Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Communications Wireless Networking News Hardware

UK Man Convicted For Wi-Fi Piggybacking 659

Posted by kdawson
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This discussion has been archived.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.

UK Man Convicted For Wi-Fi Piggybacking

Comments Filter:
  • Open AP? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jshriverWVU (810740) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:08PM (#18773337)
    How does one figure out if the AP is for public use or just someone who forgot to set it up properly?
    • Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dotgain (630123) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:11PM (#18773391) Homepage Journal
      Uhh, the utter lack of advertisement that it's for public use?

      • Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Noah Adler (627206) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:23PM (#18773587) Homepage
        Such as an SSID advertisement?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by slart42 (694765)
        Uhh, the utter lack of advertisement that it's for public use?

        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)

          by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @06:56PM (#18775177) Homepage

          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.

          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.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by ehrichweiss (706417)
            The locks on doors analogy is worn out and misapplied, let me give you a better one. In the States it's perfectly and 100% LEGAL to view any radio/satellite broadcasts as long as they are not encrypted. Period. You can say to your heart's delight that you don't want me to watch your broadcast but if you lack encryption you have no ground to stand on because that's what the law says. That's your locked door right there.
        • by Archtech (159117) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:16AM (#18779663)
          "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".

          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.
      • Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Funny)

        by servognome (738846) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @06:55PM (#18775163)

        Uhh, the utter lack of advertisement that it's for public use?
        Linksys = Latin for "Welcome", right?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tyler Eaves (344284)
      Pretty simple really...

      Unless you are told/informed/read other wise, a network is NOT public. It's no different than seeing an unlocked door. You wouldn't just walk in and look around would you?
      • Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:18PM (#18773509) Homepage Journal

        It's no different than seeing an unlocked door. You wouldn't just walk in and look around would you?
        That depends, is it a shop?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by dwandy (907337)

          That depends, is it a shop?

          And that is the problem with open APs and people who say that they are like doors.

          Any analogy that includes the real world fails to take in account the fact that in the real world we have hundreds of years of property law and social norms that makes it "obvious" to us what trespassing is and what break'n enter is.

          This same obviousness doesn't (yet?) exist in the virtual world; and (hopefully!) never will.

          Some of these same questions can be asked about accessing a server on the

      • Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:20PM (#18773535) Homepage Journal

        Unless you are told/informed/read other wise, a network is NOT public. It's no different than seeing an unlocked door. You wouldn't just walk in and look around would you?

        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.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by QuantumG (50515)
          So? They're both crimes.
          • Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by hobbesmaster (592205) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:47PM (#18774069)
            You can only charge someone for trespassing after you tell them to leave... Same should of course apply for wifi.
            • Not neccassirly true (Score:3, Interesting)

              by KKlaus (1012919)
              It (generally) depends on your state's definition of what constitutes a "secured premises." If you enter unallowed a place that meets the definition, you've already committed trespassing, and no one needs to have seen you or said boo. Generally speaking, an area will be considered "secured" if it has a fence, or a lock, or signs saying no trespass. Basically, if it looks like you obviously aren't supposed to be there.

              Having said all that, I think you are probably incorrect on your assessment here. I sus
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by false_cause (1013577)
          Do you think he would have gotten a 500 pound fine and 12 months probation if he had hacked into a secure network? I think the court probably used it's judgment in assessing the sentence and indeed recognized that the crime was more "trespassing" and less "breaking and entering."
          • Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:43PM (#18773979) Homepage Journal

            Do you think he would have gotten a 500 pound fine and 12 months probation if he had hacked into a secure network?

            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.)

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Belial6 (794905)
          It's more like walking across someones lawn. I don't know how it works in the UK, but unless you have specifically posted a no trespassing sign or specifically asked them to leave your property, you cannot have someone arrested for trespassing on your front lawn here in the US. It has an implied invitation. Now, if the guy had actually accessed a computer on there internal network, maybe...just maybe, it could be likened to entering an unlocked house.
      • Re:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JackHoffman (1033824) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:22PM (#18773573)
        It's no different than seeing an unlocked door.

