Unsecured WiFi - Fair Game??

[vdub12]

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 commen is it?

...goss

Using a splitter to get access to cable, water, or power requires you to physically modify the connection to the legitimate access. Using WiFi the router explicitly give you access. There are many laws in the states that will make using open connection legitimate.

For instance

In 2003, the New Hampshire House Bill 495 was proposed, which would clarify that the duty to secure the wireless network lies with the network owner, instead of criminalizing the automatic access of open networks

New York law is the most permissive. The statute against unauthorized access only applies when the network "is equipped or programmed with any device or coding system, a function of which is to prevent the unauthorized use of said computer or computer system". In other words, the use of a network would only be considered unauthorized and illegal if the network owner had enabled encryption or password protection and the user bypassed this protection, or when the owner has explicitly given notice that use of the network is prohibited, either orally or in writing.

This one I believe is stupid. The first thing I learned in classes related to computer security is that security by obscurity is not security at all.

Westchester County passed a law, taking effect in October 2006, that prohibits commercial networks from being operated without a firewall, SSID broadcasting disabled, and a non-default SSID, in an effort to fight identity theft. Businesses that do not secure their networks in this way face a $500 fine. The law has been criticized as being ineffectual against actual identity thieves and punishing businesses like coffee houses for normal business practices.

As you can see from the examples above any laws that protect people that are to lazy to secure there network are completely stupid. Its better to specify a law that forbids cracking a network. If the network is using a form of security, even if that security is as simple as MAC address filtering then a law will be broken if the network is accessed. However, if the network is open then its the owners fault and its the owner that has given the right to access.

 

[loaner]

sorry vdub...i edited my previous post before i saw yours...just thought i would add it here. nothing new really, but anyway.

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".

my main issue is even though my network may not be secure, i'm paying the utility bill to "make it happen". if i found out my neighbor was doing this there would only be two options: 1. a butt whoopin 2. a butt kickin.

the neighbor would have the option.

...goss

 

[Mushin]

sorry vdub...i edited my previous post before i saw yours...just thought i would add it here. nothing new really, but anyway.

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".

my main issue is even though my network may not be secure, i'm paying the utility bill to "make it happen". if i found out my neighbor was doing this there would only be two options: 1. a butt whoopin 2. a butt kickin.

the neighbor would have the option.

...goss

Theft of services.... so I agree they should not have internet access on my dime.

 

[datadatau]

There is always the possibility that the neighbor is doing this intentionally so that he can watch his the person's packets

One never knowns the outcome of actions.

As to the original poster, I would not lose sleep over this, you didn't know at the time you were assisting him that his intention was to utilize someone elses network. Just make a mental note in the future when he gets some malware or other issue and wants your help for free again.

Godspeed

 

[vdub12]

sorry vdub...i edited my previous post before i saw yours...just thought i would add it here. nothing new really, but anyway.

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".

my main issue is even though my network may not be secure, i'm paying the utility bill to "make it happen". if i found out my neighbor was doing this there would only be two options: 1. a butt whoopin 2. a butt kickin.

the neighbor would have the option.

...goss

Theft of services.... so I agree they should not have internet access on my dime.

I think you guys are both missing the point. You can't kick your neighbors butt for using your Internet if its unsecured. It would be YOUR fault.

Its your responsibility to secure your network. What would you expect if you toss a cat5 cable over the fence? Would you get mad if someone plugged in to it?

If you don't want someone using your Internet secure it. Its that simple. Then if someone connects to your secured connection by all means kick his butt.

Some people provide free access because they want to, If you make a law that makes it unlawful then what are those people going to do. Like the free WiFi at the coffee shop I posted the link to above. A guy got fined $400 and had to work 40Hr of community service because he used the FREE WiFi at a coffee shop. Come on are you going to kick his butt to?

If you missed the link here it is.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/104580/october-02-2007/nailed--em---cyberrorists?videoId=104580

The fact is I am so sick of governments taking more and more freedoms away that I can't take it. If people don't want other people using there Internet SECURE IT, don't lobby a law for it. I personally provide free Internet access myself. If anyones ever in the neighborhood the ssid is CyberCPU_PubAccess But be careful even though I allow people to use it you still might get arrested for it, lol.

 

[Xander]

If you missed the link here it is.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...2007/nailed--em---cyberrorists?videoId=104580

US-only US-only US-only

 

[vdub12]

US-only US-only US-only

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276720,00.html

 

[red12049]

I think you guys are both missing the point. You can't kick your neighbors butt for using your Internet if its unsecured. It would be YOUR fault.

