Man in Florida arrested who was using unauthorized Wi-Fi - Page 2

John, I agree that is really strange. I would have immediately confronted the person and asked them to kindly leave. Then again, I protect my network.

I agree also that companies should make some more efforts, all I saw in my linksys manual was "here is how to encrypt your network" not "You should protect your network with security measures to keep out intruders". I honestly see leeching someone's wifi as intruding. It is true the signal is broadcasted out but just because someone has their door open (broadcasting) doesn't make it right to enter their house and drink their water. Now does it? It's the same philosophy, you pay the ISP for use of internet as you pay the water bill. It is your property and by using it without proper permisson, it is stealing. I would see the network alot more "open" if the SSID was FREEWIFI or something, otherwise you don't know 100% what they intend. If it's not 100% sure, it's not as easily justifable. Like war.

As I have said, the vast majority of non-techies I know fall into the category I stated above dealing with wireless security. It does, somewhat, complicate the process. I have had trouble, personally, with the Linksys Wireless Network Extender and getting it to take my Linksys Wireless WRT54G router that is encrypted. Without encryption, you just hit auto-connect and it works FLAWLESSLY. Now with WEP enabled, it's a very difficult operation. You must downgrade your firmware, among other things, to get it to work properly. This is an example of how our industry today hasn't made the process really plug/play quite yet.

Current thinking on the news here in Florida on the Florida case is that the current law does not cover WIFI. It will probably go to the State Supreme Court.

I bet that the guy had everything plan. He wanted to screw someone who connected to his wi fi. Is there a way of erasing all ur computers info so that when you connect to unprotected lans you dont get cought? I now that you can erase your MAC address from your Wireless card, but all the other stuff gets loged. For example your computer name that things like that. The best way for this is by buying a used laptop for surfing the web for free.

The thing is.... If you are at an unprotected WiFi hotspot, how do you know if it is intended to be public access or not?

As an example, recently while on a tour, I also had to turn in some projects via the internet. There were times I was wandering around town looking for hotspots(Legal, public variety) but not being familiar with the town I had to ask the locals. The reponses I got ranged from the variety I was looking for to just some guy with a random open network 2 blocks down.

Exactly how do I know and verify that what I was using was intended for public use or not?

And yes quite often you will find public hotspots in various cities, that is how I got some of my work done, other times I could use the internet in the hotels.

I do kinda have to go with the unencrypted WiFi is public domain, just like radio waves etc. Walkie Talkie signals may be intended for a specific use but if intercepted by another walkie talkie does that constitue illegal action? That all comes down to being in the wrong place in the wrong time if it ever did. That band of frequencies is specificly set aside by the FCC for either public use or buisness use depending on the caliber of radio you are using, but suposedly you could get sensitive information that is passed along those walkie talkies. Same basic concept.

Really if anything wireless manufacturers might want to start looking at shipping their stuff by default with some form of encryption turned on, and having VERY detailed instructions on how to access it. It would require setting the network to a default key and printing the key in the book, or on a peice of paper but is the only real way to stop things like this from happening.

Aside from that most windows laptops automaticly join the strongest network around that they can(Unencrypted or encrypted but have a key) without human intervention. Only complicates things further.

Seablade

goonther is right,

the 2 cops asked me if I was trying to bypass the encription key. I said no, I do not know how to do that, and wont...

they asked me if i was sending threatening mail kind of "I will kill u", I said no...

then I said to the cops, I do not have illegal pics on my laptop,and i am not a pedophile. One cop was with my laptop looking in my files.

after we talked just about how its easy to be connected, and we talked about all the scams like the lottery coming from nigeria...

I can tell you, in my country, they have only 3 officers for the state for this kind of matter. During the interview there was no one phone call. to show you how busy they are.

in their small office, they have PCs everywhere on the floor.most pc have a big case(pc for network game like battlefield2).
I think many PC come from people downloading child porn, and selling DVD movies they have copied. I saw some HDdriver on tables...

they told me, it is a real problem with the internet cuz websites are in countries where the law are different and they can not do anything.


for the person, who say it is not because his door is open, you can enter.
right, but what about a bus who offer free service, what about restrooms?
what about free public swiming pools.
sure you can buy a gun at walmart and shoot people down.But the law is clear about shooting people down.
why there is no law about WIFI?

Years ago, a poor chinese guy has been sued by a restaurant, because he was trying to "steal" odors from the kitchen....

should my neighboor sue me, because he cooks onions (it stinks by the way)or should I sue him. Dont you think that it s much better to go talk to the person and see for an arrangement.


I have already waste several hours on this case.Writing letters, talking to cops,...and now several people are going to be involved, judge, department of telecom,secretary, and who pay for that?: the citizen.

BTW, my laptop says:" click scan and view all network within range of ur wireless adapter" it doesnt say if it is public or not.

