1 day ago, blowdart wrote

Well for starters you're stealing someone else's network connection. Which makes any diagnostics useless.

"stealing"?  The WiFi is configured as "unsecured".  Isn't that the same as stringing a bunch of 10baseT cables randomly out beyond your property line?  Would someone attaching to those 10baseT cables be "stealing"?

No doubt "stealing" is not involved if the WiFi is "secured", even if that security is the simplest.

The difference is that one indicates "no tresspassing" (secured) and the other does not.

So is using an "unsecured" WiFi "stealing"?

31 minutes ago, davewill wrote

From http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Cant-connect-to-xbox-live-#c41a4094e8c8143dcab7da16400faa0c1

*snip*

"stealing"?  The WiFi is configured as "unsecured".  Isn't that the same as stringing a bunch of 10baseT cables randomly out beyond your property line?  Would someone attaching to those 10baseT cables be "stealing"?

No doubt "stealing" is not involved if the WiFi is "secured", even if that security is the simplest.

The difference is that one indicates "no tresspassing" (secured) and the other does not.

So is using an "unsecured" WiFi "stealing"?

if the person or business who pays for the wifi connection is openly allowing use / giving you permission then no.

but if they failed to secure the connection, did not give you permission and you know that you are using it then yes.

the post you refer to the OP seems to know that they are using a service they did not pay for and it's from a nearby home - then yes they are stealing.

I think a better way to look at it is like this, say a house has an open door, you walk in and attach an electric cord and run it over to your house and use the power.  that is also theft.  same thing.

the "right" thing to do is go ask if you can use it, also tell them they should put a lock on it to stop others from taking the service w/o asking.

Some strongly feel it's not only not stealing, but what we all should be doing.

I'm somewhere in the middle. If it's open, it's open. It's not stealing. Did someone just forget to secure it? Maybe, but that's not something I should have to verify. The fact it's open means it's open, sorry. On the other hand, this Open Wireless movement I think is crazy. I secure my WiFi at least partly because I don't want to pay for someone else's bandwidth.

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a ) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;

(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and

(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that is the case.

There are also cases of it being used:

In London, 2005, Gregory Straszkiewicz was the first person to be convicted of a related crime, "dishonestly obtaining an electronics communication service" . Local residents complained that he was repeatedly trying to gain access to residential networks with a laptop from a car. There was no evidence that he had any other criminal intent. He was fined £500 and given a 12-month conditional discharge.

It's also illegal in Canada, and in the United States there are federal and state laws that make it illegal.

@evildictaitor: Goodness. Yet another bullet point to add to the avoid the EU at all costs list.

28 minutes ago, cbae wrote

@davewill: If you descramble satellite TV signals that happen to be transmitted onto your property, is that considered stealing?

*snip*

The act of scrambling is the equivalent of securing the wireless signal so that would be stealing.

@evildictaitor: Goodness. Yet another bullet point to add to the avoid the EU at all costs list.

Huh? This is a UK law, not an EU-wide law. Or do you mean you live in a country without such a law? Because it's illegal in at least Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Italy, Singapore, the UK and the US (both at federal and state level)

6 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

United States there are federal and state laws that make it illegal.

Oh my. If you have some links on that I would definitely be interested in reading that. I might just learn something new today.

10 seconds ago, davewill wrote

*snip*

Oh my. If you have some links on that I would definitely be interested in reading that. I might just learn something new today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking

There are federal and state laws (in all 50 states) addressing the issue of unauthorized access to wireless networks The laws vary widely between states. Some criminalize the mere unauthorized access of a network, while others require monetary damages or intentional breaching of security features. The majority of state laws do not specify what is meant by "unauthorized access". 

In St. Petersburg, 2005, Benjamin Smith III was arrested and charged with "unauthorized access to a computer network", a third-degree felony in the state of Florida, after using a resident's wireless network from a car parked outside.

