Am I stealing??

[sutoazul]

I have my laptop that I used for school work, and at school we get connected through a wireless network. I've never used my laptop at home until last Friday, I found out that I can connect to the internet wireless; I guess a neighbor has a cable connection and a wireless network installed.

So if I don't do anything extra to get the connection, just turn my laptop on, and I get connected automatically.... Am I stealing from my neighbor??

[-Slap-]

Ethics will only hold you back, kid.

[RhymesayersDU]

Ethics will only hold you back, kid.
Yet another reason why I owe you rep.

[Tombstone RJ]

Ethics will only hold you back, kid.

So true...

[baja]

Mow his lawn if you feel gulity

[Ratboy]

Mow his lawn if you feel gulity

Haha!!

i wouldnt feel quilty.. he isnt spending extra money.. If you hate the word stealing then, id perfer it as "Borrowing" the connection for a short period of time

[Tom G]

Of course you are. You shouldn't even have to pose the question.

[Tombstone RJ]

Its only "stealing" if you get caught...

[Raiders Rock]

He can easily set it up securely, if he doesn't it's an radio wave and if you can rec it do it

[Raiders Rock]

although if he knows what he is doing he can look in his router admin and can see you are there

[Tombstone RJ]

although if he knows what he is doing he can look in his router admin and can see you are there

Then you'd be caught, and that might be interpreted as stealing... then again, can you BS because a little BS may be enough to get you off the hook...

[RhymesayersDU]

Why am I not surprised that a Raider Fan knows the specifics on how to steal something?

[Raiders Rock]

Why am I not surprised that a Raider Fan knows the specifics on how to steal something?

Because RR has a wireless network and the kids next door where in mine or you are a sterotypical hypocrite Donk fan that couldn't find his ass with both hands.

You pick the answer

[Ratboy]

What did you do RR? If it was me, i would allow it, id just charge him 1/4 of the cost for cable connect!!

[BroncoHI]

Because RR has a wireless network and the kids next door where in mine or you are a sterotypical hypocrite Donk fan that couldn't find his ass with both hands.

You pick the answer

It would be easy to find yours if you removed your head first. Hows prision?

[PatsWin2002]

I've actually wondered why more people aren't doing that in apartment buildings, dorms, etc.

You can split a $50 a month bill quite a few ways and never know the difference performance-wise.

[Taco John]

As a person with a wireless network of his own, I put the onus on the person who is leaving their network open. I don't think you are stealing. I think you are sharing what is available to you. If this person didn't want anyone else to be able to share their network, they could have easily prevented it by putting a password on their box.

[Raiders Rock]

What did you do RR? If it was me, i would allow it, id just charge him 1/4 of the cost for cable connect!!

Good idea, just tell him you can't afford it and just want to use it for school research

Just tell him the truth, the wireless card automatically searches for a network and if one isn't secure it will lock on.

Since the kids already had a high speed connection I just used a strong encryption and that took care of the problem.... I didn't confront them or anything

[Swedish Extrovert]

Haha!!

i wouldnt feel quilty.. he isnt spending extra money.. If you hate the word stealing then, id perfer it as "Borrowing" the connection for a short period of time


My thoughts. Dude, it aint stealing. He's paying for somthing that you're getting, but he's getting it too.

"Etichs will only hold you back"

I say 'Only ethics will hold you back'

I guess if you feel guilty...

[baja]

Maybe he's letting you in so he can capture your idenity and/or credit card info. or maybe he likes young men.

[Taco John]

Ethics will only hold you back, kid.


Alas. That is the point of ethics.

[sutoazul]

He can easily set it up securely, if he doesn't it's an radio wave and if you can rec it do it

Good that's what I was thinking too. It's his/her loss that they don't have a secured network!! I'm not doing anything illegal!! It's just like turning my radio on.
Thanks

[TheManeMan]

I have my laptop that I used for school work, and at school we get connected through a wireless network. I've never used my laptop at home until last Friday, I found out that I can connect to the internet wireless; I guess a neighbor has a cable connection and a wireless network installed.

So if I don't do anything extra to get the connection, just turn my laptop on, and I get connected automatically.... Am I stealing from my neighbor??


Thats crazy...If I were you I'd be on the hush hush about it...you already let too many people know about it;D

[sutoazul]

although if he knows what he is doing he can look in his router admin and can see you are there

I live in an apartment complex, and the apartments are very stack together. If he sees someone connected, he might have to go to a few apartments to see who's connected. So I'm not worried of getting caught.

Now what I'm scared of is if he can get into MY computer through the net??

[baja]

Course he can it's a two way street

[Taco John]

Now what I'm scared of is if he can get into MY computer through the net??



Absolutely he can.

http://download.com.com/3000-2092-10039884.html

[sutoazul]

I really don't keep much stuff in my laptop anyways, mostly school work, the only thing is if he wants to do some damage (viruses, worms and such...)

[Pezman]

Two thoughts,

First, Hardware firewall!!! Get those connections closed for your own security

Second, if the risk is worth it then Sutoazul, you have to accept that you leave yourself open to attack from the owner of the connection. Just be wary of it and don't go leaving the connection open for stupid things like e-mule or kazaalite etc....

[Crushaholic]

Ethics? What's that? In an age when people think it's perfectly fine to download a song or two or a thousand on the internet for free?

[BroncoHI]

Ethics is having a moral reason for an excuse for getting caught.

[Spider]

I have my laptop that I used for school work, and at school we get connected through a wireless network. I've never used my laptop at home until last Friday, I found out that I can connect to the internet wireless; I guess a neighbor has a cable connection and a wireless network installed.

So if I don't do anything extra to get the connection, just turn my laptop on, and I get connected automatically.... Am I stealing from my neighbor??
Here is what you do ,talk to your nieghbor , offer him $20.00 a month , I know for a fact it it was me , I would do it .......... I dont see you as stealing

[DrFate]

I have my laptop that I used for school work, and at school we get connected through a wireless network. I've never used my laptop at home until last Friday, I found out that I can connect to the internet wireless; I guess a neighbor has a cable connection and a wireless network installed.

So if I don't do anything extra to get the connection, just turn my laptop on, and I get connected automatically.... Am I stealing from my neighbor??

Stealing - definitely.

It is like cutting into his cable wire, but worse. If you were stealing his cable, he could still see all the channels. He is now splitting his bandwidth with you - and some ISP have monthly limits on bandwidth.

Your neighbor IS affected, since you and he/she are sharing the bandwidth. Bandwidth that is being paid for by your neighbor.

So, he is paying for your internet service.

[DrFate]

Absolutely he can.

http://download.com.com/3000-2092-10039884.html

I don't agree with TJ here. Can he get into your computer? Probably not, unless you have vulnerabilities present, and that would be the case with any internet connection.

Can he see your traffic? Without a doubt.

[DrFate]

As a person with a wireless network of his own, I put the onus on the person who is leaving their network open. I don't think you are stealing. I think you are sharing what is available to you. If this person didn't want anyone else to be able to share their network, they could have easily prevented it by putting a password on their box.

What a terrible argument, TJ. If your neighbor leaves his keys in his unlocked car, and you take it for a spin, is that HIS fault for leaving it open?