I receive satelite TV, is it illegal for me to watch the TV.
I am sure you all listen radio in your car, what would you think if one day, a radio company sue you for listening his radio....and what about GPS?remember, then GPS came publicly , the USA had immediately reduced the accuracy of the signal because some non US countries could use the system to guide their missile.What would hapen if one day the DOD sue you because you intercept GPS signal from your car.


for me, it is clear
PUBLIC= no protection key
NON PUBLIC=protection key or any other devices scrambling the signal.

responsability: the one who broadcasts.

as i told you I keep you informed...
I have received a phone call from an internet company.

they told me I was right.it is the reponsability of the "broadcaster" to protect his line.Thats their point of view.
they had in the past a woman who called them , she wanted to know why she received the internet from her home, when she didnt ask anything!maybe she was worry to be billed or she got access to a service she didnt want!

they guys said to this woman" good for you, you have free internet"

the company is scandalised about mys story.Told me to write a letter,to explain how to encript the line,...
he told me about the story in the USA too.(smith???)

have a good day muchachos!!!

[I'm not trying to pick a fight, it's all in good spirit of debate] I fail to see how using somebody's broadcasted signal is like going into their house to take their water becasue their signal is coming to me. It would be more like when my neighbor is watering his lawn, I arrange my potted plants so they catch the water coming onto my side of the fence.

To play the devil's advocate here, since the overwhelming response seems to be that the "unprotected WiFi" should be treated as a public resource...

Let's take an analogy, and assume that you left your car keys in your unlocked car on a public street. Would you be so cavalier in dismissing your ownership claims to something that you so stupidly left "unprotected" and somebody then "made use of"? If I hop in your car and take it around the block, would you just say "Oh well, I should have locked it up and taken my keys with me."? Or, would you have been screaming, ranting, and dialing 911 as soon as your pudgy fingers could slam the keys?

The point is simply that unless you have specific permission to use a privately owned resource, then you are indeed stealing from that owning enitity when you use it. Whether directly billed, or by the aggregated pricing, people pay for the amount of bandwidth that is used, and your unauthorized, and unpaid for, taking of that resource costs them money. Again, this is theft.

Let the flames begin...

Ps. Let me admit that I myself, am NOT without sin, when it comes to this act, as a certain unnamed dental office's wireless network was once abused by me, while I was waiting in the neighboring lobby.

So then my putting my plants in my neighbors sprinklers is also theft, even though the plants are on my side of the fence?

I think there's a few differences here, one of which has to do with scale. In both of your examples, I had to move my body into something that is private property (first the house then the car) even if you're leaving it unlocked. BTW, as soon as I called the police the first thing they would say is "you did what? you left the door open and the keys in the ignition? what are you stupid?". I think the same should go for leaving a wireless signal wide open if you don't want somebody getting into it.

I can see your argument in that if I knowingly go into your wireless and use your internet that you paid for the it could be considered theft (although condsidering the price of intenet and a router these days if I sit there for 20min, it's worth what like 50 cents considering that you can still use it and all?). When was the last time you heard of somebody getting arrested for stealing a snickers bar?

Now considering what a previous poster had mentioned, when you're connecting to a wireless network in windows, it doesn't tell you who's network it is and wether it's privtely owned or not. That's why the owner of the network has to at least put some security on it so that if someone goes into it then they are actually comitting a crime by breaking through the protection.

Ps. where I live there's not even cable TV, much less broadband, much less anyone with wifi, so I haven't ever done this. Not that I'm free sin either, and I wouldn't hesitate to use an unprotected wireless network if I came across it.

Once again I point you back to the being able to know or not. If it was common practice for people to leave their keys in the car for others to drive, or if cities left cars with keys in them for people to use that would be one thing...

However neither of those happen, but similar DOES happen with Hotspots. Some people and companies and cities SPECIFICLY leave wireless hotspots open and up for others to use publicly.

Seablade

Your analysis is flawed jamiem. If someone leaves his keys in the door of his car and you touch them keys you are trespassing on private property. If this guy was so concerned about someone stealing his precious waves then the asshole should have encrypted it. This man was in his own car on his own computer in his own private space. As far as I'm concerned he should sue the broadcaster of the waves and someone should alert the ISP that he was providing internet for the neighborhood. If the man who was supposedly stealing in your eyes is culpable then surely the man who agreed to not provide a hotspot for the neighborhood (which almost ALL ISPs require) is responsible. I.E. If he was following the letter of the contract the ISPs set forth this whole issue would have never have happened. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The brqoadcaster is guilty, the wardriver is innocent, and the carthief analagy is flawed.

I realize that I'm swimming upstream here, and seemingly arguing against a generation raised on file swapping, song-trading, and other forms of acquiring goods for free, but in my day, if something was not explicitly given to you, and you took it, then it was theft - plain and simple.

Why people, these days, have such difficulty understanding this concept is beyond me.

Now, I don't have any problem agreeing that the current state of laws, and technology lead to a lot of "grey-area" situations, precisely such as this. It is difficult to impossible, to determine whether or not a signal is intended to be shared, or simply being shared out of the ignorance, or carelessness, on the part of the "providing" party.

Another analogy for you guys. What if I had a scanner and sat in my car, on the street outside of your house, listening to your cell phone, or cordless, telephone calls? By your definition, I would not be trespassing. Nor would I be stealing from you. However, wouldn't you feel violated?

