 |  |   ylen131
join:2000-02-09 Canoga Park, CA edit: July 22nd, @11:40AM
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear law may be clear, but gl catching them In usa i dont' think they can search your laptop just because you stand outside of the building, this happen in uk | |
|  |  |   shadowstalker
@12.153.x.x | Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear actually that is not quite true i recommend you read the patriot act 1 and 2 jawhol herr bush | |
|  |  |  |  hrickpa
join:2001-06-07 Reading, PA
·Covad Communications
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear how about some one cracking the WEP key to gain access i am running 802.11b my neighbors keep getting access when i change the WEP key 24 hours later there back in linksys befw11s4 WEP 128 bit been going on for 4 months they started getting bandwidth greedy that's how i found them leaching i have a program that warns me if there is a computer that is an intruder (not belong on my network} the program gives me a network map of all computers and devices attached | |
|  |  |  |  |   ylen131
join:2000-02-09 Canoga Park, CA
edit: July 23rd, @03:59PM
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear said by hrickpa :how about some one cracking the WEP key to gain access i am running 802.11b my neighbors keep getting access when i change the WEP key 24 hours later there back in linksys befw11s4 WEP 128 bit been going on for 4 months they started getting bandwidth greedy that's how i found them leaching i have a program that warns me if there is a computer that is an intruder (not belong on my network} the program gives me a network map of all computers and devices attached yes it's illegal, get your self a new route rand set up wap, gl to them cracking that. | |
|  |  |  |  |   TimmyDanny
@boeing.com
| Securing a router You should configure your router to only accept your MAC addresses.
Of course, your neighbor might possibly already know the MAC addresses for your equipment (since they've snooped your network) and be able to pretend to be one of your computers, but it's worth a shot, and simple to do. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   ylen131
join:2000-02-09 Canoga Park, CA
| Re: Securing a router said by TimmyDanny:
You should configure your router to only accept your MAC addresses.
Of course, your neighbor might possibly already know the MAC addresses for your equipment (since they've snooped your network) and be able to pretend to be one of your computers, but it's worth a shot, and simple to do. it will take 5 min to get around mac filter | |
|  |  |  |  |   cobolhacker
@frankie.ca | Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear You need to get a new router and use WPA.
Either that, or visit their house with a baseball bat. | |
|  |   bent not broken Premium join:2004-10-04 Longmont, CO clubs: | I think that the majority of people who leave their WAPs open wouldn't have the first clue that someone was using their connection, much less how to document it so that it would stand up in court. | |
|  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear said by bent :I think that the majority of people who leave their WAPs open wouldn't have the first clue that someone was using their connection, much less how to document it so that it would stand up in court. If they get the offender with the laptop in his hand and before he can erase any traces, they have all the proof they need. Also, they can subpoena the ISP records and have further proof there.
But, obviously, you will catch very few in the act. But the point is highly publicising the consequences of those you do catch, thereby scaring off many many more. -- My Web Page Join Red Room Forum | |
|  |  |  |   ylen131
join:2000-02-09 Canoga Park, CA
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear said by TK Junk Mail :said by bent :I think that the majority of people who leave their WAPs open wouldn't have the first clue that someone was using their connection, much less how to document it so that it would stand up in court. If they get the offender with the laptop in his hand and before he can erase any traces, they have all the proof they need. Also, they can subpoena the ISP records and have further proof there. But, obviously, you will catch very few in the act. But the point is highly publicising the consequences of those you do catch, thereby scaring off many many more. subpoena isp records? hmm and what are they going to show? When you connect to router, your outbound ip is same as person that is next to the router, so i am not sure how isp help in prosecution | |
|  |  |  |  john1290
join:2003-12-06 Reynoldsburg, OH
| I live in the US. There are always about 3-5 wide open wireless routers around me that I can pick up inside my house. (Most with default admin passwords) If I wanted to be REALLY sneaky I could spoof their MAC address and do whatever I wanted/go anywhere and be totally safe. But I only use my powers for good.  | |
|  |  |  |  bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by TK Junk Mail :If they get the offender with the laptop in his hand and before he can erase any traces, they have all the proof they need. That assumes that the person can't disconnect or remove the wireless card quickly. Once that's done, it becomes hard to prove the person illegally connected.
Also, they can subpoena the ISP records and have further proof there. ISP records won't help if the person is browsing from behind a router because the IP address is shared among multiple computers.