It is, 100%, without a doubt stealing. The neighbor is paying for internet service, and it is being stolen. If you are caught, you can be prosecuted. Possibly for bandwidth theft, and perhaps for the digital version of trespassing on his network.

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/AnchorDesk/4520-7296_16-5121168.html

Should the neighbor use WEP (or a simliar technology) to protect this network? Sure. But it is still theft.

[Taco John]

Ethics? What's that? In an age when people think it's perfectly fine to download a song or two or a thousand on the internet for free?


Record labels are bastions of good ethics.

[Taco John]

What a terrible argument, TJ. If your neighbor leaves his keys in his unlocked car, and you take it for a spin, is that HIS fault for leaving it open?

It is, 100%, without a doubt stealing. The neighbor is paying for internet service, and it is being stolen. If you are caught, you can be prosecuted. Possibly for bandwidth theft, and perhaps for the digital version of trespassing on his network.

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/AnchorDesk/4520-7296_16-5121168.html

Should the neighbor use WEP (or a simliar technology) to protect this network? Sure. But it is still theft.


A terrible argument? Then why do I leave my own wireless network open? I don't care if my neighbor picks up the signal. More power to them. I've got my firewalls up. My system is secure. It's not like my neighbor getting a signal is going to slow me down any. Not to mention, it's my signal invading his space. If I leave a signal open, and it encroaches on someone else's space, why should I be considered a victim of theft if my neighbor uses it?

As far as I'm concerned, the person with the network is responsible for securing the network. The air belongs to the public, and open doors mean public access.

[Taco John]

Can he get into your computer? Probably not, unless you have vulnerabilities present, and that would be the case with any internet connection.


I know a good test where people can determine if they have any vulnerabilities present on their machine...

Click here for the test. If you recognize this as your operating system, you have lulnerabilities present. (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/default.mspx)


Zone Alarm is a good idea for ANY machine that accesses the Internet. It only takes about a couple of weeks worth of usage to see why.

[Rascal]

A terrible argument? Then why do I leave my own wireless network open? I don't care if my neighbor picks up the signal. More power to them. I've got my firewalls up. My system is secure. It's not like my neighbor getting a signal is going to slow me down any. Not to mention, it's my signal invading his space. If I leave a signal open, and it encroaches on someone else's space, why should I be considered a victim of theft if my neighbor uses it?

As far as I'm concerned, the person with the network is responsible for securing the network. The air belongs to the public, and open doors mean public access.

yeah what he said....

[Rascal]

So how can the average user make their computer secure? What programs should I use?

[Taco John]

Stealing - definitely.

It is like cutting into his cable wire, but worse. If you were stealing his cable, he could still see all the channels. He is now splitting his bandwidth with you - and some ISP have monthly limits on bandwidth.

Your neighbor IS affected, since you and he/she are sharing the bandwidth. Bandwidth that is being paid for by your neighbor.

So, he is paying for your internet service.



I could have ten people on my network, and probably never notice a difference in performance.

[Taco John]

So how can the average user make their computer secure? What programs should I use?



See post #26

[DrFate]

A terrible argument? Then why do I leave my own wireless network open? I don't care if my neighbor picks up the signal. More power to them. I've got my firewalls up. My system is secure. It's not like my neighbor getting a signal is going to slow me down any. Not to mention, it's my signal invading his space. If I leave a signal open, and it encroaches on someone else's space, why should I be considered a victim of theft if my neighbor uses it?

As far as I'm concerned, the person with the network is responsible for securing the network. The air belongs to the public, and open doors mean public access.

My point was the neighbor's ignorance isn't a 'free lunch' for the poster. If you leave the Taco John-mobile unlocked and someone steals it, that doesn't make it any less theft. It isn't partly your fault for not locking your car. That just doesn't make sense.

Is it the neighbor's responsibility to protect his system/network? Undoubtedly. If he a putz for not doing so - without a doubt. But his ignorance does not excuse the original poster.

[DrFate]

I know a good test where people can determine if they have any vulnerabilities present on their machine...

Click here for the test. If you recognize this as your operating system, you have lulnerabilities present. (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/default.mspx)


Zone Alarm is a good idea for ANY machine that accesses the Internet. It only takes about a couple of weeks worth of usage to see why.

I wasn't disputing that. Running a firewall is certainly the right thing to do. The poster piggybacking his neighbor's wireless won't make the poster's machine anymore (or less) vulnerable.

It WILL, however, make his traffic readily available to the neighbor. Since the internet traffic is going through his equipment, the neighbor could easily sniff any names/passwords/credit cards that go through in the clear.

[Spider]

So how can the average user make their computer secure? What programs should I use?
http://www.zonealram.com
Down load the free version for your homePC .......
I got so tired of the alerts , I turned them off ........ you have that option .......
But if you dont have a firewall you are asking for trouble . you come under attack every day
oops wrong one .......
http://www.zonelabs.com
this one will work

[Sideburn]

I could have ten people on my network, and probably never notice a difference in performance.
Surfing the net you probably wouldn't notice a thing. Play a FPS game online and you'd quickly shut down any chance they had to use your bandwidth. Before my neighbors followed my suit and got cable broadband, I was living in ping heaven. Getting high teens and low twenties for my latency to a server in Dallas. Now everyone on the block has cable and I get high forties and low fifties. It's even worse depending on which backbone the server is located on.
So, if your neighbor is a gamer. Do him a favor and get off his broadband. It's the nice thing to do. Or you could just ask yourself, if I was him would I want to be paying for someone else to have access to the great service I have?

[WaffleBoy]

What school is this? ;D I live near campus, and I don't pay for my online connection.

Waffle Man

[DrFate]

I could have ten people on my network, and probably never notice a difference in performance.

That is 2 different points. Whether or not you are affected doesn't affect the morality or legality of the original question.

Your neighbor is stealing half your bandwidth. You are paying for DSL, or cable, or T1, or whatever. If the neighbor is downloading files, you lose half that. If he is web browsing, you probably wouldn't notice.

[Taco John]

If you leave the Taco John-mobile unlocked and someone steals it, that doesn't make it any less theft.



The car analogy doesn't work... Unless the question is, "if someone left their car parked in your garage with the keys in it, is it stealing to take it for a spin?"

The fact is, there are people who purposefully leave networks open FOR public use. There's a whole movement based on creating wireless relays with the intent on providing free access anywhere. It's catching on in San Diego, San Francisco and Portland...

[DrFate]

Think about it like this - you rent an apartment but don't pay for water.

You tap into your neighbor's water pipe. You now have water, but aren't paying for it.

Will your neighbor notice? Maybe, maybe not. If he does, it probably won't be much. The point is, you are now getting water and not paying for it.

You are stealing the water service from the apartment/town/whatever.

[DrFate]

The car analogy doesn't work... Unless the question is, "if someone left their car parked in your garage with the keys in it, is it stealing to take it for a spin?"

The fact is, there are people who purposefully leave networks open FOR public use. There's a whole movement based on creating wireless relays with the intent on providing free access anywhere. It's catching on in San Diego, San Francisco and Portland...

The analogy works from the perspective of blame - is it YOUR fault that I stole your car because YOU left it unlocked? Of course not.

