Slashdot Log In
Wardriver Charged with Theft of Communications
Posted by
michael
on Sat Nov 22, 2003 04:35 PM
from the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction dept.
from the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction dept.
BiggsTheCat writes "A number of news sources are reporting that a Toronto man is the first to be charged with "theft of communications" (Canadian Criminal Code S. 342.1) for downloading child pornography using someone else's residential wireless network. The "War Driver" was caught naked from the waist down driving the wrong way down a one-way street, with a laptop in hand. The Edmonton Sun warns that 'War Driving ... is becoming more and more common among perverts trying to avoid online detection'. Yeah."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Wardriver Charged with Theft of Communications
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 678 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It was only a matter of time.... (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday November 26, @06:13PM)
Wow! I wonder if they told the owner (s?) of the Internet connection he was using? Can you imagine that phone call?
I guess it doesn't say much for the intelligence of the idiot involved. Why drive around? Why not find a good signal and park? I've sat in my car using my laptop before -- never got questioned. Of course I wasn't driving (and I was fully clothed). It's hard to consider this a victory against war drivers or child abusers when the champ was only caught because he was being an idiot....
I also doubt this will bring any major attention to the underlying problem (unsecured home APs). It'll probably take something like Grandma Jones being charged with transmission of child pornography to bring this problem to the general publics attention. I feel bad for the innocent person who is going to wind up being charged (sooner or later -- if it hasn't happened already) by cops that don't know what is going on -- to be defended by a lawyer who probably doesn't know what's going on -- to be tried by a jury who doesn't know what's going on. Scary situation to be in.
Or is the more scary thought being nabbed by RIAA (whose burden of proof is a lot less then the cops) for some punk teenager next door using your connection to download/share mp3s? Wonder how long (or if it already has) until this happens?
Either way, your into thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars worth of legal fees. The former case is definitely the worst (who wants to be labeled as "that guy" with all the child porn), but either scenario seems likely to destroy/severely set-back your life.
A major point here seems to be.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.clickonstore.net/)
This would suggest that all "Wardrivers" are at risk of being prosecuted for "Theft of Communications" regardless of what data they recieve over someone elses network.
Re:A major point here seems to be.... (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday November 26, @06:13PM)
This would suggest that all "Wardrivers" are at risk of being prosecuted for "Theft of Communications" regardless of what data they recieve over someone elses network.
And that's a bad thing? Sorry, but if you break into my wireless network (even if you are just "mapping" how many open networks there are), you've just committed a crime. This is hardly new legislation. For reference I've included the Canadian code that the story linked to.
I would say all the more so since even a "secure" 802.11b network (with the cheap grade APs that most home users have access to) can be broken into. People who do this and get caught (and I'm sure that's the minority. This idiot was only caught because he was driving down the street the way wrong with no pants on) should be prosecuted. It's that simple.
Interestingly enough, if you read the law below, it seems they can lock this guy away for up to 10 years. With Canadian law (of which I'm hardly an expert) does that mean they can add ten years to the sentence he'll get for the child porn, or does he have to serve the sentence at the same time? Be nice if they could add ten years to his prison term...
FYI:
S.342.1 Unauthorized Use of Computer
342.1 (1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,
(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service,
(b) by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system,
(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system, or
(d) uses, possesses, traffics in or permits another person to have access to a computer password that would enable a person to commit an offence under paragraph (a), (b) or (c)
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Definitions
(2) In this section,
"computer password"
"computer password" means any data by which a computer service or computer system is capable of being obtained or used;
"computer program"
"computer program" means data representing instructions or statements that, when executed in a computer system, causes the computer system to perform a function;
"computer service"
"computer service" includes data processing and the storage or retrieval of data;
"computer system"
"computer system" means a device that, or a group of interconnected or related devices one or more of which,
(a) contains computer programs or other data, and
(b) pursuant to computer programs,
(i) performs logic and control, and
(ii) may perform any other function;
"data"
"data" means representations of information or of concepts that are being prepared or have been prepared in a form suitable for use in a computer system;
"electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device"
"electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device" means any device or apparatus that is used or is capable of being used to intercept any function of a computer system, but does not include a hearing aid used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to not better than normal hearing;
"function"
"function" includes logic, control, arithmetic, deletion, storage and retrieval and communication or telecommunication to, from or within a computer system;
"intercept"
"intercept" includes listen to or record a function of a computer system, or acquire the substance, meaning or purport thereof.
"traffic"
"traffic" means, in respect of a computer password, to sell, export from or import into Canada, distribute or deal with in any other way.
