how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
kudos:2
1 edit | reply to Nerdtalker
Are you sure? said by Nerdtalker:Wardriving is the act of driving around detecting Access Points while creating a database of information about them (SSID, Privacy Yes/No, Speed, Hardware type, Latitude and Longitude for mapping). It is entirely legal. Connecting to an open AP is entirely different, and is illegal Netstumbler sends out beacon requests, and in that sense could be considered "illegal" as you define it. Only a truly passive sniffer like Kismet would be considered "legal".
But you state a blanket assumption that "connecting to an open AP is illegal"?
How is that? The owner of any given AP is using an unlicensed spectrum and he has no more right to the SSID of "linksys" than I do. No where in law is it stated I must only connect to secured networks. For all I know the wireless is open because the owner wants to share his 'net access!
With your logic, I could sue the owner of an AP for his device connecting to my laptop!
Any unsecured open access point is not illegal to connect to - what is illegal is what you may do with that connection.
--
Want an OC3? Go to college! Washington State University OC3 MRTG | |
 DaDogsSemper VigilantisPremium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
1 edit | said by Jerm:said by Nerdtalker:Wardriving is the act of driving around detecting Access Points while creating a database of information about them (SSID, Privacy Yes/No, Speed, Hardware type, Latitude and Longitude for mapping). It is entirely legal. Connecting to an open AP is entirely different, and is illegal Netstumbler sends out beacon requests, and in that sense could be considered "illegal" as you define it. Only a truly passive sniffer like Kismet would be considered "legal". Yes but it does not initiate a connection so long as it is in promiscuous mode.
said by Jerm:But you state a blanket assumption that "connecting to an open AP is illegal"? Aye, given the ease with which a system might associate with damn near any AP, whether you requested it or not, it would be a really tough call to make the simple act of association with an AP illegal.
said by Jerm: ...snip... For all I know the wireless is open because the owner wants to share his 'net access! But this argument is a red herring. The correct assumption *REQUIRED* by a civilized legal system is to err on the side of the privacy and property of the individual who owns the service or device. It is correct to assume that a service is not open for sharing unless there is some compelling reason to believe otherwise.
said by Jerm:With your logic, I could sue the owner of an AP for his device connecting to my laptop! Hardly. His device does not connect to your laptop. Your laptop initiates the connection sequence. He merely announces his presence with his beacon packets. They do not solicit a connection unless the SSID he is beaconing clearly indicates otherwise.
said by Jerm:Any unsecured open access point is not illegal to connect to - what is illegal is what you may do with that connection. I'd have to say I agree with you here. My thinking is that the vendors have made it too easy to connect to the wrong network. Generally that is desirable because there are lots of instances where people don't mind you using their service. Personally I believe there should be a public convention which agrees upon an SSID which everyone who wants to offer free access should use. "FREE PUBLIC ACCESS" always worked for me. This would facilitate all sorts of things including easier roaming.
Yep, if we are going to criminalize the simple act of connecting to an AP, we are going to fill up the jails pretty quickly when we enforce it. 
--
Need a bit more range? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM
Need a bit more privacy? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM
Need a bit more speed? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM
| |
 NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working?Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ | reply to Jerm
said by Jerm:said by Nerdtalker:Wardriving is the act of driving around detecting Access Points while creating a database of information about them (SSID, Privacy Yes/No, Speed, Hardware type, Latitude and Longitude for mapping). It is entirely legal. Connecting to an open AP is entirely different, and is illegal Netstumbler sends out beacon requests, and in that sense could be considered "illegal" as you define it. Only a truly passive sniffer like Kismet would be considered "legal". No it wouldn't, WZC also does the same, is it illegal? It doesn't actually associate with the AP, it simply requests a responsesaid by Jerm:But you state a blanket assumption that "connecting to an open AP is illegal"? That was a bit broad, but I would've hoped that it would've gone without saying that connecting to an open AP that you have been authorized to isn't illegal.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
iPod Shuffle=iPos
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 6200+ | |
| reply to Jerm
I think that the "foreign icons" bit sounds like total crap too, and most likely spyware that was aquired by the legitimate user of the private computer, originally unbeknownst to him. Or they are using that as a convenient "hook" to attempt prosecution for "unauthorized access", because: 1) they had a complaint from a resident, and 2) they don't want to risk setting a precident here that such access is "legal", otherwise it would lead to even more of this sort of thing happening, along with perhaps other potential ancilliary "real" trespassing and other crimes.
I have a couple of hypothetical analogous scenarios to posit here for consideration:
Imagine a private residence, with a lawn. There is a public sidewalk abutting the edge of the lawn. It's summertime, and the homeowner is watering their lawn, using one of those sprinklers that waves back and forth for better coverage.
Scenario 1: The homeowner places the sprinkler on the edge of the lawn, such that it ends up spraying water past the lawn and through the air over the public sidewalk. It's a hot day out, and I walk past the house in summer clothing. I linger for a while on the public sidewalk, just outside the homeowner's lawn, while getting sprayed by the sprinkler and and gaining benefit by cooling off that way. He is paying for the water - am I "stealing" it, even though I haven't set a foot on the homeowner's physical property? Is the water exclusively his, or does he simply pay for the service to access it, and my "usage" of the water, does not materially affect how much it costs him to provide that service? Is it theft of services? Is it trespassing if I'm physically still located on the publically-accessable / usable sidewalk?
