Deserved arrest in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r13810019 en Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:36:59 EDT Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:36:59 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13840501 anon :
said by "BosstonesOwn":
Then when the router broadcasts it is trying to access my computer since each AP is aware of it's surrounding systems and Yes they do try and handshake. So that equipment is in violation of the law also.

That's a good point, and that gives me a good idea on how to solve the "unprotected WiFi AP problem" - simply drive around, "reverse wardriving" - have a client PC set up, and log how many APs broadcast their SSIDs or otherwise attempt to handshake with my client. (Could also use a WDS-capable router wired to the laptop, for varieties' sake, I guess.)

The idea being, that all of these homeowners with unsecured WiFi APs, are GUILTY of "unauthorized access" to my client PC with wireless NIC. (It shouldn't matter legally that it happens to be travelling - it is in my vehicle, which is my personal property.)

Ok, honestly, I doubt that it would stick, but it *could* get people to "think twice" about the overly-broad mis-application of those "computer trespass" statutes.

We need to have a "WiFi awareness month" or something, perhaps some month in the summer. The idea is, that knowledgable geeks in the local community would volunteer their services and mostly technical knowledge, and help those that came forward with questions about WiFi technology and deploying and securing it. (Plus, it could prove profitable should those geeks also offer their installation / configuration services privately on the side too. :) )

Perhaps DSLR / BBR would consider spearheading some sort of effort in that direction? I wouldn't be surprised if Linksys and Intel might get behind it too, perhaps with some free promotion or donations or something. Could be interesting.

But the only problem is, the technology in this space is still evolving at a rapid pace, WEP, WPA, WPA2, 802.11b, .11g, and now MIMO, etc. I wonder if one month a year would be "good enough"... but at least there should be some sort of "awareness day", kind of like how people check their smoke alarms twice a year - they should check their WiFi installation / security / technology as well.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13840501 Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:30:44 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13840456 anon :
said by "SometimeWarDriver":
Maybe if you were a bank robber and did this in the course of trying to make your getaway. But if using someone's driveway to turn around were your only offense, any attempt to prosecute you would be laughed out of court. (It would be different, mind you, if the owner had put up signs at the end of his driveway saying "POSTED - NO TRESPASSING - DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT TURNING AROUND HERE!")

Thank you, excellent example. Again, people - "notice", and "intent". Those are really the key issues here. The wireless AP mfgs need to implement a mean to provide clear notice, and they need to do it *stat*, or there are going to be more of these annoying and hap-hazardly prosecuted cases, further muddying the legal issues involved.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13840456 Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:01:22 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13840440 anon :
said by "spenster":
Hey Karl, does the name Paul Timmins ring a bell? All he did was use an open access point to check his email at Lowes and once they contacted the FBI, he was charged with one count of unauthorized computer access.

He should have used the defense, "Windows XP made me do it" - referring of course to the fact that the WZC wizard automagically seeks out and assocates with the wireless AP with the strongest signal, to connect to the internet. He could have said, "Hey, I just opened my laptop, and it had an internet signal, so I decided to check my e-mail. I had no idea who was providing that signal."

At least that would have provided a fairly simple-to-understand and sensible defense. That wouldn't apply though, should it have been proven if he was trying to "hack Lowes" wirelessly though. (Was he? I hadn't heard about that case.)

WiFi was more or less originally designed for "open" access, much like ethernet, and then components of the protocol were provided to create private spaces, namely the use of encryption. If the owners of the AP didn't use it, then that should really be their fault, IMHO.

I mean, what happens, when everyone and their brother starts to provide "free WiFi internet access", and there are several stores nearby (say, at a mall), that provide such a feature, along with some stores that do not, but also use WiFi for (private) purposes, but (negligently) lacking encryption. Combine that with things like WZC, and you've got a lawyer / prosecuting attorney field day, quite frankly. What a mess. The sensible thing to do is, consider the issues of: 1) intent, and 2) notification.

For example, in this state IIRC, you cannot *prosecute*, at least not criminally, trespassing, on your land, unless it is "posted" with clear notice. Sure, the landowner can call the cops to have you escorted off of the property, but they don't necessarily have the ability to prosecute it as a crime, unless they clearly stated "no trespassing" - in that case, then being on the property without authorization would indeed constitute clear proof of "intent to trespass".

Without clear notice, there is no clear intent, and thus no real case for criminal prosecution. That same standard should be used for wireless APs connected to the internet, IMHO. All APs, should have an initial sign-on page, should common internet protocols be used to access the AP, from a previously-unknown MAC address. That sign-on page should clearly state whether or not the access that was being provided by that AP was for public or private usage only, and then either block the MAC address, or allow it, perhaps for a limited time / bandwidth quota only, after perhaps providing some identification details.

