|
 
quientus
So Red Shoes
Premium
join:2000-08-11
San Jose, CA
| Re: Deserved arrest said by TKJunkMail  :This guy deserved to be arrested. He knew he wasn't getting access from a legitimate free hotspot. While his intentions may not be known for sure, he surely wasn't just trying to get free internet access. More than likely he was trying to steal information. Just because the homeowner had an unsecured AP, it doesn't make what this guy did legal. Try him in court, fine him, and confiscate all his computer and network equipment. And then put him on probation where if he gets caught again he goes to jail. You're either kidding me or trolling. | |
|
 | stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
 ·Comcast
| Re: Deserved arrest I agree completely time to quit blaming the victim and prosecute the criminals. Anyone knowingly connecting to another persons network and using it, is well guilty and should be punished severely. Time to cut this bleeding heart liberal B.S. that lets so many criminals loose on our streets these days. Go Florida.
Steve in Colorado | |
|
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Deserved arrest Yes, lets spend millions having cops crack down on geeks with powerbooks trying to send e-mail via unsecured hotspots, when it would be far more logical and cheaper to simply have hotspot owners use security.
How modern Conservative of you. | |
|
| | | 
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Re: Deserved arrest Love that liberal open door policy there Karl. It's that twisted logic of it's the fault of the AP owner that has crazy judges saying it's the rape victim's fault they got raped.
Stupidity isn't a license to be victimized...even by nerds and powerbooks.
I guess it's too much to expect people to respect other's PROPERTY and they won't understand this simple concept until they're arrested or fined. | |
|
| | | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Deserved arrest said by oliphant :Love that liberal open door policy there Karl. It's that twisted logic of it's the fault of the AP owner that has crazy judges saying it's the rape victim's fault they got raped. Stupidity isn't a license to be victimized...even by nerds and powerbooks. I guess it's too much to expect people to respect other's PROPERTY and they won't understand this simple concept until they're arrested or fined. Dude you don't understand the actual concept here.
Rape is physical damage , stealing is physical damage , that stuff is physical. "Stealing" and I use the term loosely here , bandwidth via a unsecured access point is not illegal. It's free and in the clear. There is no reason for this case to go further unless he was doing something illegal behind it.
It is not illegal to receive free to air television signals so why is a internet signal is illegal ? Because it's "owned" by some one ? If that is the case then make an attempt to secure the system. Ignorance is no reason to do something wrong ever. And if they did not lock down the system with at least a minimum security setting then they deserve to have their bandwidth used.
If the person did something wrong behind the AP then they should be prosecuted, but to say that it's privately owned is just stupid, It's not protected by any means and by that standard it is free to use.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Re: Deserved arrest said by BosstonesOwn :said by oliphant :Love that liberal open door policy there Karl. It's that twisted logic of it's the fault of the AP owner that has crazy judges saying it's the rape victim's fault they got raped. Stupidity isn't a license to be victimized...even by nerds and powerbooks. I guess it's too much to expect people to respect other's PROPERTY and they won't understand this simple concept until they're arrested or fined. Dude you don't understand the actual concept here. Rape is physical damage , stealing is physical damage , that stuff is physical. "Stealing" and I use the term loosely here , bandwidth via a unsecured access point is not illegal. It's free and in the clear. There is no reason for this case to go further unless he was doing something illegal behind it. It is not illegal to receive free to air television signals so why is a internet signal is illegal ? Because it's "owned" by some one ? If that is the case then make an attempt to secure the system. Ignorance is no reason to do something wrong ever. And if they did not lock down the system with at least a minimum security setting then they deserve to have their bandwidth used. If the person did something wrong behind the AP then they should be prosecuted, but to say that it's privately owned is just stupid, It's not protected by any means and by that standard it is free to use. So it's okay to steal if I bring it back and the owner was unaware that I took it? Wow. | |
|
| | | | | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Deserved arrest no your twisting it again. because you want to hang them high like a vigilante.
It's not physical property they are using its a damn signal. Any one and their mother can view and intercept, it is not even encrypted to a small degree. That is like saying oh yeah I broadcast video of my kids room and then get mad when some one intercepts and views it, well encrypt it and no one would do it except people who want to do harm.
Once it is encrypted and even the smallest attempt was made to secure the AP then it should be illegal , this guy did none of that.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | Re: Deserved arrest It's not physical property...it's just some fire (BBQ) and water (pool). I'm just using it. So it's cool if I go across the street and take their hose to wash my car and put it back when I'm done? You don't see the problem with 'borrowing' in that way? How about if I 'borrow' their car? Even if I top the tank when I'm done? What if they left the key in it? Hey, no body is harmed. They don't lose the use of it.
