Wi-Fi Freeloader Arrested

If it comes onto my property, its simple, its tresspassing. Besides, as mentioned, it becomes public domain as it leaves your home since it travels via airwaves.

Unless you have that wifi blocking wallpaper it's actually more like parking your car in my yard, with the keys in it.

LOL, you didn't read my post. I said NM

I think it's time to start telling people to keep their wifi signals inside their own homes if they want to call them private. (Impossible of course.)

Or maybe I'll just use a standard consumer router that happens to have tremendous range with a full wave dipole antenna. (Problem? Why? It still puts out just one watt!) I now declare what you think is your private wifi space MY private wifi space. Stay out of it!

/sarcasm off

-=[Middie]=-

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?

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)?

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.

...and since you can't keep wifi inside your own home, it's no longer private if it's not secured.

It is NOT the same as leaving your car parked on the street and unlocked. It's more like people leaving cars of theirs all over the place, including other people's lawns and driveways.

Secure your system. (Or don't complain.)

-=[Middie]=-

Amen brother.....

I invite you over to my house for a party.
My computer is on and at the login screen. There is only one account on the login screen and it requires no password.

Does this mean it is okay for you log on to the computer to check your email and browse the internet? Should you download anything from your email or the internet or only view pages?

Should you restrict which kinds of email or websites you access?

nothing wrong with using open wifi, i do it every single day. If you going to transmit openly and my computer gets the signal i consider it invitation to use it.

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.

Can I complain if someone else on my node does not secure their system and a wardriver downloads a worm into their network and nails everyone on the node, resulting in 1/5th the normal download speeds and constantly having to clear crap off my computer?
My system was as secured as I was allowed to secure it. Is it only the fault of the person who left the AP open? Or does the wardriver take any of the blame for downloading the worm (with no knowledge if it was on purpose or intentional)?
These types of compromises are the main concern for wifi freeloading, not small streams of bandwidth.

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.

If I come home from work, and there is a bicycle on my lawn, don't know who it belongs to. This goes on for a week, everyday all day, it's just there. Now a month goes by, still there. One day, I start to ride it around. Did I steal it? Technically yes, because it isn't my bike. Legally, I don't think you'd be convicted in a court of law. Was it morally wrong to ride it? Maybe, maybe not; everyones morals are different. Apply it to Wi-Fi, and it is just as unclear. In reality, both parties are wrong, and both are right. In the case of a hacker stealing CC #'s, the hacker is a theif and would be charged as such, but the CC company is also responsible for securing their network, and could also be charged accordingly.

One thing that no one seemed to pick up on was the guy nailed for using the libraries access outside the library. Would it have been a crime if he was inside? Since it's a public facility, paid for with tax dollars, doesn't that make it a publicly owned access point? The whole point of this article isn't who is right and who is wrong, but that there is no standard anywhere. One needs to be found otherwise you're going to have guilty people walk free, and innocent ones in a world of shit.

ROFL!!!

Then secure the connection. Put in a password. This isn't rocket science. Keep in mind the router is actively inviting any request for a connection. Your equipment is saying yes. Not the wardriver. All he is doing is looking for access points that are doing exactly what your router is doing.

"Hey. I see you have access to the Internet. Maybe I use it?"

"Sure thing. Here's an IP and link to the modem. I was making sandwiches. Would you like one?"

This is the kind of communication that's happening between router and computer. If you don't like that then change the settings on your AP.There is no sugar coating about it. It's a shared community kind of mentality is what it is. Don't you know there are people who intentionally don't secure their wifi connections so other people can use it? The bandwidth is there whether you use it or not. As long as someone isn't abusing the privilege of tapping into your bandwidth I don't see a problem. If you do.... SECURE YOUR CONNECTION. If someone taps your connection after you set it up with a user login and password THEN you call it trespassing.Phone lines are more secure and aren't actively offering anybody to access them like your WiFi router is. Big difference.

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.

quote:

---

I invite you over to my house for a party.
My computer is on and at the login screen. There is only one account on the login screen and it requires no password.

Does this mean it is okay for you log on to the computer to check your email and browse the internet? Should you download anything from your email or the internet or only view pages?

---

Obviously, your computer inside your house with no password to login is not the same thing as people spitting their wifi out beyond their walls into other people's homes.