The consumer wireless AP providers really need to "step up to the plate" here, and offer something like that, although I think I recall that some entity was claiming patent rights on that sort of initial-contact hotspot sign-up page idea. If that's true, then that's too bad, seems like an "obvious" invention to me. (If visitor is unidentified, tell them "halt", and force them to identify themselves before allowing access. Standard access-control protocol, since the middle ages even!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13840440 Fri, 08 Jul 2005 04:53:52 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13840394 anon :
said by "BluVeiner":
That subsection & the courts interpretation is very dangerous. Anyone could file a complaint against anyone that accessed their system. It is way to broad. Wait until BestBuy starts claiming break-ins on their computer because someone has accessed it to compare prices. There are numerous price comparison websites that will fall under this law if a company tries to pursue it.

The interpretation, in effect, outlaws the internet.

Wow, yours is the first post here that really "gets it". IMHO, your logical conclusion as to this interpretation of the law is indeed what would effectively happen. It would give web sites the power to arbitrarily start filing "computer trespass" charges against various parties simply for accessing their publically-accessable web sites, should they so choose to throw their weight around.

Although it might be difficult for a court to be able to understand this - the technical protocol used, allows for the (physical) property owner to implement access-control *if they so choose*, but if they do not, then the protocol defaults to "public" access.

For another example, consider a post-office box. Could someone file "trespass" or "theft of service" charges, if an unwanted party mailed them a letter to their post-office box? Why or why not? After all, it's private property, they're paying for it, and unwanted mail takes up space in their box - shouldn't other parties have to obtain proper legal authorization first before using it? What? You mean to tell me that the "postal protocol", allows anyone to mail letters, to any postal box? Why, that's outrageous! I bet most P.O. box holders don't even know that those boxes default to an open, public, "allow" protocol... that should be changed!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13840394 Fri, 08 Jul 2005 04:31:14 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13827407 anon : Let's try another analogy. You're driving down a country road and you miss your turn. You need to turn around. From Driver's Ed, you remember that the safe, legal way to turn around is to back into a driveway on your right, then turn left onto the road. So you do just that. In effect, you use someone's private property without their permission in order to get or enhance your access to the public network of roads. Did you commit criminal trespass? Maybe so, in a technical, legalistic sense. Could you be prosecuted for it? Maybe if you were a bank robber and did this in the course of trying to make your getaway. But if using someone's driveway to turn around were your only offense, any attempt to prosecute you would be laughed out of court. (It would be different, mind you, if the owner had put up signs at the end of his driveway saying "POSTED - NO TRESPASSING - DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT TURNING AROUND HERE!")

Here's another. We're at a picnic in the park. You have a bottle of soda. I've gone on a hike and left a bottle opener on my cooler. You borrow my opener, without my permission, to open your drink. I return just in time to catch you in the act and I accuse you of theft. Am I acting reasonably?

One more. I work in an office where pads and pencils are not provided. Employees are expected to bring their own Post-Its and Bics. I go to visit a coworker in his cubicle but he isn't there. Am I behaving acceptably if I pick up his pen and write him a note on a piece of his paper, or does that constitute theft of his office supplies?

Fact is, people use each other's property all the time, often without explicit permission. Where do you draw the line between reasonable borrowing and criminal theft?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13827407 Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:08:41 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13821088 lucky644 :
said by Doctor Dan See Profile:

said by TK Junk Mail See Profile:

This guy deserved to be arrested. He knew he wasn't getting access from a legitimate free hotspot. While his intentions may not be known for sure, he surely wasn't just trying to get free internet access. More than likely he was trying to steal information. Just because the homeowner had an unsecured AP, it doesn't make what this guy did legal. Try him in court, fine him, and confiscate all his computer and network equipment. And then put him on probation where if he gets caught again he goes to jail.
I agree. Attempting to access wireless networks without permission is no different than going through a neighborhood and trying the front doors of all the houses to see which ones are unlocked. An unlocked door is not an implicit invitation to enter and take what you want.

- Dan
Ridiculious analogy, using someones internet that they're broadcasting is far different from actually entering someones HOME without permission.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13821088 Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:42:10 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13820040 RJ44 :
said by Dragasoni See Profile:

You "older" folks with your "morals" sound really stupid, you need to adapt to the year 2005.

-Dragasoni-
Wow, I must be stupid. I didn't realize morality had a time limit.

RJ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13820040 Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:27:45 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13818481 oliphant : If I don't see an obvious owner yeah. It's not mine. It could have fallen out of the pocket of someone just a minute before and they're on their way back for it. I don't follow the principle (or lack thereof) of finders keepers, losers weepers.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13818481 Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:35:21 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13814256 boog :
said by LinuxJunkie See Profile:

But it contains no hard drive so therefore it contains no pertinent, private or valuable data.
If you were to connect to my AP it would have to ask my linux box for an ip address, it has a hard drive. The linux box is also the dns server, which is handed out in the dhcp request. I would say that would be "connecting" to my computer.