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 45; 1997, c. 18, s. 18.
Re:A major point here seems to be.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday November 26 2002, @05:46PM)
And that's a bad thing?
Absolutely. I read that law, and it's something that I've broken before myself. I was at work. Our internet connection went down. I happened to pick up an 802.11 signal from the place next door, so I used it.
I didn't harm anyone. I certainly don't deserve to go to jail for 10 years for doing it.
Re:A major point here seems to be.... (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday November 26, @06:13PM)
I didn't harm anyone. I certainly don't deserve to go to jail for 10 years for doing it.
If it was unintentional then you didn't break any laws. Most laws (at least in the US) require some sort of intent for you to violate them. If your Windows XP box helpfully picks up a WLAN and you start surfing on it (not knowing it isn't yours) then you've hardly committed a crime.
I would have to say though, that based on what you said... "My Internet connection went down so I used this one" that you did break the law. Saying "I didn't harm anyone" is a piss poor excuse. How do you know that the connection in question isn't billed on a per-use basis? Unlikely I'll admit, but possible. In any case you had no right to use it without permission and if I was the admin of said network I would have reported the security violation to the proper authorities -- of course if I was the admin you wouldn't have gotten in it in the first place.
If your phone line stops working is it ok to start using your neighbors just because your cordless phones happen to be the same model and your receiver will work with his base station? If you even tried doing that you'd be in some serious hot water. I don't see why it should be any different for Internet connections.
Re:A major point here seems to be.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was billed on per-use and per byte transmitted, then it should not have been public. That's what all these insecure (read: open) networks are - they are public. i.e., if you put your 50" plasma TV in your driveway facing outside and turn it on, when neighbors start watching it from across the street, they are not stealing anything - since you've made your signal available to public in such manner.
There are a lot of open wireless networks like that that are meant to be used by public; some have posted signs saying so, some don't. there is no way for anyone to tell what the intention of the owner of the network is - share it publicly, or keep it private - unless that network owner requires authentication or otherwise locks his network down. Only then you will have an argument that the network was "broken into" and connection "stolen".
Re:A major point here seems to be.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.manu.com.au/)
Should. Could. It doesn't matter. It's still illegal to use somebody elses data link without their permission.
If you leave your front door unlocked - by accident or otherwise - it doesn't grant permission to any passerby to steal your stuff. Yes, you were stupid for leaving your door unlocked. Yes, your insurance might be voided. NO, it doesn't mean you forfeit your property rights.
Same for the wireless connection. They might be pretty dumb for not securing it. Their ISP probably won't refund their money. But the person who stole the bandwidth is NOT vindicated.
TCP/IP is a TWO WAY PROCESS. Not a one-way transmission. The 50" TV emits light; it doesn't receive it. The person using your wireless LAN without permission is sending and receiving data. They are also initiating packet transfers that might involve a cost to you. That's very different from passively watching a television. Your analogy falls very short.
Now if your neighbour used their infra-red remote to control the 50" TV, and we lived in a universe where certain channels were charged by the minute, and your neighbour decided to change channels to the boxing match, thus racking up a $250 charge to your television bill... then we'd have a workable analogy. And I think you'd find the small-claims court would rule against the greedy neighbour.
Mr Ballmer and his wireless adventures. (Score:5, Interesting)
"For all his success at bringing Microsoft's warring constituencies together, there are still things beyond Bill and Steve's control. "I was in a hotel in Sun Valley last week that was not wired," Ballmer recalls. "So I turned on my PC, and XP tells me there is a wireless network available. So I connect to something called Mountaineer.
"Well, I don't know what that is. But I VPN into Microsoft. It worked! I don't know whose broadband I used," he chuckles. "I didn't see it in Bill's room. I called him up and said, 'Hey, come over to my room.' So soon everyone is there and connecting to the Internet through my room."
So was that a crime?
Re:A major point here seems to be.... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.chaotic-design.com/)
Weird (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.z-town.org/)
Well Gee (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.krisp.com/)
Wait a second.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 07 2007, @09:12PM)
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:5, Informative)
Laptop in hand? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.mulletsgalore.com/)
That's not a laptop, officer.
Four at once? (Score:3, Funny)
Don't Hack and Drive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to clarify (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.sr20forum.com/)
Contribute to the greater good, bust those wardrivers.
Should the owner of the Wireless AP be blamed? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.tape.ca/)
This case could be used as further proof that if an illegal attack originated from your internet connection it doesn't provide reliable proof that you actually did it (Or that any authorized users at that connection for that matter).
