What Is A Crime?

Author	All Replies
Scilicet Premium join:2005-04-11 Aurora, CO Reviews: ·Comcast ·Vonage 1 edit	What Is A Crime? The arrests have led to plenty of confusion in the media and among law enforcement over what constitutes a crime. It seems quite clear to me. Freeloading is theft, period. -- Be kind, for everyone you know is facing a great battle. (Philo of Alexandria)
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 15:21:00 ·
knightmb Everybody Lies join:2003-12-01 Franklin, TN	said by Scilicet: The arrests have led to plenty of confusion in the media and among law enforcement over what constitutes a crime. It seems quite clear to me. Freeloading is theft, period. If you have a sign outside of your door that says "free money" and a huge pile of money next to it. Are you going to arrest everyone that comes up to grab some cash and yell "thief!". I see wireless access the same way. Everyone knows that this little device allows any computer to connect to it and get Internet access. If you don't want that, then you secure it, even if it's just plain old 64 bit WEP, it's better than nothing. If someone breaks into it and then starts stealing bandwidth after you already put in the "no freeloaders sign" encryption on, then I can see it being a good reason to arrest someone for stealing. Anything else is just media hype and people looking to get 15 seconds of fame as far as I'm concerned.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 15:32:15 ·
fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3	reply to Scilicet .... and let the usual banter of... 1) It's stealing 2) Secure it in the first place 3) It's there so I will take it 4) ... insert 1 of a thousand things we've all heard before. Guys... come up with something new. This thread is already a bore with 9 messages.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 15:46:09 ·
knightmb Everybody Lies join:2003-12-01 Franklin, TN	said by fiberguy: .... and let the usual banter of... 1) It's stealing 2) Secure it in the first place 3) It's there so I will take it 4) ... insert 1 of a thousand things we've all heard before. Guys... come up with something new. This thread is already a bore with 9 messages. True, it can't be helped. It's about as exciting as claiming that people that come into your home and breathe are stealing your air. Some people go off on the subject, people like me just laugh and shake our heads and go on with life.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 15:48:25 ·

barnett25 join:2004-01-26 Huntington, WV	reply to Scilicet You're contaminating my air with your radio waves. Legally I am allowed to receive those airwaves (the same way I can use my scanner to listen to police, taxi, etc). Now there may be an issue regarding the fact that in order to use a wifi hotspot you have to also send radio waves to the access point. However one could argue that that is no worse than you sending your radio waves into my property to begin with. I'm not saying that I agree with "stealing bandwidth", but I just don't think it's as cut and dry as you make it sound.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 15:53:07 ·
raccettura join:2002-09-28 USA	reply to knightmb said by knightmb: I see wireless access the same way. Everyone knows that this little device allows any computer to connect to it and get Internet access. If you don't want that, then you secure it, even if it's just plain old 64 bit WEP, it's better than nothing. If someone breaks into it and then starts stealing bandwidth after you already put in the "no freeloaders sign" encryption on, then I can see it being a good reason to arrest someone for stealing. If someone doesn't patch their Windows computer, it gets hacked, and CC #'s stolen.... who is wrong? Isn't that just an invitation to take data? It's the exact same argument, just a different piece of hardware. In this case, the user of the unpatched computer left a sign on it saying "Here, have my credit card number". No difference.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 16:33:09 ·
BF69 Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN	reply to Scilicet If people don't want their signal "stolen" then SECURE it. PERIOD. How lazy do you have to be to not do that? As far as the library thing. Well it's a PUBLIC library paid with PUBLIC tax $$ so what difference does it make if someone is using the signal from inside or outside?
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 16:46:42 ·
waldoooo join:2001-12-15 Fountain Valley, CA	reply to knightmb said by knightmb: said by Scilicet: The arrests have led to plenty of confusion in the media and among law enforcement over what constitutes a crime. It seems quite clear to me. Freeloading is theft, period. If you have a sign outside of your door that says "free money" and a huge pile of money next to it. Are you going to arrest everyone that comes up to grab some cash and yell "thief!". I see wireless access the same way. Everyone knows that this little device allows any computer to connect to it and get Internet access. If you don't want that, then you secure it, even if it's just plain old 64 bit WEP, it's better than nothing. If someone breaks into it and then starts stealing bandwidth after you already put in the "no freeloaders sign" encryption on, then I can see it being a good reason to arrest someone for stealing. Anything else is just media hype and people looking to get 15 seconds of fame as far as I'm concerned. thats BS, using someone else's connection without permission is stealing whether or not its secure. If I park my car on the street and accidentally leave it unlocked, does that make it right for someone walking by to take my laptop on the seat? Signal theft is wrong, its taking something you are not paying for.....
