I think that is a good point. The legal question will be decided at some point, and at this point I think one can just agree to disagree until the matter is settled one way or another (and it might very well be settled in different fashion in different jurisdictions). My personal opinion is that it would be unethical to just constantly use a neighbor's wi-fi over a long period of time and with high use of bandwidth unless I have a clear invitation to do so or I contribute to the cost of the Internet access. It would also be unethical to take measures to hack into a WEP encrypted or MAC secured network, because it would be obvious that use by others is not intended. However, being on the road and connecting to an open unsecured network to just quickly check a BBS, some news and send some e-mails, with negligible use of bandwidth - I don't consider it unethical at all, because there is a high chance that consent is given either in expressed fashion (the owner of the access point is aware of the possibility of use by others and invites/allows it, like bigtexxx) or there is implied consent or the owner simply does not mind/care at all.
You have worked in a law firm for a while, right? Also, aren't you more on the "liberal" (in the sense in which TJ uses it) side of the political spectrum? Ever heard of unlawful arrests or arrests which turn out to be false later because there was no sufficient cause? The fact that someone was arrested hardly means that the legal question behind it is settled. I believe I have seen threads where you criticized arrests (maybe it was the case of some anti-bush protesters being arrested). If you follow through with your logic, you would have to say "it was right to arrest them because they got arrested". Pleeeeeeease .
Well, as far as ethics go, unless the owner of the wi-fi has given you permission, then I feel its unethical. For all of you who just log on for a sec, or check and send a few quick emails, what do you think would happen if you walked up to their house and asked them if you could do so? I would be that most would say no. IMO, if one can't make a reasonable assumption that anyone with an open wi-fi is ok with a stranger using their bandwith, then they should consider it unethical.
not necessarily....it can be argued that *most* users dont know enough to know that the need for protection is there....to *imply* permission...they need to know waht the consequences are for not protecting their asset. If you could prove that they knew what could happen and still failed to secure their access point....then yes, I would agree that implies permission. It doesnt change the fact that using someones access point WITHOUT their IMPLICIT permission is unethical... that may be....but it does not further the discussion for you to continue it I assume you are referring to codell...who I know from personal experience is normally quite levelheaded and reasonable...if you ceased the personal attacks and the condescending attitude...I guarantee you he would be perfectly civil. no...you are correct that for the most part...wardrivers are doing it to find access points they can use....but...at the time that they are "wardriving"..they normally dont access it any further than to see if there is security on it..the access would normally happen at other times, and not always by the person that found the access point. I still consder it wrong....but that should not be illegal imo....only the unauthorized access should be a crime. Waht you need to realize is that I am a security guy...the thought of ANYONE accessing my networks makes me queasy....I didnt want to seed torrents or open my network up to ftp users for the longest time because by nature I hate letting down my guard...it was only after bulletproofing my ftp/torrent seeding box did I allow anyone access to it.
(The following has nothing to do with the wi-fi mooching case, but just for the heck of it I agree that it would be rude, but would it be a crime if I was a guest in your house and used your phone without asking? Would you call the police? Probably not, right? Okay, I think calling the police just because someone briefly used my open, unsecured wireless access point (and the guy in the case at hand even left it open on purpose) would be silly. So now you are saying it is not a crime? I agree. Also, under most circumstances, I don't even consider it unethical. Sorry for "stealing your Internet" .
Yes, because it is a difference whether someone uses a signal which I (purposely or not) left open and accessible for anyone or if they enter my house. The fact that I would not just let some stranger walk into my house proves nothing about the question whether accessing the Internet over someone's open and unsecured wireless access point is ethical or legal. I think that is a fair opinion. I disagree, but I can see how one can consider it unethical. However, a crime? We should be careful not to criminalize people too easily. What do you think should the penalty be? A crime needs a sanction. If you think it is a crime, then what do you consider adequate? Do you think it would be worth the police's time to pursue this or do you think they have more important things to do?
Have I made any of my opinions regarding this issue known? Did I state it was right for them to arrest him? My point was that the legality of the issue has been resolved enough in one part of the country to the point where they are arresting people. Quit putting words in my mouth and trying to pick a fight. You've got enough on your hands as it is.
So in the event that you wardrive, how do you determine which is open because the network is unsecured and which is open because its user wanted it to be? BTW, simply because the user knowingly "allows" someone else to access the network doesn't make it legal. Most TOS agreements users sign with their ISP's prohibit unauthorized use. The ISP charges a fee per user or per household for the service. They really don't want people who haven't paid to use their networks (note : the bandwidth belongs to the ISP, the user who you are hacking is only renting it) and getting a free ride. As for legalities, apparently there is a state law in Florida that allowed Benjamin Smith to be arrested.
You are right. I couldn't help it. It has to do with some banter codell and I have exchanged in the past already, but at least from my side, even if it does not sound like it, it is always tongue-in-cheek, but I realize that this might not be evident at all. So, I apologize to codell and anyone who might have felt offended for my tone. I don't think the unauthorized access to an open unsecured network should be a crime (because I think it is even below the "petty theft" threshold, if you want to consider it theft). In my opinion, it would be ridiculous to arrest someone for something as minor as that (merely accessing the Internet over an open unsecured network). If you "steal" files from within that network, that should be a crime, or if you use the network to pursue illegal activities, but then that is the crime, not the access to the network itself. I understand. My own wi-fi is secured for two reasons: 1) I don't want anyone to do anything creepy from my IP address (access child p*rn or whatever, I mean, how would I be able to convince a judge that it wasn't me. 2) I don't want anyone to gain access to the files on my computer, which, from my very limited technical understanding, would be easier if I left my wireless access point unsecured. But I have a lot of respect for people who have faith in the good in people and just leave their access points open. I think it is a cool thing in the spirit of the early days of the Internet to "share with the community".