Sure thare are some folks who are giving access on wifi networks. Coffee shops, for example. They are using that as a hook to get people in there to drink coffee. And that is an service that they are giving away as an enticement to draw customers.

The apartment situation is different. The original poster is using a service that he isn't paying for. If the neighbor says 'it's cool', then he is probably in violation of the contract with his ISP.

It's like cable TV. You pay for cable, but your neighbor splices into your wire. Now he has free cable TV. You aren't affected (noticeably), but it is still stealing. The fact that a wifi signal is in the air doesn't matter. (that is why we have DirecTV pirates...)

[Taco John]

Think about it like this - you rent an apartment but don't pay for water.

You tap into your neighbor's water pipe. You now have water, but aren't paying for it.

Will your neighbor notice? Maybe, maybe not. If he does, it probably won't be much. The point is, you are now getting water and not paying for it.

You are stealing the water service from the apartment/town/whatever.



Still not a good analogy... Unless you phrase it like, "You rent an apartment, and don't pay for water. Your neighbor pipes in a sink to your bathroom, giving you access to his water. Is it stealing to get a drink?

In the United States, the air belongs to the public (see the Communications Act of 1934). An open network is at the public's disposal. People who don't like that idea should A) Not broadcast a signal that can be picked up in the air by the public at large, or B) Protect their network from public use by putting a password on their wireless box.

It's not stealing to use a network left open to the public anymore than it's stealing to tune into a radio station, or shortwave radio frequency. The air belongs to the public.

[Taco John]

The analogy works from the perspective of blame - is it YOUR fault that I stole your car because YOU left it unlocked? Of course not.

Sure thare are some folks who are giving access on wifi networks. Coffee shops, for example. They are using that as a hook to get people in there to drink coffee. And that is an service that they are giving away as an enticement to draw customers.

The apartment situation is different. The original poster is using a service that he isn't paying for. If the neighbor says 'it's cool', then he is probably in violation of the contract with his ISP.



I'm not talking about coffee shops... I'm talking about people who are creating wireless relays by modifying things like light fixtures to include wireless, and distributing them in city centers, apartment complexes, parks, and etc. with the goal of eventually having wireless access anywhere.

[Rascal]

Plummer,

Taco John is right. I took a business Law class this past semester for my master's and one of the topics we discussed was this very thing. It is open to the public, because as John said it is air.

[DrFate]

Still not a good analogy... Unless you phrase it like, "You rent an apartment, and don't pay for water. Your neighbor pipes in a sink to your bathroom, giving you access to his water. Is it stealing to get a drink?

In the United States, the air belongs to the public (see the Communications Act of 1934). An open network is at the public's disposal. People who don't like that idea should A) Not broadcast a signal that can be picked up in the air by the public at large, or B) Protect their network from public use by putting a password on their wireless box.

It's not stealing to use a network left open to the public anymore than it's stealing to tune into a radio station, or shortwave radio frequency. The air belongs to the public.

I'm not sure how your water analogy is better than my water analogy. I am getting water service without paying for it. Whether I tap into my neighbor's pipe, or a pipe running to the apartment office, or a main under the street - it is still getting a service and not paying for it.

I'm not saying the air belongs to anyone. But the ISP isn't providing the wireless signal - they are paying for their backbones and switches and routers and DNS resolution and whatever. The original poster is stealing internet service from the ISP. Of that, there can be little doubt. Is he stealing anything from his neighbor? Probably not.

Consider a cell phone - if I re-program my phone to make free calls, is that stealing? I am still using the phone companies towers and infrastructure, but the signal IS wireless. Is that stealing?

Here is a blurb from an ISP on their take on this (and this example is of people KNOWINGLY sharing their bandwidth)

http://www.webwarrior.net/news/arc8-2001.html

[DrFate]

Plummer,

Taco John is right. I took a business Law class this past semester for my master's and one of the topics we discussed was this very thing. It is open to the public, because as John said it is air.

And I am taking a cyberlaw class for my masters this summer. :)

I'm not talking about the air - I am talking about the ISPs' internet service.

[DrFate]

I'm not talking about coffee shops... I'm talking about people who are creating wireless relays by modifying things like light fixtures to include wireless, and distributing them in city centers, apartment complexes, parks, and etc. with the goal of eventually having wireless access anywhere.

Who is paying for the bandwidth and the internet service?

[DrFate]

Plummer,

Taco John is right. I took a business Law class this past semester for my master's and one of the topics we discussed was this very thing. It is open to the public, because as John said it is air.

Then how do people get arrested for pirating the DirecTV signal?

[DrFate]

Another useless link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2268224.stm

[DrFate]

Screensavers had a poll on this very topic. And then they got bought out by G4... :(

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/opinion/story/0,24330,3374623,00.html

[No1BroncoFan]

According to the FCC, you have the right to receive any RF transmissions (with certain military exclusions). You also have the right to broadcast RF transmissions, but on a much more restricted basis (air traffic frequencies, police/fire dept. frequencies, etc...). There may be new laws that restrict it further, but if the neighbor isn't bothering to secure his signal then it's perfectly ok to recieve that signal. Transmitting on or to his network may be an entirely different story. Cough up some cash to ask a lawyer about it. If he says there's no crime then party on!

Ben

[No1BroncoFan]

Then how do people get arrested for pirating the DirecTV signal?
Because they had to crack the encryption. They aren't breaking any laws by recieving a signal.

Ben

[DrFate]

According to the FCC, you have the right to receive any RF transmissions (with certain military exclusions). You also have the right to broadcast RF transmissions, but on a much more restricted basis (air traffic frequencies, police/fire dept. frequencies, etc...). There may be new laws that restrict it further, but if the neighbor isn't bothering to secure his signal then it's perfectly ok to recieve that signal. Transmitting on or to his network may be an entirely different story. Cough up some cash to ask a lawyer about it. If he says there's no crime then party on!

Ben

I can't argue that. Receiving the signal isn't stealing.

The original poster is stealing the internet service from the neighbor's ISP. That is where my issue comes in. He is getting access to the internet using the ISP's infrastructure and not paying for it.

[DrFate]

Because they had to crack the encryption. They aren't breaking any laws by recieving a signal.

Ben

100% correct. I was replying to rascal, who said if it is in the air it is fair game.

[Taco John]

I can't argue that. Receiving the signal isn't stealing.

The original poster is stealing the internet service from the neighbor's ISP. That is where my issue comes in. He is getting access to the internet using the ISP's infrastructure and not paying for it.



There is no stealing here so long as the person who is getting the original signal is paying for it.

[DrFate]

There is no stealing here so long as the person who is getting the original signal is paying for it.

If I splice your cable, is that stealing?

[Taco John]

I'm not sure how your water analogy is better than my water analogy.

Because in my anology, the neighbor is giving you free access to his water in your space without you having to do anything but turn on the tap.


I'm not saying the air belongs to anyone.[/qipte]

And I'm saying the air belongs to the public... Well, me and the Communications act of 1934.

[quote]Consider a cell phone - if I re-program my phone to make free calls, is that stealing? I am still using the phone companies towers and infrastructure, but the signal IS wireless. Is that stealing?

Absolutely that is stealing. You are, with intent, accessing a closed signal. You are breaking and entering into their encrypted signal space. You had to re-program your phone in order to access that encrypted signal.