Even with that said, I still have to feel that if they didn't try to lock it down in any way, they must not care that anyone connects to it. I believe that AP's and wireless routers come with directions, and it says in there that if you don't encrypt or at least mac filter, that anyone can connect and possibly steal your info.

I for one do care and I lock mine down.
Am I a hypocrite? I'm sure it can be twisted to look like I am.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13814256 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:35:21 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13813959 Sodium :
said by LinuxJunkie See Profile:

But it contains no hard drive so therefore it contains no pertinent, private or valuable data. Nice try with the spin, however. Furthermore, that law says "any computer connected to the Internet" -- what about computers that are simply on a closed LAN that happens to have a wireless connection? No Internet connection there so that law wouldn't even apply in that case.
My LinkSys WRT54GS has the CPU, Memory, etc. mentioned as well as 8M of Flash memory and a version of Linux compiled for the custom Broadcom CPU.

I have logging enabled on my router, which *could* contain private/valuable information stored in the Flash memory - i.e. private MAC addresses, who's been on my network, etc. I would consider the Flash memory a form of hard drive in that the memory is non-volatile.

I have to agree with you about the closed LAN thing though, in general. The problem is the only way to really know if it's a closed LAN or if it's connected to the internet is if you connect to the AP itself.

Boy, I would really hate to be a lawyer in the Information Age. :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13813959 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:42:36 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13813900 Sodium :
said by BosstonesOwn See Profile:

Radio , TV thinks like that equate to it.
Not quite. Radio and TV signals are "passive", meaning they require no response from you to deliver the product. When you listen to your radio or watch TV, you are analyzing radio waves that are passing through the Rx antenna. I.e. you don't need to send a signal to the TV station to let them know you want to change channels, you just hop to the next frequency band that corresponds to the next channel to want to view.

WiFi is an "active" signal, meaning it needs a response from the user to deliver its intended product. You need to send packets to the AP to tell it to route you to google.com or to the proper drive on the home media server on your LAN, for examples.

Therefore, your argument of just using what's already passing through the air is null. In order to use the connection, you would have to knowingly respond to the AP to make the proper requests, and therefore knowingly be making access to the user's network without their permission (which is illegal).

I don't understand your comment about bandwidth being "not metered", either. My connection bogs down with just 3 people using it at once (only 512kbps :(). I call it illegal if someone uses my connection without my permission because it is a service that I am paying for, just like phone service, cable/satellite TV, electricity, etc. It's called "theft of service". I see you are a Comcast cable user. Try uncapping your modem to get 50mbps for a day and you will find out what I'm talking about. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13813900 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:29:26 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13813707 Nerdtalker :
said by TK Junk Mail See Profile:

This guy deserved to be arrested. He knew he wasn't getting access from a legitimate free hotspot.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who do the same thing, albeit unknowingly.

Person A has a Linksys AP in it's default state. Person B buys a Linksys AP for his own usage. Person B plugs everything in, sees two APs with SSIDs of "linksys" in his WZC window, and connects to one or the other randomly.

Is he a felon? I've seen it happen all the time.

Besides, the guy in this story was a complete idiot to act suspiciously. People knowingly connect to other people's APs all the time and never get caught. The fact of the matter is that the people who sit and have their APs used for free browsing (and thus have everything in their default state) don't have the logs to prove that it ever happened. At most, they'll have an entry on the DHCP lease page of their router, which is easily cleared before disconnecting.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn

iPod Shuffle=iPos

I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 6200+]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13813707 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:00:34 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13813528 rodoke :
said by oliphant See Profile:

Love that partisan closed-mind policy there Karl? It's that twisted logic of everything being the fault of the "liberals" or the "conservatives" that has crazy activist judges saying it's the rape victims' fault they got raped because they voted wrong in the last election.

Stupidity is asking to be victimized...especially by nerds and powerbooks.

It's too much to expect people to <cartman>respect others' PROPERTY</cartman>. I won't understand this simple concept until I'm defrauded or framed.
There. I fixed it for you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13813528 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:32:19 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13813319 DaDogs :
said by Dragasoni See Profile:

You "older" folks with your "morals" sound really stupid, you need to adapt to the year 2005.

-Dragasoni-
Hmmm ...
--
Need a bit more range? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM Need a bit more privacy? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM Need a bit more speed? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13813319 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 20:57:55 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13813179 spenster :
quote:
I think it's wrong if he accesses the person's PC, causes damage, throttles connections, engages in criminal activity etc.

Do I think it wrong if someone drives by a neighborhood, and uses a totally unprotected hotspot to send e-mail? Check stock quotes? Surf? No. Nobody is harmed.

Don't want that? Secure your hotspot.

The idea we'd start prosecuting such cases is utterly idiotic.