An arrest does not necessarily say very much about the legality of itself. All I am saying is that the arrest in itself is a very weak indicator of whether the legality of an issue is resolved.
If you called in a bomb threat on my phone, just like if someone leeched internet to download child p*rn, yes it would be a crime. If you used my phone without my permission for anything, I feel it is a crime. Would I call the police, no, its too petty. Unless you cost me money for using long distance and didnt care to pay it back, then maybe I would do something about it. It reminds me of something that my dad told me once, "Is it yours? No? Then dont ****ing touch it" Then he whacked the **** out of me. If it isnt yours, dont ****ing touch it. Wise words, man I miss my dad. I never said it wasnt a crime, I said that it may not be. Big difference. Its not my internet, I didnt invent it. He did and I dont think he is to ****ing happy that you go around stealing it.
I don't have to, because I think I am not depriving the owner of the access point of anything and that if they had wanted to prevent others from accessing the Internet through their access point, they could have easily done so. And if they haven't, the probability that they will notice that I am using their access point gravitates toward zero, so the "felt damage" for them will be zero, too . How are they harmed? I don't feel that I am doing anything unethical, but I can see how some might see it that way. The TOS agreement is between the owner of the access point and the ISP. If the TOS agreement requires the owner of the access point to secure his access point and he does not, then he is in violation, not the guy who happens to do some wi-fi mooching. That guy is in no way affected by what the owner of the access point and the ISP have agreed to in their contractual relationship, as he is not a party to that contract. Little-Used Law The state law under which Smith was charged prohibits accessing a computer or network knowingly, willfully, and without authorization. Kajtsa says it's the first time anyone has been arrested in St. Petersburg for using someone else's Wi-Fi. "This is a very little-used statute," Kajtsa says. Gartner analyst Ken Dulaney has no sympathy for Wi-Fi users such as Dinon. "He should have put security on his wireless LAN system. It's the guy's fault that he left it open," Dulaney says. "Don't the police have anything better to do?" http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,121747,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp
Texas Penal Code, Title 7, Chapter 33 : http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.007.00.000033.00.htm Excerpts : A router seems to qualify under the above definition. Gotta have consent from the "owner" whether that be the owner of the router or the owner of the bandwidth. I wonder if this has ever been brought to trial in Texas. It seems fairly clear that in the situation being presented in this thread that if you knowingly use the network/router of a person who doesn't know you're using it, it is against Texas State Law. It's apparently true in Florida as well.
And if I walk into your house and do nothing but smile and leave? lol. My defense will be "hey, I didn't deprive him of anything, if he wanted to, he could've locked the door". This is where I think you stretch your definition of a crime. It's not your interpretation of an act that matters. It's whether or not the act was a violation - period. You may not think so, but apparently 2 states disagree with you. Hey, how about another arrest : http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/AnchorDesk/4520-7297_16-5511088.html All he did was check his email over the Lowe's network. I'm sure he didn't do any damage or steal any bandwidth. I agree with that, but I'm still looking into whether or not you using say, Comcast or SBC's network without paying for it is illegal. Oh come on now... that's like all the speeders that get busted speeding saying "don't the police have something else to do?" About the only calls police would respond to would be murders in progress. That was weak. The fact remains that it is apparently illegal in at least 1 state.
It's different, because you cannot reasonably assume that I will be fine with someone just entering my house without invitation. But one can argue that leaving an access point open and unsecured can be understood as an invitation to use it or at least an indication that someone does not mind or care if others use that signal. There is a difference between physically entering someone's house and just using a signal (even more so when that signal appears to be open for anyone to use). How about waiting to see if it really is illegal until there is a conviction which gets confirmed by the highest court in that state? I predict you will wait a while... As I said, one arrest does not settle the issue whether something is legal or not. People have been arrested for the funniest things...
I would like to repeat my question: For those who think it should be a crime, what should be the sanction, in your opinion?
Why am i always in the minority on these things? Yes, "technically" you are "taking" waves from "someone". It is about as illegal as stealing cable, harmlessly. ie. You move into an apartment and you notice the cable hasn't been removed. You did nothing to "steal it", yet there you are with free cable.(and I guarantee this has happened to others. It's happened to me 3 times already.) If you are of the merit to call the cable co. and have it removed, or start paying for it, bully for you. As for me, I'll enjoy me some free cable, thank you very much. And should I ever move somewhere that I am able to get online for free, I'll probably do that, too. So, in summary. Is it stealing? I guess so. Is it harmless? For the vast, non-pedophile majority, it doesn't hurt anyone but the big corporations, who I care less about, anyway.
It's not different because I cannot assume that my Microsoft Money file, email, etc. are safe when you are on my network. Whether I have the knowledge or not to secure it does not mean you have the right to get on it. In neither case can you, the intruder, make the assumption that it is perfectly fine for you to do so. Here's a question for you : assume you are piggybacking on a neighbor's account. You think that since he left his network unsecured, you are doing nothing wrong. Do you think that by using that network without paying his ISP you are doing anything illegal?