The implication is scary... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://crumplertech.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 22 2007, @03:50PM)
Could we have our hardware manufacturers include non default SSID's, on a cdkey type set up process, so the default isn't "default" or "linksys" but "As3deyt#$seKJ34". Changing it upon sucessful install should still be allowed, but at least we've reduced those that just leave 'em as they got 'em outta the box.
Wireless security? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.realistic-dragon.co.uk/)
I have already been castigated by the university for running a WiFi node that doesn't conform to their requirements (WEP is disabled) - even though it's ad hoc, there is no DHCP, each host on the wireless net only accepts ssh connections from hosts with known IPs and mac addresses and oubound routing (from connections terminated with ssh against into an authed socks proxy) is stictly controlled. Turning on WEP too would drop speeds to a useless level for little extra benefit.
Maybe new standards will change this, but for now the media should really stop focusing on WEP as the be all and end all of security to the detriment of people competent enough to handle it themselves in a better fashion.
That's not new (Score:3, Informative)
Well, this guy did avoid online detection : he was caught with road detection, driving the wrong way half-naked. It's not like the owner of the unprotected wifi AP called the cops, he was just acting odd on the road.
Kazaa - 1,286 files? (Score:4, Insightful)
In a study using 12 words associated with child pornography, the U.S. General Accounting Office found that 42% of 1,286 files on the peer-to-peer site contained child porn.
Those figures didn't surprise Gillespie.
What are these idiots on? There are a lot more than 1286 files available via Kazaa, morpheus, etc.. It's not a "site" and there is no way that 42% of it is child porn.. That is absolutely nuts. Most of it is Movies and MP3's There is a fair bit of regular porn as well. If 42% were child porn, that would usurp every single other category.. That stat is just stupid. The sad part is that there are loads of people out there who will believe that nonsense without even bothering to run the numbers..
Just for reference - real numbers (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
The breakdown by common file type is roughly:
The basis for this is about one petabyte's worth of indexed files, so it's not some out-of-thin-air numbers.
Just from this, saying that 42% is porn, much less CHILD porn, is way out. We already knew this, but I thought it interesting to back up the statement with some numbers.
To give more real numbers on child porn, when I did check for it at one time, I found 12 suspicious-looking file names from a database of several million files. That's a LITTLE bit lower than 42%.
Wireless security (Score:3, Informative)
This story has many sexual references (Score:3, Funny)
(http://578.291.762.662/)
"laid"
"busting"
"police found the driver--with no pants on--" (so they find that guy but couldn't find their pants first?)"
"serious ramifications"
Check out this author's hidden meanings! I think we know who's going to be applying for that spot of porn viewer at that PD! "I'm just doing research for my next article!"
Don't journalists ever proofread this stuff? (Score:3, Insightful)
The scheme, known as "war driving," allows a computer with wireless Internet capability to tap into a wireless home network and access the World Wide Web, usually without fear of discovery.
Well there's a nice bit of yellow-press tradition. Linking war driving strongly to the child porn aspect and never mentioning that most people who do this aren't doing anything illegal with the information or access they're using. In fairness to the story, most of it was about how stupid in general this guy was being and the disgusting stuff found at his residence later, but three paragraphs at the end of the story seems to shift a lot of attention to a very minor aspect of the crime. He could have been collecting that junk from his home cable modem connection just as easily.
Oh my... (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Wednesday December 10 2003, @02:26AM)
I should think that perhaps the "Theft of Communications" charge is the least of this individual's problems. That's really one for the record books there, almost to the point of being a publicity stunt of some sort. Naked from the waist down, driving the wrong way on a one-way street, using a laptop, and downloading child pornography. What do you say to something like that? I mean that for each person.
[Suspect] "There a... problem officer?"
[Officer] "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
-blank stare-
[Officer] "You were driving the wrong way down this one-way street."
[Suspect] "Oh my, well I'm sorry about that, officer..."
[Officer] "Well, I'm afraid I'm going to have to write you a... hey, where are your pants?!"
[Suspect] "Oh.. well.. I'm getting them clea..." -gets cut off by cop-
[Officer] "What is that? Are you using a laptop computer while driving sir??"
[Suspect] "Well, I uhh..." -gets cut off again-
[Officer] "What the HELL is that??!! Is that child pornography??!! Oh God..
[Suspect] "No, no! It's not what you think!"
[Officer] "Just where the hell are you getting that from?! Oh, so you're connected to someone's wireless internet from here???"
-Cop thinks to himself: "how the hell am I going to write this one up?"