An Illinois man was arrested in January 2006 for piggybacking on a Wi-Fi network. David M. Kauchak was the first person to be charged with "remotely accessing another computer system" in Winnebago County. He had been accessing the Internet through a nonprofit agency's network from a car parked nearby and chatted with the police officer about it. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a fine of $250 and one year of court supervision.

In Sparta, Michigan, 2007, Sam Peterson was arrested for checking his email each day using a café's wireless Internet access from a car parked nearby. A police officer became suspicious, stating, "I had a feeling a law was being broken, but I didn't know exactly what". The man explained what he was doing to the officer when asked, as he did not know that the act was illegal. The officer found a law against "unauthorized use of computer access", leading to an arrest and charges that could result in a five year felony and $10,000 fine. The cafe owner was not aware of the law, either. "I didn't know it was really illegal, either. If he would have come in [to the coffee shop] it would have been fine." They did not press charges, but he was eventually sentenced to a $400 fine and 40 hours of community service. This case was featured on the Colbert Report.

In 2007, Palmer, Alaska, 21-year old Brian Tanner was charged with "theft of services" and had his laptop confiscated after accessing a gaming website at night from the parking lot outside the Palmer Public Library, as he was allowed to do during the day. He had been asked to leave the parking lot the night before by police, which he had started using because they had asked him not to use residential connections in the past. He was not ultimately charged with theft, but could still be charged with trespassing or not obeying a police order. The library director said that Tanner had not broken any rules, and local citizens criticized police for their actions.

38 minutes ago, davewill wrote

@figuerres: @cbae: Regarding Property line ... I was trying to coorelate a wired scenario to the wireless scenario.  In the wireless scenario the radio is configured such that the wireless signal is capable of reaching beyond the owners controlled space.

crossing the property line just adds trespass if you do so. it's the use of / taking something that you have no legal rights to. 

also the possible side effects of the use.

example:

say joe has wifi and leave it open,  say bob uses it and some other person.

later the police/fbi or other law enforcement find that joe's wifi was used in the commission of an electronic crime....

now bob may be taken to court / arrested etc.... as he might be the one who committed the crime.

a hassle and very embarrassing to say the least! even if you prove that you did not do the major crime you could still be found guilty of the taking of services!

SO is it worth it to run the risk ??  not to me, I will pay for my own thank you!

Its possible your neighbor doesn't mind if people piggyback on his Internet access, so it would be the equivalent of him putting out some broken couch on the sidewalk for anyone to pick up whom wants it.

But you don't know that, so its more of an equivalent to a fruit tree overhanging his property line, and that involves some sort of moral judgment. If it were a tree of a neighbor you don't know that lives a block away, if it were a neighbor next door that you know well, or a neighbor next door that you don't know very well, but the tree isn't overhanging the sidewalk, but rather into your property, and you pick it from your property. Same sort of moral judgment applies to Internet piggybacking. Overall the best ethic is to use your own wifi, but in some cases using others shouldn't be such a big issue.

1 hour ago, figuerres wrote

I think a better way to look at it is like this, say a house has an open door, you walk in and attach an electric cord and run it over to your house and use the power.  that is also theft.  same thing.

the "right" thing to do is go ask if you can use it, also tell them they should put a lock on it to stop others from taking the service w/o asking.

Yes, but their electricity costs them money by the watt, while most IPs won't charge with bandwidth, you're also opening their door and stepping inside which they might consider a violation of their property, which you aren't doing with wifi. But still... when I'm in a public place and my cell phone isn't charged I often look for an outlet on the side of a commercial building to plug it in. Nobody cares.

At any rate, there's also a wider definition of stealing which has no moral context to it. Consider expressions like "I stole a glimpse", "I stole the gift into the house," etc. which just means to take surreptitiously. 

1 hour ago, brian.​shapiro wrote

At any rate, there's also a wider definition of stealing which has no moral context to it. Consider expressions like "I stole a glimpse", "I stole the gift into the house," etc. which just means to take surreptitiously. 

