Slashdot Log In
UK Man Convicted For Wi-Fi Piggybacking
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Apr 17, 2007 04:04 PM
CatrionaMcM tips us to a BBC story reporting that Gregory Straszkiewicz, a UK resident, was fined £500 and sentenced to a conditional discharge for 12 months after being caught using a laptop from a car parked outside somebody else's house. '[H]e was prosecuted under the Communications Act and found guilty of dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service.' A separate BBC story notes that two other people in England were arrested and cautioned for sharing Wi-Fi uninvited.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Open AP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of analogies being thrown around already, I'm sure, so let's just dispense with those for the time being and get down to brass tacks.
My neighbor's access point is a crappy linksys wrouter that he got several years ago. He uses WEP but I can crack that quicker than he can type in the key. Does the fact that he is using a known-to-be-weak encryption scheme mean that I have the right to be on? My other neighbor does not advertise his SSID, but I can get on his AP just the same simply by grabbing enough packets out of the air. Does that mean that I have the right to use the service he's paying for?
Simple deduction tells me that I should not assume that, simply because I can access a resource, the owner does not mind if I access the resource. You cannot validly assume that the average home user of 802.11 technology knows enough to secure it.
Frankly, at this point, I do not care whether or not people want to lay blame for this at the feet of the vendors or of the end users. The simple fact is that unless you have an explicit reason to believe that you are meant to access someone's wireless, you should not; and to access it anyway is unethical.
Parent
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, as a matter of fact, encryption is THE way to tell if you're allowed to view satellite communications, at least here in the States. If a provider does not encrypt their signal, they have no(as in none, zero, zip, nada, nothing..) legal grounds to say that we can't watch their programming; however the moment they encrypt it, one can become liable for signal "theft" if they decrypt it without permission. The same needs to be applied to the Wifi arena. Laziness on the part of the "system administrator" should under no circumstances be grounds for the little twit to bring you up on criminal or civil charges.
Parent
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)
As has been noted elsewhere, you are assuming "laziness" or incompetence on the part of the "sysadmin" where mere ignorance performs as well. Which explanation do you suppose Occam would select?
Parent
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because I can get in a a car and drive it doesn't mean I should.
If you do not possess the knowledge to properly set up a wireless network, then by no means should you be doing it.
The law should be simple: if you set it up, w/ SSID broadcast turned off, encryption enabled, or both, then you should be allowed to sue for unauthorized access. If neither, then it should be assumed it is a public service
The lack of technical knowledge of the 'victim' DOES NOT MATTER. They failed to follow the directions that came with the router. They failed to learn about the tech they were about to use. They get burnt.
If I install a dishwasher myself, but fail to read the directions, and it floods my house, Is it the water's fault, or mine?
Parent
Re:Open AP? (Score:4, Interesting)
You argued that if I don't know how to control the behavior of the technology I bought, then I'm still at fault for the results. So if someone's client connects to my AP because they don't know how to modify its default behavior, why are they not at fault? I submit that this is a double standard.
Parent
Re:no it should not (Score:4, Interesting)
Per your interpretation, you have just engaged in criminal computer tresspass by using the slashdot web site. You requested permission to use the system (through your browser), that permission was granted by the system (through the web server). Since a piece of equipment cannot grant legal authority to someone, you had no authority to use the system.
There is no technical difference between the protocol exchange in the HTTP & the 801 series, both are automated request/response protocols which grant authorization.
Parent
Re:Open AP? (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole line of reasoning has always struck me as a rather disingenuous argument, because proponents of the "Well, the SSID was broadcast and there was no key required, so obviously it's free for anyone to use" theory never offer any criteria for exactly how much the owner of a wireless access point needs to do before random clients can "assume" it's not intended for public use.
I see your point and I do understand where you are coming from on this, but the problem is a bit sticky.
For instance, where I live, and probably where most people live these days, pretty much every business around from the local hamburger joint to the local bar, etc advertises free wifi. Many if not most of them simply set up an AP with a broadcast SSID and have done. The people who work there may not even know what the SSID is, but they expect you to just search and find it, which you can. In several places there is overlap between these APs from businesses and similarly configured APs from regular folk. Sometimes the SSID is obvious, like $RESTAURANT, but sometimes it's just the default Linksys SSID or whatever. There are services that help these folks set up their networks and require some kind of authentication over ssl to actually get out to the net, etc, or will just set up the system for you in some other way, but those cost money, and, like I said, many small businesses find it simpler to just fire up an AP out of the box and hook it up.
I have also noted that since encryption adds significant overhead to wifi connections, making them in many cases many times slower than without, people will open the network for that reason alone. The 11mbps connections were especially nasty that way.
