I rather like this comparison. Using someone else's wi-fi is like trespassing instead of stealing. And, like with trespassing, sometimes using someone's wi-fi is okay and sometimes it's not. Just like a person won't much mind if neighborhood kids are playing chase in his front yard without his explicit permission, he probably won't mind much if someone is lightly using his bandwidth for mundane purposes. The main difference is that he can see what is happening in his yard, but can't see what a person might be doing on his wi-fi. I think that's the element that makes people antsy, and justifiably. That's why you need to erect security on your wi-fi just as you might put a fence around your yard. I can't feel too sorry for someone who won't erect even the simplest and most common-sense protection for their network. If you had neighborhood dogs crapping in your backyard, wouldn't you erect a fence instead of relying on the law to keep you safe?
I don't get this line of thought. I agree everyone should have security on their networks, but somehow the victim is being made to look like the "perpetrator" in this. As for the neighborhood dogs, I'd notify the owners first. If that doesn't work, then I notify the authorities because someone is obviously not adhering to "leash laws". Why should I have to pay hundreds or spend hours erecting a fence to keep out your knucklehead dogs? The burden should be on you and your dogs to "pay" - not me.
I see you haven't even tried, so I'm going to "assume" like you're doing in your position, that you have no explanation...
I figured so. Or else you would have never cited it to support your argument, which it clearly doesn't.
To tap into someone's cable or phone line, I have to take measures to cross a barrier. I would view this situation as comparable to "hacking" to get past a WEP encryption. All of these, I would consider illegal (not "stealing", but some sort of illegal use of others' services, whatever the correct wording would be for that). When I just use an unsecured open access point to access the Internet, do not consume unusually high amounts of bandwidth (e.g., I just use the access point to browse the Clutch BBS and read some news and send some e-mails, then I just leave again), then I think this is not comparable with actually taking measures to overcome some technical hurdle in order to reap a benefit at the expense of someone else. In fact, when I use an unsecured open access point, not only do I not have any intent to deprive anyone of anything, very often (as in bigtexxx' example) I am using the facility with the explicit or implied consent of the owner of the access point. When you look at the configuration picture I posted of Airport Express, you would actually have a hard time arguing that the consent is NOT express consent. In your examples of tapping into someone's cable or phone service, this is not the case.
Just admit that you didn't read the article at all, only the synopsis, because you though it would support your theory, and move on. its easy to spot when SJC has no leg to stand on when he resorts to insults and being an overall ****head
I was explaining to you that what you (and Dr of Dunk) were declaring as "the truth" ("wi-fi mooching is stealing") is not as clear-cut as you believe it to be, and that my personal opinion is that it is not at all. If you read this: Is it legal to use someone's Wi-Fi connection to browse the Web if they haven't put a password on it? Nobody really knows. "It's a totally open question in the law," says Neal Katyal, a professor of criminal law at Georgetown University. "There are arguments on both sides." you will see that what you and some others declare here like you actually know anything simply is not as clear as you think it is. And I am representing the side that says "it is not stealing, it is not a crime, and it should not be prosecuted". Maybe you could keep arguing with that professor of criminal law at Georgetown University, if you are so sure that it is "stealing", as you say...
no, it seems you have not understood wardriving has only to due with indetifying hot spots and open access routers nowhere in that article does the author support unauthorized access (in fact, quite the opposite) nor does he claim it is legal he makes a clear distinction that you possibly aren't recognizing
The signal information that goes through your RJ-45 cable is the same information that is being broadcast via a WAP? How is it any different except for the fact that it is being transmitted in a different fashion? Cable signals are not always encrypted, should you be able to leech cable since it isnt encrypted? Should you be able to leech telephone signals, they are almost never encrypted? I think you just like to hear yourself argue and can never admit when you are wrong. Are you sure you arent from Chicago because you sound an awful lot like my ex wife? Is that you Randi?
I'm with you here, SJC. Our's is open to our neighbors & I really could not care less who uses it. There seems to be a definite degree of consent when one refuses to implement basic security measures on a wireless network. The law is non-existent on this issue, and until it is codified, saying that this is definitely illegal and/or akin to theft/trespassing/whatever is quite premature.
In this case and many others, I expect potential victims to attempt some basic level of self-preservation before I'd call a crime a crime.