[Taco John]

If I splice your cable, is that stealing?



You just don't get it... This isn't a cable splice. This is turning on a wireless modem and receiving a signal that is being broadcast in open, public space.

The person receiving the signal is free to do with that signal what he wants to. It's an open, public signal.

[Play2win]

What is you are charged for Bandwith or have quota/limits. If a few extra users are on your WI-FI, you would get charged for that. Then you would be paying more because of someone else.

But if someone does't get charged for extra bandwith, its all good!

[DrFate]

You just don't get it... This isn't a cable splice. This is turning on a wireless modem and receiving a signal that is being broadcast in open, public space.

The person receiving the signal is free to do with that signal what he wants to. It's an open, public signal.

But it IS a cable splice (at least virtually). The wifi is open. But the wifi is giving the original poster internet access he isn't paying for. It is exactly the same as cable.

The neighbor pays for cable.
The poster splices and gets cable service for nothing.
You say that is illegal.

The neighbor pays for internet.
The poster piggybacks gets internet access for nothing.
You say that is OK.

You can't have it both ways. Either getting a service you don't pay for (and normally would have to) is stealing or it isn't.

[DrFate]

Your comments are inconsistent. First, you said:

"There is no stealing here so long as the person who is getting the original signal is paying for it."

Then you said "This isn't a cable splice" (which, I assume, is you saying stealing cable service is illegal).

Which is it?

:bash:

[DrFate]

I've actually wondered why more people aren't doing that in apartment buildings, dorms, etc.

You can split a $50 a month bill quite a few ways and never know the difference performance-wise.

Every ISP agreement I am familiar with disallows this concept. Simply put, they disallows this so they can try to sign up all the customers in the building.

[Taco John]

But it IS a cable splice (at least virtually).

It's not even a virtual cable splice. Cable is a closed system. To splice into it, you have to take action that subverts that closed system.


The wifi is open.

The wifi is open only if the Broadcaster of that wifi leaves it open. The onus is on the broadcaster of the signal to either make it an open, and thus public signal, or a closed, thus private signal.


But the wifi is giving the original poster internet access he isn't paying for.

That is an irrelevant point because the signal is a public signal.

It is exactly the same as cable.

No it's not. Cable is a closed system. We're talking about an open system.

The neighbor pays for cable.
The poster splices and gets cable service for nothing.
You say that is illegal.

Yes. That is illegal.

The neighbor pays for internet.
The poster piggybacks gets internet access for nothing.
You say that is OK.

Yes. That is not illegal. It is not illegal to receive a free signal.

You can't have it both ways. Either getting a service you don't pay for (and normally would have to) is stealing or it isn't.

Can have it both ways, and will have it both ways. It's not illegal to receive a free signal. The person receiving the free signal is not doing anything more than turning on the wireless modem to receive the signal that is being broadcast into their airspace. They're not having to do any sort of hacks or modifications whatsoever. They aren't circumventing anything. They are merely using what is available to them through the free air.

If anyone is at risk of being prosecuted for anything here, it will be the person who is doing the broadcasting.

[Pezman]

What the issue all boils down to is whether or not Suatzol is at risk of not only getting caught, but leaving himself open to attack. If you ask me, there are too many lawyers out there who would love to take these types of cases. That's why its not worth the risk to me.

T-John, what if someone found a vulnerability on your connection and managed to maliciously put a script, keylogger or spoofer on your network undetected. Would you take action against them if you found out who they were? Its all a matter of knowing your security levels. And with Windows, there are so many security vulnerabilities and possibilities based on that damned RPC, I'm not sure I would ever feel safe.
To have someone piggybacking on your connection just screams security issues...

[No1BroncoFan]

Yes. That is not illegal. It is not illegal to receive a free signal.
TJ, the issue gets real tangled unless the access is used (like cable) as a view only service. Once a query is sent (clicking a link, downloading mail, using a search engine, etc...) you are not simply receiving the signal. Once you start broadcasting, all sorts of other issues come into play. I agree that simply receiving a signal is legal. In fact, it's guaranteed in the FCC charter. Broadcasting however, is a whole other ballgame.

Ben

[Taco John]

TJ, the issue gets real tangled unless the access is used (like cable) as a view only service. Once a query is sent (clicking a link, downloading mail, using a search engine, etc...) you are not simply receiving the signal. Once you start broadcasting, all sorts of other issues come into play. I agree that simply receiving a signal is legal. In fact, it's guaranteed in the FCC charter. Broadcasting however, is a whole other ballgame.

Ben



Bingo.

[rustyfari]

I am not saying whether it is stealing or not, or whether its right or wrong. Be smart and protect yourself with a firewall. Spend some of the money you are saving to buy one.

Your neighbor probably doesn't realize that you are using his wireless network to access the internet. But he could suddenly decide one day to secure his network. if (s)he does so while you are trying to research some important thing for school you'll be S.O.L.... alos, your neighbor coud be lurking, waiting to intercept your login / credit card information and use it to steal from you... this is the scenario I would be more worried about personally.

Also, your neighbor can easily triangulate your position with a laptop computer and some software I saw on the news. not only can this be used to 'bust' you, but your neighbor could get pissed and damage/steal your property (they'll already know you have a computer, where you live and whether or not you are home.... )

[baja]

Is the service free? No.

Are you getting it for free? Yes.

Then it's stealing.

[Pezman]

Is the service free? No.

Are you getting it for free? Yes.

Then it's stealing.

Good call, although, yikes, when you put it that way, I've been stealing alot from the net for a long time ie warez, iso's, mp3, roms etc...

[sutoazul]

What school is this? ;D I live near campus, and I don't pay for my online connection.

Waffle Man

I don't live on campus anymore. I live in an apartment complex.

[sutoazul]

I am not saying whether it is stealing or not, or whether its right or wrong. Be smart and protect yourself with a firewall. Spend some of the money you are saving to buy one.

Your neighbor probably doesn't realize that you are using his wireless network to access the internet. But he could suddenly decide one day to secure his network. if (s)he does so while you are trying to research some important thing for school you'll be S.O.L.... alos, your neighbor coud be lurking, waiting to intercept your login / credit card information and use it to steal from you... this is the scenario I would be more worried about personally.

Also, your neighbor can easily triangulate your position with a laptop computer and some software I saw on the news. not only can this be used to 'bust' you, but your neighbor could get pissed and damage/steal your property (they'll already know you have a computer, where you live and whether or not you are home.... )

I would never used this connection for anything important, like giving out my information. I mostly use it to check on news and post here. When I need internet access for school I'd do it at school(I would either go to a lab there or use my laptop and my defenatly legal wireless connection on campus.)

Now, where did you see this stuff about someone able to pinpoint where u at??

[sutoazul]

I think I defenatly getting a firewall protection on my laptop, however I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by just turning my laptop on and getting connected automatically (I'm not doing anything illegal yet) I think the issue becomes questionable is when I click on "Post Reply" and this very message gets transmitted through my neighbors network onto the web through his cable connection.

If I get a signal on my TV, when I didn't programmed or bought it for the intention stealing a signal, and I receive my neighbors antena signal because he has an antena on the roof of the apartment complex, is that stealing??