But, obviously, you will catch very few in the act. But the point is highly publicising the consequences of those you do catch, thereby scaring off many many more. And that's basically what it boils down to... These arrests are more showboating to force ceterrance than anything. | |
|  |  |  |  |   manfmmd Premium join:2003-01-14 Earth clubs:
edit: July 22nd, @12:33PM
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear said by bmn :ISP records won't help if the person is browsing from behind a router because the IP address is shared among multiple computers. You are forgetting about the index.dat for IE and browser cache for other browsers that will 'tell' where you have been on the internet. -- secundum umbra EGO specto lux lucis | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   ylen131
join:2000-02-09 Canoga Park, CA
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear said by manfmmd :said by TK Junk Mail :ISP records won't help if the person is browsing from behind a router because the IP address is shared among multiple computers. You are forgetting about the index.dat for IE and browser cache for other browsers that will 'tell' where you have been on the internet. you are assuming cops can figure out whos internet wifi you were using, if go outside my parents office i have access to 10 of them, hard to track whos belong to who | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   manfmmd Premium join:2003-01-14 Earth clubs:
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear That's true, in the end, it's a waste of time considering that there are more important things that cops should be doing, but that has never stopped them from giving me a ticket in the past.  -- secundum umbra EGO specto lux lucis | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear Personally, I think they need to make some stiff examples of some of the ones doing it now. So, I see it a very worth-while cause for the police.
If you think about it, this plays into home land security issues. Some people may think I am over reacting, however, if you wanted to cause terror or what ever these people want to do, open Wi-Fi is an even better place to use the internet than an internet cafe where you have to phyiscally sit and risk getting found.
Again, is it over reaching? We never thought that air planes would take down the trade towers too...
Along with getting people who use these access points, I think there should be a drive to get people to secure them as well for the same reason. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01 Columbia, MO
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear Are you serious??
You see this as a worthwhile cause for the police... Rather than, oh, I don't know...trying to police crime-ridden neighborhoods, apprehend murderers, rapists, drunk drivers, and other actually dangerous crimes...mmmkay. And I am thinking about it, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with Homeland Security, Mr. Goebbels. If you wanted to cause terror, I seriously doubt a lack of an unsecured wireless router would stop you dead in your tracks. (You know, terrorists could staple coded messages onto telephone poles. FOR THE CHILDRENS, tear down those poles!!!!) And yes, we did think that planes could take down the towers, several years prior to it happening. I guess it was all those unsecured wireless routers that let them waltz into the country, get pilots training, drivers licenses, and plane tickets? You, sir, flunk the internet. -- Burrow owl...burrow owl... | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear
Yea, I am serious or I wouldn't have posted it. Duh!
Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the "this crime is worth more than another" theory. I think all crimes are worth while.
I am also someone that thinks proactively rather than reactively as well.
Do YOU mean to tell me that people aren't looking for new ways to get around barriers? You REALLY think I am the only one that has this thought? Come on.
It's clear, after reading your post, that you didn't read mine clearly. It's also clear that you think all is well in the world.
Ad for your "yea, we did know that planes would be used" - I guess if people did more to look out for that, they may have been stopped too.
You, little boy, need to chill out. Back down unless you want a flame war bud. (what are you, one of those libbys that think they know everything in this world? And that the collective knows better? Tell me why the government is going to hollywood to help them think of possible ways that people can slip through the cracks or new ways they can hurt us? Because they try to think outside the box - MORON!) | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   tapeloop Light, sweet triceratops. Premium join:2004-06-27 Airstrip One
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear said by fiberguy :You, little boy, need to chill out. Back down unless you want a flame war bud. (what are you, one of those libbys that think they know everything in this world? And that the collective knows better? Tell me why the government is going to hollywood to help them think of possible ways that people can slip through the cracks or new ways they can hurt us? Because they try to think outside the box - MORON!) Too bad BBR doesn't have a BAWK BAWK BAWK Chicken emoticon for you to add to your...erm, stimulating post.  -- Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear Unless you have antying usefull to add to the discussion, skip the post. Your editorial isn't necessary.
I can't believe that the babies here get all bent out of shape because someone posts a though.. wow! Shows the mentality here. (Sorry, I didn't check with the borg collective before posting a message that conforms)
Now where's that Sarcasm Emoticon or better yet, the finger. Lighten up! | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   tapeloop Light, sweet triceratops. Premium join:2004-06-27 Airstrip One
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear said by fiberguy :Unless you have antying usefull to add to the discussion, skip the post. Your editorial isn't necessary. I can't believe that the babies here get all bent out of shape because someone posts a though.. wow! Shows the mentality here. (Sorry, I didn't check with the borg collective before posting a message that conforms) Now where's that Sarcasm Emoticon or better yet, the finger. Lighten up! You challenging me now too? 
