Man in Florida arrested who was using unauthorized Wi-Fi - Page 9

yes it's not very hard... BUT (and a big but) is that most people are sooo computer illiterate it's sad... i mean people even asking which input to connect their phone line, network cable, etc...

i wanna say "stick it in all the holes, when it clicks and won't come back out, that's the right one" lol

so again the easy way to control this is to have all wireless come with security enabled, with a random passphrase, etc... most people would never change it so they'd never have a problem... it's so easy and obvious i don't understand why companies don't do it... and anybody messing with their security should know what they're doing...

i mean to get into even this site you have to create a name and password or it's a no-go, much less online banking, etc.

Well I have thought of that, but even before I knew anything about computers I did realise somthing wrong about broadcasring YOUR internet through the air, and wondered if there were any means of proctection. I wonder if other people new to comps wonder that when they hook up their network? If they really want they could have someone that knows what they are doing do it for them.

I'm getting in late on this and haven't read any of it, but in my opinion, if you broadcast any signal that reaches outside your home, you're basically infringing on public airspace in my opinion. If you decide to store your TV out on the curb, it will be assumed you're trashing it. If you stick your foot out under where I'm getting ready to set my mine, you're going to get stepped on. If my neighbor does not want me riding his signal, he'd best just not send out any that cross my walls. I hope that dude will get a good lawyer, because as far as I'm concerned sitting legally parked and using a notebook is not illegal, otherwise, please bring in the actual offending radio waves that were sent in or out for evidence, because everything else is purely circumstancial.

Yes yes THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT KUDOS 4 YOU!

you are of course more than welcome to offer your opinion, however it is meaningless as far as US law is concerned... i suggest that you read the posts and see what all is involved... in particular i suggest you read mine... i'm not promoting one side or the other just stating what the view of the law is, after all that is the only thing that is actually pertinent...

the opinion you've stated has been proffered several times and i've explained why it's invalid according to statutes and case/common law...

i've also said that the current situation is ridiculous because the average user hasn't a clue about securing a wireless network... therefore a very easy remedy to all this is if the hardware received by the user would already be configured as secured and it should take an overt action by the user (a small minority of users) to make it public...

but again, most people want to discuss this as criminal law and there is very little law in this area... however civil law/torts (a wrong against another person) is very clear about it and offers a large selection of remedies... all of which are on the side of the network owner and will cost the tortfeasor (one who commits a tort) quite a lot of money, time and trouble...

geez this is feeling more and more like i'm teaching a law class lol...

fyi, just like to throw in little things that the average person may not know... a corporation is considered a person according to the law...

a comical old legal saying is "a corporation is a person with no butt to be kicked or soul to be damned"

you are of course more than welcome to offer your opinion, however it is meaningless as far as US law is concerned... i suggest that you read the posts and see what all is involved... in particular i suggest you read mine... i'm not promoting one side or the other just stating what the view of the law is, after all that is the only thing that is actually pertinent...

the opinion you've stated has been proffered several times and i've explained why it's invalid according to statutes and case/common law...

oh, and about "infringing on public airspace" that's kinda an oxymoron - G band which most people use is an unregulated band by the FCC... wireless phones, baby monitors, etc. all use it.. so according to you, whenever anyone uses a wireless phone they are "infringing"...

(one reason i use A band so i don't have interference... A is regulated specifically for emergency services - screw up with it and the FCC will definitely be at your door...)

i've also said that the current situation is ridiculous because the average user hasn't a clue about securing a wireless network... therefore a very easy remedy to all this is if the hardware received by the user would already be configured as secured and it should take an overt action by the user (a small minority of users) to make it public...

but again, most people want to discuss this as criminal law and there is very little law in this area... however civil law/torts (a wrong against another person) is very clear about it and offers a large selection of remedies... all of which are on the side of the network owner and will cost the tortfeasor (one who commits a tort) quite a lot of money, time and trouble...

geez this is feeling more and more like i'm teaching a law class lol...

fyi, just like to throw in little things that the average person may not know... a corporation is considered a person according to the law...

a comical old legal saying is "a corporation is a person with no butt to be kicked or soul to be damned"

I think WIFI should be treated with a law similar to the laws reguarding garbage. When you throw your garbage out to the curb or even into your garbage can it becomes public property. If a person doesn't want their WIFI used then they should encrypt it. If they don't encrypt it, then they are voluntarily allowing their signal to be intercepted by another person.