Then you have your neighbour problem. Sure it's not anything like the situation with getting connected to an open wifi connection run by a business, but even so there are people who deliberately set their wifi networks as open networks that broadcast their SSID specifically because they want people to be able to use them. There are even clubs that work together to convince people to set their networks up this way, and set their own up this way, specifically so people can use them.
Given all that and the permissive nature of these networks, a culture is brewing such that people do not see connecting to open networks as wrong, and often do not care that people connect to theirs. In my experience, this is actually more the rule than the exception, even with non-technical users.
Now we come to your point. For instance the person who just got wifi and has no idea other people can connect to it, etc, who barely struggled through the instructions and has no idea how to monitor the connection. This is the guy I am sure your worry most about. It's not their fault they did not secure their network, per se, and it is not fair in any case for people to just use their stuff because the "door is open" and the "keys are in it" or whatever analogy you like today. But at the same time it's hard to draw the line between legitemately using an open network and using one that was not supposed to be open. Sometimes, in fact, it's the proverbial "clueless user" who ends up on the wrong network thinking he is on his own. It's even weirder when they are both called "Linksys." How is he supposed to know? I actually got onto my girlfriend once for getting on someone else's network, but she not only did not know she'd done that, but did not know at the time how she could have told what network she was on. (She is more expert now).
Usually people that are connecting to other's networks are not doing anything more nefarious than using someone else's bandwidth. I do know some people who deliberately set up open networks had to close them because some one did try to hack the other boxes on their home network. In any case, it is probaly is a good idea not to connect to networks not your own unless you know it is open on purpose. In the case of the neighbour you can generally ask, and I
Parent
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My WAP is open. It is intentionally so. My neighbours or anyone just generally passing by are free to share it. And people frequently do, according to my router's logs. It's not that I'm constantly needing those 6 MBit myself, so why would I mind anyone else using them. I see the fact that the network is unprotected as invitation enough for anyone to join in. I don't see myself posting ad banners around the street saying "Please share my WiFi" (a
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)
You may see it as so. But the law disagrees. In fact the law (in this instance) is consistent with locks on doors, etc... Absence of a lock is not indicative of permission to enter. This makes sense because, lacking signs, there is no way to tell the difference between a WAP you are encouraged to enter, and one where the owner forgot to lock his door.
Parent
This the kind of thing that crashes the legal mind (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, what subversive pinko commie ideology is that? Sharing things free of charge with your neighbours, or - still worse - with total strangers? That's the kind of behaviour that troublemaker Jesus Christ was executed for advocating! No wonder the law comes down hard on it. Next thing you'll be suggesting we should start sharing source code with complete strangers, for Pete's sake.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He wasn't waiting for a bus and idly checking to see if he could go
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love this example, because there is a legal difference in many jurisdictions between locked and unlocked doors.
If you defeat a lock and enter a building, that is breaking and entering. But if the door is unlocked the most you can be convicted of (providing you haven't damaged or stolen anything) is trespassing.
The law should really make the same distinction about networks.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Interesting)
What I think is that 500 pounds and 12 months' probation is fucking ridiculous when you're not even causing any harm.
If he WAS causing actual harm, then I would limit his financial obligation to paying the victim for actual damages.
The fact that he was fined 500 pounds proves that this is about grabbing money from people, not keeping people from using open APs (which is impossible anyway.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it is very much different from seeing an unlocked door. That's why intelligent people don't resort to analogies to discuss simple concepts like communication over radiowaves. The established standard has means of negotiation that allow people to use a shared resource without prior agreements. Using the standard is vital to many interesting and legitimate uses of the shared resource. You're advocating a restriction on useful applications to give technological nitwits the illusion of safety, while in reality their baseless assumption of being protected only causes them to be more vulnerable because they see no need to secure their networks. There is not even one good reason for punishing the use of open access points by anyone.
Parent
Backwards.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically, the structure of the internet is built on a 'Default allow' schema. Essentially, if you don't say 'no' then I can. I don't have to get permission to use your web server, your anonymous FTP server, or route over your backbone. If you choose to, you can of course block all of those, but you have to choose to disallow me access.
Add to that the facts that public 'hot spots' are more & more common & XP will sometimes jump from one network to another without asking and you have a recipee for legal chaos when incompetents leave their AP's open.
Do it all the time - I don't actually remember the last time a business had someone out front asking me to come in.
Parent
Quick Change (Score:3, Funny)
"Nude women! Nude women! Clowns welcome! Clowns welcome! Nude women! Clowns welcome!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good, I hope this continues and moves to the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good, I hope this continues and moves to the US (Score:5, Insightful)
But for piggybacking wi-fi they charge you £500. Cool. They should also put him in jail, just to show how dangerous for society his actions were.