I had no problem with the discussion until you pulled that "hey you calm down or step outside" junk. I'm sorry that you think "getting bent out of shape" over "thoughts" is inappropriate, but the sooner one drops the name-calling the sooner I'd go back to giving their arguments some credibility.
Plus I just thought it was kinda funny how angry people get around here. Zell Miller school of debate I'm sure.  -- Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Boricua65 Oye, chico
join:2002-01-26 Puerto Rico
| said by fiberguy :...Some people may think I am over reacting, however, if you wanted to cause terror or what ever these people want to do, open Wi-Fi is an even better place to use the internet than an internet cafe where you have to physically sit and risk getting found... If that was true, then many cities and municipalities wouldn't set up wireless hotspots. In front of city hall, here in downtown Oakland, the Mayor had the city set up a free wireless zone. There's even a cafe near this wi-fi hotspot that offers free wireless as well. Unfortunately, if somebody wanted to do damage, whether terrorist or an individual, they will not matter. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear Yea.. and don't you think that those HOTSPOTS log mac addresses and other information such as sites visited that can later be used if need be? Don't you think that if something was done illegal that if they found a suspect that they could trace it back to a computer if one was found?
Please read my whole post next time and see that I did mention cyber cafe's and such. Those are managed areas and can trace evidence. Personal WAPs are not. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  slicemaster
join:2001-12-14 Newbury Park, CA
| said by fiberguy :Personally, I think they need to make some stiff examples of some of the ones doing it now. So, I see it a very worth-while cause for the police. If you think about it, this plays into home land security issues. Some people may think I am over reacting, however, if you wanted to cause terror or what ever these people want to do, open Wi-Fi is an even better place to use the internet than an internet cafe where you have to phyiscally sit and risk getting found. Again, is it over reaching? We never thought that air planes would take down the trade towers too... Along with getting people who use these access points, I think there should be a drive to get people to secure them as well for the same reason. If you want to go the nation security route then you would be worried about all who dont secure there access points, not just the idiots who dont know better. Whether they dont know any better or they simply leave the AP open for public use, according to your theory, all unsecured WiFi hotspots would be a threat to national security, and based on that then the hotspot owner should be the one in trouble with the law, you know, for providing a gateway for terrorists. Luckily that is not the case because if it were then there would be laws against having open APs. And IMHO those who leave there access points open for use by others (mine is open for public use) are not guilty of anything, and last I check 2.4Ghz is a public frequency band and if no security is circumvented to access a wireless network then I dont think anything wrong has been done. Like I have said before, if the AP is not secured then it is one of two things, open for public use, or a crime of stupidity on the part of an idiot. Either way, you cant tell which were purposefully left open for public use and those that were not secured due to either laziness or stupidity on the part of the hotspot owner, therefore we should err on the side of freedom, people are free to not secure there APs (both on purpose and mistakenly) and others a free to access them as long as not security is circumvented. No one should be getting arrested or fined for accessing an open network (no security in place) on a public frequency band. This is just ludicrous. If security was circumvented (WEP, WPA, etc.) then nail the guy to the wall, but if it was wide open then no crime was committed.
Slice | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by manfmmd :said by bmn :ISP records won't help if the person is browsing from behind a router because the IP address is shared among multiple computers. You are forgetting about the index.dat for IE and browser cache for other browsers that will 'tell' where you have been on the internet. That only proves you went to said sites, but does not prove what connection you used to get to those sites.
Also people have utilities installed that elininate that data, not to mention there are other ways to hide your tracks (for example, using a VPN to another location, etc.). | |
|  |   richdelb 2008 Calder Cup CHAMPS Premium join:2003-01-22 Algonquin, IL
| Seems to me that if you sat outside someones house and tried to break into a SECURED system (sniffing packets, etc.) you'd be breaking the law, but for UN-Secured systems (open hot spots) you'd have a hard time applying the law.
When you purchase a wireless router it generally comes with some type of instructions on how to secure it, so how can someone claim the didn't know how to do it?
If it's left open and unsecured, it seems to me reasonable that the owner of that hotspot had intended it to be that way.
If the wireless router came without instructions, or without warnings that if you don't secure it your service can be used by others, then you many have a different story.