Hey Karl, does the name Paul Timmins ring a bell? All he did was use an open access point to check his email at Lowes and once they contacted the FBI, he was charged with one count of unauthorized computer access.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13813179 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 20:34:50 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812546 BosstonesOwn :
said by oliphant See Profile:

What if it's a $1000 calculator? The fact that you returned it doesn't negate the fact that you didn't have a right to touch it.

So you're cool if people 'borrow' your car without your knowledge or permission so long as they bring it back?
So by your meanings if you found an ipod in the street and no one was around to lay claim you would leave it there and keep walking?

If so Now I have an idea why you are so against this. You lost an ipod and couldn't find it.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812546 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:41:34 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812529 BosstonesOwn :
said by oliphant See Profile:

So if you leave your door unlocked that is permission for me to enter. That's fine.

An AP is a gate. Encryption is a lock on the gate.

You must actively connect to the AP just as you must open the gate. Neither imply permission to do anything.
See you go back to a physical intrusion which is nothing like a broadcast item. You are putting it out to be seen by many. You don't leave a door open and a sign saying come in and take what you want.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812529 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:38:46 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812502 BosstonesOwn :
said by oliphant See Profile:

It's wouldn't occur to you that it's just wrong would it?
Then when the router broadcasts it is trying to access my computer since each AP is aware of it's surrounding systems and Yes they do try and handshake. So that equipment is in violation of the law also. Come on man make some common sense approaches and don't try and blanket a law to fit all the issues at hand.

That is why america is horrible at the moment lawyers try to use laws to blanket everything. That is why every one is sue happy and every insurance rate is going sky high.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812502 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:35:28 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812467 anon : wow from most of your comments you seem intelligent but here maybe you neglected to read what you replied to..... i said the right or wrong of taking the calculator was NOT in dispute. taking the calculator is wrong, taking the calculator is stealing. taking the calculator is NOT a third degree felony but the calculator IS a computer (in the same way that an AP is... even more so if it's a nice one like a TI-89) so by the definition that accessing a computer(if an AP falls under the definition of a computer) is a third degree felony then taking the calculator would be a third degree felony.

no, the fact that the calculator was returned does NOT negate the fact that the other person did not have a right to touch it.

no, i'm not cool if people 'borrow my car without my knowledge or permission so long as they bring it back.

(and FYI also no, i do not condone wardriving to use open WIFIs. but whether something is right or wrong does not always mean it is or should be legal/illegal -- or, more relevantly, whether it is or should be interpreted as legal/illegal when there is no legislation pertaining specifically to the actions in question)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812467 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:27:41 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812340 oliphant : What if it's a $1000 calculator? The fact that you returned it doesn't negate the fact that you didn't have a right to touch it.

So you're cool if people 'borrow' your car without your knowledge or permission so long as they bring it back?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812340 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:03:52 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812328 anon : i think you misunderstood DebianDude. i dont think it said it's "right" or "not stealing" to take the calculator..... i think he was pointing out that by the logic you presented that taking the calculator would be a 3rd degree felony..... which it would. calculators are computers in the same manner that an AP is.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812328 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:01:40 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812327 oliphant : So if you leave your door unlocked that is permission for me to enter. That's fine.

An AP is a gate. Encryption is a lock on the gate.

You must actively connect to the AP just as you must open the gate. Neither imply permission to do anything.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812327 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:01:31 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812308 anon : the pool is "almost" a fair comparison except.... it would be an equal comparison if your pool had a sign on it saying anyone is free to use it and you standing by the sign waving for people to come in. Your pool does not have a setting that can be set to assign leases to all incoming connections or to be "private". AP's can be set either to only allow some connections or to "allow" everything, and assign a "lease" to whichever computers within range. If it's set to assign a lease to whatever is in range, then it makes sense that this would constitute "permission"---- unless there is some sort of security or encryption that the user is "tricking" or "hacking". Security in itself does not change whether it's illegal or not to connect, but if there is security then the user connecting is lying about it's identity which would seem to relate to "obtaining property (service) under false pretenses".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812308 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 17:58:58 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812254 anon : and what of the AP when it's set to "Broadcast" the SSID? that would make the AP "accessing" the laptop or whatnot that would end up connecting to it...........]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13812254 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 17:49:13 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811656 oliphant : Nothing is missing. I put the hose back, the pool water is still there...I bring my own charcoal...

I equate it with physical goods to get it through some people's thick heads that personal property is personal property whether you can see it when you use it or not.

And of course it's personal loss. In my case I pay for a 3Mb connection...if someone else is using my service while I am I lose that portion of my 3Mb service...they are stealing a portion of the service I pay for.