        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.
      • Backwards.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tinkerghost (944862) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:22PM (#18773579) Homepage

        Unless you are told/informed/read other wise, a network is NOT public.

        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.

        It's no different than seeing an unlocked door. You wouldn't just walk in and look around would you?

        Do it all the time - I don't actually remember the last time a business had someone out front asking me to come in.

        • by HTH NE1 (675604)

          It's no different than seeing an unlocked door. You wouldn't just walk in and look around would you?
          Do it all the time - I don't actually remember the last time a business had someone out front asking me to come in.
          You haven't been walking through the right districts.

          "Nude women! Nude women! Clowns welcome! Clowns welcome! Nude women! Clowns welcome!"
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Darktan (817653)
      Easy. Simply check: Am I in Britain? Yes? Then the AP is not for public use, or possible intended for use at all.
    • The article says:

      People with criminal intentions have, in the past, attempted to use the openness of their own wireless networks to cover their tracks online.
      "There have been incidences where paedophiles deliberately leave their wireless networks open so that, if caught, they can say that is wasn't them that used the network for illegal purposes," said NetSurity's Mr Cracknell.
      Such a defence would hold little water as the person installing the network, be they a home user or a business, has ultimate re

      • How are you supposed to setup a secure wireless network? WEP can be cracked in minutes, and MAC address filtering can be worked around by MAC address spoofing. So, how can anyone expect the average user to take responsibility for hackers hacking into their wireless networks? It sounds like people in the UK will have to resort back to wired networks.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by MoHaG (1002926)
          At least setting up WEP will prove that you did not intend anyone else to use your network....
      • by iangoldby (552781)
        Well, I heard the interview this evening on the PM programme, and the police representative said that basically if your wireless network is wide open and as a consequence is used by someone else for criminal purposes, then you will suffer a great deal of inconvenience at the very least.

        Your equipment will be confiscated for forensic analysis and it will be a while before you get it back. The analysis will probably show that it wasn't you - but do you really want to take that risk, and do you want to be with
      • Witchcraft (Score:2, Interesting)

        by kt0157 (830611)
        Oh that's a watertight legal opinion. So if I left my keys in the car and someone stole it, I'm responsible for the people they kill? And if I watch someone's TV through their window, that's theft? Or I read my newspaper by the light coming out of their window?

        You should all note that the law these people have been accused of breaking is one designed to stop people stealing cable TV using hacked decoders. It was not designed for "theft" of Internet access. There is a defence to the accusation that the servi
    • by u19925 (613350)
      In most cases, you would know by common sense whether the network is public or the owner is security challenged. Almost all public wi-fi services will require you to register before using the service. You can't use neighbor's water hose to water your garden or use their outdoor plug point to light your porch. I can guarantee, the person knew that he was stealing the network connection. If once in a blue moon, you need to access internet in emergency and use such an open connection, it may be pardoned. But i
      • Agree in that context it would be like stealing water or electric. Though my concern is how do you really determine in most cases? I've known people who leave their AP open so people can go online check email, etc. In the town I live there are several legal to use open AP that require no form of authentication. Coffee shops, etc.. there's also libraries, McDonalds, and people who willingly leave their AP's open. So the area is kinda grey. In this case, I do agree sitting outside someone's house is pretty
    • How should I have known it was not for public use?

      I think that the courts are likely to take reasonable public access into account. If you just stumble across an AP that does not make it public any more than if you happen to find an unlocked door on a house.

    • How does one figure out if the AP is for public use or just someone who forgot to set it up properly?

      YOu can use the word 'Free' or 'Open' in your SSID -- or use a URL like I do. My SSIDs are all 'pghwireless.net [pghwireless.net]'. Although it is tough to get to a URL when aren't sure you have permission.

      If you're an AP owner -- make it obvious for the random stumbler. Use the built in encryption to keep people out, or use the words 'Open', 'Free', or something to try to make it obvious.
  • by stratjakt (596332) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:09PM (#18773351) Journal
    Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you have the right to.
    • by Sancho (17056)
      Yup. Now I'm going to go after my neighbors. Their plants steal the CO2 I emit.