I don't want to hang them high...I want them to have RESPECT for other people's PROPERTY. It's not their calculator. It's not their AP. It's not their ISP bill. It's not their stuff to use without permission. | |
|
| | | | | | | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Deserved arrest Your still talking physical property.
fire needs wood or charcoals physical material missing
hose needs water physical material missing
car physical material is missing it,s not borrowing if they don't allow it it's stealing and involves a personal loss even if for 1 second.
Electricity ? the AP still uses power no matter what to broadcast and that is even moot. Bandwidth ? side affect of energy and it's not metered so no physical loss.
It is akin to downloading a mp3. There is no physical loss. Only monetary loss for the isp or riaa and that is even questionable. Why must you equate it with physical products when it not a physical product. Come up with a better equal product.
Radio , TV thinks like that equate to it.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Re: Deserved arrest Nothing is missing. I put the hose back, the pool water is still there...I bring my own charcoal...
I equate it with physical goods to get it through some people's thick heads that personal property is personal property whether you can see it when you use it or not.
And of course it's personal loss. In my case I pay for a 3Mb connection...if someone else is using my service while I am I lose that portion of my 3Mb service...they are stealing a portion of the service I pay for.
And if I'm not around...it's no different than 'borrowing' the neighbors hose or swimming in their pool. Just because there is no loss of use or harm doesn't make it right or legal. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
Sodium
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Rice Lake, WI
| said by BosstonesOwn :Radio , TV thinks like that equate to it. Not quite. Radio and TV signals are "passive", meaning they require no response from you to deliver the product. When you listen to your radio or watch TV, you are analyzing radio waves that are passing through the Rx antenna. I.e. you don't need to send a signal to the TV station to let them know you want to change channels, you just hop to the next frequency band that corresponds to the next channel to want to view.
WiFi is an "active" signal, meaning it needs a response from the user to deliver its intended product. You need to send packets to the AP to tell it to route you to google.com or to the proper drive on the home media server on your LAN, for examples.
Therefore, your argument of just using what's already passing through the air is null. In order to use the connection, you would have to knowingly respond to the AP to make the proper requests, and therefore knowingly be making access to the user's network without their permission (which is illegal).
I don't understand your comment about bandwidth being "not metered", either. My connection bogs down with just 3 people using it at once (only 512kbps  ). I call it illegal if someone uses my connection without my permission because it is a service that I am paying for, just like phone service, cable/satellite TV, electricity, etc. It's called "theft of service". I see you are a Comcast cable user. Try uncapping your modem to get 50mbps for a day and you will find out what I'm talking about.  | |
|
| | | | 
rodoke
join:2003-10-28
Carbondale, IL
2 edits | said by oliphant :Love that partisan closed-mind policy there Karl? It's that twisted logic of everything being the fault of the "liberals" or the "conservatives" that has crazy activist judges saying it's the rape victims' fault they got raped because they voted wrong in the last election. Stupidity is asking to be victimized...especially by nerds and powerbooks. It's too much to expect people to <cartman>respect others' PROPERTY</cartman>. I won't understand this simple concept until I'm defrauded or framed. There. I fixed it for you. | |
|
| | 
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace | Yeah, let's spend tons of money on this crap instead of more important things. You apparently haven't met many "criminals" if you classify nerd wardrivers as such. Keep your mouth shut... you're giving us moderate conservatives a bad name. | |
|
93254336
Weapons Of Masturbation
Premium
join:2001-10-20
| said by TKJunkMail :This guy deserved to be arrested. He knew he wasn't getting access from a legitimate free hotspot. While his intentions may not be known for sure, he surely wasn't just trying to get free internet access. More than likely he was trying to steal information. Just because the homeowner had an unsecured AP, it doesn't make what this guy did legal. Try him in court, fine him, and confiscate all his computer and network equipment. And then put him on probation where if he gets caught again he goes to jail. I agree. Attempting to access wireless networks without permission is no different than going through a neighborhood and trying the front doors of all the houses to see which ones are unlocked. An unlocked door is not an implicit invitation to enter and take what you want.
