Unsecured WiFi - Fair Game??

[B3ng]

strange occurance today, took a call from a regular residential client for whom we have provided laptops and support for in the past.

He reported that he had an error relating to an Ip address conflict that he would like us to look into. the solution was simple, assign sttic IP's to his equipment.

without further ado i set about talking him through this on the first laptop by first getting the required info from an ipconfig run then putting the settings into the TCP/IP properties on the the adaptor. so far so good.

i then said we would need to repeat the steps on the other laptop(s) in the network to prevent further conflicts to which he replied there are no others. Huh?!

After a bit of head scratching and question asking it transpired that he had moved and now lives alone in a property with no broadband. The guy was piggy backing an neighbours wifi connection, and worse i had just assisted him in doing so

at first i was horrified, what was done was done and couldnt exactly play judge and tell him to undo the changes i had just made.

Then after a while i figured, in this day and age, if your are indeed dumb enough to broadcast an unsecured WAP then your kind of asking for it.

Naturally, of course i would'nt have assisted him in this had i have known the details.

what do you guys think, should i be loosing sleep over this??

 

[Xander]

I'd have thrown in a surprised "Oh" and "Well, for the record, since it's someone else's network they could secure it and lock you out at any given moment. So long as you're prepared for that possibility...."

 

[Martyn]

No idea where they stand legally, I would say they are stealing that persons bandwidth It's not so many years ago I walked around the City of London picking up 'free' wireless networks where companies hadn't locked them down.

 

[Feraxks]

In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to access someone else's wireless signal. So its not just a matter of, "you might get cutoff at any moment" but also of, "and you might get fined or face jail time".

Just something else to think about.

 

[Pc Fixed Right]

Deleted for incorrect information.

 

[Martyn]

Of course it works both ways, it could be a hackers wireless network looking for prey

 

[Mushin]

In the US it is legal if someone does not secur their network.

What? No it is not legal if someone does not secure their network!

Knowingly accessing a computer network without permission is not legal even in the absense of security. Granted the network should be secured but there ARE reason where a network might not be secured on purpose and this not not grant the world free reign of the individual or companies network.

 

[Feraxks]

In the US it is legal if someone does not secur their network.

Not true. Admittedly this is a couple years old, but....Michigan Man Fined for Using Coffee Shop's Wi-Fi Network

 

[MrUnknown]

In the US it is a bit of a gray area as far as I understand.

Many people would like to contend that it is illegal, but there has been no court case saying it is.

There was one where law enforcement found child porn on a person's computer using an open WiFi point. The judge ruled no warrant was required as he maintained the open wifi and allowed anyone to access it. I assume even if he didn't know it was open.

 

[MrUnknown]

Not true. Admittedly this is a couple years old, but....Michigan Man Fined for Using Coffee Shop's Wi-Fi Network

"Under a little known state law against computer hackers, Sam Peterson II, of Cedar Springs, Mich., faced a felony charge after cops "

This is specific to that state, not the US in general.

 

[Pc Fixed Right]

I thought I read this somewhere maybe my information is incorrect...time to google the answer...yep I am wrong

 

[Xander]

There's folks soapboxing that it's illegal and I don't see that it's being debated.

Canada's Criminal Code:
Theft of telecommunication service
326. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently, maliciously, or without colour of right, (a) abstracts, consumes or uses electricity or gas or causes it to be wasted or diverted; or (b) uses any telecommunication facility or obtains any telecommunication service.
(2) In this section and section 327, "telecommunication" means any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images or sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, visual or other electromagnetic system.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 287; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 23

However, the odds of someone getting charged for this is slim to none. Unless the account owner is charged with surfing kiddy porn and the router logs show it was someone else...blahblahblah... OR as I've had customers bring me in for, the account owner ended up going over their bandwidth allotment for the month and, only being a casual surfer, knew that someone had been using their network, brought me in to secure it.

Let's face it, the average resident is not hitting up any illegal sites and the majority still has no idea what a torrent is yet.

It is, with exceptions, a victim-less crime.

 

[Appleby]

You shouldn't loose sleep. You did your job based on the knowledge he gave you. I think it would be pretty insulting and silly to start asking every customer who calls with a wi-fi problem if they are paying for wi-fi or using the neighbors unless you have a reason to believe they are. So I think you are just fine.

In some ways, I'm like you, if the other people are dumb enough.... But I have run into this some with some customers who live in apartments etc and I've warned them that at any moment their neighbor could wise up, turn their wi-fi off, move or figure it out and password protect the network. I also tell them that I'm not 100% sure of the laws but it MIGHT be illegal, I just don't know.(and I'm not handing out legal advice) However, I do refuse to come work on their computer to try and solve any internet problems. If they want to bring it to me and have me test their hardware on my network, that is perfectly fine. But I'm not going out there and helping them mooch from the neighbors.