For all I know, it might even be a few neighbors here sharing the bandwith and I'm just tagging along. (I don't know any of my neighbors, this is my sister's place not mine)

[rustyfari]

I would never used this connection for anything important, like giving out my information. I mostly use it to check on news and post here. When I need internet access for school I'd do it at school(I would either go to a lab there or use my laptop and my defenatly legal wireless connection on campus.)

Now, where did you see this stuff about someone able to pinpoint where u at??

I saw it on the news a month ago or so. When you get closer to the target computer a little meter goes up basically. The target computer need only be connected to the network.

Also the person could place a trojan horse on your machine without your knowledge. It could store your keystrokes in a log file and then transmit that log file to their computer. They could extract your personal info from that file.

I personally am avoiding the whole wireless thing for now because all the security ramifications are just too crazy. I picture back in the 80s, when radio garage door openers could be opened with a master remote. Apparently thieves would just drive around, open your garage door and rob you blind.

[baja]

I think I defenatly getting a firewall protection on my laptop, however I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by just turning my laptop on and getting connected automatically (I'm not doing anything illegal yet) I think the issue becomes questionable is when I click on "Post Reply" and this very message gets transmitted through my neighbors network onto the web through his cable connection.

If I get a signal on my TV, when I didn't programmed or bought it for the intention stealing a signal, and I receive my neighbors antena signal because he has an antena on the roof of the apartment complex, is that stealing??

For all I know, it might even be a few neighbors here sharing the bandwith and I'm just tagging along. (I don't know any of my neighbors, this is my sister's place not mine)

Right or wrong is a judgment call but the thread question asks is it stealing and clearly it is.

[Taco John]

You cant steal what is free to take... Open RF signals are free to take...

There is no stealing here.

[baja]

If a cashier gives you an extra twenty when making change and you say nothing is that stealing?

[rustyfari]

with a cashier giving you extra change, you can always claim ignorance. joining a wireless requires a deliberate string of actions.

[DrFate]

There is no stealing here.

I thought a lot about this last night, TJ, and I want to see if I can show you the light.

Scenario: I pay $50/month for cable in apartment A. I get a cable splitter and run a piece of coax out the window and into apartment B. You live in B, watch the cable, and aren't paying. Is that stealing?

Scenario: I pay $50/month for DSL internet access in apartment A. I get a hub, and run a piece of ethernet cable out the windows and into apartment B. You plug your machine into it and get internet access without paying. Is that stealing?

Scenario: I pay $50/month for DSL internet access in apartment A. I get a wireless hub, and tell you to get a wireless network card. You now get internet access without paying. Is that stealing?

I look forward to your response.

[DrFate]

however I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by just turning my laptop on and getting connected automatically (I'm not doing anything illegal yet) I think the issue becomes questionable is when I click on "Post Reply" and this very message gets transmitted through my neighbors network onto the web through his cable connection.

I thought about this 'active vs. passive' concept last night as well.

Scenario: Sutoazul moves into a new, posh apartment. You pay rent, water bill, power bill, etc. You turn on your TV and find that you have cable (including all the premium channels). You never get a bill. You find out the previous owner cut a deal with the cable install guy, and you have permanent 'free' cable, as long as you live in the apartment. Is that stealing?

[XtremeReaction]

I thought a lot about this last night, TJ, and I want to see if I can show you the light.

Scenario: I pay $50/month for cable in apartment A. I get a cable splitter and run a piece of coax out the window and into apartment B. You live in B, watch the cable, and aren't paying. Is that stealing?

Scenario: I pay $50/month for DSL internet access in apartment A. I get a hub, and run a piece of ethernet cable out the windows and into apartment B. You plug your machine into it and get internet access without paying. Is that stealing?

For both scenarios....what if you pay $50 then charge apartment B $25....I'd call that 50% off....what a deal....lol

[XtremeReaction]

I thought about this 'active vs. passive' concept last night as well.

Scenario: Sutoazul moves into a new, posh apartment. You pay rent, water bill, power bill, etc. You turn on your TV and find that you have cable (including all the premium channels). You never get a bill. You find out the previous owner cut a deal with the cable install guy, and you have permanent 'free' cable, as long as you live in the apartment. Is that stealing?

I'd have to call that "good luck"....why can't I ever find deals like that.....lol

I apologize but I stole from the recording industry to....I guess it bad morals....

[baja]

I don't know what's so hard about this issue. The Internet service provider is not in business to provide free service to anyone. Just because there is a technology glitch does not make it OK to receive the signal. You are pirating a subscription service and that is stealing no matter how you rationalize it.

[baja]

By you using the service and not paying for it that means all the other legal paying customers must pay your share - the larger the customer base grows for a service the lower the individual cost becomes.

[XtremeReaction]

By you using the service and not paying for it that means all the other legal paying customers must pay your share - the larger the customer base grows for a service the lower the individual cost becomes.

If that was true why does the cost keep skyrocketing....not once ghas the cable compant ever said "Hey Don we got 150,000 new customers last year, starting next month tke 15 bucks off your bill." The cost of my cable broadband here in Wyoming is crazy, but maybe that just gets split between the two of us with electricity.....lol

[baja]

Cable companies are among the biggest thieves out there but that does not change the fact that using the signal without paying is stealing which is the question at hand.

Would I enjoy the freebie, in a heart beat but I know I would be stealing.

Anyone who thinks this is not stealing is in denial. I contend you know in your heart it's stealing.

[DrFate]

Cable companies are among the biggest thieves out there but that does not change the fact that using the signal without paying is stealing which is the question at hand.

Would I enjoy the freebie, in a heart beat but I know I would be stealing.

Anyone who thinks this is not stealing is in denial. I contend you know in your heart it's stealing.

This whole thread kind of confuses me, bf. If you get something and don't pay for it, it is stealing. That was the original post. The mechanism isn't relevant - whether I run a cable or transmit a signal; if you are getting some kind of service without compensation, it is stealing.

The original poster is getting free internet access. The ISP is providing that service for a fee (a fee the neighbor is paying, I'd hope), and the poster is using it with no cost.

[BroncoFox]

This reminds me of a story I read long ago. I used to read these stories about an Asian judge (or equivalent) that was wise and all that, and I wish I could remember what they were called. Anyways, for what it's worth...

An elderly, poverty stricken asian fellow lived in a very small room on the second floor next to the sprawling grounds of a very wealthy merchant. He would work 12 hours a day, and then come home and eat his plain white rice. He waited each day though, for his wealthy neighbor to cook his dinner. Then, when he was eating his plain white rice, smelling the wonderful foods his neighbors cook was whipping up, it would make his rice taste a little better. He could close his eyes and almost pretend he was eating a fine meal.

His wealthy neighbor found out about this, and was outraged. He sued his poverty stricken neighbor for stealing the scent of his meals. He demanded he be paid for this luxury.

The ended up in courthouse, and the judge listened to the case. The rich man said "I demand he pay me for all the meals he has eaten while smelling my food!" The poor poverty stricken fellow looked dejected, he felt he had done nothing wrong. The judge looked at him and said "Please come here and hand me your coins." The poor man looked stricken as he poured out the paltry coins from the bag into the judges hand.