- Dan
--
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." | |
|
| 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Deserved arrest said by 93254336 :Attempting to access wireless networks without permission is no different than going through a neighborhood and trying the front doors of all the houses to see which ones are unlocked. An unlocked door is not an implicit invitation to enter and take what you want. - Dan Too many of the younger generation raised on the Internet and illegally downloading music, videos, software, etc. are morally deficient. Too bad their parents never taught them right from wrong. Just look at the responses in this thread seeing absolutely nothing wrong with this.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
| | BVT
join:2004-10-25
Mount Juliet, TN
| Re: Deserved arrest Chances are, there is no law against using a wireless network you do not own in 99% of the US. If there is, it is most likely poorly written and will actually include free wifi spots. This guy just happened to be in the wrong city.
If there is no law against it, there is no harm in doing it. Do not confuse your morals with the law. | |
|
| | |
93254336
Weapons Of Masturbation
Premium
join:2001-10-20
| Re: Deserved arrest said by BVT :Chances are, there is no law against using a wireless network you do not own in 99% of the US. If there is, it is most likely poorly written and will actually include free wifi spots. This guy just happened to be in the wrong city. If there is no law against it, there is no harm in doing it. Do not confuse your morals with the law. Not quite...
(From »www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline···aws.html )
As it reads today, each major subsection of the CFAA is intended to explain a particular aspect of computer crime. In simple terms, the CFAA prohibits:
accessing a computer without authorization and subsequently transmitting classified government information. [Subsection 1030(a)(1)];
theft of financial information [Subsection 1030(a)(2)];
accessing a "protected computer," which the courts have recently interpreted as being any computer connected to the internet, even if the intruder obtains no data [Subsection 1030(a)(3)];
computer fraud [Subsection 1030(a)(4)];
transmitting code that causes damage to a computer system [Subsection 1030(a)(5)];
trafficking in computer passwords for the purpose of affecting interstate commerce or a government computer [Subsection 1030(a)(6)];
and computer extortion [Subsection 1030(a)(7)]. - Dan
--
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." | |
|
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Deserved arrest But if he's simply accessing the hotspot, he's not accessing the computer.... | |
|
| | | | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Deserved arrest said by Karl Bode :But if he's simply accessing the hotspot, he's not accessing the computer.... All depends on how the definition of "computer" is worded in the law. An AP could be a "computer". It has memory, a processor, a UI, etc.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
| | | | | |
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
1 edit | Re: Deserved arrest But it contains no hard drive so therefore it contains no pertinent, private or valuable data. Nice try with the spin, however. Furthermore, that law says "any computer connected to the Internet" -- what about computers that are simply on a closed LAN that happens to have a wireless connection? No Internet connection there so that law wouldn't even apply in that case. | |
|
| | | | | | | 
Neil
Stop All The Downloadin
join:2003-08-20
New York, NY
| Re: Deserved arrest said by LinuxJunkie :Furthermore, that law says "any computer connected to the Internet" -- what about computers that are simply on a closed LAN that happens to have a wireless connection? No Internet connection there so that law wouldn't even apply in that case. According to the Wikipedia definition (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internets),
Internets may refer to: .. # Wide area networks using a private IP address space, called "private internets" in RFC 1918 Granted, a private network wouldn't be "THE" Internet, but apparently it is still AN internet.
--
idunno much about computers other than the one we got at my house my mom put a couple games on there and i play em
The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of my employer. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Sodium
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Rice Lake, WI
| said by LinuxJunkie :But it contains no hard drive so therefore it contains no pertinent, private or valuable data. Nice try with the spin, however. Furthermore, that law says "any computer connected to the Internet" -- what about computers that are simply on a closed LAN that happens to have a wireless connection? No Internet connection there so that law wouldn't even apply in that case. My LinkSys WRT54GS has the CPU, Memory, etc. mentioned as well as 8M of Flash memory and a version of Linux compiled for the custom Broadcom CPU.
I have logging enabled on my router, which *could* contain private/valuable information stored in the Flash memory - i.e. private MAC addresses, who's been on my network, etc. I would consider the Flash memory a form of hard drive in that the memory is non-volatile.
I have to agree with you about the closed LAN thing though, in general. The problem is the only way to really know if it's a closed LAN or if it's connected to the internet is if you connect to the AP itself.
Boy, I would really hate to be a lawyer in the Information Age.  | |
|
| | | | | | | 
boog
Premium
join:2000-07-24
Trenton, OH
| said by LinuxJunkie :But it contains no hard drive so therefore it contains no pertinent, private or valuable data. If you were to connect to my AP it would have to ask my linux box for an ip address, it has a hard drive. The linux box is also the dns server, which is handed out in the dhcp request. I would say that would be "connecting" to my computer.