Its your responsibility to secure your network. What would you expect if you toss a cat5 cable over the fence? Would you get mad if someone plugged in to it?

If you don't want someone using your Internet secure it. Its that simple. Then if someone connects to your secured connection by all means kick his butt.

Some people provide free access because they want to, If you make a law that makes it unlawful then what are those people going to do. Like the free WiFi at the coffee shop I posted the link to above. A guy got fined $400 and had to work 40Hr of community service because he used the FREE WiFi at a coffee shop. Come on are you going to kick his butt to?

If you missed the link here it is.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/104580/october-02-2007/nailed--em---cyberrorists?videoId=104580

The fact is I am so sick of governments taking more and more freedoms away that I can't take it. If people don't want other people using there Internet SECURE IT, don't lobby a law for it. I personally provide free Internet access myself. If anyones ever in the neighborhood the ssid is CyberCPU_PubAccess But be careful even though I allow people to use it you still might get arrested for it, lol.

So I guess that, if you leave your front door wide open, it's ok for me to walk right in. If you leave an outdoor electrical outlet unlocked, it's ok for me to use it. And so on. Same with the Ethernet cable thrown over the fence. If I use it, it's dishonest, plain and simple.

So you offer free Wi-Fi. Do you pay your provider for the extra bandwidth? If not, then ultimately, we all pay in the form of higher rates. Thanks for that.

I agree that wireless should be secured, but the fact that it is not doesn't give one a license to steal it. If you think otherwise, then please, leave the keys in your vehicles. There is absolutely no difference.

In this case, at least, it would appear that you've got "freedoms" and theft a bit confused.

Rick

 

[MrUnknown]

So I guess that, if you leave your front door wide open, it's ok for me to walk right in. If you leave an outdoor electrical outlet unlocked, it's ok for me to use it. And so on. Same with the Ethernet cable thrown over the fence. If I use it, it's dishonest, plain and simple.

So you offer free Wi-Fi. Do you pay your provider for the extra bandwidth? If not, then ultimately, we all pay in the form of higher rates. Thanks for that.

I agree that wireless should be secured, but the fact that it is not doesn't give one a license to steal it. If you think otherwise, then please, leave the keys in your vehicles. There is absolutely no difference.

In this case, at least, it would appear that you've got "freedoms" and theft a bit confused.

Rick

Rick while your examples make sense when presented in black and white on this forum, the way society works is a little different (it is not common practice or socially acceptable to leave keys in a car to allow anyone who wishes to use your car the ability to do so). However, I do agree with you that you shouldn't just connect to any open WiFi and use it without asking. That is my personal choice, but it shouldn't be illegal.

If I see a car running in a parking lot with nobody in it, I don't go "well, the owner of that car must let anyone drive their car!" and jump in. I also don't look at my neighbors home, see an open electrical outlet and go "why, he must mean I can just use his electric to run my home!" Open and Free WiFi however, is very common and there is no real reason for someone to think it is more illegal to use one open WiFi over another open WiFi.

Allowing open access is a common and accepted feature of WiFi, random home tours or letting random people take your car or letting random people use your electricity isn't. However, you can very easily allow random people to come into your home, use your car or run up your electric bill and there would be nothing wrong with it or illegal (check your contracts first. It normally against your contract to share cable.).

You also can't claim users are not informed about the dangers either. The documentation that comes with Access Points tell you how to secure your network in the quick start guide. Routers are now becomming, by default, secure at the press of a button without asking the end-user anything. More reason to think an open WiFi access point is meant for anyone to connect to, seeing how they now have to go out of their way to create an open access point.

 

[vdub12]

So I guess that, if you leave your front door wide open, it's ok for me to walk right in. If you leave an outdoor electrical outlet unlocked, it's ok for me to use it. And so on. Same with the Ethernet cable thrown over the fence. If I use it, it's dishonest, plain and simple.

So you offer free Wi-Fi. Do you pay your provider for the extra bandwidth? If not, then ultimately, we all pay in the form of higher rates. Thanks for that.

I agree that wireless should be secured, but the fact that it is not doesn't give one a license to steal it. If you think otherwise, then please, leave the keys in your vehicles. There is absolutely no difference.

In this case, at least, it would appear that you've got "freedoms" and theft a bit confused.

Rick

Your analogy's are flawed.

I could easily say that if you leave your water on do I not have the right to collect it in the gutter and water my plants with it. For that mater if we think about it your way shouldn't my neighbor be guilty of breaking and entering since his WiFi signal is in my home.