The judge slowly poured the coins from one hand to the other as he looked at the wealthy merchant and asked "So you feel you deserve the last of this mans money for the smell of your food?" The wealthy mans eyes lit up as he nodded emphatically, thinking he was about to be paid, even if it was as nothing to him. He stated "Yes indeed, you are making the right choice here, he has been stealing from me for months."

The judge smiled and said "Well then, consider yourself paid." He then turned and handed the coins back to the poor man, whose eyes widened in surprise. As he took back his money, the wealthy man outraged declared "What is the meaning of this?! He stole the smells of my meals! I thought you judged he was in the wrong!"

The judge looked at the greedy merchant and said "You have received your payment, I don't understand your anger." The merchant spat "I have received nothing!" The judge smiled and said "You have received the sound of this mans coin for the smell of your food. Consider yourself payed and this case closed."

Anyways, for some reason, that made me think of this parable or fable or whatever you want to call it. It stuck with me for some reason. I sort of rewrote it, since I don't remember at all the actual wording, just the core story and the ending, so I hope I didn't hack it up too badly! ;D

For whatever reason, the question about the Internet service made me think of this, even if they are not quite the same. ;)

[Spider]

If that was true why does the cost keep skyrocketing....not once ghas the cable compant ever said "Hey Don we got 150,000 new customers last year, starting next month tke 15 bucks off your bill." The cost of my cable broadband here in Wyoming is crazy, but maybe that just gets split between the two of us with electricity.....lol
good Post . I am still pissed off over the Package changing ........
My Broadband / Cable bill is around 110.00 a month , and they took alot of my HBO Channels ........ But we have no other opition here ... DSL dosent compare at least in Wyoming it doesnt .......
I feel Casper is big enough for another Cable company ..........

[watermock]

This a rediculous thread.

Your stealing his bandwidth.

First off, you KNOW it's illegal. Then you ask if it isn't legal?

Bronco Fox, that is possibly the most dimwitted analogy of all time.

Your claiming smelling good food is the same as stealing bandwith.

Unbelievable.

I will give you one clue. If you think it "might be stealing" I suggest you might allready know it is.

Don't they have password lockout on those things? I am not that familiar with it.

Oh, BTW, I wouldn't ask RR if it is stealing because he allready steals sat feeds. So why don't we just forget that foolishness.

[watermock]

cable is a horrific pig.

For all the ads they run they should be running in slop.

I have to watch all these idiotic commercials, none of which I even consider to buy, then late at night look thru the TV guide and see 5 hour long infomercials?

It's a gigantic scam. It doesn't take crap to bring the signal in the home. Then they tell you they are going digital to improve quality. Well guess what, that is more money as well.

100 bucks a month for a cable wire.

It's a Travashamockery.

[watermock]

Then the FCC lets Fox buy up Direct TV.

Superb thinking. I can't imagine how much grease it took to make that obviously squeaky wheel took to turn.

[watermock]

And what is it with this monopoly on NFL Sunday?

FCC rules state that you have to have two compeitors for a market.

Where is the second compeditor? It's not on cable, it's not on the other dish network.

So he got a monopoly on the service. Plain and simple. Try to get NFL Sunday Ticket anywhere else.

It's such a violation of anti-trust it's rediculous.

[Spider]

cable is a horrific pig.

For all the ads they run they should be running in slop.

I have to watch all these idiotic commercials, none of which I even consider to buy, then late at night look thru the TV guide and see 5 hour long infomercials?

It's a gigantic scam. It doesn't take crap to bring the signal in the home. Then they tell you they are going digital to improve quality. Well guess what, that is more money as well.

100 bucks a month for a cable wire.

It's a Travashamockery.
Sat TV is a good Option here , but the Sat broad band isnt .......
785.00 for the set up , then 99.00 a Month ( not including your TV Programing bill)

[BroncoFox]

"Bronco Fox, that is possibly the most dimwitted analogy of all time.

Your claiming smelling good food is the same as stealing bandwith.

Unbelievable.

I will give you one clue. If you think it "might be stealing" I suggest you might allready know it is."

Um.. did I *say* it wasn't stealing? Goodness.. where did I say that? Did I even say it was an analogy? Hmmm.. I can't seem to find where I said that.

I said that this post reminded me of that story, that's all.

Yes, it's stealing. If you are getting a service, you should be paying for a service, it isn't much different than if someone moved out, you moved in, and the cable was left on by accident. Their mistake of having it on (or your neighbors mistake or non knowledge of how to secure it) doesn't excuse the fact that you are getting a service you should be paying for.

On the flip side, it's amusing how many people scream "stealing!", not just about this, but about many things, but have no problem downloading MP3's. ;D

And next time Mock, pay attention, there will be a test. :p

[sutoazul]

ok guys... how about this... Cable is included in the maintance of the apartment. So I'm just going to assume that wireless internet is also available through the complex maintance service. Now I can just "know" that the maintance fee every month is paying for my wireless connection.






Oh God.... I have no morals... :undecided :(








Oh well... to the porno sites!!! :charge:

[Taco John]

I thought a lot about this last night, TJ, and I want to see if I can show you the light.

Scenario: I pay $50/month for cable in apartment A. I get a cable splitter and run a piece of coax out the window and into apartment B. You live in B, watch the cable, and aren't paying. Is that stealing?

Scenario: I pay $50/month for DSL internet access in apartment A. I get a hub, and run a piece of ethernet cable out the windows and into apartment B. You plug your machine into it and get internet access without paying. Is that stealing?

Scenario: I pay $50/month for DSL internet access in apartment A. I get a wireless hub, and tell you to get a wireless network card. You now get internet access without paying. Is that stealing?

I look forward to your response.



There is no light to be shown here... It's not stealing to receive an open signal that is being broadcast into your space. It's no more stealing to receive a signal via wireless modem than it is to turn on a police scanner and "steal" their signal. The Communications Act of 1934 made open RF signals public domain. Many people purposefully leave their wireless open as a public service. God knows it's helped me in a pinch to find a network to shoot a crucial email off. The idea that I was stealing by receiving that signal is ridiculous. It's not stealing to receive an open signal.

You can pose any scenario you wish, and it won't change the fact that it is not illegal to receive an open RF signal.

[Taco John]

NY Penal Code Section 156 (6) (http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=82&a=35) states that before you can be prosecuted for using a computer service without authorization, the government has to prove that the owner has given actual notice to potential hackers or trespassers, either in writing or orally. In the absence of such notice in New York, the hacker can presume that he or she has authorization to proceed, under state law.

I realize it's a state code, but it's precedent setting and demonstrates what I'm saying. A wireless broadcaster who leaves a signal open is in more risk of the law than the person who is receiving the signal. Some "experts" will try to tell you that the person receiving the free signal is liable. Those same experts won't be able give you a single prosecution of anyone who received a signal, and then got prosecuted for using that signal for regular surfing (dudes who download kiddie porn is a different deal... They tack on everything they possibly can for those guys, and for good reason).

[Pezman]

WiFi High Crimes
Before WiFi can entirely fulfill its promise, we'll have to confront an oppressive latticework of outdated criminal laws.
By Mark Rasch May 03 2004 05:00AM PT


A local Washington DC television news station wanted to do a WiFi "hack." Their plan was to sit in a local coffee shop (named after the Pequod's first mate) and try to read their neighbors' e-mail or Web browsing. They had a simple question for me: "Is it legal?"