Even with that said, I still have to feel that if they didn't try to lock it down in any way, they must not care that anyone connects to it. I believe that AP's and wireless routers come with directions, and it says in there that if you don't encrypt or at least mac filter, that anyone can connect and possibly steal your info.
I for one do care and I lock mine down.
Am I a hypocrite? I'm sure it can be twisted to look like I am. | |
|
| | | | | 
iamsomeone
@rr.com | and what of the AP when it's set to "Broadcast" the SSID? that would make the AP "accessing" the laptop or whatnot that would end up connecting to it........... | |
|
| | | | 
the_buz
join:2004-02-15
Yorba Linda, CA
1 edit | I see no mention of wifi in that excerpt. Try again.
Well, unless their definition of wifi is "computer" I really don't see how any of that applies. | |
|
| | | | BVT
join:2004-10-25
Mount Juliet, TN
| Applying that law here is a stretch at best. He will probably plead guilty or get it pled down. If he had money, he could fight this and win.
That subsection & the courts interpretation is very dangerous. Anyone could file a complaint against anyone that accessed their system. It is way to broad. Wait until BestBuy starts claiming break-ins on their computer because someone has accessed it to compare prices. There are numerous price comparison websites that will fall under this law if a company tries to pursue it.
The interpretation, in effect, outlaws the internet. | |
|
| | | | |
wifi sucks
@verizon.net
| Re: Deserved arrest said by "BluVeiner":
That subsection & the courts interpretation is very dangerous. Anyone could file a complaint against anyone that accessed their system. It is way to broad. Wait until BestBuy starts claiming break-ins on their computer because someone has accessed it to compare prices. There are numerous price comparison websites that will fall under this law if a company tries to pursue it.
The interpretation, in effect, outlaws the internet.
Wow, yours is the first post here that really "gets it". IMHO, your logical conclusion as to this interpretation of the law is indeed what would effectively happen. It would give web sites the power to arbitrarily start filing "computer trespass" charges against various parties simply for accessing their publically-accessable web sites, should they so choose to throw their weight around.
Although it might be difficult for a court to be able to understand this - the technical protocol used, allows for the (physical) property owner to implement access-control *if they so choose*, but if they do not, then the protocol defaults to "public" access.
For another example, consider a post-office box. Could someone file "trespass" or "theft of service" charges, if an unwanted party mailed them a letter to their post-office box? Why or why not? After all, it's private property, they're paying for it, and unwanted mail takes up space in their box - shouldn't other parties have to obtain proper legal authorization first before using it? What? You mean to tell me that the "postal protocol", allows anyone to mail letters, to any postal box? Why, that's outrageous! I bet most P.O. box holders don't even know that those boxes default to an open, public, "allow" protocol... that should be changed! | |
|
| | the niTz
Premium
join:2004-07-05
Sahuarita, AZ
·Cox HSI
| the only thing i see wrong is someone not locking their wifi and leaving it open for others to use, which is pretty nice.
morality has nothing to do with this, the wifi point was open hide it, lockit but dont complain if someone is using it cause its out there, which means its as free as air!
--
its official everyone in sahuarita is a spy u cant even post with out somebody calling the authories!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
| | | 
Dragasoni
We're All Mad Here
Premium
join:2001-12-14
Rotonda West, FL
| Re: Deserved arrest I agree, if they bought the equipment it's their responsibility to lock it down, period. If they leave it open, I consider it free for anyone within range to use.
I live in a high rise building and I can pick on 2 AP's in addition to mine. One uses RR an the other Verizon DSL. You bet when my RR goes down, I connect to the "linksys" SSID that is hooked up to Verizon. I use it to do simple things, I don't abuse it or anything. As far as I'm concerned, they'll never know about it and I don't think I risk being fined for it.
Now, do I drove around looking for free hotspots...No I don't. I think that is a bit more questionable for criminal intent, but not always.
-Dragasoni-
--
dragasoni@hotmail.com | |
|
| | | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Deserved arrest said by Dragasoni :If they leave it open, I consider it free for anyone within range to use. Unless you get permission from the AP owner(and I know you may not know who that is), then accessing the internet thru his system means you broke the law. You can rationalize things all you want, but you are a criminal - just not a caught criminal.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
| | | | |
Dragasoni
We're All Mad Here
Premium
join:2001-12-14
Rotonda West, FL
| Re: Deserved arrest What if your life depended on it? What if you were going to die unless you got on the internet to...I don't get an antidote for a snake bite? Would you use a neighbors free access point?? I bet you would!