An access point is like a bouncer at a bar. He will let people in based on rules. The owner of that bar has given him the right to allow access to the bar. It is based on the rules that he is given to follow that decide who gets in and who doesn't. A WiFi network is based on the same practicable. If the owner of the network does not setup the rules of who has access and who doesn't then that network owner has given the router or access point the authorization to allow everyone in on his behalf.

 

[Feraxks]

Like the free WiFi at the coffee shop I posted the link to above. A guy got fined $400 and had to work 40Hr of community service because he used the FREE WiFi at a coffee shop.

He was fined because he was accessing the WiFi OUTSIDE the coffee shop. The terms of use established by the coffee shop was that you had to be in the store to access the WiFi. The owner of the shop even said that he could have used it for free without buying anything as long as he was in the store (where at least the potential for a sale would exist).

Just because its not secured doesn't mean its free for the taking. People like to dismiss the open door argument saying its just digital data, but someone had to pay for the infrastructure to deliver that data. I don't disagree that if you fail to secure your network you are partially responsible for whatever happens, but that still doesn't mean anyone can use it (unless you specifically set it up that way).

If you are going to piggyback, then you should pay for your share of the access infrastructure. That's essentially what they are doing at shops that offer free WiFi -- they use the WiFi to entice you into the shop where they hope you will purchase some of their goods, thereby helping to pay for the "free" WiFi.

 

[B3ng]

Your analogy's are flawed.

I could easily say that if you leave your water on do I not have the right to collect it in the gutter and water my plants with it. For that mater if we think about it your way shouldn't my neighbor be guilty of breaking and entering since his WiFi signal is in my home.

An access point is like a bouncer at a bar. He will let people in based on rules. The owner of that bar has given him the right to allow access to the bar. It is based on the rules that he is given to follow that decide who gets in and who doesn't. A WiFi network is based on the same practicable. If the owner of the network does not setup the rules of who has access and who doesn't then that network owner has given the router or access point the authorization to allow everyone in on his behalf.

My take on all these analagies is that they all have a flaw. Wireless access points BROADCAST the unsecured network, and therefore in a sence advertise the fact "theres free wifi here, Jump in".

for the car keys in the ignition analagies to be valid in this case the car would also have to have big arse neon sign pointing to it saying "you can take me if you want!!!!"

say for instance the network was unsecured but ths SSID was not being broadast, and the piggybacker had to do a little digging to connect to it that would be dishonest IMO.

 

[vdub12]

He was fined because he was accessing the WiFi OUTSIDE the coffee shop. The terms of use established by the coffee shop was that you had to be in the store to access the WiFi. The owner of the shop even said that he could have used it for free without buying anything as long as he was in the store (where at least the potential for a sale would exist).

Just because its not secured doesn't mean its free for the taking. People like to dismiss the open door argument saying its just digital data, but someone had to pay for the infrastructure to deliver that data. I don't disagree that if you fail to secure your network you are partially responsible for whatever happens, but that still doesn't mean anyone can use it (unless you specifically set it up that way).

If you are going to piggyback, then you should pay for your share of the access infrastructure. That's essentially what they are doing at shops that offer free WiFi -- they use the WiFi to entice you into the shop where they hope you will purchase some of their goods, thereby helping to pay for the "free" WiFi.

Well so far every law in the states that has been considered does not punish the user of the open connection. An open connection implies that the owner is providing it for peoples use. This is not a subject that needs to be drug though legal chains and waste tax dolors on. Its a plain and simple fact, if you don't want to provide free Internet to the masses then secure it. Its not a moral argument in any way shape of form. An open connection is the owners acknowledgment that he or she is providing free Internet access. A secured connection is a statement from the owner that they don't want other people to have access to it.

On the subject of the coffee shop she had signs all over the front window as well as an A-frame sign in front with huge letters saying "FREE WiFi" in an interview she said there was no restrictions nor where there any restrictions posted. Are we to just assume or guess what the restrictions might be. With that way of thinking a coffee shop can have someone arrested because they didn't tip enough and just say it was in the restrictions. The only way to make this subject a fair and logical course is to say that open WiFi is Free Internet period. If you don't want to provide it free or you wish to have restrictions on it then secure it. You can simply use a default acknowledgment page that lists the terms.

Technology and ease of use have came to far to just say well since you don't know how to secure your Internet we will just make it illegal. Its that kind of thinking that has gotten the world in to the pit that its in.

