I am getting free wireless access

[pbhalerao]

Recently I shifted residence. In my neighbourhood I am getting free access to DSL on someone's wireless router (I am connected to it as I write). Is this real stealing or like picking up money I found on the road?

[canadateck]

I leave one of mine open for people to do this,This maybe what the guy is doing.

But I have the (Access Name) set to "Free internet" and settings for max up and down.

I wouldnt call it stealing.

[pbhalerao]

I leave one of mine open for people to do this,This maybe what the guy is doing.

Curious to know why? Are you phillathropic by nature?

In my case, perhaps the guy does not know how to block unauthorised access.

[shelbyGT]

I do believe that the cable company would consider it stealing. At least, the service tech from Time Warner said that when he installed mine. I can get on other's people's wireless, and do from time to time when my connect farks up... but I only do it for about a minute at a time. It's their connection, whether they choose to use it or not.

And why do you leave yours open? If someone gets on and does something illegal with that IP, it's your butt not theirs.

[Supreme2k]

It's not stealing any more than hearing someone's stereo playing next door, or someone broadcasting (unencrypted) FM signals.

Actually, it's less like finding money on the road, since you're supposed to turn it in to the police (your county may vary).

shelbyGT's cable guy is full of crap. If anything, the subscriber would be "allowing" unauthorized usage. The people "borrowing" the signal are doing absolutely nothing illegal (such as attaching a splitter box, descrambler, etc.) I find that most buttcrack-showing cable installers know little to nothing about the law (or even their own company rues/policies).

[waheed]

It does mean a drop in internet speed. As more people connect to a single internet connection, the speed is shared between them. This is likely not noticable on a high speed broadband connection, but at lower speeds like dial up, it makes a difference.

[lumis]

i agree with shelby here.. what if someone was using your internet connection to commit credit card fraud and traced it back to your IP address? it would be the police knocking at your door.. even though you may be innocent, that doesnt mean you wont go to jail

[Ward River]

I get free wireless access all the time. I get warnings from the jerk-ass mods here for just talking about it too, so watch out.

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. You've been warned and warned.
/ Moderator Cobra

[Cobra]

Lumis raises a very valid point here. What if the connection was used for illegal purposes such as the downloading of warez, illicit material and so on - would the owner of the connection be the one to get it in the neck?

I'd say that if you had the permission of the connection owner, and it did not violate laws or the terms & conditions set out by the ISP then it is OK. Otherwise, it's a bit dodgy in my opinion - I know how I would feel about others using my Internet connection!

[Supreme2k]

In this situation (unauthorized, but unprotected), I think that if they could trace the mac address or use some other way to sniff out that the "offender" wasn't in the subscriber's home, the subscriber should be okay legally.

Kind of like if someone used a garden hose in your front yard to strangle or drown another person, you wouldn't be liable.
Uh, I think I'm running dry on my analogies

[lumis]

i still would rather not share my internet connection, unless i was running a business and everyone knew.. who knows if a website that is selling stuff is going to keep track of mac addresses? and we all know that you're innocent until proven guilty nowadays, so the cops will probably show up at your door step with a warrant for your arrest, toss you in the back of the squad car and then you have to come up with bail money, money for a lawyer, & miss some work because of the whole fiasco.. it would just be easier if you didnt share your internet connection.. and if they were downloading child pornography off your connection, you really wouldnt like how the cops arrest you then.. they'd probably bust in to your house, tackle you, beat you for "resisting arrest", confiscate your computer and tell everyone else you're a child ******.. which wouldnt make the other prisoners too happy..

so its probably better that you CYA and not share your internet connection.

[VegasBud]

Out of curiousity, I went to wardriving.com, and followed a link that says:

In the United States, accessing the files on an open network is illegal under both federal and state laws, as is using the Internet connection of an open wireless network.

The quote is from a local news channel in Baltimore, and I would assume they check their facts before airing.

[Supreme2k]

On the other hand, as worded, it makes no sense. It doesn't say "accessing files illegally", but simply "accessing". The way it is written, accessing a friends open network with his permission is illegal.

The quote is from a local news channel in Baltimore, and I would assume they check their facts before airing.

Heard of Newsweek lately?

[VegasBud]

Of course you can access any network, wired or wireless if you have prior authorization to do so. This thread, though, seems to be more about access WITHOUT prior authorization.

If you're into legal-speak, you can access an article here which raises several points not only about the legal risks of access, but also about the risks of knowingly providing unencrypted, unprotected access.

A more reader friendly take on the whole thing is available here.

The Cliff Notes version is that it is illegal under U.S. federal computer crime statute, Title 18 U.S.C. 1030 to knowingly access a computer without authorization if the computer has internet access.

Will the police come and kick in your door? Of course not.
Is there a law that says not to do it? Yep.

