Wireless Hijacker Dealt First UK Punishment 663
paella_dodger writes "The BBC is reporting on a recent UK court case whereby a man was fined £500, sentenced to 12 months' conditional discharge and had his laptop confiscated for browsing the 'net on his neighbour's wireless Internet conenction. Perhaps I should secure my neighbour's wireless connection for him before Windows automagically connects to it and gets me arrested!"
In Perspective... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In Perspective... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:In Perspective... (Score:5, Insightful)
He is obviously not very smart, either, considering he was seen for the past three months in the same locations. That usualy means he was using the same network for the same deeds each time.
Honestly, I do not blame the UK government for going down on this guy; he deserves it. Especially since he was stupid enough to get caught the way he did. Sure, war driving is one thing, but blatently sitting infront of someone's home, leeching their network is a whole different case.
Sadly, this is just like what happened to the term "hacker" back in the day - it was idiots, like this guy, that ruined it for the real "hackers" out there; the script kiddies. Now, guys like this, and the other guy that got caught doing it, will give the term "war driving" a bad name. Hell, you mention "war driving" somewhere and people are going to start believing you're a "hacker" who uses "linux" to steal credit cards from them.
All in all, people should learn to secure their wireless networks. If they are unable to, or know nothing about the processes, they should be wired like the other drones. Or they should simply hire someone to secure it for them -- It's honestly not that difficult these days, especially with a linksys router. You simply type in a few things and click a coulpe check boxes and you're done. But this does prove that the common person, joe sixpack if you will, does not care enough about computer security to do anything until someone takes advantage of them. Then they cry foul.
Re:In Perspective... (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm, UK justice is very different from US justice...
Re:In Perspective... (Score:3, Funny)
This method was introduced by Margaret Thatcher to take down crime.
It worked.
Re:In Perspective... (Score:3, Interesting)
The legal systems in the UK and US are based on precedents. Once a Judge has made a ruling with holdings, those holdings are used (held) in future cases.
One problem with this one, is that there is no longer any way of "wirelessly" advertizing permission to use an access point. (Not in a curerntly supported standard way, anyway).
But the bigger problem is that is sets a precedent of "default is closed". ie that access to networks must be specifically permitted
Re:In Perspective... (Score:2)
Re:In Perspective... (Score:2)
If he were to say 'yes I let him connect' then his ISP could probably sue him for breach of contract. So even if the neighbor didnt mind, he probably can't say so in court...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In Perspective... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bullshit, there is no hijacking involved! Frikin walk up to the curb, open laptop, and use it. Do you need permission to turn on the TV and watch open air TV shows? How about 'permission to view' the flowers in front of my house? If people are too ignorent to use a piece of hardware, they shouldnt purchase it. Read the frikin big printed poster that shows you how to secure your access point. Otherwise, you deserve what you get.
Re:In Perspective... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In Perspective... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't hijacking also have to involve locking out the owner and changing the router's password?
Rik
Re:In Perspective... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I see a store with a sign labeled 'open' on the front of it, would you consider me a burglar if I walked into it without asking the shopkeeper first? If there's a bus sitting on the curb and the door is open, am I hijacking the bus if I just walk into it? If there's a house with a sign labeled "garage sale" out front am I tresspassing if I start wandering around the front yard looking at things sitting out?
The AP this guy connected to had a big giant sign *actively* saying "OPEN" on it. 802.11 provides many ways to make that sign say CLOSED instead. This AP used none of them. The guy's laptop sent a message to the AP saying "hi, is it ok if I connect" and the AP said back "sure, here's an association for you and an IP address you can use.".
Re:In Perspective... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In Perspective... (Score:3, Insightful)
"This is more like getting into an unlocked car and driving it around just because the owner left the keys in the ignition. Hardly fair or legal."
It's more like someone listening to their radio really loudly and you listening to it from next to their house. Hardly unfair, and perfectly legal. Don't give IP's or routes to unauthorized clients.
Then again, I think it should be perfectly legal to do whatever you want with any signal thats being forced onto your land. This goes for any wireless networking, EM r
Re:In Perspective... (Score:4, Insightful)
What?!? All it does is remove the SSID information - you can still see that there's a network on a particular channel if you do a scan! You just can't connect to it
If you can't rely on SSID broadcasts, then how can anyone know when a network is public and when it's private? Perhaps, as you say, there needs to be a more unambiguous code for this
Geeks need to get out of the habit of assuming that a default configuration amounts to "permission to use". It doesn't. Only permission to use is permission to use.