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 16:48:47 ·
djrobx join:2000-05-31 Valencia, CA kudos:1 Reviews: ·Verizon Wireless.. ·RoadRunner Cable ·AT&T U-Verse ·VOIPo ·PHONE POWER 1 edit	reply to raccettura quote: If someone doesn't patch their Windows computer, it gets hacked, and CC #'s stolen.... who is wrong? Isn't that just an invitation to take data? It's the exact same argument, just a different piece of hardware. In this case, the user of the unpatched computer left a sign on it saying "Here, have my credit card number". No difference There's a huge difference there: Intent. There's nothing nefarious about jumping onto a neighbor's wifi and surfing the web. It is highly unlikely that the neighbor who set up the unsecured access point would ever know it was happening. Bandwidth currently isn't charged by the byte, it's use it or lose it. I obviously wouldn't condone large file downloads or other activities that will cause noticeable slowdowns for the paying user. If you take someone's personal info and use their credit cards, they WILL know, it WILL cause them hardship, and it IS theft. I equate using an open access point for light tasks as someone pulling into my driveway to do a 3 point turn-around real quick. Legally it's probably tresspassing,and it's something one probably shouldn't do, and is not real courteous, but no lasting harm is done so I just tolerate it. No harm no foul. -- \\ROB - a part of the SCB local network
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 16:50:24 ·
barnett25 join:2004-01-26 Huntington, WV	reply to waldoooo Unless you have that wifi blocking wallpaper it's actually more like parking your car in my yard, with the keys in it.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 17:08:04 ·
envoid join:2002-12-21 Duluth, GA 1 edit	reply to Scilicet said by Scilicet: The arrests have led to plenty of confusion in the media and among law enforcement over what constitutes a crime. It seems quite clear to me. Freeloading is theft, period. I'm not one to agree about using others' wifi being theft, but I think I'm about to join that boat. Think of it like stealing cable: Just because your neighbor doesn't have a lock on the box on the side of their house doesn't mean you can run a cable to it and use their service. With wifi you're basically running a virtual cable to their WAP to use their service. Just cuz you can't physically see the connection doesn't make it not a connection. Now, don't get me wrong, everyone should lock up their WAP, especialy since you don't need to be even near it to use it. But, if they purposely leave it insecure for others to share then of course its not and shouldn't be considered theft. This is with the idea that the connection to the WAP is on some else's private property that you don't possess. Also, it doesn't matter if the signal is entering your "space" as your cell signal (tower and phone) is entering mine, along with your satellite signal that you paid to convert. Because of this, does it allow me to take this signal and convert it however I want on your dime and use your cell signal as my own?
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 17:21:45 ·
marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1	reply to djrobx said by djrobx: There's a huge difference there: Intent. There's nothing nefarious about jumping onto a neighbor's wifi and surfing the web. It is highly unlikely that the neighbor who set up the unsecured access point would ever know it was happening. So, using an AP to download email is okay, but using an AP to download email containing child porn worm is not? Accessing a website is okay, but accessing a child pron website is not? How about unintentional harm, like downloading a worm via email, or accessing a website that downloads network compromising software? What if the user accidentally opens up the network to attack from those with nefarious intent (something all too common for intentionally open wifis)? -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 17:21:57 ·
marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1	reply to barnett25 Here's the question. You can receive those signals, but can you decode them? Think about military band GPS and satellite TV. Both signals are legal to receive but not legal to use without express permission. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 17:24:44 ·
SRFireside join:2001-01-19 Houston, TX	reply to waldoooo said by waldoooo: using someone else's connection without permission is stealing whether or not its secure. If I park my car on the street and accidentally leave it unlocked, does that make it right for someone walking by to take my laptop on the seat? Signal theft is wrong, its taking something you are not paying for..... Bad analogy. Have your car parked with a sign that says, "take a ride for free" is more apt. If you don't want your car driven don't put up the sign. The same goes for wireless routers. Really people, all you have to do is assign a username and password to gain access to your bandwidth. It's that simple. You don't want anybody in you don't give them the access credentials. Now when someone hacks into your bandwidth IN SPITE of you closing the AP then you definitely have something that should be illegal. The thing is there are people who actually don't mind others using their bandwidth and purposely keep their AP open on the router just for that.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 17:39:36 ·
marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1	Is the default username and password still securing? Because that is what you are looking at for the vast majority of unintentionally open APs now... a router configured with a default username and password opening them up to easily bypassing any existing encryption. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 17:41:29 ·