[Supreme2k]

Of course you can access any network, wired or wireless if you have prior authorization to do so. This thread, though, seems to be more about access WITHOUT prior authorization.

I was talking about the quote as written.

The Cliff Notes version is that it is illegal under U.S. federal computer crime statute, Title 18 U.S.C. 1030 to knowingly access a computer without authorization if the computer has internet access.

But then again, technically you're not accessing the computer (per se), just the router/access point.

[jimmalenko]

Considering that as far as your ISP is concerned, you are responsible for everything and anything that goes on using your IP address, I'd be a bit concerned about sharing my access with anyone else. That said, I'd happily steal someone else's and run experiments on how to download porn a million times faster

[zzyzzx]

The problem with letting other people use your bandwidth (unless it's someone you know) is that some pedophile can drive up near your house and download kiddie porn onto a laptop using your IP address.

[Xylob the Destroyer]

...

I wouldnt call it stealing.

The FCC and Denver Police Departments would argue quite strongly with you.
There has been a fairly serious "crack-down" on this type of "theft" around here lately.

[canadateck]

I said " I wouldnt call it stealing."

[Supreme2k]

The problem with letting other people use your bandwidth (unless it's someone you know) is that some pedophile can drive up near your house and download kiddie porn onto a laptop using your IP address.

Sometimes it's better not to think about the Ultimate Worst Case Scenario (like a pedophile posting here and putting child porn pics to display at 1px by 1 px, so everyone who reads his posts would have child porn on their computer).

Anyway,

Denver police are teh s uck.


BTW, what do the FCC and DPD have to say when they go to the "victim" and he says, "Huh? So? uhIdon'tcare."

[Xylob the Destroyer]

indeed, DPD are teh s uck
no arguments here!

as far as your hypothetical question, I seriously doubt that has ever happened, since the "victim" would have to pretty much know it was going on before anything could happen.
I doubt the "perpetrator" would just go turn themselves in....

although, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they decide that murderers, pedophiles, car-jackers and all the other "real" criminals are a waste of their time and they decide to set up some kind of dumb-ass sting to get those horrible nasty bandwidth theives....
seriously, I bet they do it before the summer is over.

[waheed]

People who set up wireless network need to be educated about using encyption.

Rather, manufacturers of wireless broadband routers should enable wireless encryption on by default.

[adam]

Accessing any network without permission is at the least a form of tresspassing (called tresspassing to chattels) and in most cases is in violation of both state and federal laws. It is definitely illegal. Don't do it. This is more akin to splicing into your neighbor's cable line and running it to yours, than finding money on the road. The only reason it seems benign is because the wireless protocol is so automatic, but the law doesn't differentiate and for good reason.

There have already been several cases of people who were sued for copyright violations which were actually committed by other people illegally accessing their networks.

[Supreme2k]

Accessing any network without permission is at the least a form of tresspassing (called tresspassing to chattels) and in most cases is in violation of both state and federal laws. It is definitely illegal. Don't do it. This is more akin to splicing into your neighbor's cable line and running it to yours, than finding money on the road. The only reason it seems benign is because the wireless protocol is so automatic, but the law doesn't differentiate and for good reason.

"tresspassing (sic) to chattels" doesn't really apply here (at least I haven't found the will to look up case law on it).

It's actually more akin to turning on your radio and receiving a station (or closer *maybe* to receiving a neighbors cordless phone reception). It not only "seems" benign, but it is (or rather, not malicious). I would go a step further and say that it is much more akin to having your window open, your neighbor has pay-per-view on (with his window open and the sound blasting) and you watch "his" show for free.

I can never find the case law for these translations from electronic to physical ("DL'ing a song is the same as B&E", "sitting back and 'catching' unencrypted airwaves legally is the same as physically tapping a cable line off of your neighbor") that many people bring up. Using someone's wireless is not so much "automatic" as it is passive.

Let's throw in another crazy scenario for my pals at the Pub: What if your neighbor had a beer fountain in his yard that spewed beer into your yard. If you hold out a glass and have a pint or two, is that theft or "trespassing"? 8)

[thecoalman]

It's actually more akin to turning on your radio and receiving a station (or closer *maybe* to receiving a neighbors cordless phone reception). It not only "seems" benign, but it is (or rather, not malicious). I would go a step further and say that it is much more akin to having your window open, your neighbor has pay-per-view on (with his window open and the sound blasting) and you watch "his" show for free.

If I'm I'm paying for X amount of bandwidth and only getting Y because your using Z, your stealing from me. Case Closed.

[Supreme2k]

Then lock (activate encryption on) your router/access point. If you notice the slowdown, check your logs. You'll find someone else accessing your wi-fi, which will alert you to read the manual and turn on WEP.