Secure it, or don't use it. (unless you wish it to be a free hotspot to the world)
Pretty simple, really. | |
|  |  |  Skippy25
join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear Me choosing not to secure my house, car, bike, or wallet does not give you, or anyone else, the right to "borrow" it. If it is not yours and you know it is not yours, then leave it alone. It is as simple as that.
Don't start with the.. "well if they didnt want you to this or that" arguement. If they dont explicitly tell you that you can, than you can't. Ignorance and stupidity, though many of you have a valid case for this, is no excuse. | |
|  |   psb777
@range86-134.btcentra
| I was in Ottawa until yesterday. When I got there a week ago I fired up my WiFi equipped laptop and my browser gave me a login screen for TelecomOttawa. I paid CAN$29 for a month's access and used the Internet everyday. Last day on the main pedestrianised street sitting on a bench only after an hour did I realise I had not been using TelecomOttawa that day at all! There was an open Linksys AP nearby that my laptop had connected to. Unconcerned, I shrugged and continued until my battery flaked out.
How should one act? I need never have found out that I wasn't connected to the correct ISP. At what point did I start breaking the law? How do you explain yourself to the RCMP who asks what you're doing? How do you prove to an IT-illiterate cop you are accessing an ISP to which you have a subscription? | |
|  |  |   tapeloop Light, sweet triceratops. Premium join:2004-06-27 Airstrip One
| Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear said by psb777:
I was in Ottawa until yesterday. When I got there a week ago I fired up my WiFi equipped laptop and my browser gave me a login screen for TelecomOttawa. I paid CAN$29 for a month's access and used the Internet everyday. Last day on the main pedestrianised street sitting on a bench only after an hour did I realise I had not been using TelecomOttawa that day at all! There was an open Linksys AP nearby that my laptop had connected to. Unconcerned, I shrugged and continued until my battery flaked out.
How should one act? I need never have found out that I wasn't connected to the correct ISP. At what point did I start breaking the law? How do you explain yourself to the RCMP who asks what you're doing? How do you prove to an IT-illiterate cop you are accessing an ISP to which you have a subscription? Unless they have laws forbidding such things in Canada (which may be, but I haven't heard of any), then such wi-fi access wouldn't be illegal. -- Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. | |
|  |  |  |   psb777
@range86-134.btcentra | Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear Well, duh! | |
|  |   kapowaz
@dialnet.com
| From the UK Computer Misuse Act 1990:
Section 1 - Unauthorised access to computer material It is an offence to cause a computer to perform any function with intent to secure unauthorised access to any program or data held in any computer (section 1a). It is necessary to prove that the access secured is unauthorised (section 1b), and the suspect knew that this was the case (section 1c). So, if person A accesses person B's wireless access point, person B needs to prove that person A was unauthorised to do so. But... in broadcasting an SSID, running a DHCP server and allocating an IP address to a wireless client, the WAP of person B explicitly did the opposite of stating that person A was unauthorised; it responded to the request and let person A in with a hearty "you're welcome".
So, yes, the law is clear. That this isn't illegal.
But let's put the shoe on the other foot. How many online services do you have which enforce policies whereby you (the subscriber) have to agree that you are the only person who will use that service under a given account? For instance, frequently in gaming (MMORPGs, Xbox Live, Steam etc). If your account is banned due to the actions of somebody else who used your account, you have nobody to blame but yourself. So what if an individual accesses your wireless network in order to commit a crime, and the route is traced back to you?
What needs to happen is for owners of wifi technology to take responsibility for what they are using. If they don't understand the underlying principles behind what a wireless access point or wireless router does then they can have no right to complain when somebody walking past their house gets a free ride. | |
|   bent not broken Premium join:2004-10-04 Longmont, CO clubs: | Probable Cause? So being outside with my laptop is now probable cause? Give me a fing break. | |
|  |  See 12 replies to this post | |
  Mr Anon
@172.16.x.x
| Problems and errors Just what law are you guys talking about? I don't know of one here in the US? I know there are local lawas prohibiting war driving etc etc but connecting to an unprotected wifi signal is illegal under what national law? This also makes it quite weird for people using publically accessable hotspots. Anyway I'm not too huge on law.
The problem is that this is just like putting a beautiful peice of art (or what have you) in your home, on the stree or wotherise right in front of you and telling you NOT to look. I can see if these people were snorting the air and breaking the ecnryption, even if it was a simple stupid key yeah you are breaking in. Say you put a drinking fountain at the end of your drive way over hanging the sidewalk. You put it there for when you do yard work or for whatever but you don't need a key to use it, and its always ready and no sign saying private use only. Why would you get mad, its almost obvious that you are offering a free service.