Except that SSID broadcast without encryption has been assumed to be permission to use, by hardware manufacturers and even by certain OS software companies! Perhaps that's unfortunate, and perhaps it shouldn't be like that. I take your point, though, that there's no formal definition that a broadcast SSID equates to an open network, and that it's wrong to assume that that's so.
Re:In Perspective... (Score:5, Interesting)
That wireless routers ship unsecured in their default configuration is a problem with the vendors (and it wasn't always like this). Vendors do this to make it easier for people to setup their first wireless network... in fact it's basically automatic. Any Windows machine with a wireless card will automatically connect to any unsecured wireless access point. Period. Allow me to repeat this. Any Windows machine with a wireless card will automatically connect to any unsecured wireless access point. But people really do need to log in and change the default configuration, both for security purposes (it's trivially easy to find default passwords online), and functionality reasons. But the biggest reason is that the way to say something is available for use in the online world is to allow people to use it without authentication.
The standard way of saying something is open and available on the 'net is to not require a password. If you put your pictures up on your http site even if you don't publish the link anywhere you're giving your consent for people to connect and look at your pictures. Not just your consent... your hardware, which is your stand-in online, is actively doing it. The moment you put a password on your http site, you're showing that the site is private, and attempts to enter can be considered hacking. If you have an FTP site with no password, you're giving people permission to use it. Open chat servers, bulletin boards, p2p nodes... The universally accepted convention about networking protocols is "open unless locked." I don't need to call you and get your explicit permission to connect to your website if it isn't locked... by not having a password on something you are showing that it is available for all to use. This post bounced through 20 or so routers at various locations throughout the world, but I didn't need to get explicit permission to use any of them. I didn't have to: I had implicit permission built into the hardware's choice of protocol.
Likewise, if you have networking hardware that has no password or protection whatsoever, you're giving people permission to route through it. In fact, hardware you own is more than facilitating it... it's broadcasting its SSID, it's responding to my card's MAC address, it's responding to my session handshake, and it's not asking for authentication. That's no less than four steps along the line when it could have simply and trivially stopped anyone whom the owner didn't want on the network. The hardware actively engaged in the process. This isn't like checking everyone's door to see which is unlocked, this is like walking past a building downtown and having the glass door automatically open for you.
I should also say that lots of people do intentionally share their wireless networks, out of a sense of social support. There are several 802.11b networks permeating my apartment right now, several of which have altered SSID's and configurations but which are unlocked all the same, showing that the owners knew enough to change the configuration of their routers but still chose to leave them unlocked. This turned out to be good for me, as I had been unintentionally connecting to a neighbor's wireless network for about 1/2 of a year... My wireless card had a faulty WEP driver, and for half a year I didn't notice that it would fail to connect to my network and automatically went out and found another
Re:IT WILL NOT! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In Perspective... (Score:3, Interesting)
I buy a laptop from Los Alamos Computers (LAClinux.com), and choose not to get an 802.11 card in it, thinking "Ah, what the hell, Linux won't ever support the Intel cards well...". That was over 18 months ago.
Sure enough, in a few months along come the ipw2100/ipw2200 drivers, and I go online and purchase the Intel 2100 internal card for my laptop. I install the new card, and fire up the computer. Of course my network is encrypted with your standard flavor of WEP,
Re:In Perspective... (Score:2)
So if I go down your street walking up to everyone's front door, including yours, trying to turn each doorknob to see if it's locked, you'll be fine with that? I won't go in if it's locked, but if it's unlocked, maybe I'll step in and help myself to a drink of water. Still ok with that? If the door's not locked you must be inviting me in, right?
The open wireless router letting unintended people in is more analogous to me being blind and accidentally trying to go into so
Re:In Perspective... (Score:3, Insightful)
The.
Same.
Thing.
Maybe, just MAYBE, if folks in your town payed a flat fee for water, and you walked down the street checking everyone's outdoor water nozzles, and took a drink where they were turned on for use, MAYBE that analogy might relate to the story. But the unlocked door analogy, especially in this situation, is NOT THE FUCKING SAME THING.
excellent (Score:2, Funny)
fantastic...
honeypot... (Score:3, Interesting)
that might cause them to reconsider how they enforce the law.