I stole a glimpse seems much more apt of a description than 'stealing wifi'.  If I can see into your house or hear a conversation you're having through an open window, how is that different than detecting a wifi signal?

This will only get further muddled when Wifi is available across larger areas if/when some of the TV bandwidth is given out for public use.

I think that blowdart's original point, however, was valid: If you are getting wifi from a router that isn't yours and they don't know you are on it, it's kinda hard to debug a connection issue.

1 hour ago, ryanb wrote

It's pretty black and white.  If you are using someone else's wireless connection (whether secure or insecure) without their knowledge and permission, than you are in the wrong both morally and, in most places, legally as well.  Even with the owner's permission you are still not in the clear.  Many large service providers, like Comcast, explicitly prohibit any sharing of the network connection in their terms of service.  Most service providers also do have bandwidth caps or variable cost plans.  Throw in liability concerns, risk of infections or data theft, etc., and it's just a bad idea.

It's not black and white at all, otherwise everyone using Wifi in a coffee shop would be arrested. How do you know they intended you to use it? There is no formal way to obtain "authorization", that's the problem with making this black and white. That's why we in legal systems we have ideas like "intent".

26 minutes ago, Bass wrote

It's not black and white at all, otherwise everyone using Wifi in a coffee shop would be arrested. How do you know they intended you to use it? There is no formal way to obtain "authorization", that's the problem with making this black and white. That's why we in legal systems we have ideas like "intent".

It's pretty easy. If they have a sign like this:

You can use their wifi.

Otherwise you can't.

Long story short: Never run an unsecured router, and never use an unsecured router without explicit permission.

If you found such WiFi connection unsecured and try to connect, it's equivalent to walk pass someone else's home and found the door unlocked, then go inside the house.

It doesn't really matter if the house owner intentionally leave it open or not. If you'd not asked and there's no sign inviting you to walk in (I'll consider having "open" or "free" as a part of SSID equivalent of "welcome in" in this sense), you're doing it wrong.

16 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

It's pretty easy. If they have a sign like this:

You can use their wifi.

Otherwise you can't.

So as long as I travel with a piece of paper that says "free wifi" and put in on my table, I can use free wifi everywhere? Prove that the establishment didn't put it there.

2 hours ago, Bass wrote

*snip*

So as long as I travel with a piece of paper that says "free wifi" and put in on my table, I can use free wifi everywhere? Prove that the establishment didn't put it there.

Tell me how that works out for you in front of a judge.

16 hours ago, cheong wrote

I'd regard the boardband router protected area inside a home network a part of the "home".

If you found such WiFi connection unsecured and try to connect, it's equivalent to walk pass someone else's home and found the door unlocked, then go inside the house.

It doesn't really matter if the house owner intentionally leave it open or not. If you'd not asked and there's no sign inviting you to walk in (I'll consider having "open" or "free" as a part of SSID equivalent of "welcome in" in this sense), you're doing it wrong.

Really?  Because I didn't, actually, go inside the house.  I interacted with the radio signal that you were broadcasting at such a high level that I could hear it well outside of your domicile.

It may have been possible to confuse the issue such that this analogy seemed logical to an untechnical judge, but it isn't logical to someone who knows how electromagnetic waves work.

If you turn on your stereo loud enough that I can hear it outside, am I 'stealing' from you by listening to the fine quality tunes you are playing?

If your ham-radio tower broacasts on the same channel as I happen to be speaking, am I stealing from you?

Or, more to the point, if you have a promiscuous unsecured wireless router that passes any connection from any device right through to your ISP, how is that theft? 

It isn't, and frankly, the ISP has more of a case against the router owner than the person who connected.

6 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Tell me how that works out for you in front of a judge.

And the judge has magic powers of repudiation?

7 minutes ago, Bass wrote

And the judge has magic powers of repudiation?

No. But he has magic powers of deciding whether you're guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

23 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

No. But he has magic powers of deciding whether you're guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

How? I got out of traffic tickets that were more determinable.