And if I'm not around...it's no different than 'borrowing' the neighbors hose or swimming in their pool. Just because there is no loss of use or harm doesn't make it right or legal.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811656 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:51:14 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811622 BosstonesOwn : Your still talking physical property.

fire needs wood or charcoals physical material missing
hose needs water physical material missing
car physical material is missing it,s not borrowing if they don't allow it it's stealing and involves a personal loss even if for 1 second.

Electricity ? the AP still uses power no matter what to broadcast and that is even moot. Bandwidth ? side affect of energy and it's not metered so no physical loss.

It is akin to downloading a mp3. There is no physical loss. Only monetary loss for the isp or riaa and that is even questionable. Why must you equate it with physical products when it not a physical product. Come up with a better equal product.

Radio , TV thinks like that equate to it.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811622 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:45:47 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811596 Damon85 : "Linksys" isn't a hospital, which is where you should probably go if you need snake venom antidote. That's not even taking into consideration the fact you'd be waiting about a week for your antidote anyway... two weeks if it's coming via the USPS.

You "younger" folks with your "everything's-free-attitude" make me feel ashamed to be a somewhat young person. I'm almost 20 and I could've told you 10 years ago that using someone else's Wi-Fi signal was wrong. Didn't anyone tell you it's wrong to take other people's things; physical or not? Is there a sign or flag on the Wi-Fi signal that says "FREE! TAKE ME!"? I don't think there is.

Maybe (some day) you will realize that theft is theft and you don't have a leg to stand on arguing against it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811596 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:40:11 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811401 oliphant : It's not physical property...it's just some fire (BBQ) and water (pool). I'm just using it. So it's cool if I go across the street and take their hose to wash my car and put it back when I'm done? You don't see the problem with 'borrowing' in that way? How about if I 'borrow' their car? Even if I top the tank when I'm done? What if they left the key in it? Hey, no body is harmed. They don't lose the use of it.

I don't want to hang them high...I want them to have RESPECT for other people's PROPERTY. It's not their calculator. It's not their AP. It's not their ISP bill. It's not their stuff to use without permission.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811401 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:05:39 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811360 BosstonesOwn : no your twisting it again. because you want to hang them high like a vigilante.

It's not physical property they are using its a damn signal. Any one and their mother can view and intercept, it is not even encrypted to a small degree. That is like saying oh yeah I broadcast video of my kids room and then get mad when some one intercepts and views it, well encrypt it and no one would do it except people who want to do harm.

Once it is encrypted and even the smallest attempt was made to secure the AP then it should be illegal , this guy did none of that.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811360 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:59:36 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811351 oliphant :
said by LinuxJunkie See Profile:

As the other poster said, that does NOT apply to unsecured wireless networks. If you never touch their computers on the LAN side of the wireless network, that law wouldn't even apply. Quit your grasping at straws.

Using YOUR logic, if you picked up a classmate's pocket calculator off their desk to use it to solve a problem without asking them, then they've just committed a third degree felony. After all, wouldn't that be "unauthorized access to a computer?" It's judges and people like you that love to over-interpet the laws that are making this country such an unbearable place to live. I'm sure you were all for the Supreme Court's decision to privatize the eminent domain clause as well.
Yeah...although a foreign concept to you...you shouldn't take/use other people's crap without asking them. It's people like you that are the reason we have to lock our doors and encrypt our APs. You think everything is yours to use.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811351 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:57:37 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811341 Karl :
quote:
And that would be how? No one is harmed in either case. It's an 'intrusion' in either case. We're using stuff that doesn't belong to us without knowledge of the OWNER in either case. I see it as a DIRECT comparison.

And that's a flaw in logic. Your pool is not sitting open and inviting in the middle of the street. It's probably fenced behind your house to avoid such intrusions. As your hotspot should be.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811341 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:55:36 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811335 oliphant :
said by BosstonesOwn See Profile:

said by oliphant See Profile:

Love that liberal open door policy there Karl. It's that twisted logic of it's the fault of the AP owner that has crazy judges saying it's the rape victim's fault they got raped.

Stupidity isn't a license to be victimized...even by nerds and powerbooks.

I guess it's too much to expect people to respect other's PROPERTY and they won't understand this simple concept until they're arrested or fined.
Dude you don't understand the actual concept here.

Rape is physical damage , stealing is physical damage , that stuff is physical. "Stealing" and I use the term loosely here , bandwidth via a unsecured access point is not illegal. It's free and in the clear. There is no reason for this case to go further unless he was doing something illegal behind it.

It is not illegal to receive free to air television signals so why is a internet signal is illegal ? Because it's "owned" by some one ? If that is the case then make an attempt to secure the system. Ignorance is no reason to do something wrong ever. And if they did not lock down the system with at least a minimum security setting then they deserve to have their bandwidth used.

