I am getting free wireless access

[Supreme2k]

1. Yes tresspass to chattels directly applies ...
2. No matter how you justify it...

3. This law has been applied countless times to wireless phones...
a violation anytime you "use such counterfeited access devices to obtain goods or services from which he [or she] would otherwise be excluded."
4. Furthermore, the account holder DOES receive a "charge" with unauthorized wireless access because they now have to share their bandwidth.

5. 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.

1. It doesn't directly, and hasn't been proven.

2.But isn't this all justification to serve its own purpose (even the laws)? Nothing really black and white so far.

3. First, that's case regards a telephone (vastly different in this case). Second, the term "counterfeited access devices" leads me to suspect something like a descrambler to steal cable or something else of that nature, not an unmodified wireless card.

4. I discussed that in my previous post.

5. But is that the "freeloader's" concern? Check my (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) beer example. Every provider that I've tried either ("officially") didn't allow wireless (actually didn't allow sharing at all), or set up the wireless for you, with WEP enabled.

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.

And that is another sneaky theft of freedom, when legislation is "intentionally broad" so they don't need specific charges to arrest/cite. If there's advances in technology, just make new laws/rules rather than apply archaic ideas to the future.

I'm not condoning straight theft (encryption cracking or physical wire-tapping). I'm just trying to point out the flaws in the vague laws.

[thecoalman]

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.

So if I leave my car with the keys in it and you borrow it during the night when I'm not using that's OK?

BTW, I saw your post above about cable splitters too. There was article in the paper about that I read a few years back. Laws may have changed since then but it came down to whatever the state laws were in your area. Pennsylvania where I live allows for a homeowner to split the cable in a single dwelling. If I remember correctly the state of NY didn't allow this.

[adam]

Supreme2k: as for tresspass to chattels, its off topic enough that there's no reason to pursue it further. All I can say is that my knowledge of Tort Law did not come from google.

If you read the statute in question it clearly applies to what we are talking about. No the device does not need to be altered or stolen. Scanning devices and hacked/stolen/altered devices are covered under this law too but they are under separate sections. As I stated already, the counterfeit aspect is because you are accessing the signal through counterfeit means. I don't see how this could be any more clear. You are only receiving the service because, to the isp, it looks like you are who you are not. Once again, everything you do with that signal is done under the name of the account holder. It is blatant theft.

With all due respect, don't "suspect." If I bothered to research the issue that much and provide you with the exact sources you need to look at then the least you can do is read them before arguing just for argument's sake. Please at least read the statute (freely available on the internet) I cited or find another thread to mess up.

Criminalizing this activity is not a theft of freedom because there is no right to steal. It is the person paying for the service who has the right, not the one posing as the account holder so that they can get a service which they have no legal right to receive.

Notwithstanding any personal justifications for or against the activity, it is neverthless definitely illegal if you actually make use of the service. So I hope the original poster just keeps that in mind.

[Supreme2k]

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.

To-may-to, Tuh-mah-to, it's still not explicit that they don't want you connecting.

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.

But that's what you consider. Some people consider it battery when you bump them in a narrow hallway.
Also, your privacy isn't exactly forfeit. They would be accessing the router, not your interior network.

Ignorance of protection methods is clearly not an excuse.

It is for the "offender". The FM radio argument could be used, since no protection method was broken.

That's like saying the girl was asking to be raped.

I cannot believe you went there! I expected much more from you, adam. That argument both lowers your credibility and belittles the violent crime of rape.

So if I leave my car with the keys in it and you borrow it during the night when I'm not using that's OK?

Again, translating the virtual into the physical. Using someone's open connection is not the same as walking into their unlocked house (and/or raping the people inside :P ).

BTW, I saw your post above about cable splitters too.

I was referring to actually stealing the cable by connecting a splitter to your unsuspecting neighbors' cable (unauthorized).

[Supreme2k]

Supreme2k: as for tresspass to chattels, its off topic enough that there's no reason to pursue it further. All I can say is that my knowledge of Tort Law did not come from google.

And I will not discuss it further, since the above says to me "I am a moderator and you had best stop discussing it

I don't see how this could be any more clear.

That is (in)famous lawyer-ese for "it should be clear, but you'd have to be a lawyer to understand"

You are only receiving the service because, to the isp, it looks like you are who you are not. Once again, everything you do with that signal is done under the name of the account holder. It is blatant theft.

So the guy's roommate is a thief? His name sure isn't on the account. How about his mother who lives next door?

Please at least read the statute (freely available on the internet) I cited or find another thread to mess up.

I'm completely on topic, as I'm voicing my concerns on the OP's issue.
BTW, nice Ad Hominem. Is it any more "messed up" to bring rape into a thread about wireless internet access?