Your rights online? (Score:4, Funny)
(about:blank | Last Journal: Wednesday December 11 2002, @05:58PM)
Am I to believe that there's a large enough segment of Slashdot users who would drive around downloading child porn to make this a "your rights online" issue?
Its was *open* for use (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
Since public wireless does exist, and isn't that uncommon, you can safely assume that if you run across an UNSECURED signal its for public use... Be it from a persons house or the nearby cyber cafe.. you cant be 100% sure where that signal is coming from anyway....
Now if its encrypted, or otherwise secured , THEN you might have a case...
However, considering 90% of home broadband is flat rate, ( and a lot of dedicated business service is too ) since when is the bandwidth being 'stolen'? that's almost as bad as saying music piracy is theft.. ( if the home owner had pay per use, or if you blow their monthly cap and incur charges.. sure, then its theft of service.. )
is the name for this new phenomenon.... (Score:4, Funny)
Was he at least (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.everythingfreight.com/)
communications? What communications? (Score:5, Informative)
As I see it, there was no theft of "communications". He didn't break into any computers, nor block/alter/view data coming in and out of them. There is no indication that he did anything to bypass security measures of either the network or the machines on it. There is no indication that he did nor intended any harm to the network or its users.
He used net connectivity, apparently with all hardware functioning as designed and configured. It is the operator of the network that is responsible for configuration including access permissions. Many run hot spots intentionally, some through ignorance. In either case, the host is functioning as an ISP. What's relevant here is regulation of the wireless access to the ISP.
In the U.S., 802.11b hardware is allowed unlicensed use of spectrum, as regulated by part 15 of the F.C.C. rules. Part 15 products are required to include a notice: "Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interferrence, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undersired operation." Harmful interference refers to that affecting licensed communications only. Are there licensed users of this spectrum? Yes.
All ham radio licensees (except Novices) are authorized by the FCC Rules, Part 97.301(a) to use all operating modes in the 2390-2450 MHz band. 802.11b equipment is not allowed to interferre. A ham could reasonably ask anyone using 802.11b gear to stop operating if they cannot otherwise correct an interferrence problem (typically by changing channels, lowering power, reducing antenna height, changing location, using a directional antenna etc). The 802.11b gear operator has no regulatory protection against interference from the ham operator, other 802.11b users, or even microwave ovens which operate in-band at 2450 MHz.
In summary, 802.11b gear is unprotected from interference, and the operator of such gear is on their own to try to make it work as desired, with no guarantee of success.
802.11b hardware is being used as designed when people, known to the host or not, access open networks. It isn't communications theft nor is it tresspassing.
Bullshit detector goes off (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://future.wikicities.com/)
1) What the hell is "Sun media", is it even remotedely similar to "Sun" in the UK?
2) "watching a movie on his laptop of a 10-year-old girl performing fellatio on an adult" - how does this scribbler know about that? Does the police tells this kind of info at press conferences? How do they know the age? I smell bullshit.
3) "Stealing Internet, or War Driving as it is sometimes called, is becoming more and more common among perverts trying to avoid online detection." and "A man... has become the first man in Toronto charged for allegedly stealing an Internet connection." - well, how do they know about all that perverts if they have only busted one?
4) This quill-driver thinks that saying "allegedly" a lot allows him to write any kind of crap... Sadly, it seems to be true.
5) The movie can easily be closed by pressing Alt+F4, takes only about a second. Unless the policeman run to the car and busted the door open, I don't think the cop had a chance to see it playing. I mean, even my parents don't usually manage to catch me watching movies of 10-year-old girls performing fellatio on adults - and they only have to open the door.
6) As a side note, I like the department name.
7) "They recovered 10 computers and thousands of CDs and floppy disks" - yeah, sure. We have a guy who can break into wireless networks and he still stores images on floppies. Puuuhhlease! Not to mention that even one thousand of CDs is one terabyte of data, which is fucking huge. People who can collect that much child porn, don't usually drive naked, while watching child porn and masturbating. Ergo, the scribbler is probably lying again.
8) "It involves some of the worst child pornography that we've ever seen" and "it's becoming typical of what we're seeing" - that's in the same paragraph. Can't you at least decide whether it is the worst or something you see every day?!
9) "child pornography... including young children and babies". Well, I thought the point of child porn was that it features young children.
Some of these concernes may be unwarranted, but overall the story reads just like a million or so of stories about scary paedophiles (although I applaud the officer for using the words "like-minded people" instead of "evil paedophile scum").
Some more info about Internet child porn: original version [slashdot.org] and a censored version [wikipedia.org] at Wikipedia.