Re:honeypot... (Score:2)
Because as we all know, it's impossible to change MAC addresses in wireless cards, right? And also, because each and every citizen who purchases a wireless card is required to register his name and address in association with said wireless card...
Justice (Score:5, Informative)
Fortunately, most courts still discriminate between intentionally and accidentally doing something. If you're connecting to someone else's wireless network from your car (which, I assume, means that you don't have any wireless network facilities of your own around), it's pretty hard to maintain that you did it by accident.
On the other hand, if my mom is found to use the neighbor's network to access the Internet, it will be pretty hard to maintain that she was doing so on purpose. All she knows is that computers can be used as glorified typewriters. GUIs are not for her, much less wireless network configurations.
Re:Justice (Score:2)
Such faith grasshopper. You must be young!
Re:Justice (Score:2)
Wow, she does everything at the command line? What's she using as her "typewriter" program, emacs? Cool mom. I have this image of a couple of soccer moms in a "vi vs emacs" throwdown!
Intentional doesn't mean criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for one thing, you can't know if he neighbours INTENT was to share his open wireless connection for sharing. Thats the whole point of Open WiFi afterall, sharing. By doing this they're making Open WiFi illegal, because not only does your computer have to get permission to connect to the network (via the login) but now extra permission is needed too.
Let me put it another way. Suppose you have free open municiple wifi and Fred Bloggs open wifi, you computer has no way of telling which is the free Municiple open wifi and which is not so it connects to Fred Blogs's net, attempts to login and is given permission -> crime comitted. You had the intent to connect to an open network, but not the method to determine which network is permitted.
Or rather you did have the way, the login, but the court ignored that.
His computer asked and was told it was OK (Score:2)
Except that his computer asked, it said "here - I'm an anonymous connector, is it ok to connect to your network" and the other guys WIFI said "sure".
Think about the Internet, do you get permission to connect to someone website and download some files? Hell no, its a public network, and if you want to stop people visiting the website, you can password protect it.
Similar to mobile phones (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet his computer asked for concent and was told it was OK.
Your cell phone for example is a very similar device. You drive around, it gets a good connection to a nearby tower, and you make your call.
You don't get extra permission to use that tower, you assume because your phone says its ok that its ok.
You visit a website, its password protected so you don't use it. You visit
Re:Intentional doesn't mean criminal (Score:4, Informative)
Except there's no convention for matching an SSID to a usage condition. So 'FreeOnMondayNights' might mean the guy wants a date on mondays or his computer is free on mondays or his wifi is free.....
You can't know from the SSID what the conditions of usage for that network are.
Take another example, you try to connect to "MiksNetwork" and it connects, but you are not sure if Mik really wanted it that way. How the fuck are you supposed to know who Mik is, how you get permission from him, or who has authority to give you permission. His network says it OK, yet you're supposed to assume it still isn't?
Re:Intentional doesn't mean criminal (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should it waste the judge's time at all? We just need some intelligent case law stating that any unsecured networks are equivalent to open networks. OS manufacturers have made it the de facto standard that unsecured networks are considered available networks.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse (Score:2)
Oh dear, not a junior vicar (Score:2)
There was a young fellow named Rex
With diminutive organ of sex
When charged with exposure he replied with composure
"De minimis non curat lex."
Typical... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh. You know you're on Slashdot when anything bad, no matter how remote, gets blamed on Windows and/or Microsoft.
Re:Typical... (Score:2)
We should hope for that upfront honesty out of
Accident? (Score:5, Informative)
Basically the bloke was engaged in Wardriving, and deliberately hooked into the wireless network.
It'll certainly be murky waters when windows automatically selects the average joe's router instead of their own, but with many routers at least asking people to put better security on wireless points, this should start becoming less frequent.
From all accounts, he was caught tapping away on his laptop, moved away when police watched, then came right back to the same point again. At which point he was investigated as he looked a little 'suspicious'.
Wardrivers remember! Just because you're invisible in the network, it doesn't make you invisible to the local copper walking on the street, or the local neighbourhood watch!
Re:Accident? (Score:2)
Re:Accident? (Score:4, Informative)
Patient records. If you're a nice guy, you won't go looking around. Not everyone is that nice. Ever thought what happens when you delete someone's allergy records when they head to surgery?
We have wireless points here, and regularly go sniffing for open access points run by departments. When we find them, we chastise the owners, and then secure the points.