Lastly all the trouble talk of pedofiles and hackers (ha) and other low life would use it to do illegal things. Good point they might! However its just like most other things, they aren't going to be the ones you catch, people that might do this know how to build (not just buy) high gain antennas and signal booting amps, probably modify them outside of legal spec too. The will not be insight! | |
|  |  stufried Premium join:2003-10-13
·Verizon BroadbandA..
| Re: Problems and errors The problem is that Courts permit police officers to testify as experts about anything. To justify their behavior in court, they tack on a series of descriptors designed to make innocent behavior seem crooked. They described your glances as nervous or rapid. They will testify that in their experience (e.g. attending a single one seminar), that sitting in your car in a parking lot using a laptop is supsicious. They couldn't tell a cellular modem from a wi-fi card, but the judge will buy it and back them up. | |
|  scott1527 Premium join:2003-01-19 | wifi open = fair game if theres no security set i would say its a free hot spot. its upto the owner to lock it down if he doesnt want ppl using it. if its open its there to be used. | |
|  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: wifi open = fair game said by scott1527 :if theres no security set i would say its a free hot spot. its upto the owner to lock it down if he doesnt want ppl using it. if its open its there to be used. Gee, like we havn't hear this before. I wish BBR would push this tired a**s subject to the pole and stop posting the news so we can read 175 messages of people saying "it's it's open, it's free to take" and "It's wrong"... I mean, how many times is this going to get beat to death?
Sorry, and not against you personally Scott, but seriously, isn't this getting old and no where? | |
|   richk_1957 If ..Then..Else Premium join:2001-04-11 Minas Tirith
| This is sending out a bad message No-one is saying a thing about the owners of the unsecured hot spots. In a way, it's their fault. This seems to be saying 'You don't have to secure your wireless connection, the law will prosecute anyone using it without your knowledge'. I didn't say 'using it illegally' because that's a gray area, I don't think it is illegal. | |
|  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: This is sending out a bad message said by richk_1957 :No-one is saying a thing about the owners of the unsecured hot spots. Correct, because HOTSPOTS are public routers used for that purpose, however some charge. Are you talking about a home wireless access point or WAP? | |
|  |  |   richk_1957 If ..Then..Else Premium join:2001-04-11 Minas Tirith
| Re: This is sending out a bad message said by fiberguy :said by richk_1957 :No-one is saying a thing about the owners of the unsecured hot spots. Correct, because HOTSPOTS are public routers used for that purpose, however some charge. Are you talking about a home wireless access point or WAP? Ok, you got me. My Mistake:(
What I meant to say was 'unsecured wireless access points' It can be for home or corporate use.
But I still think the message is going out 'you don't have to secure your wireless access point (WiFi), the Law will take care of it for you'.
Of course, that's not true, but such a big deal is being made over it & the owner of the unsecured Wi-Fi point hears nothing, ut sounds or seems like it. | |
|  JamesHutto
join:2004-05-09 Olar, SC
| you misunderstand... What seems to be misunderstood here is that a search warrant will still be required. A LEO may seize a laptop without a warrant if he has a reasonable belief that evidence will be destroyed if the laptop remains in the posession of its owner. This also means he ( LEO ) would have to have a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, the person with the laptop has committed it, and the laptop may have direct evidence of this crime.
Now once the LEO seizes the laptop, he still MUST obtain a warrant to be able to "search" the laptop for this evidence. This is specific to wifi freeloading.
This doesnt apply to the Patriot Act. Even still, if a crime falls under the Pat. Act, they will still have to articulate how the crime falls under the Act in court. | |
|  ossito16
join:2004-07-31 Whiting, IN
·RCN CABLE
| better ways to not get caught First off use a linux live cd. Also I have seen scripts out there that automatically change your mac address for wifi card upon bootup. Use a really good pcmcia card w/external connector, I use Orinoco Gold with 7dbi antenna. Pick up signal inside of car at a good distance away. I can go to Panera bread and pick up the unsecured dentist office 1 block away. Maybe try one of those Cantenna deals with 14dbi. There is no reason for someone to get caught wardriving or whatever you want to call it. They will never have the means to really stop people, someone will always counter their move.
stock dell 5150 orinoco gold w/ 7dbi antenna live cd Knoppix/Math/2005 live cd Phlak 0.3 | |
|  |   Ronnie1055 Premium join:2004-06-25 Carrollton, TX
| This is a good subject... I am not sure how I feel about this to tell you the truth.. I have wireless... but have mine locked down... I have two neighbors very close who do not have theirs locked down. It is not my fault that I have the ability to jump on their network... wouldn't want to... but I can. Or anyone else for that matter.