This raises a series of questions about how people are -- deliberately or accidentally -- breaking the law with WiFi. In fact, using someone else's wireless signal -- even if only to get Web access -- might constitute a felony. So could reading other people's cleartext communication, or even just putting an 802.11 wireless hub in your house.

Let's say you are sitting in Bryant Park behind the Astor Library (the one with the famous lions) with your Centrino-powered laptop -- just like in the advertisement. Forgetting the irony of accessing information from outside one of the best libraries in the world, you power up and your computer tells you that it has found a wireless connection. Are you now permitted to use this connection to access the Internet? We'll say there is no security on it. No userid, no password, no WEP key; just free Internet.

The answer has profound consequences for the ability of law enforcement to prosecute computer crime and trespass cases.

There is little doubt that when you "piggyback" the WiFi signal you are "accessing" -- or "using the resources of" -- the device that is providing the Internet connection. There's also little doubt that routers, access points and gateways are all computers within the meaning of federal law.
The simple act of driving around and getting WiFi connections as needed is fraught with legal risk.
The U.S. federal computer crime statute, Title 18 U.S.C. 1030, makes it a crime to knowingly access a computer used in interstate or foreign communication "without authorization" and obtain any information from the computer. A separate provision makes it a crime to access a computer without authorization with "intent to defraud" to obtain "anything of value." Fortunately, this provision also specifies that it doesn't apply if "the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $ 5,000 in any 1-year period."

So if the government wanted to throw you in jail, it could argue that, by getting free Internet, you were accessing the provider's computer without authorization (and that you knew or should have known it was without authorization or in excess of authorization) and you thereby obtained some information from the computer. Sure, that statute was intended to go after data thieves. But the access necessarily shares some data -- IP, routing, etc -- between the computers, and the statute does not specify exactly what information must be obtained. That means you've potentially committed a felony.

But wait, you say, I didn't knowingly access the computer without authorization -- there was no security on it. How was I supposed to know that I wasn't allowed to access the WiFi connection? Here is the troublesome part: If you accept this argument -- that by broadcasting a connection you are inviting others to share it -- you end up on a slippery slope. How much security must you have on a system in order to be able to prosecute someone for accessing it without authorization?

From Access to Interception
In fact, the companion New York State computer crime law, NY Penal Code Section 156 (6), requires that, before you can be prosecuted for using a computer service without authorization, the government has to prove that the owner has given actual notice to potential hackers or trespassers, either in writing or orally. In the absence of such notice in New York, the hacker can presume that he or she has authorization to proceed, under state law.

This demonstrates that a lack of security not only can act as an invitation to access, but also may preclude a later prosecution for unauthorized access. If the access is "wide open" -- as in the WiFi connection in Bryant Park -- then how do you prove that the access is unauthorized?

So, we effectively blame the victim for not having enough security. If the door is open, I can come in. But what if it's not open, but is unlocked? Or if it is locked, but locked poorly? Can I still come in? The answer right now is simply that we do not know.

So simply getting the wireless connection may be a crime. But what about reading what is sent in the clear: your neighbor's browsing, e-mail, or even just IP information being "broadcast" throughout the coffee shop.

Both the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the federal Wiretap Law make it a crime to "intercept" communications "in transmission." Although it has an exception for capturing broadcast communications, this only applies to the interception of a satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted to a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public. Thus, by reading e-mail, or even just DHCP or ARP packets, you are potentially violating that law.

All in all, electronically examining packets traveling through the air is probably a crime, just as intentionally listening to someone's cell phone or cordless phone calls is a crime -- even if unencrypted and broadcast in the air.

The Access Point Felony
Even putting up an unencrypted, unprotected wireless access point might conceivably get you in trouble. Let's say that it's a nice day out, and you want to sit in Riverside park on the Upper West Side and enjoy the day. So you plug your Linksys 802.11(g) access point into your cable modem, and sit outside.

You're busted! You see, when you "broadcast" the cable connection, you are opening it up for anyone to potentially use it. So other people can potentially get Internet access from Comcast without paying for it. In Maryland, for example, it is illegal to use an "unlawful telecommunication device" which is a "device, technology, [or] product . . used to provide the unauthorized . . . transmission of . . access to, or acquisition of a telecommunication service provided by a telecommunication service provider." Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Virginia and Wyoming all have laws on the books that may do the same thing.

These laws generally treat "sharing" of Internet connections the same way it would treat "sharing" of Cable TV or Satellite TV services. Thus, while you could invite your neighbors in to watch the latest episode of The Sopranos, you probably couldn't hook a coax into apartment 3B so they could watch from home -- at least without getting the permission of the cable TV company.

You can see this in, for example, Verizon's personal DSL agreement, which states that "[y]ou may not resell the DSL Service, use it for high-volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute resale (commercial or non-commercial), as determined solely by Verizon." So, if Verizon determines that your 802.11 connection constitutes a non-commercial resale (and is unauthorized) not only can it cut you off, but it can make you a felon.

All of this means that the simple act of driving around and getting WiFi connections as needed, something we hope to be able to do (isn't that why we bought the Centrino in the first place?), is fraught with legal risk. One way to counter this is to establish more universal wireless access agreements (like we did with the first cell communications) so we can pay a single fee and move from WAP to WAP freely.

But ultimately if we want to move to ubiquitous wireless computing, where you can use the WiFi protocols for cheap, mobile VOIP communications, or have near universal wireless Internet access, we are going to have to persuade the law to get the hell out of the way.
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/237

[Pezman]

Later in the comments section there was some good discussion. Here are highlights

"People seem to forget laws on the *state* level as well. In the PA, NJ, DE area (who have similiar laws), PA law CLEARLY states that just *accessing* a network which you do not have permission to access is illegal. In this case, accessing is syncing with the AP, diverting packets, etc."

"Just because you are passively collecting data does not mean you are innocent of accessing a system.

The legal definition and interpretation of access can vary, however, using a passive monitoring mode to capture identifying information about a network can constitute illegal access. People assume that because the wireless technology used "passively" capture data on a wireless network is described as passive the intent of the action is stripped away.

When you deliberately use a tool (even a passive one) to identify information that is not otherwise readily available then you are no longer "passive", but rather you are "active". This means that there is now a deliberate intent to capture information. If you do not have a legal right to access that information you have committed an illegal act."

"There are two separate provisions. The "fraud" provision exempts the mere "use" of the computer or computer time, and therefore would not apply. Its intent was to limit the use of that provision to a scheme to defraud out of more than simply computer time, since ANY access would use computer time, and therefore possibly constitute a felony (rather than a misdemeanor simple unauthorized access). When the statute was originally written, the felony "access to information" provisions applied ONLY to certain classes of information -- credit, banking, national security, etc. It was expanded to mean ANY information. If you look at packets as "information" (and it is hard not to), then a mere access becomes a felony under THAT provision, even though it is not under the fraud provision."

[Pezman]

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P2173_0_9_0_C has a good article on this and

http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/36753 probably has one of the smartest point/counterpoints about intercepting online capabilities.

And lastly, from last year, the potential for abuse of open ports became outright terrible...