Or, perhaps, you're happy sharing your medical history with the world. If so, that's fine. Not everybody is.
Incidentally, I'm very suspicious of your claim to read
Re:Accident? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a hospital network isn't secured, IMO it is GROSS negligence on the part of the IT staff of the hospital.
Re:Accident? (Score:2)
Re:Accident? (Score:2)
Kjella
Re:Accident? (Score:2)
I believe you are asking how to hide yourself better on a network and not on THE 'net.
The answer would be no without mimicking an existing MAC address which could potentially cause DOS for either you or the other MAC.
There are tools out there that can detect and list new network cards connecting to a wireless network as well as force disassociation of said network cards as well as rogue access points
Mind you a hospital using Wireless without locking it down
Re:Accident? (Score:3, Interesting)
In much the same way you're not expected to be a plumber to put in your own washing machine, or be a car mechanic able to build your own car before you get in one.
The point I was making is that it's rude, inconsiderate and very selfish to hijack the bandwidth. Just because someone else hasn't spent years learning all about computers, and just wants to plug their laptop into their network without understanding all the underlying principles of wireless transmission and security doesn't mean y
Implication that he accessed a computer (Score:2)
Perhaps because it's unlikely that he did access the computer? Why would he need to, if he's just leeching t
Re:Implication that he accessed a computer (Score:2)
Gaining unauthorised access to a computer is an offence covered by the Computer Misuse Act.
It is. But what about this is unauthorised? He didn't break any encryption or crack any passwords, did he?
If the issue is that he wasn't explicitly granted access, then surely visiting websites makes you just as guilty - you initiate the connection, not the server, and no special privileges are granted beforehand.
Yeah, maybe there's implied permission by running an unsecured web server on a standard port.
Idiot (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. It's more like going up a private road which isn't marked as a private road, and which you have contacted Google to tell them to put it on their maps. Don't want people to go driving up your private road? Put some signs up or a gate.
It's very simple - put WEP or WPA on. To be honest, if someone goes through your WEP, then that counts as a deliberate break-in in my book. If you don't have it no, don't complain when people go using it.
So could this guy have gone to jail for a year? (Score:2)
I can't imagine how he feels; if he screws up again, he's going to get traded aroud on the block for cigarettes. That's just not funny.
Re:So could this guy have gone to jail for a year? (Score:2)
Re:So could this guy have gone to jail for a year? (Score:2)
How many people secure their networks anyway? (Score:3, Informative)
While I'm at home, I can see just one wireless network.. mine. But step outside and I can see eight other ones, only one of which is secured. About half are set to the default network name (so I guess default IP addresses and passwords), all of them except mine use the same channel. And some of them stupidly have the owner's names for the network (stupid.. because a burglar could use that to find out who had kit worth nicking).
So are these people being stupid or what? Errr well.. no, they're just being normal people who expect the kit to work out of the box. But really, who many non-geeks understand WEP, SSIDs, MAC addresses and all the other jargon?
The probably is made worse by "leakage". If you are inside then you'll rarely pick up someone else's wireless connection.. but these things leak out all over the place when you go outside. The perception of the typical user then is that if they can't see someone else's network from inside, then nobody else can see theirs. Alas, this isn't the case.
I think the bottom line is that WiFi is incredibly dangerous if you don't know what you are doing. Most products do work straight out of the box, but crucially they are not secure out of the box. Even Microsoft eventually learned that lesson with its operating systems - early versions of XP didn't even have the firewall enabled and were wide open to attack.
In this particular case the issue of intent is important. Given the proliferation of insecure networks, it must be trivially easy to accidentally connect to some else's wireless point. How you can prove intent is more difficult though.
Re:How many people secure their networks anyway? (Score:2)
"hijacked" connections?! (Score:2)
Deliberately open (Score:4, Interesting)
Fixed computers actually on my network are individually firewalled off.
If I ever find evidence of massive bandwidth leeching, I may change my policy, but even then I would prefer to simply cap non-me connections.
Morally, I don't feel it is wrong to borrow enough bandwidth off an open wifi node to read a few web pages or collect email.
Massive bandwith leeching, copyright theft or invading someone else's samba shared files via an open network (that they probably intended to be network private) are off limits, of course.