If the person did something wrong behind the AP then they should be prosecuted, but to say that it's privately owned is just stupid, It's not protected by any means and by that standard it is free to use.
So it's okay to steal if I bring it back and the owner was unaware that I took it? Wow.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811335 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:54:28 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811321 TK Junk Mail :
said by LinuxJunkie See Profile:

Using YOUR logic, if you picked up a classmate's pocket calculator off their desk to use it to solve a problem without asking them, then they've just committed a third degree felony. After all, wouldn't that be "unauthorized access to a computer?" It's judges and people like you that love to over-interpet the laws that are making this country such an unbearable place to live. I'm sure you were all for the Supreme Court's decision to privatize the eminent domain clause as well.
You would be a thief taking the calculator without asking(taking someones property - nothing to do with computers). And no, I didn't support the eminent domain ruling by SC:
This from 10 months ago:
»Re: [POLL]Should there be limits on Eminent Domain
And this from 2 weeks ago:
»Re: Supreme Court of the US Strikes.....
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811321 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:53:18 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811316 oliphant : And that would be how? No one is harmed in either case. It's an 'intrusion' in either case. We're using stuff that doesn't belong to us without knowledge of the OWNER in either case. I see it as a DIRECT comparison.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811316 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:53:11 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811290 Karl : Physical real world trespass comparisons are stupid and you know it. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811290 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:49:18 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811276 oliphant : Wow...cool.

It's the 4th and my neighbor has a nice pool. Wonder if they would mind me taking a dip and using their BBQ...after all nobody is harmed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811276 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:47:38 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811257 Karl : I think it's wrong if he accesses the person's PC, causes damage, throttles connections, engages in criminal activity etc.

Do I think it wrong if someone drives by a neighborhood, and uses a totally unprotected hotspot to send e-mail? Check stock quotes? Surf? No. Nobody is harmed.

Don't want that? Secure your hotspot.

The idea we'd start prosecuting such cases is utterly idiotic.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811257 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:44:29 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811229 oliphant : It's wouldn't occur to you that it's just wrong would it?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811229 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:39:49 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811228 BosstonesOwn :
said by oliphant See Profile:

Love that liberal open door policy there Karl. It's that twisted logic of it's the fault of the AP owner that has crazy judges saying it's the rape victim's fault they got raped.

Stupidity isn't a license to be victimized...even by nerds and powerbooks.

I guess it's too much to expect people to respect other's PROPERTY and they won't understand this simple concept until they're arrested or fined.
Dude you don't understand the actual concept here.

Rape is physical damage , stealing is physical damage , that stuff is physical. "Stealing" and I use the term loosely here , bandwidth via a unsecured access point is not illegal. It's free and in the clear. There is no reason for this case to go further unless he was doing something illegal behind it.

It is not illegal to receive free to air television signals so why is a internet signal is illegal ? Because it's "owned" by some one ? If that is the case then make an attempt to secure the system. Ignorance is no reason to do something wrong ever. And if they did not lock down the system with at least a minimum security setting then they deserve to have their bandwidth used.

If the person did something wrong behind the AP then they should be prosecuted, but to say that it's privately owned is just stupid, It's not protected by any means and by that standard it is free to use.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811228 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:39:20 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811173 Neil :
said by LinuxJunkie See Profile:

Furthermore, that law says "any computer connected to the Internet" -- what about computers that are simply on a closed LAN that happens to have a wireless connection? No Internet connection there so that law wouldn't even apply in that case.
According to the Wikipedia definition (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internets),

Internets may refer to: .. # Wide area networks using a private IP address space, called "private internets" in RFC 1918


Granted, a private network wouldn't be "THE" Internet, but apparently it is still AN internet.
--
idunno much about computers other than the one we got at my house my mom put a couple games on there and i play em

The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of my employer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811173 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:30:50 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811172 LinuxJunkie : As the other poster said, that does NOT apply to unsecured wireless networks. If you never touch their computers on the LAN side of the wireless network, that law wouldn't even apply. Quit your grasping at straws.

Using YOUR logic, if you picked up a classmate's pocket calculator off their desk to use it to solve a problem without asking them, then they've just committed a third degree felony. After all, wouldn't that be "unauthorized access to a computer?" It's judges and people like you that love to over-interpet the laws that are making this country such an unbearable place to live. I'm sure you were all for the Supreme Court's decision to privatize the eminent domain clause as well.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811172 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:30:26 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811056 Karl : And again, that law doesn't apply to Wi-Fi, it applies to PCs. Unless you stretch to fit the law to suggest a router is a computer, which isn't implicit and would be a stretch. As it stands, there is no law on the books dealing with unsecured Wi-Fi access.