"A Toronto Man faces charges after being arrested for "War-Driving" around Toronto neighborhoods, using unsecured networks to download child-pornography. Not only is the man facing the traditional charges, but Toronto police are charging the man with "telecommunications theft". Originally spotted over at David Akin's blog, he's also reported the story over at Canada's CTV. Ignoring for the moment the obviously illegal pornography charges at the heart of the story, can a user be charged for accessing the web via unprotected home hotspots?

When War-driving gains exposure to the media, it's usually projected in a negative light; even if there's a clear difference between hacking into a network and walking through a wide open front door (Wi-Fi hotspot). Even Akin's article uses the phrase "cracking into a computer in a nearby home" when outlining the details. The debate over portraying War-driving in a negative light came up recently in forum discussion after two men hacked into the Lowe's corporate headquarters via one store's wireless network. War-Driving aficionados are quick to point out that War-Driving and Hacking/Cracking aren't interchangeable terms."

[baja]

Just because there is no law against it does no mean it is not stealing, you are taking something that is not meant for your use and that is stealing, I think it is dangerous when you let the state legislate your morality.

[WaffleBoy]

If you can get fined or do some time, then it's stealing. Plain and simple.

Waffle Man

[DrFate]

NY Penal Code Section 156 (6) (http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=82&a=35) states that before you can be prosecuted for using a computer service without authorization, the government has to prove that the owner has given actual notice to potential hackers or trespassers, either in writing or orally. In the absence of such notice in New York, the hacker can presume that he or she has authorization to proceed, under state law.


Interesting post.

If you get a service and don't pay, it's stealing. I don't think that it makes a difference whether you have a wired hub, a wireless hub, or have a troupe of trained mice that carry zeros and ones. The mechanism is irrelevant.

[sutoazul]

ok... I guess this answer all of our questions and settle the debate

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050707/ap_on_hi_te/techbits_wi_fi_theft_1

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Police have arrested a man for using someone else's wireless Internet network in one of the first criminal cases involving this fairly common practice.

ADVERTISEMENT

Benjamin Smith III, 41, faces a pretrial hearing this month following his April arrest on charges of unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony.

Police say Smith admitted using the Wi-Fi signal from the home of Richard Dinon, who had noticed Smith sitting in an SUV outside Dinon's house using a laptop computer.

The practice is so new that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement doesn't even keep statistics, according to the St. Petersburg Times, which reported Smith's arrest this week.

Innocuous use of other people's unsecured Wi-Fi networks is common, though experts say that plenty of illegal use also goes undetected: such as people sneaking on others' networks to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information and send death threats.

Security experts say people can prevent such access by turning on encryption or requiring passwords, but few bother or are unsure how to do so.

Wi-Fi, short for Wireless Fidelity, has enjoyed prolific growth since 2000. Millions of households have set up wireless home networks that give people like Dinon the ability to use the Web from their backyards but also reach the house next door or down the street.

It's not clear why Smith was using Dinon's network. Prosecutors declined to comment, and a working phone number could not be located for Smith.

[Rock Chalk]

I have my laptop that I used for school work, and at school we get connected through a wireless network. I've never used my laptop at home until last Friday, I found out that I can connect to the internet wireless; I guess a neighbor has a cable connection and a wireless network installed.

So if I don't do anything extra to get the connection, just turn my laptop on, and I get connected automatically.... Am I stealing from my neighbor??
Florida Man Charged With Stealing Wi-Fi Signal (http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=165700406)

This is the first case of Wi-Fi theft being prosecuted in the US.

Apparently the government believes you are.

I dont know if this article was posted or not

[Rock Chalk]

Apparently it had been posted ;D

I didnt want to wade through 3 pages of posts to look.

[DBroncos4life]

I have it and if someone else is using off of it thats fine, just don't go on any sites that will get the FBI knocking on my front door. I

[Rock Chalk]

Here's my take.

Wi-Fi is a broad area and those that have it cannot contain it to their home or apartment in many cases.

If someone turns on a computer and has internet and no provider, then they are aware that they are using what is not yours. It IS theft, however, its theft by accident and IMO unprosecutable.

Its the people that use IP maskers and use hijacked wi-fi signals that are the real theifs.

[Bob's your Information Minister]

This thread rules....Taco is such a hippie....free bandwidth love, man! :militia:

[Tredici]

ok... I guess this answer all of our questions and settle the debate

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050707/ap_on_hi_te/techbits_wi_fi_theft_1


Security experts say people can prevent such access by turning on encryption or requiring passwords, but few bother or are unsure how to do so.



There's the rub as far as I'm concerned. Does the guy leave his door open at night so people can come into his house and browse around for any items they might want to steal?

If you aren't going to bother with simple protection, which is provided for you, then perhaps you need to be held responsible for making that decision. Of course, that isn't a popular view in the "it's everybody else's fault" world we live in.

[Bob's your Information Minister]

There are several wifi networks being broadcast in my neighborhood....but only one is unsecured, and its 2 mbps. :gripe:

[jspchief]

So if my neighbor is playing his XM satellite radio loud enough for me to hear it also, am I stealing?

Maybe I have to enjoy the station for it to be stealing.

[Rock Chalk]

There is no light to be shown here... It's not stealing to receive an open signal that is being broadcast into your space. It's no more stealing to receive a signal via wireless modem than it is to turn on a police scanner and "steal" their signal. The Communications Act of 1934 made open RF signals public domain. Many people purposefully leave their wireless open as a public service. God knows it's helped me in a pinch to find a network to shoot a crucial email off. The idea that I was stealing by receiving that signal is ridiculous. It's not stealing to receive an open signal.

You can pose any scenario you wish, and it won't change the fact that it is not illegal to receive an open RF signal.
The difference, Oh Mighty One, is that businesses PURPOSEFULLY leave their RF signals open to draw in customers.

People at home either 1) Dont know how to close off their WiFi connection or 2) dont realize it can be stolen. However, when surfing the internet and paying for high speed access, they find that thy are running brutally slow speeds because unbeknownst to them some neighbor is jacking all the bandwidth by downloading MP3s.

Further, that person downloading illegally transferred media doesnt take the fall for it, but rather the person paying for the connection does.

Its theft Isaac. No amount of posturing on your part is going to make it legal.

[Crush Girl]

Why am I not surprised that a Raider Fan knows the specifics on how to steal something?

Hilarious!

[Tredici]

The difference, Oh Mighty One, is that businesses PURPOSEFULLY leave their RF signals open to draw in customers.

People at home either 1) Dont know how to close off their WiFi connection or 2) dont realize it can be stolen. However, when surfing the internet and paying for high speed access, they find that thy are running brutally slow speeds because unbeknownst to them some neighbor is jacking all the bandwidth by downloading MP3s.

Further, that person downloading illegally transferred media doesnt take the fall for it, but rather the person paying for the connection does.

Its theft Isaac. No amount of posturing on your part is going to make it legal.

Stop at 1) or 2). If people are going to own technology it is their responsibility to figure out how to use it. I'm tired of dumbasses running the world.

[sutoazul]

Stop at 1) or 2). If people are going to own technology it is their responsibility to figure out how to use it. I'm tired of dumbasses running the world.

I'm with you on that one buddy!!