the niTz
Premium
join:2004-07-05
Sahuarita, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
| wait a minute
was this ap unlocked with out security, how can he get in trouble for that if its unlocked ??? if he broke wep, wpa, or mac filter fine but that article doesnt mention that.
and if ppl are just dumb enough to trust the world well they deserve it.
--
its official everyone in sahuarita is a spy u cant even post with out somebody calling the authories!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs:
| I agree, if they are sending the signal to me with no attempt to stop it or encrypt it, then that's their fault. I mean hell, if I didn't have my own wireless network at my house my adapter would automatically try to connect to one of my neighbors connections. |
|
the niTz
Premium
join:2004-07-05
Sahuarita, AZ | exactly |
|
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to the niTz
said by the niTz  :was this ap unlocked with out security, how can he get in trouble for that if its unlocked ??? In the same way that it's illegal for you to enter someone else's house without permission even if the door is unlocked.
--
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side and it binds the galaxy together. |
|
the niTz
Premium
join:2004-07-05
Sahuarita, AZ
·Cox HSI
| u cant apply the same law that pertain to physical property, to wifi or digital media, its not like ur broadcasting ur home a radius of a few hundred feet, why do u think there are locks on everything, ppl cant be trusted.
--
its official everyone in sahuarita is a spy u cant even post with out somebody calling the authories!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to Speedy8
And if his house is unlocked you are free to enter that too? |
|
stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
| reply to Bobcat
Consent can be inferred from actions as well as words. At 12:00 noon on a weekday if I enter an unlocked store I don't think I am guilty of anything even if the owner had decided to take the day off and simply forgot to lock the door. (If I started looting the store, that would obviously be theft).
The tradition in the U.S. (and I assume most places) is that consent to enter a business place which has its doors open during ordinary business hours can be inferred and it is up to the owner to state to the contrary.
There is a tradition of open access in a number of places. Many restaurants, bars, parks, coffee houses, hotels, and libraries have open access. The coffee house down the street from my house has a linksys router hooked to a DSL connection. It simply says linksys and anyone is free to use it. It is nothing fancy, but it works. If one day, thinking I was using the coffee house's router, I accidentally used a linksys router belonging to someone else, am I guilty of a crime.
My wife travels for a living. She was at a bed and breakfast in Alabama the other day and used a wifi connection which she thought belonged to the b&b. She later learned that the b&b did not have a connection and she was using a neighbor. Did she commit a crime?
Conversely, some people are just clueless and don't lock down anything and would be horribly offended if someone checked cnn.com on their connection.
The problem with the Tampa prosecution is that there is no clear netiquette on unlocked routers. What we need is a flag that can be attached indicating the owner's intention. Until and unless that happens, we are applying our own subjective feelings about unlocked routers. Some of us would be offended if they were accessed, some of us could care less.
You only need to change the facts of this case slightly for people to give different answers. Because the facts are dubious, you think he is up to no good. What if it was a manufacturer's rep in a hotel parking lot checking his corporate e-mail?
The Panera Bread near my office has free wifi. You can use the signal just fine from Starbucks next door. I've seen numerous people use Panera's wifi in the Starbucks to abvoid paying T-Mobile $8. Are they guilty of unauthorized access.
The problem with this prosecution is it leaves the function of defnining what is a crime in the hands of the police officer. That (in my mind) is problematic. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
2 edits | Uh...is it really "tradition" for there to be residential public wireless services? And even then...when you want into that store do you use their products and service without paying for them?
If you connected by accident then immediately disconnected...that's you walking in and out of the unattended store.
You connecting and stealing the service you're connected to is you going into the store and using the stores products and services without paying.
I don't understand why you guys can't figure out that stealing someone else's service is wrong. This isn't an accidental connection. And the subject of this article parking out in front of some guys house stealing service clearly shows this criminal intent. |
|
john262
join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV | reply to oliphant
No, entering an unlocked house is illegal trespassing. |
|
Tsume
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN | Whereas the wireless signal is off of their property =] |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| said by Tsume :Whereas the wireless signal is off of their property =] But connecting to a device or devices privately owned within the property. In addition the TOS/AUP of the service requires that anyone using the service, not subscribing, agree to the TOS/AUP...that is unless you have Megapath or someone.