I know it's a dumb analogy, almost as dumb as the "just because you left your front door unlocked..." one I hear entirely too often.
Why should I take an extra step to protect the idiot next door? Like setting Windows to not automatically connect to any access point within range.
You "older" folks with your "morals" sound really stupid, you need to adapt to the year 2005.
-Dragasoni-
--
dragasoni@hotmail.com | |
|
| | | | | | Damon85
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Louisville, KY
| Re: Deserved arrest "Linksys" isn't a hospital, which is where you should probably go if you need snake venom antidote. That's not even taking into consideration the fact you'd be waiting about a week for your antidote anyway... two weeks if it's coming via the USPS.
You "younger" folks with your "everything's-free-attitude" make me feel ashamed to be a somewhat young person. I'm almost 20 and I could've told you 10 years ago that using someone else's Wi-Fi signal was wrong. Didn't anyone tell you it's wrong to take other people's things; physical or not? Is there a sign or flag on the Wi-Fi signal that says "FREE! TAKE ME!"? I don't think there is.
Maybe (some day) you will realize that theft is theft and you don't have a leg to stand on arguing against it. | |
|
| | | | | | 
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| said by Dragasoni :You "older" folks with your "morals" sound really stupid, you need to adapt to the year 2005. -Dragasoni- Hmmm ...
--
Need a bit more range? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COMNeed a bit more privacy? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COMNeed a bit more speed? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM | |
|
| | | | | | RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| said by Dragasoni :You "older" folks with your "morals" sound really stupid, you need to adapt to the year 2005. -Dragasoni- Wow, I must be stupid. I didn't realize morality had a time limit.
RJ | |
|
| | | | |
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
| Quote me the EXACT law that says connecting to unsecured WiFi spots to connect to the Internet is illegal. I've seen you and several others in this thread flinging that accusation around but I've yet to see the actual law that defines it. I'm willing to bet you can't/won't find it. | |
|
| | | | | |
See 25 replies to this post |
|
| jbozley
join:2002-09-29
Wilmington, DE
·Comcast
| ..."This guy deserved to be arrested. He knew he wasn't getting access from a legitimate free hotspot"...
"I agree. Attempting to access wireless networks without permission is no different than going through a neighborhood and trying the front doors of all the houses to see which ones are unlocked. An unlocked door is not an implicit invitation to enter and take what you want."
I also agree. What is wrong is wrong, whether it's in cyberspace or the digital medium, unauthorized access is just that - unauthorized. Each person should pay his own way with the perks and risks/costs involved with operating a wireless network with internet access. If you can't afford it, get permission!
This must be illegal because there is no way to verify the intentions of the person accessing the private network...they could be "innocent" or devious. | |
|
| |
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace | Re: Deserved arrest Go and find the law that makes this illegal. | |
|
| 
lucky644
Premium
join:2002-02-04
| said by 93254336 :said by TKJunkMail :This guy deserved to be arrested. He knew he wasn't getting access from a legitimate free hotspot. While his intentions may not be known for sure, he surely wasn't just trying to get free internet access. More than likely he was trying to steal information. Just because the homeowner had an unsecured AP, it doesn't make what this guy did legal. Try him in court, fine him, and confiscate all his computer and network equipment. And then put him on probation where if he gets caught again he goes to jail. I agree. Attempting to access wireless networks without permission is no different than going through a neighborhood and trying the front doors of all the houses to see which ones are unlocked. An unlocked door is not an implicit invitation to enter and take what you want. - Dan Ridiculious analogy, using someones internet that they're broadcasting is far different from actually entering someones HOME without permission. | |
|
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| said by TKJunkMail :This guy deserved to be arrested. He knew he wasn't getting access from a legitimate free hotspot. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who do the same thing, albeit unknowingly.
Person A has a Linksys AP in it's default state. Person B buys a Linksys AP for his own usage. Person B plugs everything in, sees two APs with SSIDs of "linksys" in his WZC window, and connects to one or the other randomly.
Is he a felon? I've seen it happen all the time.
Besides, the guy in this story was a complete idiot to act suspiciously. People knowingly connect to other people's APs all the time and never get caught. The fact of the matter is that the people who sit and have their APs used for free browsing (and thus have everything in their default state) don't have the logs to prove that it ever happened. At most, they'll have an entry on the DHCP lease page of their router, which is easily cleared before disconnecting.
--
"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+ | |
|
|
|
|
Deserved arrest