 

[vdub12]

say for instance the network was unsecured but ths SSID was not being broadast, and the piggybacker had to do a little digging to connect to it that would be dishonest IMO.

Not in all cases. Security by obscurity in this case does not always apply. For instance my netbook will detect an SSID whether its broadcasting or not and I have no way of telling. Just because you turn off the beacon does not mean it does not broadcast.

 

[Bryce W]

I remember a case about 5 years back saying that the law was against "unauthorized access". I havent really looked into it recently but it appears a bit of a grey area. To the op, I wouldnt lose any sleep over it. I would just say "Oh, its your neighbours connection? You shouldnt be doing that. It gives your neighbours the ability to see the sites you are going to and the information you enter into it. Bank details, credit card numbers etc..:"

Even though its doubtful the neighbour would do this, its technically possible and it gives your client a good reason to stop.

 

[Feraxks]

Well so far every law in the states that has been considered does not punish the user of the open connection.

They may not be punished for having the open connection itself, but they can be held liable for what goes on over that connection.

An open connection implies that the owner is providing it for peoples use.

I strongly disagree with this. Having an open connection doesn't imply anything. The equipment is being marketed to a populace that generally doesn't know the ins and outs of the gear they are buying. If they did, they wouldn't need us.

Its a plain and simple fact, if you don't want to provide free Internet to the masses then secure it.

Agreed.

An open connection is the owners acknowledgment that he or she is providing free Internet access.

Disagree.

 

[red12049]

They may not be punished for having the open connection itself, but they can be held liable for what goes on over that connection.



I strongly disagree with this. Having an open connection doesn't imply anything. The equipment is being marketed to a populace that generally doesn't know the ins and outs of the gear they are buying. If they did, they wouldn't need us.



Agreed.



Disagree.

+1

One cannot "assume" explicit permission, otherwise my taking your car when you left the keys in it would be perfectly valid.

"Common practice" does not make things correct. It just means a lot of people do it. Think WWII Germany for an extreme example.

Truth is, more than likely, nothing will come from using someone else's wireless. That doesn't make it correct, it just means the chances of getting punished are slim.

As for my water leak, technically, you can't take my water. You would however, be well within your rights to take me to court to recover any damages that water leak may have caused. Realistically, I doubt that a judge would ever award me anything if I took you to court for stealing my water in a circumstance like that.

Simple fact: If you take something of mine, without my permission, you are stealing from me. Nothing else makes that different. Any qualifiers you add to that is just your way of dealing with that situation.

Rick

 

[DMacomber]

+1


Simple fact: If you take something of mine, without my permission, you are stealing from me. Nothing else makes that different. Any qualifiers you add to that is just your way of dealing with that situation.

Rick

Except that wifi broadcasts. the unsecured signals are traversing boundaries, if my neighbor is sprinkling his yard and sets the hose close to my property line and water sprays over, am I stealing his water? Or if he does not want to water my yard, would he need to move the sprinkler or turn it off.

Most of the analogies put forth seem to state that you would have to cross over and turn the spigot on, when in fact your neighbor is hosing the neighbors yard.

Is this ethical? no. is it illegal? not from where I can see.

Taken another way, if there is an outdoor concert is is legal to stand outside the wire and listen to the music? or are you stealing from those who paid to go inside the fence?

 

[Martyn]

Except that wifi broadcasts. the unsecured signals are traversing boundaries, if my neighbor is sprinkling his yard and sets the hose close to my property line and water sprays over, am I stealing his water? Or if he does not want to water my yard, would he need to move the sprinkler or turn it off.

Most of the analogies put forth seem to state that you would have to cross over and turn the spigot on, when in fact your neighbor is hosing the neighbors yard.

Is this ethical? no. is it illegal? not from where I can see.

Taken another way, if there is an outdoor concert is is legal to stand outside the wire and listen to the music? or are you stealing from those who paid to go inside the fence?

That isn't costing the owner though. The owner of the wifi may well be paying for a set download limit and you taking it for free may be downloading films in which case you are costing him.

 

[Deleted member 13571]

Just my $.02 on the matter.

I don't see it as a usage issue as much as a privacy issue.

Sure, the owner may be ignorant of the fact that his/her wifi is unsecured, but that isn't a free pass onto their network.

I really hate that sprinkler argument because it assumes that because you are bombarded with his wifi signal, you are obligated to use it. You cant stop water (practically speaking) from seeping into your yard, you CAN let wireless signals pass through your home without using them.

Frankly, most of the people I see making the argument for using unsecured wifi are people trying to justify what they do.