One other hypothetical: you define "stealing" as not getting your bandwidth, so what if he uses it in the morning and you use it at night? Is that still "stealing" even though you're getting the exact bandwidth for which you are paying and you never notice a slowdown?

It would be more like: where b=bandwidth, A=100% or 1 whole: Ab=Xb - Yb :P

[Faustus]

I've not really piped in on this thread because it was alot of post before I noticed it but I will say this.

Stealing a Wireless Internet signal can be argued alot of ways, but in the end justifing it is akin to saying "Well their front door was open so I just went in and took" or "It was in the yard outside = free"

It may not be illegal (unsure) but its not right. Now mind you if you know the person or they have done something to make you think its suppose to be free thats a different story.

As to people who DO leave it open for people to access as was discussed earlier what happens when the MPAA comes knocking because you failed to notice a movie or two was downloaded on your machine. Sure its a far out there idea but it COULD happen. What if the person is downloading warez? Spamming fromyour IP? Downloading Childporn? Its just not a good idea to anonymously share you own access IMHO.

[adam]

Yes tresspass to chattels directly applies whether there has ever been a case that applied it in this context or not. The signal is being sent out by a router, let's say your neighbor's. It is their personal equipment. You as the freeloader are accessing a signal through their personal property without their permission. This is a textbook example of tresspass to chattels. Tresspass to chattels is a cause of action. It does not have to have ever been used successfully to be applicable to any given situation. Its its raised for the first time then that just makes it an issue of first impression. Such issues are raised thousands of times each day. If you satisfy the elements then you can recover, and wardriving and such clearly fits the requirements.

Anyway, VegasBud was very close but its not 18 USCS 1030 its 1029 which applies to "access devices" rather than computers. The statute makes it, among other things, a federal offense to fraudulently use a counterfeit access device. An access device is then defined as "any...telecommunications service, equipment, or instrument identifier, or other means of account access that can be used, alone or in conjunction with another access device, to obtain money, goods, services, or any other thing of value."

Your neighbor's router is an access device and so are the collective account identifiers that allow his computer to receive that internet access. By receiving his broadcasted signal you are using his router in conjuction with his personal account identifiers, as a counterfeited access device. You are using his personal account information THROUGH his equipment to access service under his name. No matter how you justify it, every bit and byte that you send or receive will be passing through his equipment and be identified to him as the account holder.

This law has been applied countless times to wireless phones capable of making unbillable calls via someone else's account. Most courts have held that it is a violation anytime you "use such counterfeited access devices to obtain goods or services from which he [or she] would otherwise be excluded." United States v. Ashe, 47 F.3d 770. It doesn't matter that the account holder doesn't receive a direct charge for the additional use, as was the case in Ashe. Its still a violation. Furthermore, the account holder DOES receive a "charge" with unauthorized wireless access because they now have to share their bandwidth. But once again, this isn't even required under 1029.

Some courts have imposed a distinction which others in this thread have suggested, that it is just "freeriding" if it, essentially, doesn't hurt anybody. Some courts do recognize freeriding as being legal but if it has ANY monetary effect than it is a violation of this act. United States v. Brady, 13 F.3d 334. In this case the court held that there is always a monetary effect anytime an identifiable account is accessed because the service provider is paying to provide services to an unauthorized recipient and without compensation. As such, "the Government need only show that an identifiable account was accessed via a counterfeited access device in order to meet its burden under section 1029." As far as the "freeriding" exception is concerned, this is the absolulte most leniant standard taken. There is simply no way that accessing someone's wireless signal, provided via their account with an isp, can possibly be permissible under this section.

I don't know if anyone has been prosecuted for accessing wireless service without authorization, for personal use but it is clearly illegal under the plain language of 1029. As that legislation states, the language is intentionally broad so as to apply to any advances in technology.

[Supreme2k]

I completely agree with you, except for this

Stealing a Wireless Internet signal can be argued alot of ways, but in the end justifing it is akin to saying "Well their front door was open so I just went in and took" or "It was in the yard outside = free"

Again, those things are in no way alike. The key element is broadcast. Those examples would be more accurate if you said "they" had their front door open and threw stuff into your house, or if "It was (put) in (my) yard outside = free".

This is the way we will lose our rights to do anything. Too many people will equate the electronic (virtual) world to the physical world. It's the same as saying creating a Flash cartoon of someone is forcing the real person do do something against their will (as silly as that may sound).

[adam]

People do not "broadcast" their wireless signals to the public. They network them with other devices of their own, with an expectation of privacy in that signal.

If someone tapped into my wireless connection I would definitely consider it stealing of my personal property. If I'm paying for it then its mine and I have a right to network my devices within my local area without forfeiting that expectation of privacy. Ignorance of protection methods is clearly not an excuse. That's like saying the girl was asking to be raped. Besides, I doubt any network can ever be truly secure.