2 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

Really?  Because I didn't, actually, go inside the house.  I interacted with the radio signal that you were broadcasting at such a high level that I could hear it well outside of your domicile.

It may have been possible to confuse the issue such that this analogy seemed logical to an untechnical judge, but it isn't logical to someone who knows how electromagnetic waves work.

If you turn on your stereo loud enough that I can hear it outside, am I 'stealing' from you by listening to the fine quality tunes you are playing?

If your ham-radio tower broacasts on the same channel as I happen to be speaking, am I stealing from you?

What does matter is that whether you passively receive it or actively using tools (i.e.: you wireless NIC) to get it. Here I'll try to provide another analogy.

In Hong Kong, our building have public satellite receiver at the roof that if a resident agree to pay their share of maintenance fee, they can use it to enjoy satellite TV channels. Although in theory it only provide access to those who pay, the workers actually wired the line toward each door of each floor and provide open socket there. So if you really want, you can draw a line from your TV and plug it there to the socket outside your flat, and chances are there that noone will notice.

Now if you don't pay but people find out you're using it and want to sue you, at what chance the judge will side with you?

Or, more to the point, if you have a promiscuous unsecured wireless router that passes any connection from any device right through to your ISP, how is that theft? 

It isn't, and frankly, the ISP has more of a case against the router owner than the person who connected.

That'll be different matter, as it clearly violates wiretapping law here.

Like what I said, whether you're liable is decided by whether you're actively using a tool to accquire it.

These aren't electrical extension cords, these aren't unlocked doors in front of people's houses, and they aren't cars with the keys in the ignition. These are routers, configured by their owners, to say "Hello, here is a Wifi connection for you to use" to any device in range.

Or you could do what a friend of mine did, and set up a router with a huge antenna, and a paypal page. He sold access to several of his neighbors for just enough under the local ISP's rate to make it worthwhile for the email and facebook crowd. Obviously it was probably illegal and definitely against the ISP's usage agreement, but he's that kind of guy.

7 hours ago, kettch wrote

@Craig_Matthews: How do you tell the difference between an intentionally open router, and an unintentionally open router?

Because, in my opinion, if someone configured their router to broadcast a wifi signal, offer it to devices, and then connect those devices without question, the intent of the router owner is clear -- at least clear enough to my ability to ascertain as the person utilizing it. Granted -- just my opinion.

2 hours ago, Craig_​Matthews wrote

*snip*

Because, in my opinion, if someone configured their router to broadcast a wifi signal, offer it to devices, and then connect those devices without question, the intent of the router owner is clear -- at least clear enough to my ability to ascertain as the person utilizing it. Granted -- just my opinion.

Except that I'm pretty damn certain that 99% of unsecured networks are that way because that's the default configuration of the router and the person who set it up didn't know any better. That's even more likely if they're using the router's default SSID.

These people didn't deliberately configure their router to let anyone connect. The problem is that these people didn't really configure their router at all.

1 hour ago, Sven Groot wrote

*snip*

Except that I'm pretty damn certain that 99% of unsecured networks are that way because that's the default configuration of the router and the person who set it up didn't know any better. That's even more likely if they're using the router's default SSID.

These people didn't deliberately configure their router to let anyone connect. The problem is that these people didn't really configure their router at all.

Fair enough point and I'll also concede that the owners of the routers generally aren't given enough information by the router manufacturer to make an informed decision as to how to configure their router as well as having insecure defaults.

Fortunately, ISPs, at least with the wireless devices they provide, have for the most part moved toward installation with secure defaults, which unambiguously declare the intent, at least of those ISPs, that the Wifi is not available to public use, forcing the customer to take affirmative steps to make it available to the public, declaring his intention. With customer supplied routers, it sucks that the out of box defaults on those may or may not be secure, so the owner's intent is ambiguous. I think any wifi access point/wifi router sold in the US should be required to default to a secure setup.