SRFireside join:2001-01-19 Houston, TX	I don't think a default open system can be considered secured. From what I can tell the default user name is...well... "default" or something similar and the password is blank when you get the router. Creating some sort of access ID with a password would change all of that and would mean you would have to know the user login and password in order to gain access to the bandwidth.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 17:56:07 ·
Michieru2 zzz zzz zzz Premium join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL 1 edit	Once you gain access to a wireless network the first thing to do will be to run a LAN sniffer. You don't need to access the router's administration page to be able to surf the web and such either. Wireless is insecure, and there are ways to prevent a signal from being picked up or even blocking out users you don't want on your network. All these "come on in!" comments are basically talking about the router broadcasting itself. This can be turned off and from there you will need a passive scanner to detect the access point let alone get it's name before you can even join it. Even yet this is not security, this is simply playing hide and go seek. Another option will be to use encryption WEP is not secure and be cracked in only minutes to seconds. Most likely I would suggest WAP2 which for now has no known exploits or cracks beside dictionary attacks. Even then it's possible to get in. That's why you begin only allowing the MAC addresses which are able to access the router. Which provides also some level of security. You might also want to go static instead of DHCP. If you have like 3 computers simply tell the router to allow only 3 IP's. Anything else should have no need to access the network. Either way wireless has been proven to be insecure and should only be used if monitored by someone who knows what there doing. But most people just plug it in set there computers to connect to "linksys" and the router handles everything from there. The P.S When I say router I mean it as a wireless router.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 18:34:19 ·
fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3	reply to barnett25 And legally you know this because you are a lawyer? you have a friend that is? you assume? what? What makes you a legal expert on the subject or what you can and can't do with air waves? I could give a rats ass less what one thinks they can do or not do with WiFi access. My only thought is that people are low life scum for freeloading from someone else - period. ESPECIALLY when one doesn't plan or care to purchase their own. The actual debate of if it's legal or not? I could care less. What makes me laught he most is that people here seem to think they know the law when it's clearly not defined. There is ONE thing, that I will tell you that HAS been defined as legal or not - If you are in someone's network and poke around where you are not supposed to, I'd be carefull or stock up on lube and plan to spend time away from your family or home for a while. Just remember that the very same box that acts as a gateway also can give you access to someone else's computer or network and getting in that area is VERY dangerous to your freedom. One thing, specifically to you Barnett, no one is 'intentionally' sending radio waves on to your property. You're just getting the fall out. What I have a question to ask you is "are you smart enough to know which is your router and which is your neighbors? Are you capable of knowing the name of your router vs. others? If you don't have a router, are you capable to know NOT to connect to any of them because none of them are yours? Do you know that, if you don't subscribe, that you don't HAVE internet access at all TO connect to? Are you intelligent or aware that internet access IS a subscription service in this country unless there is a specific place/entity offering it?" I think you will be surprised that many of the questions I just asked are going be the very questions asked in court should it come to this.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 19:36:20 ·
barnett25 join:2004-01-26 Huntington, WV	reply to marigolds I'm not sure. What I think is funny is a radio scanner law that says that it is legal to listen to broadcasts, but it is illegal to tell anyone else what you heard! So it's hard to tell what the laws are relating to this...
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 19:36:43 ·
richk_1957 If ..Then..Else Premium join:2001-04-11 Minas Tirith	reply to BF69 said by BF69: If people don't want their signal "stolen" then SECURE it. PERIOD. How lazy do you have to be to not do that? As far as the library thing. Well it's a PUBLIC library paid with PUBLIC tax $$ so what difference does it make if someone is using the signal from inside or outside? This I can agree with. The library was paid for with public monies [tax $ from you & me]. I essentially 'paid' for the library, so I should be able to use it's resources. If the library restricts the use some way, they should encrypt it somehow [WEP, WAP, ect.] And it's not so cut & dried. I know of someone who has some many unsecured connections they always have to make sure they have their own. Not much of an inconvenience, but should we have to do this? It all comes down do the same thing - secure your connection, by some means!!! It may be argued that using someone else's bandwidth is theft and that just because something is available, doesn't mean you have to use it, but this is being blown out of proportion. And as for having a law that wi-fi for businesses must have some encryption - good idea. Not to say that home users don't, but businesses can have a lot of financial information on their sites, and if it's wide open, that's an invitation to trouble.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-03-10 20:23:19 ·

Wi-Fi Freeloader Arrested > What Is A Crime?