-=[Middie]=-

The analogy would be more accurate if the computer had some sort of welcome message telling anybody who finds the computer can indeed access it. Would be slightly different if the computer had a do not touch sign on it. Then again I suppose you can rename your access point on the WiFi router "do not use", but that would still be misleading considering the router is still handing out IP's and such to whomever asks. Kind of contrary to the "sign".

Hmmm so is picking up radio waves now considered theft as well? Give me a break...it is NOT theft. Not by a long shot. All these analogy's are awful. Picking up a wifi signal is no different than sitting outside a drive-in movie and picking up the sound on your radio. That isn't considered theft. And the analogy fits perfectly.

quote:

---

If I come home from work, and there is a bicycle on my lawn, don't know who it belongs to. This goes on for a week, everyday all day, it's just there. Now a month goes by, still there. One day, I start to ride it around. Did I steal it? Technically yes, because it isn't my bike. Legally, I don't think you'd be convicted in a court of law.

---

In my neighborhood, trespassers can be arrested with a phone call, especially if there is any kind of notification that a lawn is private property. The police are quite happy to tow cars that are parked where they shouldn't be. Other than possibly being annoyed for a call about a bike that doesn't seem very important where there are people to ticket or something, I don't see why there would be a problem with the police "impounding" a misplaced bike.

That was creative, but I'm not seeing how it applies to wifi either.

-=[Middie]=-

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.

If my neighbor calls the police and I get arrested. I will actually sue him for allowing his wi-fi to trespass my property and find its way "illegally" into my computer...It is not the same if I call the hooker "solicitation" or the Hooker shows up at my door and comes into my bedroom "Trespassing".:D

Gee, I'd hate to live in your neighborhood if your gonna call the cops cause a kid leaves his bike there. Do you call the National Guard for an actual break in?

By your thinking, I should call the cops and report a neighbor as trespassing because their Wi-Fi signals are "where they shouldn't be"? Should the police "impound" (secure) their network? Gee that would solve the problem wouldn't it?

None of that was the point I was trying to make, but I'm glad you pointed that out because it just goes to show that none of this is clear cut, and really both parties are at fault. What I was trying to say was fine, there's a bike there. Not hurting anyone, I'll leave it alone. If it's left there for a month or whatever (just as that signal is left there), am I a thief for using the bike? Technically, yes I am: I used property that wasn't mine without permission. Would I be convicted in a court of law: no way, not for just using it, only unless I refused to return it. Why, because it shouldn't have been left there in the first place. Just as the signal shouldn't have been left there. Everybody is guilty of something in a case like this. My overall point was THERE NEEDS TO BE A STANDARD SET!

It's more like, your doors extended to my door, so the instant I walked outside, I was in your house. I don't really make sense but whatever, if there is no harm being done, then whatever. If you can't secure it properly, your asking for it.
We should blame our software (Operating Systems.. etc.) for auto connecting to open networks. [

quote:

---

By your thinking, I should call the cops and report a neighbor as trespassing because their Wi-Fi signals are "where they shouldn't be"? Should the police "impound" (secure) their network? Gee that would solve the problem wouldn't it?

---

No, I was talking about your analogy that I said didn't relate very well.

Probably not the only problem with that one is that you are very aware that you did not purchase the bike that you decided to ride. It has nothing to do with an open network that is doing nothing else but asking to be accessed.

But I did think of something else from another person's response:

A poster came up with the idea of a notification of some sort about not accessing a network. Notify people that you do not want them using your network, and it's hands off.

-=[Middie]=-

Let's be realistic here, there is no sign that says "please steal my internet connection," saying that just makes you look stupid.

I just love how some people try to come up with as many excuses as possible for something that has no excuse what-so-ever. But there is no point in arguing this, since it will go no where. I just hope the government will step in and make it completely illegal to freeload on someone elses connection without consent.

You hit the nail on the head. The question for every hotspot is "is it meant to be publicly used or not?".

If it's password protected then obviously not.

If it's open then the answer is unclear.

It shouldn't be illegal to have an open AP if you intend it to be that way (such as a library). What we really need is a clear way to tell if an open AP is meant to be that way (default setting would be closed, the user has to expressly configure the AP to be public whether that is turning off default encryption or having an additional flag of public/private).

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.