I have to agree somewhat with the analogy of catching the neighbours water, coming over the fence, with your own plants.
One tiny aspect is left out of this analogy however and that is that you're not only receiving signal, but also sending a signal into the man's house and property thereby touching his stuff (be it with radio waves) and invading his space.

A little better analogy would be walking on the street, neighbour plays music loud, and you stand on the sidewalk listening to it and singing to the tune with the neighbour hearing you sing.

This is perfectly legal, even if it bothers the neighbour, why should it be different for WiFi?

Yep probably. And if I was to do the equivalent of that with Computers I WOULD be doing something illegal, namely cracking a network, intercepting packages not meant for you takes effort on your part to do so with obvious intent to do so. I believe there is even a law in regards to that specificly, wether or not it is encrypted, the difference(Between this and borrowing an internet connection) is it takes explicit effort for you to knowingly read what is intended for someone else. MUCH more effort and usually premeditation, as well as there is no question as to what you are doing, and no question that said packets are not intended for your computer, IP address and Mac address in the packet are both different from your own, thus why it takes the effort to read them.

But yes people do sit and listen on scanners and such and I believe you are right, I dont think it is illegal, it is in my opinion morally wrong yes, but as long as they do nothing with that information I THINK it is legal(Again not sure on that one) Then again it could be considered an invasion of privacy and yes there are ways of following up on that I think, not my strong suit in as far as law is concerned in that area.

Seablade

Ok I just looked up the Florida statute that prohibits unathorized access to others' computers and I have to say it's poorly written. Specifically, the statute is overly vague. Theoretically a person could be charged with a 3rd degree felony , I'll say that again -- A 3rd DEGREE FELONY -- for simply walking by someone's house with their wifi enabled PDA on. No data exchange would be required to violate the statute since the statute makes it illegal to mearly "approach" another computer without the owners permission.

In the particular case of the individual in St Petersburg who was arrested however, I have to wonder what he was doing there for almost an hour. I live in the St Petersburg area and I know there are several free public wifi spots available here and no shortage of miscreants.

This leaves me thinking there is plenty of room for refinement here. There are several cases I can think of where people may be inadvertently accessing/approaching someones network/computer. If I go to a public hotspot, anyone within range of my signal (and anyone who's signal I can receive) is technically guilty of violating the statute, and I would be too. But at the other end of the spectrum, someone who doesn't care if their wifi network is being accessed by Joe Schmoe may find the police knocking on their door because this miscreant unbeknownst to anyone sat in their driveway uploading porn to his connection. However, I myself have in the past used (from within my own apartment) other peoples' unencrypted wifi internet connection to download software or Linux iso images, but I didn't even know that just using their network was illegal. Most people don't care, or they would encrypt thier connection. And of course, in an ideal world encryption wouldn't even be needed.

So in my opinion, there should be reasonable laws against unauthorized access, and wifi vendors should, like MicroSoft, make protected access the default condition for using the equipment. That means that the vendor should require that a user specifically disable the encryption feature. In addition, the vendor should display a warning message indicating that making their network public accessable may make them legally responsible for all traffic that runs over their network.

Michael2575, Nicely said, I couldn't agree with you more

If it was not given to you, and it belongs to somebody else, and you took it, then you stole it.

It's just that simple.

Anything else is just a lame rationalization.

Somebody who buys bandwidth from a provider, and does not explicitly give permission to others to use it, is assuming to be able to have available - at any given moment - a certain pre-defined capacity. If somebody else uses this capacity without permission, then they have taken from the unwitting "provider" something that they have absolutely no legal rights to. From the point in time that they allow/instruct their computer to engage in the acquisition of a signal that is NOT THEIR OWN, then they are wittingly, and willingly, stealing from somebody else, unless the provider has previously granted permission to use it.

The neighbor's sprinkler overspray analogy is clever, but misleading. The neighbor who arranges his plants to absorb some of this "wasted" water in no way impedes the capacity of his neighbor to water his own plants, with the water which he has paid for. He has not taken from his neighbor. The neighbor who utilizes his neighbor's bandwidth, by surreptitiously logging on to his WiFi network, has reduced the neighbor's capacity to use the resource which he has paid for. He has therefore taken (stolen) from his neighbor.

Not sure why I am doing this, because arguing on the internet is like participating in the special olympic, even you win you are still re***ed.

Anyway, wifi is more of broadcasting an signal than stealing a car.
The keyword is "signal", if my walkie talkie is on the same channel as you, and overheard your conversation, you consider that stealing. But in reality you are broadcasting on a PUBLIC frequency.

As for your cell phone analogy, you can't listen to the conversation because the signal is encoded in a certain way. If you are decoding it, it's called HACKING.

Your analogy is flawed because you fail to distinguish the difference between receiving and hacking. Tuning into a radio channel is called receiving, tuning into a military frequency and decoding it is called hacking.

No jda, the keyword is NOT "signal". It is "bandwidth". The taking of the bandwidth is what is stealing. Being aware of the existence of the network, i.e., receiving the signal merely indicating its presence, is not stealing. However, when you instruct your computer to use this network to upload and download data to and from it, then you are reducing the remaining capacity of the network to provide to its owner, what the owner expects of it.