    • "Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you have the right to" You my friend are a troll ...
    • by jackharrer (972403) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:14PM (#18773433)
      Say it to all kids in UK who vandalize everything around without even a slap in hand.
      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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      (ahem)

      For USAians, I quote the tenth amendment to the Constitution. aka "the tail end of the Bill of Rights":

      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      In other words, if you can do it, and no government says you can't...then you *do* have the right to.

  • by MoHaG (1002926) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:10PM (#18773367) Homepage

    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

    • by purpledinoz (573045) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:14PM (#18773425)
      Next time you hear your neighbour's music, the moral thing to do is cover your ears so you can't hear music for free.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dotgain (630123)

      So accepting people's invitation to use their Wifi (by not securing it) is a crime...

      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.

      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...

      Your analogy is missing a car or two. IOW, it's not a pa

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        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 particularly apt analogy.

        It does raise a point, however. If someone is running an announced, open AP, then their AP is actively broadcasting invitations to join the network.

        THAT is an explicit invitation. It's used to announ

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pytheron (443963)
      Just as accepting invitations to drive off with my car because I left it unlocked on my drive is a crime.. Just as when someone leaves chips on a card table and doesn't ask someone to keep an eye on them.. well that's an 'invitation' also..

        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.
    • by igotmybfg (525391)
      I think your analogy is invalid.

      First, listening to your neighbor's CDs is a passive act (inasmuch as you don't have to do anything to hear it), whereas piggybacking his WiFi is active, in the sense that you actively decided to get on his network.

      Second, listening to your neighbor's CDs doesn't really harm the neighbor from an economic standpoint. The fact that your ears are hearing the music doesn't mean there is any less of it left for the neighbor, whereas that isn't true for the WiFi piece; if you'r
    • You are saying that if you leave your door open, that is an invite? If you don't have a fence around your garden, just anyone can use it? God forbid you leave your car unlocked for a sec while loading/unloading. People will be borrowing it in a sec! What about simply dropping your wallet by accident. Obviously you didn't want it anymore, so I can just take it?

      Perhaps I am just old but I still think that you don't take what belongs to someone else. Don't give me the crap about not knowing the difference bet

  • by mandelbr0t (1015855) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:11PM (#18773383) Journal
    The black-hats rely on the fact that no one can see what they are doing to succeed. In many cases, they are still capable of keeping their illegal activities underground. But a guy sitting next to a building with a laptop is kind of obvious. Kudos to the cops for challenging his existence there. I'll even put up with some nosy cops myself to see guys like the one they got go away. Now if only there were an electronic cop that would bring those cowardly, anonymous, SSH phishers and spammers to the surface...
  • autoconnect (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mastershake_phd (1050150) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:12PM (#18773405) Homepage
    What about when Windows auto-connects to an open AP? Sure you would probably never get arrested for it, but its still technically illegal isnt it?
    • by justkarl (775856) *
      Windows doesen't just connect to everything automatically. It finds a few that are probably the ones you are looking for. And if you have networks nearby that you've connected to already, it will auto-connect.
  • I wouldn't be surprised if his being arrested had more to do with him sitting in a car outside someone's house than piggybacking on someone's wireless Internet connection. If he'd been in a bedroom next door, it wouldn't have resembled stalking, and I bet he wouldn't have been prosecuted.
  • by AciDLnx (541241) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:16PM (#18773473)
    His computer sent out a DHCP *REQUEST*. His computer said: "Can I have an IP address on this network? Can I have the information I need to get online from this access point?"

    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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Darkon (206829)

      His computer sent out a DHCP *REQUEST*. His computer said: "Can I have an IP address on this network? Can I have the information I need to get online from this access point?"

      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*.

      He *tried* the door handle. The door opened. Does this mean he had an automatic right to go inside? Technically possible != legal.

      • by tinkerghost (944862) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:34PM (#18773817) Homepage

        You really don't pay any attention to the details of the protocols do you?

        He *tried* the door handle. The door opened. Does this mean he had an automatic right to go inside?

        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.