I'm working from the point of view of one overriding truth: In a WiFi environment, where the signal can pass through walls, propagate in any direction, be repeated, and requires specialized equipment to determine the source, the only effective way to determine the identity of the signal's source and that identity's intent is by examining the signal itself. That signal provides us with a network name and what type of security it has -- in my opinion a one to one mapping to source identity and that identity's intent. 

I don't know which structure, if there even is one associated with a particular hotspot, that I should be looking for a sign on.

2 hours ago, Sven Groot wrote

*snip*

Except that I'm pretty damn certain that 99%

*snip*

As a teenager I was informed by the legal community that pleading ignorant was not an option.

Seems like that would apply to both sides of the legal argument.

57 minutes ago, davewill wrote

*snip*

As a teenager I was informed by the legal community that pleading ignorant was not an option.

Seems like that would apply to both sides of the legal argument.

Feel free to try that one in court too.

Just sayin' if you're doing something you know is wrong, and you think you're going to "trick" the court by saying "oh but maybe it was unsecured because they wanted me to use it" isn't going to work.

Courts don't need proof. They need beyond all reasonable doubt. 

Our jails are full of people who thought that they'd never be caught or that they'd be able to blag it in court.

If in doubt, try not to do stuff you know is wrong. If it's obvious to the court you're doing something that's obviously wrong, they'll just throw the book at you.

41 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Feel free to try that one in court too.

Just sayin' if you're doing something you know is wrong, and you think you're going to "trick" the court by saying "oh but maybe it was unsecured because they wanted me to use it" isn't going to work.

Courts don't need proof. They need beyond all reasonable doubt. 

Our jails are full of people who thought that they'd never be caught or that they'd be able to blag it in court.

If in doubt, try not to do stuff you know is wrong. If it's obvious to the court you're doing something that's obviously wrong, they'll just throw the book at you.

I am amazed at how many folks who have posted here just do not get it....

what you and I think / our opinions are not what will keep us out of jail.  it is the law and the judges and juries and they work on a set of rules that say how it will go.

they look at things like "intent" "Proof" and what the law says.

yes at times folks get away with things, but is it worth trying to get away with this?  I guess the other thing is the idea of your "moral compass"  in my case it says that if I did not ask to use it and I do not own it, if someone else has to pay for it then I can not touch it, it's not mine and I will not even try to mess with it.

but possibly I am a rare person who looks to do the right thing,

The real concern is inadvertently doing so.  As in the use of devices that automatically follow the strongest signal. I wouldn't want to be fined or do jail time in that situation. There must already be some industry "understanding" in this regard (i.e. this is an area where we can't make technology "just work" for the user). Is that the case? Is every wireless radio designed such that it requires a user to initiate a connection to a specific access point?

Another area of concern ... I don't want grandma going to jail because over the phone her 15 year old grandson told her to "select the one with the most bars" because surely that has to be her router she just plugged up. Poor grandma happened to select the neighbors "open" network and it allowed her to connect. Poor grandma in the hooscow.

Just seems that the "open" network should provide more legal leeway than a secure network.

Wifi access points have two modes: One for the specific purpose of limiting access to people who are allowed to use it, and one for the specific purpose of announcing to the world "here's some Internet for you." 

The fact that router vendors don't communicate this correctly to their customers or that they are configured wrong is, as the person sitting in the car using it across the street, not my fracking problem. 

Yes, I could be charged with a crime for doing it in some states, I might have a lawyer that can't get a not guilty verdict, I might be fined, I might be jailed, or whatever. If it's the law, so be it. As to the moral question, however, I'm not having any problems sleeping at night over using an open wifi without scouting the neighborhood for a piece of paper taped on someone's door.

3 minutes ago, Craig_​Matthews wrote

The fact that router vendors don't communicate this correctly to their customers or that they are configured wrong is, as the person sitting in the car using it across the street, not my fracking problem. 

