Slashdot Log In
UK Man Convicted For Wi-Fi Piggybacking
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Apr 17, 2007 05:04 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This discussion has been archived.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:Open AP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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:5, Funny)
Parent
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
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: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: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
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
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)
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.