    • by u19925 (613350)
      Is the router authorized to let you connect? I don't think so. It can connect, but it has no authority. It is like a neighbor's electric plug point. It can supply electricity, but that doesn't mean you can use it without neighbor's permission (plug point's permission is not enough).
    • Cool. I have a computer program which solves those darned WEP riddles it keeps throwing at me. My computer reads the traffic from the router, determines the solution to the riddle and answers it correctly. After I answer the riddle, the router provides me with network information. I say it's a riddle because it doesn't take long for my computer to solve it. 'Cracking' takes much longer, I hear. I've done nothing but use the IEEE specification for radio frequency in that range. My computer has the appropriat
  • by shawn443 (882648) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:17PM (#18773489) Homepage
    First of all, punish people who break into closed networks not open ones. I have accidentally connected to an open network a time or two. Sorry, I meant to connect to the Linksys network, not the Linksys network. Secondly, if DLink and the like would default to a more secure configuration out of the box instead of pandering to the wanabe power users, this problem would be largely eliminated. The computer industry seems to want to make computers so easy anyone can do it. They can't. Take your car to a mechanic, take your clothes to a tailor, take your securely configured router that you can't figure out to me.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by u19925 (613350)
      Read the article. It was no accidental connection. I am sure, he wouldn't have been arrested and convicted if there was any doubt at all that it was an accidental connection. There are some people who habitually steal network or break into other's system. Some do for fun, most do for some monetary gain and very few do by accident.
  • NintendoDS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jshriverWVU (810740) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:19PM (#18773519)
    How long till some kid with a NintendoDS get's arrested for playing Animal Crossing using an AP the software autodetected?
    • How long till some kid with a NintendoDS get's arrested for playing Animal Crossing using an AP the software autodetected?

      NintendoDS/WiFi MP3 player/Wii network abuse arrests in 5... 4... 3...

      Sitting in a car with a laptop is a bad idea. Bring a friend. Sit outside. Be very obvious. Politely answer questions when posed, and remember that uninformed people will think the worst first.
  • Have a mobile data card handy just in case. Problem solved. "Officer, I'm using my mobile data card. I pulled over since driving while surfing isn't a great idea."
  • The second article says that the people providing the unsecured networks were "cautioned", but it doesn't say they were arrested. I don't think it's a crime to have an open network, though it might go against the TOS.
  • 2005 story (Score:5, Interesting)

    by iangoldby (552781) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:28PM (#18773707) Homepage
    Did anyone notice the date on that first story?

    Last Updated: Thursday, 28 July 2005, 08:51 GMT 09:51 UK
    That first story (with the £500 fine) was two years ago and concerned someone who hijacked a wireless connection.

    The second story (the new one) concerned two people who were cautioned for using people's wi-fi broadband internet connections without permission.
  • Person fined for using MacDonald's toilet without being a customer.
  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:45PM (#18774001) Journal

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geekoid (135745)
      So you opened your AP, and then sabotaged the images? you are an ass.

      "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?"

      We are free to take it, whether or not you want it doesn't matter.
      However, thaty anology is really flawed and shows a basic lack od understanding of how WiFi works.

      I send out a signal.
      I get a reply.
      I say "hey can I connect"
      I get a reply that says either:
      NO!
      Sure, I need a username and password.
      Sure I need an
  • by vorlich (972710) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @05:58PM (#18774279) Homepage Journal
    The BBC page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/herefor d/worcs/6565079.stm [bbc.co.uk] is quite clear that residents called the police because this man had screened off the windows of his car with cardboard but the light from his laptop was still visible in the early hours of the morning.

    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.
  • by Plutonite (999141) on Tuesday April 17, 2007 @06:30PM (#18774797)
    Come on, people. There are plans to have free w-lan access across entire states for chrissake..how the hell is some crackhead with a laptop supposed to know the difference between a free "Linksys" and a neighbour's "Linksys" if the two are open for usage? If you want to protect your network then at least show an effort that would require technical skill to overcome. At least then you have a case that a sane court can judge upon, because your effort is then analogous to warning against trespassing.

    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.

"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...