[jimmalenko]

S2K has got a couple of live ones here !!!


Now irrespective of who you are, aside from all legal aspects, it is simple common sense that just because something isn't bolted down, that alone doesn't make it public access. The second you tap into someone else's service, you are getting unauthorised access to their service. Whether that person cares or not is another matter - maybe they chose to allow open access, or (more than likely) they didn't know how to lock it down. Just because you don't need any illegal equipment to do it, doesn't make it any more "right".

And unless the owner broadcasts the fact that he doesn't care who hooks up, it is stealing, pure and simple. You are getting something which you are not paying for, and you do not have legal right to use the service without the express permission of the account owner .... and since he/she is the one who is ultimately responsible/liable to both the ISP (for misuse) and to law enforcement agencies, I for one would be very concerned about who I let use my access, and exactly what elements of their behaviour I am going to be ultimately responsible for.


Now S2K, you can humor yourself (and me) all you want by finding holes in that ...

[Faustus]

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).

I think adam said it pretty well above me but I DO think it applies. Is it ok if I sit at the back of your window and watch you TV? Mind turning it up a little for me? What if said TV was a limited resource and the more I watched the less you could?

I'm no saying its illegal, I'm saying its wrong.

thats like saying "HEY That SAT. up in the sky beams the signal to MY house so its ok if I crack it for free TV." Its not, and in this case doesn't need to be cracked only because the person doesn't know anybetter.
Stealing something is NOT ok just because the person doesn't know how to protect themselves.

[Supreme2k]

Now now, jim. You're arguing points I already went over, so your post is already hole-ier than the Pope :P
Let's put it this way: if you sign up for some web service, they have a box (unchecked by default) that says "please do not give my info to 3rd parties" and you overlook or choose not to check it, guess what? You've passively given authorization by not actively refusing it. The same applies here. The same way that it applied to those old microwave HBO antennas a while back (yes, I'm going on a limb here).

I think adam said it pretty well above me but I DO think it applies. Is it ok if I sit at the back of your window and watch you TV? Mind turning it up a little for me? What if said TV was a limited resource and the more I watched the less you could?

And what I already said was that you could see the telly from the comfort of your couch, and he had it blasting so loud that you didn't need him to turn it up.

I'm no saying its illegal, I'm saying its wrong.

Exactly! An that's my stance too.

thats like saying "HEY That SAT. up in the sky beams the signal to MY house so its ok if I crack it for free TV." Its not, and in this case doesn't need to be cracked only because the person doesn't know anybetter.
Stealing something is NOT ok just because the person doesn't know how to protect themselves.

But then, you're substituting your own subjective definition of stealing. Essentially, you're Begging The Question ("Have you been stealing for a while now?"). With the satellite, it is pretty clear that you're violating *something* since you're cracking it. With the wi-fi, someone better damn well explain how I'm breaking the law by turning on a device using the default settings and not tweaking anything whatsoever. How about if you already have wireless of your own, but one day it goes on the fritz, but it then picks up your neighbors signal? Unless you do some digging, you'll never know (which is exactly what happened to me).

[pbhalerao]

Oh! I knew it was definitely wrong - at least morally. I would not have started the thread otherwise.

However, as waheed put it, I think people should secure their network or the router setup should provide this option as default with ample warning if the user chose to override this option. Having never setup a wireless router myself, I do not know enough on this.

I know hacking is a crime; but I always asscociated hacking with deliberate attempts to break into secure networks without the express permissions of the owner. Now in this case I did not deliberately try to break in. I rarely take my laptop to home (find the load a bit heavy to carry as I commute by public transport). It was over the weekend that I decided to take it home. I powered on and the built-in wireless card found the network and connected automatically.

So technically speaking there was no deliberate attempt from my side. I am not sure what the law says and probably what adam said is true. I would not be amused if my someone had a free ride on my signal. But I will put that down to my own mistake and unawareness. I may not choose to prosecute because I did not lose out monetorily - just that someone got a free ride.

As regards to the argument "I paid for X MBPS and I should get X MBPS bandwidth", I doubt whether this is strictly true. The last time I had braodband at my home, I had paid for a 1 MBPS service but during peak times I used to get 400K or something like that. Most of the times it was very close to 1 MBPS but I am not sure that I ever got the full bandwidth. I did not persue this strictly. In any case the download speed is also dictated by the load of the host URL.

The cable/telephone company may choose to prosecute because someone used their service without being compensated. But I guess that if I was the victim and I called up the company stating that someone is connecting to my wireless network, I guess the support department will advise me to secure my network and tell me "how-to". If my network was already secure and then someone broke through then this is definitely a criminal offence.