Locking down your wireless is not that difficult. I don't necessarily think having people roam a neighborhood with wireless devices and/or sniffers is right... but let's use some precaution. We lock our houses don't we?? | |
|   branley
@knology.net
| Keep your wifi to yourself! If I'm sitting in my bedroom, and my laptop, which just connects to whatever signal is available, connects to my neighbors wifi, do I have to worry about the police knocking on my door and hauling me off?
With wifi becoming so common now, states are going to have to start working on some laws so that we can understand what is legal and what isn't. Wifi is even more tricky because it does not stay within property boundaries. I would say that if I walk onto your property to use any of your utilities that I could be arrested for trespassing, but if I'm not on your property and your wifi extends onto my property, then is it still yours? Or is your wifi service trespassing on my property. Maybe I'll have you arrested for littering my property with your wifi!! 
One further comment: if you were broadcasting a private radio station for your house, and my radio picked it up, is it illegal for me to listen to it? Surely not. If you stand naked in your backyard, and there is no fence, is it illegal for me to stand in my backyard and stare at you? Nope. | |
|  |  slicemaster
join:2001-12-14 Newbury Park, CA
edit: July 22nd, @05:12PM
| Re: Keep your wifi to yourself! said by branley:If I'm sitting in my bedroom, and my laptop, which just connects to whatever signal is available, connects to my neighbors wifi, do I have to worry about the police knocking on my door and hauling me off? With wifi becoming so common now, states are going to have to start working on some laws so that we can understand what is legal and what isn't. Wifi is even more tricky because it does not stay within property boundaries. I would say that if I walk onto your property to use any of your utilities that I could be arrested for trespassing, but if I'm not on your property and your wifi extends onto my property, then is it still yours? Or is your wifi service trespassing on my property. Maybe I'll have you arrested for littering my property with your wifi!!  One further comment: if you were broadcasting a private radio station for your house, and my radio picked it up, is it illegal for me to listen to it? Surely not. If you stand naked in your backyard, and there is no fence, is it illegal for me to stand in my backyard and stare at you? Nope. Exactly my point! This post makes it crystal clear in addition to what I said above in response to fiberguy's national security theory. So basically as long as no security is circumvented, it should ok.
Slice | |
|   treetop1000
join:2003-11-07 Lexington, KY
| no brainer Wireless access is free to all who can use/find it. Rest assured there is NO way you can deny access to any user, should that user be adept enough at getting past your passwords. And to think most people believe they've been "victimized" when the police catch someone else using that persons wireless access? So how do you protect yourself? one answer only: rip it out and hardwire up the router. I did, and just to let you know, the geeky kid 800 feet away is apparently really pissed at me now. I couldn't figure out why, since I had barely ever spoken to him. Then I realized I had removed the WAP just the week before, and things started to click. | |
|   ctceo Premium join:2001-04-26 South Bend, IN clubs: | How Many? How Many times do these idiots have to get caught before they realise that you shouldn't sit in front of somebodies home with your laptop visible, and downloading porn??? | |
|  |   Lar
join:2002-06-17 Iowa | Re: How Many? What a joke.....If you are dumb enough to leave your connection unsecured then your just plain dumb. As for business's that allow you to get on well its a free ride don't you think. | |
|  |  |   ctceo Premium join:2001-04-26 South Bend, IN clubs: | Re: How Many? The AP owner(s) is guilty of negligence, and the thief if caught is guilty of, well theft + most if not all of what he was doing illegally through it. | |
|  Jedispara
join:2005-06-27 London, ON
| Why charge the guy Its the network adminstrators own damn fault for not enabaling the proper stuff to keep people out, so as far as i'm concerned they have no right to charge anyone doing this. If you don't want freeloaders on your network, make it secure you computer idiots. | |
|   lawyersNOT
@comcast.net
| stop whinning Is it your network that is un-securred? No good shut your trap Boo hoo, it's illegal, no it's not, yes it is, who said i said, well you ar not correct, well neither are you. Get a life, if you are not the ignorant bloak stealing the connection |
|
|
|