And another way is "Hey this door is unlocked, I'm going to go inside and help myself to anything I want. It's not my fault the owner didn't lock their door."

We get it. You're cheap and don't want to pay for your own connectivity.

1 day ago, Sven Groot wrote

Except that I'm pretty damn certain that 99% of unsecured networks are that way because that's the default configuration of the router and the person who set it up didn't know any better. That's even more likely if they're using the router's default SSID.

I really put that at the feet of the router/WAP manufacturer and not the end user. For example, I know that the Motorola routers that I've used (recently) came out of the box with a randomly generated SSID, configured with WPA2 enabled by default, with a randomly generated password (on a label on the bottom of the router, and in the docs). There's no reason that every vendor shouldn't be required to do this. Shipping the device without any kind of default security (or WEP enabled, which is pretty much the same thing) and a generic SSID is tantamount to negligence in my book.

The largest demographic in jail by far at least in the USA are poorly educated inner city blacks, largely on drug convictions. Pasty nerds accessing YouTube on their neighbour’s wifi is not exactly a common jail situation, so I think you need to tone down the punishment fetish a little bit here.

7 hours ago, blowdart wrote

*snip*

And another way is "Hey this door is unlocked, I'm going to go inside and help myself to anything I want. It's not my fault the owner didn't lock their door."

Yes, because a Wifi router broadcasting an unencrypted wireless signal with access to the Internet is exactly the same thing as leaving your front door unlocked. When the thread topic is about whether it's okay to enter an unlocked house, your point might have a place.

We get it. You're cheap and don't want to pay for your own connectivity.

I have no problem paying for my own connectivity, and I think it's a bit rude for you to make assumptions like that without any basis. I pay $130/month for high speed Internet access at my home just like everyone else and I pay $60/month for a phone that includes unlimited texts, voice, and data with the hotspot feature. I always have my own Internet access for every device in my bag, regardless of where I am.

I'm simply answering the question the thread brought up. Newsflash: one can have an opinion which finds no problem with using an open wifi router, yet still decide to pay for their own Internet access with their own money. One has nothing to do with the other.

edit: rewrote a little of the last two paragraphs for the slow people.

*swoons*

That's it Craig. We are locking you up for criminal conspiracy to commit a serious hacker crime. Someone grab the handcuffs. I want to do this one myself.

1 hour ago, Craig_​Matthews wrote

I pay $130/month for high speed Internet access

$130????

Do you have a private link to the backbone, or what?

21 hours ago, blowdart wrote

*snip*

And another way is "Hey this door is unlocked, I'm going to go inside and help myself to anything I want. It's not my fault the owner didn't lock their door."

We get it. You're cheap and don't want to pay for your own connectivity.

That's an absolutely unfair characterization of what he said and it's almost as if folks in this thread are purposefully ignoring the words that are being used.

In my OPINION if someone leaves their router wifi open AND I'm walking by AND my phone links up to it and downloads a few emails, I DO NOT BELIEVE I SHOULD be charged with a crime.

And, every one of you has at one time or another done exactly that. 

I'm well aware of what can and does happen when some legal ahole decides to get punative, but that doesn't change the fact that it's f*cked up when it does. 

6 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

I'm well aware of what can and does happen when some legal ahole decides to get punative, but that doesn't change the fact that it's f*cked up when it does. 

It seems this thread is getting derailed a bit.

The OP's question wasn't is it moral to connect to an unsecured router, or even should it be illegal to connect to an unsecured router. The question was is it legal.

The answer, pretty much no matter how you want to swing it is no. it is not legal if you deliberately gain access to someone else's router without their permission.

How illegal it is, whether you're going to get punished, and whether the punishment is acceptable to you is an entirely different question.

There's no reason to create locked-door analogies when the answer is "Yes, it's illegal, don't do that"

On a related note, you wouldn't steal a car...

$130 came out of my fingers because my brain was thinking about the whole package that includes my TV and phone.