All the morality hyberbole is a little silly too, particularly in cases where nobody is harmed. Sounds like someone advocates a massive waste of government money by cracking down on people who aren't really criminals.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811056 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:14:45 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811028 TK Junk Mail :
said by LinuxJunkie See Profile:

Quote me the EXACT law that says connecting to unsecured WiFi spots to connect to the Internet is illegal. I've seen you and several others in this thread flinging that accusation around but I've yet to see the actual law that defines it. I'm willing to bet you can't/won't find it.
It was posted by Doctor Dan in an earlier post. Read the thread and stop griping.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811028 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:11:24 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811016 LinuxJunkie : Go and find the law that makes this illegal.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811016 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:10:00 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811002 LinuxJunkie : Quote me the EXACT law that says connecting to unsecured WiFi spots to connect to the Internet is illegal. I've seen you and several others in this thread flinging that accusation around but I've yet to see the actual law that defines it. I'm willing to bet you can't/won't find it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13811002 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:09:04 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810997 oliphant : Love that liberal open door policy there Karl. It's that twisted logic of it's the fault of the AP owner that has crazy judges saying it's the rape victim's fault they got raped.

Stupidity isn't a license to be victimized...even by nerds and powerbooks.

I guess it's too much to expect people to respect other's PROPERTY and they won't understand this simple concept until they're arrested or fined.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810997 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:08:44 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810978 LinuxJunkie : But it contains no hard drive so therefore it contains no pertinent, private or valuable data. Nice try with the spin, however. Furthermore, that law says "any computer connected to the Internet" -- what about computers that are simply on a closed LAN that happens to have a wireless connection? No Internet connection there so that law wouldn't even apply in that case.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810978 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:05:48 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810959 LinuxJunkie : Yeah, let's spend tons of money on this crap instead of more important things. You apparently haven't met many "criminals" if you classify nerd wardrivers as such. Keep your mouth shut... you're giving us moderate conservatives a bad name.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810959 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:03:55 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810879 Karl : Yes, lets spend millions having cops crack down on geeks with powerbooks trying to send e-mail via unsecured hotspots, when it would be far more logical and cheaper to simply have hotspot owners use security.

How modern Conservative of you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810879 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:51:20 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810841 stevephl : I agree completely time to quit blaming the victim and prosecute the criminals. Anyone knowingly connecting to another persons network and using it, is well guilty and should be punished severely. Time to cut this bleeding heart liberal B.S. that lets so many criminals loose on our streets these days. Go Florida.

Steve in Colorado]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810841 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:45:03 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810740 Dragasoni : What if your life depended on it? What if you were going to die unless you got on the internet to...I don't get an antidote for a snake bite? Would you use a neighbors free access point?? I bet you would!

I know it's a dumb analogy, almost as dumb as the "just because you left your front door unlocked..." one I hear entirely too often.

Why should I take an extra step to protect the idiot next door? Like setting Windows to not automatically connect to any access point within range.

You "older" folks with your "morals" sound really stupid, you need to adapt to the year 2005.

-Dragasoni-
--
dragasoni@hotmail.com ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810740 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:27:59 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810525 BVT : Applying that law here is a stretch at best. He will probably plead guilty or get it pled down. If he had money, he could fight this and win.

That subsection & the courts interpretation is very dangerous. Anyone could file a complaint against anyone that accessed their system. It is way to broad. Wait until BestBuy starts claiming break-ins on their computer because someone has accessed it to compare prices. There are numerous price comparison websites that will fall under this law if a company tries to pursue it.

The interpretation, in effect, outlaws the internet.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810525 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:50:56 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810517 TK Junk Mail :
said by Dragasoni See Profile:

If they leave it open, I consider it free for anyone within range to use.
Unless you get permission from the AP owner(and I know you may not know who that is), then accessing the internet thru his system means you broke the law. You can rationalize things all you want, but you are a criminal - just not a caught criminal.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810517 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:50:11 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810512 the_buz : I see no mention of wifi in that excerpt. Try again.

Well, unless their definition of wifi is "computer" I really don't see how any of that applies.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810512 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:49:40 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810487 Dragasoni : I agree, if they bought the equipment it's their responsibility to lock it down, period. If they leave it open, I consider it free for anyone within range to use.

I live in a high rise building and I can pick on 2 AP's in addition to mine. One uses RR an the other Verizon DSL. You bet when my RR goes down, I connect to the "linksys" SSID that is hooked up to Verizon. I use it to do simple things, I don't abuse it or anything. As far as I'm concerned, they'll never know about it and I don't think I risk being fined for it.

Now, do I drove around looking for free hotspots...No I don't. I think that is a bit more questionable for criminal intent, but not always.

-Dragasoni-
--
dragasoni@hotmail.com ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810487 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:46:04 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810457 TK Junk Mail :
said by Karl See Profile:

But if he's simply accessing the hotspot, he's not accessing the computer....
All depends on how the definition of "computer" is worded in the law. An AP could be a "computer". It has memory, a processor, a UI, etc.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810457 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:43:11 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810432 Karl : But if he's simply accessing the hotspot, he's not accessing the computer....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810432 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:39:31 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810430 jbozley : ..."This guy deserved to be arrested. He knew he wasn't getting access from a legitimate free hotspot"...