 

[4ycr]

In germany it is illegal not to secure your network

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10116606

but I think it could still be counted as theft in most places

 

[B3ng]

great response people, cheers.

when it occured to me what this guy was doing i did chuck him a few questions like "does your neighbour know you are using this connection? and "this connection could become security enabled at any time, youre aware i would not be able to support you in this instance?"

TBH he knew exactly wat he was doing, was quite blasè about the whole thing and even found it quite funny that the IP conflict was probabally causing a problem for his neighbours also. WRT law im not aware of any law in the UK regarding accessing unsecured networks.

 

[vdub12]

I have had many discussions with people about this same subject and honestly there is no grounds for a law to be made for or against this.

There are many arguments that support the use of open WiFi connections and very few that don't support it. The simple fact is if you don't want someone to use your connection then secure it. If you are not capable of securing it then call a computer professional to do it for you. But to create a law protecting peoples laziness by allowing them to go unsecured is ridicules.

Many people leave then open so they can provide free Internet access. If a law was created that made using an open connection unlawful then what would those people do.

The fact is the router is the device that allows or disallows connections based on rules. If you don't setup the rules you are giving the router the right to allow access to everyone. This is not considered theft, the router is granting access. This is like allowing a friend to borrow your car and then reporting it stolen.

The fact is if you don't want people using your wireless connection then secure it. If you are unable to secure it call a tech! Otherwise don't complain when your neighbors use your connection.

 

[loaner]

well....

if it's his neighbor's fault that the network is not secure, and it's OK to set up someone's internet to intercept that reception....WHY NOT get a little money out of it yourself.

the neighbor is paying at least 25 bucks a month, you fix this guys computer to basically use half of that service, why not call the customer back and tell him you will keep it quiet for 12 bucks a month....

what's the difference, it's really free right??

HOW ABOUT SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY NOT RIGHT TO DO.

we HATE people who mention using freeware for a fee, but when it's not us....who cares, right?

 

[iptech]

WRT law im not aware of any law in the UK regarding accessing unsecured networks.

s.1 Computer Misuse Act 1990

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that is the case.

s.125 Communications Act 2003

Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services - Section 125 Communications Act, 2003

An offence under the Communications Act 2003 section 125, see Stones 8 - 30110, applies to a person who has obtained the benefit of a telephone or obtained access to the internet when there was no intention to pay for that service. It will invariably be preferable to charge this offence rather than one of dishonest abstraction of electricity. The s.125 charge may be more appropriate than one of obtaining services dishonestly contrary to section 11 Fraud Act 2006; or a section 1 Computer Misuse Act 1990 unauthorised access offence.

Section 125 does not cover an employee dishonestly using an employer's telephone for private purposes as it is anticipated that the employer will pay the telephone bill; in such cases consider charging contrary to section 13 of the Theft Act 1968, see Archbold 21 - 164 et seq.

See also: Wikipedia - Legality of piggybacking

 

[vdub12]

Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services - Section 125 Communications Act, 2003

An offence under the Communications Act 2003 section 125, see Stones 8 - 30110, applies to a person who has obtained the benefit of a telephone or obtained access to the internet when there was no intention to pay for that service. It will invariably be preferable to charge this offence rather than one of dishonest abstraction of electricity. The s.125 charge may be more appropriate than one of obtaining services dishonestly contrary to section 11 Fraud Act 2006; or a section 1 Computer Misuse Act 1990 unauthorised access offence.

Section 125 does not cover an employee dishonestly using an employer's telephone for private purposes as it is anticipated that the employer will pay the telephone bill; in such cases consider charging contrary to section 13 of the Theft Act 1968, see Archbold 21 - 164 et seq.

So according to this you are breaking the law if you use the free Internet provided in a coffee shop.

Edit:

I guess I spoke to soon.
check this out.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/104580/october-02-2007/nailed--em---cyberrorists?videoId=104580

 

[loaner]

So according to this you are breaking the law if you use the free Internet provided in a coffee shop.

no more quilty than watching cable in a sports bar.

and if that's your argument, then why do you not hook up a splitter to your neighbors cable... same thing right....

why not tap into the water line while you're at it.... unreal

how about using some common sense... OH, i forgot...it's not really that common is it?

we have gotten away from the actual post... he set up the customer and didn't realize it until it was done with.
not much you can do there except not do business with him anymore. i don't know about you guys, but i'm not just after "business"....i'm wanting "good business".


...goss