jacour
join:2001-12-11
Ypsilanti, MI
 ·Comcast
| reply to morbo
Re: interesting
I visit Amsterdam a lot on business, and the city has more hotspots than you can imagine. This box would be a leacher's dream.
Still, this has to illegal as hell in most countries as it constitutes unauthorized "theft of service", especially if they are going to deliberately try and hack less secure WEP access points. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by jacour  :Still, this has to illegal as hell in most countries... Well I wouldn't think the device itself would be illegal, just some (probably most) of its uses. |
|
Anomus
@rr.com
| reply to jacour
I have been cantenna connected to my neighbors access for 2 years now. I dont want to stir unknown trouble so I keep quiet and let sleeping dogs lie. But one day somebody is going to really test that "theft of service" claim in court and see if it gets shot all full of holes. People say if somebody leaves their front door open and somebody goes in, its still burglary. But if they leave their front door open for 2 years, how is any jury going to be convinced that entry was unlawfull. Its clearly implied if you want people to stay out, you close the door. Leaving it open for years is about as implied an invitation as it can ever be. And lets face it, there are lots of people that leave hotspots open on purpose and you can't really tell the difference. In court that constitutes reasonable doubt and the case is thrown out. Hence its not really illegal.  |
|
dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA
| said by Anomus :
But one day somebody is going to really test that "theft of service" claim in court and see if it gets shot all full of holes. It is being tested in court right now; there have been a couple recent news items about people getting both arrested and sentenced for "theft of service" because they were leaching.
said by Anomus :And lets face it, there are lots of people that leave hotspots open on purpose and you can't really tell the difference. In court that constitutes reasonable doubt and the case is thrown out. Hence its not really illegal. I believe the law (in the U.S.) says that unless you are invited in, you should stay out so yes, it is really easy to tell the difference; I seriously doubt any court/jury would buy the "I couldn't tell the difference" argument. |
|
click_310
Eat my shorts
join:2002-12-06
Savannah, GA
2 edits | reply to Anomus
Leaving the age old,"leaving the front door open", analogy... the ,"theft of service", law(s) came about around the time electricity started being distributed.
Its time they were updated... not that stealing / borrowing someones bandwidth is right or wrong.
But if someone repeatedly drives too slow in the middle/fast lane, takes an eternity to accelerate out of a red light /stop sign, {do stuff on the road that my grand mother would do }.
Their driving license should be revoked. Thats what the internets are like. If you cannot be bothered to use it, right,don't.
Driving a certain way can lead to financial hardships, (accident -> lawsuit ) , and so can using those damn computers. One stupid click , (or open AP), and all of a sudden identity theft + ruined credit.
---
[EDIT] added "right"
--
(757) 644-3863 |
|
click_310
Eat my shorts
join:2002-12-06
Savannah, GA
| reply to dda
said by dda : I seriously doubt any court/jury would buy the "I couldn't tell the difference" argument. Especially if you happen to own a € 999 device 
--
(757) 644-3863 |
|
Anomus
@rr.com
| reply to dda
No, No, I mean a real challege with somebody with the finances to really work the legal process. All there is now are people with cheap attorneys only interested in coping pleas. That doesn't mean the law holds up. Bad law interpretations run over stupid people all the time until a smart wealthy person comes along and uncovers the stupidity of the prosecutors claims. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to Anomus
I think this might only apply to patents and/or copyrights. I think there are some rulings in these areas that if you don't defend them for years and years and abuse is widespread that you may then lose the privilege to enforce them later.
Lots of private land owners have "no tresspassing" signs but they don't have fences stopping would be offenders. However, it's still tresspassing if they catch you and decide to prosecute even if you've been riding your ATV on their land for years and years.
I think the problem with some of the assumptions here are common sense. As painful as this might sound I recommend watching Judge Judy or one of the other courtroom reality shows. A lot of the rulings are common sense and I can hear Judge Judy asking now: "You're computer savvy, right? You know that Internet access is not free, right? You know that your neighbor was paying for their service, right? Judgement for the plaintiff."
I guess if someone can use a computer and truly be ignorant of the fact that Internet access is not free they might be able to get off with a warning. However, I don't know if any judge will believe them.
But hey -- I'm no lawyer, I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. |
|
alancain
Premium
join:2006-07-10
Grand Coulee, WA
 ·Bigdam.net
| reply to Anomus
You are putting those neighbors of yours at risk; they are at risk in several ways. If you are stealing movies and images, and music, you are from the point of view of the legal system stealing content. You may be downloading child porn, for all we know, putting your neighbors at risk of felony convictions if they get pinned for it (not reasonable, but possible). They may get the blame; you are putting them at risk. I am certain that what you are doing is illegal and prosecutable.
I would hide my cantenna if I were you.
And on the topic of hotspots that are open versus hotspots that are closed, the test is easy: does the hotspot invite you in or does it not. An invitation must be active and not passive. Unless the hotspot is labelled as an invitation it is not open, regardless of whether the users are sophisticated or not. I have one at my office that is an invitation. Its ESSID includes the phrase freenet_dhcp; pretty clear, eh?
My neighbor has one that says SMITHnet. That is not an invitation, even though it is set up to give addresses automatically, and is not secured. They are inexperienced, but it is not a public access point. As they are not my customers, I let them be; I might tip them off sometime, but I haven't really tried to search them down. If they were my customers, I would pursue it. I might well associate with the access point then, too. Their bandwidth is really my bandwidth in that case.
A chicken in the yard is not fair game just because you see it.
Taking things without permission is called theft. |
|