This is no different that you having a cordless telephone handset compatible with a neighbor's base station. It doesn't mean you can legally start making phone calls. Theft of service is still theft of service. |
|
stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
·Verizon BroadbandA..
| reply to oliphant
In my hypo, I specifically said that I didn't steal anything from the store. The crime of authorized access would be complete on entry just like the crime of burglarly. If I broke into your house and left without taking anything, I'd still be guilty of a crime.
The point that we differ on is the "tradition" of open access. Looking at the split of votes, there is a difference of opinion on this point. If Florida's law reversed the tradition of open access and said that you could only access wifi hot spots which have the word "open" in the SSID that would be one thing, but they didn't which leaves people guessing and there are two very different mindsets involved.
This forces people to judge each case on an ad hoc basis. You did this by injecting the word residential. While the guy was parked on a street, we don't know where the business district was or whether there was a library on that street.
The point is simply that without clear guidance and two competing views of the signals, there will be a temptation to convict people we don't like (e.g. the pervert) and exonerate the others (e.g. the business person) on facts which are legally indistinguishable.
I don't think penal law should follow the old "I know it when I see it test" we use in pornography cases.
As it is, I expect that any lawyer worth his salt can find an expert that will testify either way and then a jury is left to do what it wants. I don't like that result at all.
In my mind ambiguities in criminal law should be resolved in favor of the accused. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| And in my post I clearly stated that if you accidentallly connect to an AP and then disconnect...that's no different than your hypo of walking into an unattended store.
But that person going to CNN.COM is now taking/using what doesn't belong to them just like taking/using something in that unattended store. Going to CNN.COM using a connection through someone else's private equipment and service they pay for isn't them walking in and just walking out. |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
2 edits | reply to oliphant
I don't think people write their own TOS/AUP for their own access points, bro. If you are referring to the TOS/AUP of *their* ISP, then I agree that it you may be bound to that if you are connected to them through somebody else's wireless network. But what about a wireless network that doesn't go anywhere (i.e., is simply a wireless LAN)? Would you say the same thing applies?
I'm going to have to disagree with you because it is every person's responsibility to prevent unauthorized access to their own networks. If I'm blasting an unencyrpted wireless signal clear out to the street from my house with no encryption on and suddenly I'm seeing a bunch of random people on my network, I have nobody to blame but myself. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| said by LinuxJunkie :I don't think people write their own TOS/AUP for their own access points, bro. Huh? It's about using the service the AP is connected to. Perhaps you should go back and reread the thread.
Property rights protect the AP...or at least it should if people didn't think stealing is okay. |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
| reply to oliphant
How about you're comparing apples (physical laws) to oranges (electronic laws)? I hardly believe that breaking and entering a store and stealing stuff from inside is HARDLY on the same level as connecting (purposely or accidentally) to an unencrypted, WIDE OPEN wireless network to check your e-mail. To say that they are is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my entire life (well, almost). |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | I'm certainly not surprised that some people today have trouble respecting the property rights of others. War driving is an activity that isn't an accident. Parking in front of a stranger's house looking for open connections isn't an accident.
So can we all come over and swim in your pool or use your BBQ? It'll be an accident I swear. |
|
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
| reply to the niTz
said by the niTz :u cant apply the same law that pertain to physical property, to wifi or digital media, its not like ur broadcasting ur home a radius of a few hundred feet, why do u think there are locks on everything, ppl cant be trusted. So are you saying that it's legal to steal service from DirecTV or Cingular because it leaves the physical confines of their office? |
|
the niTz
Premium
join:2004-07-05
Sahuarita, AZ
·Cox HSI
| no their service is encrypted u need a smart card or a sim chip thats allowed to access the network, now ofcourse if it was open then yea it would be legal;)
--
its official everyone in sahuarita is a spy u cant even post with out somebody calling the authories!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
pcdebb
RIP dadkins
Premium
join:2000-12-03
Tampa, FL
clubs:
| reply to the niTz
said by the niTz :was this ap unlocked with out security, how can he get in trouble for that if its unlocked ??? if he broke wep, wpa, or mac filter fine but that article doesnt mention that. and if ppl are just dumb enough to trust the world well they deserve it. i dont think it was locked
For as worrisome as it seems, wireless mooching is easily preventable by turning on encryption or requiring passwords. The problem, security experts say, is many people do not take the time or are unsure how to secure their wireless access from intruders. Dinon knew what to do. "But I never did it because my neighbors are older."
lame excuse buddy. in my neighborhood i dont think there are many that know about wireless, but i'm locked up anyway and broadcasting turned off
--
babbling | mvm |
|