These days, I would hope that people are aware that these things are open by default - there have been enough articles in the major newspapers about it, and certainly I would prefer that hardware manufacturers shipped them in a default secure configuration, but I don't think this should prevent people leaving them open if they want to.
If i leave a plate of biscuits (cookies) just inside the open gate to my garden with a sign saying "take one please", is it a crime for someone to take one?
Service theft (Score:2, Insightful)
Your side
there side
and the truth
Theft of bandwidth on a home internet conenction beacuse of an un-securt WLAN would be viewed thus.
Every secong xMbit of unused bandwisth is wasted, I was simply using something that the owner was throwing away. Besides it should of been secured, its' like leaving your shopping on the front garden wall.
It was my property and as it is part of my network you invaded my privacy, it is like walking into my house and decantin
Logging onto an unprotected network is hacking? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How do u Hijack an OPEN network??? (Score:2)
That might summarise the way you would like the world to be, but it's not the way it actually is.
Besides, I'm sure that you would agree that spammers sending spam through an open relay are commiting a service-theft crime. Having the open relay is really stupid on the part of the owner of the mail server, but it doesn't make the abuse any less wrong.
Re:How do u Hijack an OPEN network??? (Score:2)
Besides, I'm sure that you would agree that spammers sending spam through an open relay are commiting a service-theft crime. Having the open relay is really stupid on the part of the owner of the mail server, but it doesn't make the abuse any less wrong."
Actually, I think a better analogy would be the drive in theatre. If you are parked outside the theatre, on public property, would it be illegal for you
Re:How do u Hijack an OPEN network??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Open networks require a handshake between the router and PC. This is analogous to authorising use.
One says 'Hi, can I use your network'
The other says 'Yes'
The owner of the network authorised this by turning the thing on.
I don't agree with the top post though - I leave my network open, I don't mind people using it. If they abuse it, they get kicked. I use other people's networks to s
Re:How do u Hijack an OPEN network??? (Score:2)
Re:How do u Hijack an OPEN network??? (Score:2)
Say there is a computer at his entrance. It says "Welcome" when you walk up. You type into it: "Can I come in and take your hi-fi?" And it responds with "Yeah, sure" and it opens the door for you. That's pretty much what happened I'd say.
Re:How do u Hijack an OPEN network??? (Score:2)
It's more akin to having a doorman who, when people come up and ask for access says "Go ahead, let me open the door for you". If you haven't told him to stop people, that's your lookout.
Stuart
Re:How do u Hijack an OPEN network??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad analogy - that would involve tresspass; there is a physical boundary of someone else's property that implies private access.
A better analogy would be if those cookies were floating through the air, coming in MY window and out my door, and I happened to eat a few as they went by.
Although it may not reflect the law, I personally believe that unsecured wifi should be public domain. WEP (even 1-bit for god's sake, to show that the intention for it to be private) should be enabled by default on routers, and it should be blatantly clear that you're providing public access (with consent) if you turn it off.
MadCow.
Re:Unsecure network ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unsecure network ? (Score:2)
Re:Unsecure network ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unsecure network ? (Score:3)
Re:Unsecure network ? (Score:3)
Re:I, for one, (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not. Anything you decide to do becomes their problem. And, well, it's just rude! If it's one of the low cap broadband connections, perhaps you're going to push them over their limit? Or several people using it will do that?
Still alright to cost them money?
All it takes is a nip round to your neighbour's place and say "Look, you've got a wireless point there and broadband.. Mind if I chuck you a bit of cash each month and piggyback on top of the link, 'cos I can't really afford it?". Many would say to just hop on anyway if it's not used, without you paying anything. That's certainly the arrangement I have with my neighbours that can't afford the link (now have 3 people on mine).
Nothing wrong with sharing a link, it's just good manners to ASK before taking things.
Re:I, for one, (Score:2)
Due to where I live, and the company that feeds them broadband, I happen to know they don't have a cap.
Also, it's not the same class of thing as them 'borrowing' my car, since I'm not using it. If they were to use my car, they would not only have to use up my gasoline, but they would put wear and tear on it. Now, all of this is a moot point, since my car is currently broken, but I hope you see my point. They have to spend electricity to use their router anyway. I'm not increasing their overhead (and i
Re:I, for one, (Score:2)
You see someone in difficulty (they obviously don't understand network security), so you take advantage.