Like someone mentioned earlier, my laptop automatically searches and connects to the best WIFI signal in range.

i agree with bezerko. and my laptop does the same. at my friends house his neighbor has a wlan and i often find myself connected to them accidentally.

Here's is a really good approach to this issue...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1842387,00.asp

nope nothin' new... just another example of someone tryin' to justify stealin, pure and simple...

go back and read some of the previous posts... if i leave money on that same sidewalk, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY RIGHT TO MESS WITH IT - IT IS MY PERSONAL PROPERTY AND I'VE GIVEN YOU NO RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT IS...

but i repeat as above, all wireless networks should come encrypted and have a large warning if the person wants to disable is... over 90% of all users haven't a clue about what we're talking about and it would save them the hassle..

but again, if it's not yours and you don't have permission, don't touch it cause you're in the wrong... a very simple lesson we all should have learned as small children and the view of the courts...

Didnt mommy teach you about sharing

last i heard the FCC said that any signal being broadcast is public signal it is after all on public citizen frequency nobody has purcashed broadcasting rights to a specific freq. they wish to operate on.

Reception of the "signal" isn't the issue. It is unauthorized use of resources (such as connecting to an open AP and using network services without express permission) that is the issue.

i dont see the big deal. was he harming someone? was he causing an increase in price for the service of the individual? if the guy was harmlessly checking email i dont see the big problem and yes the responsibility falls on the owner for ignorantly leaving his network wide open for anyone to get on. and the express permission. i mean i know at most coffee houses there is free access its common knowledge but i am not recieving permission per-say i mean maybe its only for customers so is the permission in the product? im just not finding the big deal if its harmless browsing

The "harm" is that the person who connected without express permission is using something that does not belong to him/her. The ignorance of the owner of the AP does not justify the selfish actions of the person wanting to check thier mail real quick. Its about respect for other people and thier stuff. If you want to check your mail or browse the web or whatever, go to one of the coffee shops where internet access is apparently (won't find it around my area-have to pay) on the house.

then again ur going back to assuming which will not hold up anywhere.. you ASSUME that it is free to access those AP at the coffee house. so maybe this guy assumed that the store was broadcasting for people for free as well because i know around here there are even pizza places with free wifi. there are no laws i know to cover this so i dont know what it would be under he technically wasnt accessing a computer since he was just online. so there needs 2 be laws about his before anyone can be prosecuted

I didn't assume anything, It is called sarcasim , you brought up free wifi at coffee houses. I would never presume that just because a usable wifi signal is present, that it is ok to use it or that it was ment for me.


The laws are pretty murky about this stuff, but there are federal laws such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and state laws like the one in CA that makes unauthorzed use of wifi illegal.


Legality aside, the sense of entitlement that people seem to have about using APs that aren't locked down is kinda scarey.

Really, if one (the third party using the connection) is considered guilty, so should the other be. He (the guy "owning" the connection) is obviously violating at least one policy set by their ISP and, therefore, committing theft and fraud.

If i go buy 2 truckers CB radio's and then pay for satilite radio . and then set up the CB with the mic infront of the satilite radios speaker. so i could maybe hear the radio in my garage threw a second CB radio. I would realise no matter how dumb i was about these kind of things that any one with in range and on the same channel would also be able to listen to my payed for satilite radio subscription. now the small difference here is no matter how many people listened in on my cb channel my signal for the most part would not suffer. however on wifi if some one was downloading music they could make me lagg in games or get slower downloads my self. still no matter what common sense says if it was this easy to hook up the wifi in my home and connect with out any codes. then any one in range could also and at this point a small amount of research or even asking the guy at the computer store would get this new wifi user the answer he needs. add at least a simple 64 bit key and no one can lagg you. now that divides the wifi group into 2 classes those who dont mind sharing and those who do. you cant make it illegal to connect to a public signal. this is a simple matter of education so all wifi users can decide which group they fit into. you cant use comparisons like stealing a car because you cant share a car at the same time. common sense says you cant get introuble for connecting to a wifi signal that the owner neglected to protect. maybe future software and such will allow for public and private wifi spots or even private who dont mind sharing to be more easily told apart.

my previous post was the 23 sept05, and still nothing from the judge or court.