UK has a lousiest law system in the world, IMHO. I know it well - I live here.
Parent
Crime to use open wifi? (Score:3, Interesting)
So accepting people's invitation to use their Wifi (by not securing it) is a crime...
It is the same as accusing someone of copyright infringement if they listen to their neighbor's CDs because their sound system is too loud...
PS: I still need to RTFA
Re:Crime to use open wifi? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Judge: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise you'd been invited to use that access point. Let's see your invite. Oh, wait - you mean since you weren't explicitly forbidden from using the access point, that's an implicit invitation.
Your analogy is missing a car or two. IOW, it's not a pa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no 'invitation'. When you use someone elses bandwidth, you deprive them of a commodity that they have paid money for. So yes, it ought to be a crime.
Re:Crime to use open wifi? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, there is. Your access-point broadcasts it's SSID, and an invitation for clients to connect -- about 10 times per second (IIRC). This is part of the specification. Most modern APs will allow you to change some of these parameters, including to prevent SSID broadcasts. Otherwise, most APs do actually invite clients that are within range to connect. Most of them, signal permitting, will do just that.
Parent
It's not mystery tech. anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
autoconnect (Score:4, Insightful)
He asked to use the network (Score:5, Insightful)
To which the access point replied: "Yes, you can have X.X.X.X. You can route your traffic through X.X.X.X."
He *asked* to use the network, and the network said *yes*.
Re:He asked to use the network (Score:5, Informative)
You really don't pay any attention to the details of the protocols do you?
According to the RFC's governing DHCP, yes he does have an automatic right to use the service. Per the standards, it is the responsibility of the server owner to restrict access. The failure of the server owner to lock down the DHCP server no more changes the proper useage of the protocol than a store owner forgetting to lock the door & flip the sign at closing time. The DHCP client asks for & receives permission/configuration details. A customer walks into a business with an open door. Both are default allow scenarios, you don't knock on the door of a business, you try the door & walk in if it's open.
Parent
Re:He asked to use the network (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a trick question? If you're standing in the street, yes.
Parent
Open Networks Are Open (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
NintendoDS (Score:3, Interesting)
2005 story (Score:5, Interesting)
The second story (the new one) concerned two people who were cautioned for using people's wi-fi broadband internet connections without permission.
Why does everyone assume the AP was open? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article doesn't say it was, in fact it notes the details are extremely sketchy.
Furthermore, if I drop my wallet, does everyone here just assume that I don't want it anymore and you are therefore free to take it?
I had at one time a public access point, it was identified as "Free basic web access, be nice" or something and was run through a linux box wich filtered and limited access quite a bit AND logged everything. I did it mostly out of curiousity. Just what would people access through a connection provided by someone they didn't know?
The answer was suprisingly mundane. Mostly email and light browsing. The location was in Amsterdam in an apartment near the "kalvertoren" a few years ago. For the non-dutch this is in the heart of amsterdam, yes within walking distance of the red-light district. This is holland, everything is in walking distance.
HOWEVER I have also found in more recent years that if you leave an AP open for general use, some people WILL not automatically limit themselves to minimum use. Cue the by now old trick of simply filtering a specific users access to replace all their image requests with tubgirl (if you think goatse is bad, google for it).
Still simply securing your network ain't always enough. At least some wifi security can be easily bypassed. At what point do we say "this is secured enough, you are now commiting a crime".
Personally I think it is bad sign if a bike stolen from an open garden gets a response from the police that you should have a 1 meter high fence, that is locked and the bike should have secured to something. Perhaps some people like to live in a world were everything has to be secured, I prefer to just lock up those that cannot understand the difference between something you own and something someone else owns. Either way, it seems we need an awfull lot of locks in this world.
This guy was behaving rather strangely.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Goodness only knows what he could possibly have being doing in there but I guess the local constabulary decided to charge him with a crime that they had evidence of.
So less a story about those brave wardrivers liberating the net from the bourgeoisie and more a story about someone wierdo having a wank.
If that's a slashdot word.
Wi-fi Humping and Sane Laws (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't believe they charged the guy $1000 for something his adapter's Windows client probably did on it's own. Hell, my *Linux* wrapper drivers catch on to the open network with the best signal automatically. I have had to intervene manually several times to stop this piggybacking, or humping as I prefer to call it. And not many people know enough to do this. In particular, you can't expect people to click cancel on an OS that requires a confirmation every time you want to scratch your balls. Wake up, Britain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are other countries besides yours.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone sets up a stand with some brochures and a sign that says, "take one," am I stealing if I take one without first asking whoever put it up? Is it my fault if they just wanted something to put their brochures in, and didn't bother to look at what it said, and then ALSO decided to put it in a public place?