But I do think that people should be more vigilant. I think that in this case the neighbour chose to keep it unsecured was mainly due to:

- not wanting the hassles and complications during setup
- an apathy to remember too many passwords
- lack of knowhow
- "who cares" attitude

I am sure that there will be more comments - but it is defintely agreed that it is morally wrong and perhaps legally as well.

[thecoalman]

So if I leave my car with the keys in it and you borrow it during the night when I'm not using that's OK?

Again, translating the virtual into the physical. Using someone's open connection is not the same as walking into their unlocked house (and/or raping the people inside :P ).

So what if I have a cordless phone, you find that your cordless phone can communicate with the receiver and you call you Aunt Bertha in Antartica long distance ?

As regards to the argument "I paid for X MBPS and I should get X MBPS bandwidth", I doubt whether this is strictly true. The last time I had braodband at my home, I had paid for a 1 MBPS service but during peak times I used to get 400K or something like that. Most of the times it was very close to 1 MBPS but I am not sure that I ever got the full bandwidth. I did not persue this strictly. In any case the download speed is also dictated by the load of the host URL.

.

Tha's true but if I'm only getting 400K on my 1mbps line and you tap in I'm still getting less. What if I'm playing BF1942 and you tap in and it's just enough to make me crash my chopper. Now you've really done it.

[jimmalenko]

Let's put it this way: if you sign up for some web service, they have a box (unchecked by default) that says "please do not give my info to 3rd parties" and you overlook or choose not to check it, guess what? You've passively given authorization by not actively refusing it. The same applies here.

Yeah ......



... you're right ...



... that does apply here ...



... only if said person failed to tick the "secure my router so only I and not the whole local neighborhood get access" box

[waheed]

Let's put it this way: if you sign up for some web service, they have a box (unchecked by default) that says "please do not give my info to 3rd parties" and you overlook or choose not to check it, guess what? You've passively given authorization by not actively refusing it. The same applies here.

Yeah ......



... you're right ...



... that does apply here ...



... only if said person failed to tick the "secure my router so only I and not the whole local neighborhood get access" box

I find it quite ammusing when people make ridiculous analogies.

[Supreme2k]

... only if said person failed to tick the "secure my router so only I and not the whole local neighborhood get access" box

That is essentially why you check the WEP box. I think WEP is an acronym for "secure my router so only I and not the whole local neighborhood get access"

So, in short:

-Don't freeload off your neighbor, cheapskate
-Secure your wireless so that those who don't heed the above can't take advantage. Also, you won't be held accountable for your neighbors malicious use of your connection.
-If a beer fountain is overflowing into your yard, nick four pints at most.
-Aunt Bertha is lonely (and cold) all the way up there in Alaska. Let him do it if it's the only way the cheap b@st@rd will call her.

[galactica]

My take is that if they are not smart enough to password protect, not broadcast SSID or even care if you jump on from time to time, whats the harm!?

However, i totally agree with adam. Problem is most of these people are unaware because they just buy a router from best buy and plug it and and wow it works for them, so why configure it.

[greymalkin]

so what have we learned here?

1) set up your wireless router so it does not broadcast.
2) Most if not all wireless routers come with MAC filtering. use it and you're the only one allowed in (without some serious work).
3) If you're still worried, set high encryption and 6 consecutive passwords between you and your router.
4) Finally, when not in use, put a 6" thick box of lead over your wireless router so not even superman can hack it.

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

First of all my apologies to Pbhalerao for threadjacking a couple blocks of his thread, but I was reading certain things you guys wrote, and I was wondering... exactly what misuses from your neighbour on your internet connection can get you in trouble??, credit card fraud commited from your IP?, what else??...

Sorry again, Pbhalerao, but I had to ask!!!.

[shelbyGT]

@ medico: Anything illegal, how about that?

[pbhalerao]

@ medico: Anything illegal, how about that?

Exactly. Say I am hooked to an unsecured wireless network. I can do something illegal - download child porn, try to hack into govt./mililtary networks, etc. There are agencies which monitor such activities and then can identify the IP address of the machine; this gets them to the ISP provider; from there they can narrow down to the physical location of the machine.

The real owner of the wireless router will get into trouble first. At this point if I am still connected, I can now be traced. If I am not then the owner will first have to prove that he did not commit the felony.

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

@ medico: Anything illegal, how about that?

Oh, that makes it soooooo much clear!. :P



@pbhalerao: Thanks, That was what I wanted to know. I was confused regarding this subject. I was blocked thinking that only credit card fraud and hacking were the only actions that could be traceable over the net.

[thecoalman]

I was blocked thinking that only credit card fraud and hacking were the only actions that could be traceable over the net.

Anything you do can be traced, including viewing this page.

[shelbyGT]

@ medico: Anything illegal, how about that?

Oh, that makes it soooooo much clear!. :P

Doesn't it?