You don't speak up and help fix the problem, educate someone and make the world a slightly nicer place (fostering good relations with your neighbour), possibly getting exactly what you get now, with the explicit consent of your neighbour (and maybe the odd bit of cash for fixing it too!).
I've noted elsewhere in my posts how I feel about sharing a connection (fine, as
Re:I, for one, (Score:2)
I do see your point, but let me restate my point in a better way: It's about stupidity.
I struggle to find a good example in the 'Real World,' since situations in the world of technology are often so different from the 'Real World,' but it's something like the idea of an 'attractive nuisance.'
I don't know if you're familiar with the concept, but it goes something like this: If I have a swimming pool, and some neighbourhood child gets in it and drowns, I'm responsible if I didn't take proper steps to stop
Re:I, for one, (Score:2, Insightful)
Theft these days is so easy that it takes real moral strength just to not do it. I understand perfectly why some would choose not to exercise their moral muscles; it's just too hard.
Re:I, for one, (Score:2)
Their wireless router is sent a request to allow a connection from my computer to itself. It accepts the request, and assigns me an IP address.
It can be configured to deny my request very easily. The wireless router accepts my request -- it gives me access. I do not take access from it without its consent. Since they have their wireless router configured, through design or ignorance, to allow this, this implies their consent to it.
Compare it with a door... (Score:4, Interesting)
You know that most people do not intend to let everyone use their WiFi, any more than they want everyone to use their house when the door is unlocked. Most of them are poorly configured (typically, default SSID/password), and you know that 99%+ of all residential ISPs don't allow them to run a public hotspot.
Consider it something like garden furniture, even though it's not under lock and key it is still mine to use. If I don't sit in it, you still don't have any right to the unused "bandwidth". And don't give me the "reading in your light" argument, because using my network consumes my bandwidth. If I have a download running, you are slowing me down.
If you really are a free hotspot it is trivial to indicate that you are in your SSID. Otherwise the only thing you have is a very thin argument that since you can use it, it must be free. It certainly has no truth in the physical world, and hardly in the electronic world either. Just because I misconfigure a server to make an open relay/proxy/service, doesn't imply permission. Not if you have good reason to understand that this isn't intentional. You can play really stupid, but no court will let you get away with it.
Kjella
Re:Compare it with a door... (Score:2)
The entire purpose of a door is to keep things out of the house that you don't want in. The lock is an 'extra' piece added on.
The entire point of a Access Point is to mediate requests for use.
What I do with my neighbour's access point is akin to me knocking on a neighbour's door and asking to come in. If they say yes, they can't later say I was trespassing.
In a similar manner, if I send the Access Point a request to use it, and it allows that request, I am lawfully gaining entry.
Knock knock (Score:5, Funny)
Man 1: "Knock knock",
Man 2: "Come in",
Man 1: Goes in.
Man 2: Police arrest that man.
Man 1: But I knocked and you said I could come in
Man 2: But that was a misconfiguration, if I wanted you to come in I would have put a "FreeToComeIn" sign on my door.
Re:Knock knock (Score:3, Insightful)
Man 1: "Knock knock",
Man 2: Door swings open by itself.
Man 1: Goes in.
Man 1 repeats this many times over a 3 month period.
Man 2: Police arrest that man.
Man 1: But I knocked and the door opened
Man 2: But that was a misconfiguration, if I wanted you to come in I would have said so myself.
A wireless router is not a person, and therefor cannot be compared to the person saying come in.
Re:Can I use it? Yes, here have ID 198675 (Score:3)
My next door neighbour:
Step 1: Goes to Best Buy and asks a sales rep what he needs to buy.
Step 2: Goes home and connects the right wires to the right places (pretty simple).
Step 3: It works, but his network is insecure.
Now my WiFi connects to his WiFi instead because its nearer. Am I now a hacker?
Re:Knock knock (Score:3, Insightful)
Door: *swings open*
Man 1: *goes in*
Man 2: Police arrest that man.
Man 1: But the door opened for me, and thus gave me permission that I could come in
Man 2: I forgot to lock it, if I wanted you to come in I would have put a "FreeToComeIn" sign on my door.
Re:I, for one, (Score:5, Interesting)
Or simpler; a forum which you both happen to visit decides to ban the IP for your bad behaviour or a poll-system allows only one vote per IP.
The real problem is not using the bandwidth, it's the online identity theft through use of their IP.
And how about a VPN? Is it okay to access that too through the WiFi connection?
