is going through your living room too. That doesn't give you the right to tap into it.
Exactly. I think tapping into telecommunication signals without permission is essentially, eavesdropping, which I believe is illegal, without a court order, in most states.
Some of you might want to read this article (PDF): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID585867_code355448.pdf?abstractid=585867&mirid=1 War, Peace, or Stalemate: Wargames, Wardialing, Wardriving, and the Emerging Market for Hacker Ethics PATRICK S. RYAN Catholic University of Leuven (KUL) - Faculty of Law; University of Colorado at Boulder -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 9, No. 7, Summer 2004 Abstract: A wardriver gets in her car and drives around a given area. Using her laptop, freely available software, a standard Wi-Fi card, and a GPS device, she logs the status and location of wireless networks. The computer generates a file and records networks that are open and networks that are closed. Once the data is collected, the wardriver may denote an open network by using chalk to mark a sign on a building, called "warchalking," or she may record the location on a digital map and publish it on the Internet. This article will explain the roots of the term "wardriving," and the cultural phenomenon of the 1983 Hollywood movie WarGames that gave birth to the concept more than 20 years ago. Moreover, this article will show that the press has often confused wardriving with computer crimes involving trespass and illegal access. There are inconspicuous ethical shades to wardriving that are poorly understood, and to date, no academic literature has analyzed the legality of the activity. This article will argue that the act of wardriving itself is quite innocuous, legal, and can even be quite beneficial to society. It will also highlight the need for wardrivers - and for anyone accessing open networks - to help establish and adhere to strict ethical guidelines. Such guidelines are available in various proposal-stage forms, and this article will review these ethics within the context of a larger movement among hackers to develop a coherent ethical code.
The statement was made as an analogy to what you stated - do you agree or disagree with the statement?
Of course I disagree. But the statement has nothing to do with using someone else's wireless access point whatsoever. Another link that might be of interest (describes this case as a grey area of the law, obviously, I am aware that it is, just stating my opinion, as almost always with legal issues, opinions will differ): http://news.com.com/FAQ+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-7351_3-5778822.html?tag=nl.caro And another resource with links to many articles and opinions: http://www.wardriving.com/
Well, you see my current situation. I can't go many days with out the internet. I'm just trying to be considerate and use the least amount of bandwidth I can.
I think it's stealing and if I'm away from home and need an internet connection that I can't borrow from a friend's, I do do it anyway. I also use the (admittedly weak) excuses that it's temporary and that people can encrypt if they don't want to allow this. However, I do at least abide within those excuses. I would not permanently leech off a neighbor's access, and even if I knew how to break a person's encryption, I wouldn't (at least I like to think so).
You do know the difference between wardriving and someone actually using someone's signal right? Wardriving is akin to me saying "hey look, that guy left his door unlocked with the keys inside!" It has nothing to do with me or anyone else that hears me actually using the car without the owner's permission.
You are entering a person's private property in either case. You aren't necessarily going to do any damage in either case. You aren't necessarily going to take anything from them in either case. You make a (foolish) assumption in either case that the person didn't mind because they left their "security" disabled. So why would you disagree?