"I agree. Attempting to access wireless networks without permission is no different than going through a neighborhood and trying the front doors of all the houses to see which ones are unlocked. An unlocked door is not an implicit invitation to enter and take what you want."

I also agree. What is wrong is wrong, whether it's in cyberspace or the digital medium, unauthorized access is just that - unauthorized. Each person should pay his own way with the perks and risks/costs involved with operating a wireless network with internet access. If you can't afford it, get permission!
This must be illegal because there is no way to verify the intentions of the person accessing the private network...they could be "innocent" or devious. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810430 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:39:04 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810398 Doctor Dan :
said by BVT See Profile:

Chances are, there is no law against using a wireless network you do not own in 99% of the US. If there is, it is most likely poorly written and will actually include free wifi spots. This guy just happened to be in the wrong city.

If there is no law against it, there is no harm in doing it. Do not confuse your morals with the law.
Not quite...

(From »www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline···aws.html )

As it reads today, each major subsection of the CFAA is intended to explain a particular aspect of computer crime. In simple terms, the CFAA prohibits:

accessing a computer without authorization and subsequently transmitting classified government information. [Subsection 1030(a)(1)];

theft of financial information [Subsection 1030(a)(2)];

accessing a "protected computer," which the courts have recently interpreted as being any computer connected to the internet, even if the intruder obtains no data [Subsection 1030(a)(3)];

computer fraud [Subsection 1030(a)(4)];
transmitting code that causes damage to a computer system [Subsection 1030(a)(5)];

trafficking in computer passwords for the purpose of affecting interstate commerce or a government computer [Subsection 1030(a)(6)];

and computer extortion [Subsection 1030(a)(7)].
- Dan
--
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810398 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:34:51 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810292 the niTz : the only thing i see wrong is someone not locking their wifi and leaving it open for others to use, which is pretty nice.

morality has nothing to do with this, the wifi point was open hide it, lockit but dont complain if someone is using it cause its out there, which means its as free as air!
--
its official everyone in sahuarita is a spy u cant even post with out somebody calling the authories!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810292 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:19:23 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810258 BVT : Chances are, there is no law against using a wireless network you do not own in 99% of the US. If there is, it is most likely poorly written and will actually include free wifi spots. This guy just happened to be in the wrong city.

If there is no law against it, there is no harm in doing it. Do not confuse your morals with the law.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810258 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:13:53 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810168 TK Junk Mail :
said by Doctor Dan See Profile:

Attempting to access wireless networks without permission is no different than going through a neighborhood and trying the front doors of all the houses to see which ones are unlocked. An unlocked door is not an implicit invitation to enter and take what you want.

- Dan
Too many of the younger generation raised on the Internet and illegally downloading music, videos, software, etc. are morally deficient. Too bad their parents never taught them right from wrong. Just look at the responses in this thread seeing absolutely nothing wrong with this.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810168 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:00:37 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810131 Doctor Dan :
said by TK Junk Mail See Profile:

This guy deserved to be arrested. He knew he wasn't getting access from a legitimate free hotspot. While his intentions may not be known for sure, he surely wasn't just trying to get free internet access. More than likely he was trying to steal information. Just because the homeowner had an unsecured AP, it doesn't make what this guy did legal. Try him in court, fine him, and confiscate all his computer and network equipment. And then put him on probation where if he gets caught again he goes to jail.
I agree. Attempting to access wireless networks without permission is no different than going through a neighborhood and trying the front doors of all the houses to see which ones are unlocked. An unlocked door is not an implicit invitation to enter and take what you want.

- Dan
--
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810131 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:55:36 EDT Re: Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810038 quientus :
said by TK Junk Mail See Profile:

This guy deserved to be arrested. He knew he wasn't getting access from a legitimate free hotspot. While his intentions may not be known for sure, he surely wasn't just trying to get free internet access. More than likely he was trying to steal information. Just because the homeowner had an unsecured AP, it doesn't make what this guy did legal. Try him in court, fine him, and confiscate all his computer and network equipment. And then put him on probation where if he gets caught again he goes to jail.
You're either kidding me or trolling.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810038 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:43:26 EDT Deserved arrest http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810019 TK Junk Mail : This guy deserved to be arrested. He knew he wasn't getting access from a legitimate free hotspot. While his intentions may not be known for sure, he surely wasn't just trying to get free internet access. More than likely he was trying to steal information. Just because the homeowner had an unsecured AP, it doesn't make what this guy did legal. Try him in court, fine him, and confiscate all his computer and network equipment. And then put him on probation where if he gets caught again he goes to jail.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13810019 Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:40:21 EDT