Re:I, for one, (Score:2)
I have never used a residential internet connection for illegal purposes. I do that from the public library.
Re:I, for one, (Score:2)
The question of illegal activity is more interesting, because the article says that the person who owns the AP is responsible for anything that happens:
IP != Person (Score:3, Insightful)
An IP Address is not an identity
An IP Address is not an identity
An IP Address is not an identity!
If a crime is committed and it is traced back to an IP, that is A START of an investigation and should NEVER be the end of it! Far too often do we instantly assume that just because the crime came from a certain IP address, the person who owns the machine is the person who committed the crime.
All an IP gives you is the "place" part of the puzzle. Worse than this is the fact that it is virtual a
Re:I, for one, (Score:3, Interesting)
Unsecure WLANs can be *real* expensive.
Me too! (Score:2)
He doesn't watch his living room except for ten to twenty minutes in the morning and an hour or so at night - and he usually watches bad TV.
It's being wasted - why not use it?
Re:I, for one, (Score:2)
One could argue, sanely and logically, that since the Access Point is not secured, and therefore, I am allowed to start a transaction with it that the access point approves (I can't force it to give me access to anything, it has to allow me access), that it is impossible for my action to be illegal.
However, the courts, apparently, have let their brains take a holiday.
I wonder if they're in Bath or Brighton this year.
Re:I, for one, (Score:4, Interesting)
No. The fact that your door is unlocked doesn't mean that I can walk into your house. When on earth did "This object let me do it" become a standard of legality?!
Since the cash register gave me money when I hit the button, that 7-11 burglarly couldn't possibly be illegal. Since the car left running at the curb allowed me to drive it, my car theft cannot be illegal.
That standard of permission doesn't even apply to people! ("I wasn't violating the restraining order, her brother let me in!") Since when does it apply to inantimate objects?
Re:I, for one, (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a bit different. For your analogy to be apt this exchange would have to happen with the door:
you (or your wifi card): hi, can I connect to this network?
door: yes.
you: can I have an ip address?
door: yes, 192.168.0.102, dns 192.168.0.1, gateway 192.168.0.1, you can have this for 30 days.
THAT is what is happening technically. If the "wifi" w
Re:I, for one, (Score:2)
And I don't believe it should be. Objects do not have motivations, and it would get silly to treat them as such under the law. The law addresses the people using the systems and what they do with them. A person intentionally connects to an AP not belonging to him without permission from the owner. The law says this is wrong, the
Re:I, for one, (Score:2)
If the owner doesn't want you doing that, it's certainly not permitted by the courts. There's no standard of consent in the law RE your router's firmware. I know there are problems with the analogy, but I believe my point is correct. See my cousin comm [slashdot.org]
Re:I, for one, (Score:2)
Re:I, for one, (Score:2)
Actually, I don't think Piracy is 'Okay.' Every piece of Pirated Software I have I try to buy at the earliest possible convenience. Which means I use very little pirated software. And right now, the only pieces of Pirated Software I have that I have not bought a physical copy of are insanely priced (Several Thousands/Tens of Thousands of Dollars) development tools, for the reason that a College Student working Part-Time cannot afford to drop five to six times his yearly wages including student aid on som
Re:So what is the harm? (Score:2)
Why would they care whether he was doing any harm or not?
Re:The law? (Score:2)
By analogy you should think then that merely using an unprotected wifi without accessing the actual computers would fal
Re:Our bodies, our signal (Score:2)
Re:DHCP server gave him permission! (Score:3)
Indeed, I hope someone picks this one up and goes to a higher court, even after reading various accounts it's not obvious he had to break anything to gain access.
This realy is like the guy took an apple from a bowl with fruit in the street carrying a sign om it that vitamines are healthy.
Re:Did you read this bit.... (Score:3)
While IANAL, I do remember reading somwhere that yes, under English law you would at least be partly responsible. From what I can remember about the article where I read that (yes, it's a bit sketchy, this was several years ago), it was to do with somebody (I believe a political activist and the police were out to get them) was charged with with allowing d
Re:Did you read this bit.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what does this accomplish? (Score:3, Funny)
When I had the only WAP in my building, no problem. When my neighbours above, below, and on either side all decided to use the same channel for their wireless they were making things worse for everybody.
Mostly, I was only worried about me, of course. I logged on to their unsecured routers and put them on channels likely to cause less interference.