I would hope that most rational and reasonable folk would see that it is neither theft, nor trespassing. The homeowner has set up the sprinkler equipment in such a way as to allow me to "cool off" using it, even though that possibility may not have been explicitly forseen by the homeowner while setting it up.
Secenario 2: In this case, the sprinkler was configured to NOT "wave" over the public sidewalk, although it could have easily been so. I (briefly) step onto the edge of the lawn, to reconfigure the sprinkler such that it does "wave" slightly over the sidewalk, so that I can cool down using it.
In this scenario, I think that there could be an issue - if the homeowner filed a complaint that I trespassed onto his lawn - while not quite to the same level as "breaking and entering", it could well be a minor case of trespass, and should be dealt with accordingly. As far as "theft" of the water goes - if the homeowner is simply paying for access, and it is not a directly-metered service (as most consumer broadband internet connections likewise are not directly metered), and thus my usage of that small amount of water that no longer is used 100% to water his lawn, doesn't actually increase his cost for that service or materially degrade that service for him or other customers served by the "water service", then I don't really see that as "theft".
So perhaps "minor trespass" would be a possible result from that scenario.
Now, the scenario that the article seems to paint, would be more akin to someone standing on the sidewalk, and filling up water balloons using the sprinkler, and then lobbing them back at the homeowner's property. Clearly, if that IS what was happening, then the intent was malicious, and should be dealt with as such.
But if the true scenario was more akin to Scenario 1, above, but with the addition of a car, a convertable, parked in the driveway next to the lawn, and in the eventual path of the sprinkler, and the homeowner comes out later after setting up the sprinkler, and finds: 1) someone on the sidewalk, using the sprinkler to cool themselves, and at the same time 2) the homeowner's car, with the top down, and the leather seats have water puddles on them, and automatically assumes that it was the fault of the stranger standing on the sidewalk, and calls the cops.
I hope that the truth comes out at the trial. My guess is that the charges will be dismissed, if (and only if) the nature of the access was in fact personal and non-malicious. If it was intentionally malicious, if someone was directly involved in unauthorized access to the homeowner's PC and the files on it, then it should likewise be treated as such.
I just hope that it doesn't result in cops specifically looking for and arresting anyone and everyone that might happen to linger in the path of a sprinkler that cross a public sidewalk in the summertime, if you know what I mean.
PS. Perhaps a better analogy would be a homeowner, whom is connected to the "public" municipal water supply ("public" internet), and they have an outside hose, and they leave the end of that hose coiled up and sticking out onto the public sidewalk at the edge of their property. Would I be breaking the law, to use that hose (assume that it has a control nozzle on the end, and doesn't require access to the property to adjust the outside faucet), to fill up a container that I happened to be carrying with me, or otherwise use that water, that comes not directly from that homeowner's property, but from the public water-supply? I'm not physically trespassing, nor am I stealing "his" water, but rather just using that hose as a gateway to access the "public" water-supply. The homeowner may be paying for that connection to the water-supply, but assume that my personal usage wouldn't materially affect that service or the costs.
In fact, how would I know, if the homeowner regularly did that (left the hose on the sidewalk), *on purpose*, in case any hot traveller during the summer might wish to avail themselves of water?
And what if there were a group of young individuals in the area, that made it a point or a game, to "chalk" the sidewalk, to indicate those potential sources of water during the summertime?
Hmm.  | |
| reply to DaDogs
said by "DaDogs":
But this argument is a red herring. The correct assumption *REQUIRED* by a civilized legal system is to err on the side of the privacy and property of the individual who owns the service or device.
Except that in this case, the homeowner does not own either the: 1) ISP service, nor 2) the "public airwaves", meaning the frequency spectrum that these devices operate on. If some other device transmits or recieves on the same frequencies, then too bad, that's not illegal. If the owner of the AP in question didn't configure it properly to prevent "outside interference", then that is his own fault / problem.
said by "DaDogs":
It is correct to assume that a service is not open for sharing unless there is some compelling reason to believe otherwise.
It may be "rude" to use someone's AP to access the "public" internet without asking first, but is it directly illegal? I think that's the question. The other question is if someone accessed the homeowner's private PC, via a connected wireless AP, and the intent of the access. If there was a clear intent to "trespass" into a private PC's files, then that would seem likely to be prosecutable.
It really does seem to be primarily about intent, here, not technology. | |
| reply to wifi sucks
In either case, if the owner comes out and says, "Hey! Get out of here you creep!", the only polite thing to do would be to move on. | |
| reply to DaDogs
I thought the law can only burst the user if he or she attempt to hack to system(s)/network(s) that are intended for authorized users and/or accessing to network/system that have private warning banner to indicate that only authorized users are allowed.
Therefore, if the AP owner does not enforce any good security and/or does not have private warning banner, then he/she has no right to prosecute anyone.
Does it make sense to anyone? | |
|
