Man in Florida arrested who was using unauthorized Wi-Fi - Page 16

i think you miss his point which is an excellent one and i don't think anyone has raised it yet... "Are you allowed to do that?" isn't the point... he's talking about an "attractive nuisance." That’s a legal term for things like a swimming pool, a telescope on a roof with a ladder nearby, etc. where you have something on your property that is attractive to others (in particular children) and could harm them as well.

As he’s saying, you might want to restrict your connection so that a kid doesn’t use it to download/upload kiddie porn, adult material, do anything illegal over it, etc. and YOU would be considered negligent for leaving your connection open and easily available to the kid.

Or even worse, have an SSID like “Free Internet” as some have advocated. That would really put you on the bad end of a lawsuit.

Just the other day law enforcement went to the house of a guy who works for the Dept. of Homeland Security and was online with a cop (thinking it was a young girl) and asking her to download some "pix" of herself.

How you think they got that address? From his IP address and provider i would assume. So if someone was using yours then they'd come to your house. How'd you like to hear 'bout that on the news? I'd rather be arrested for almost anything other than dealing with kiddie porn.
___________________________

EDIT: If a kid uses it to spread a virus, worm, etc. or snoop in private files, you'd probably go broke defending a cause of action (lawsuit) whether you are negligent or not.

That is actually one of the scariest points I've heard.

Bad analogy. In order for me to "nab" some water/electricty/or gas from your service I would have to access your pipes and set up some form of transfer of this service. However if your water was on in your yard and running into the street, and I walked by and chose to drink the runoff is that stealing?

Now on that same subject your wireless signal is penatrating my wall going into my head as I sleep I get cancer in 20/30 years and the government says wirless signals can cause cancer, I know you have wifi can I then sue you for giving me cancer? something to think about there.

But really your signal comes into my house are you guilty of broadcasting without a licence?

just wanted to get my thought out there

you are totally ignorant of law which is no biggie...
unfortunately you are a fool too which is a shame...
don't need a license for wireless duh...

The analogy is good. Its th service you are taking. As dozzit says, you are ignorant of the law. Accept we're right.

WiFi causes cancer? Lol. Give me evidence.

I haven't read much of this and I don't intend to. If this was brought up already then too bad and no

I personally think that if somebody doesn't take the time to secure their network then it isn't a big deal unless somebody else using it runs the bandwidth into the ground. I'm sure this is not usually the case.

In fact, this thread has inspired me to turn the entire idea around. I am going to sue the owner of the next router that sends an unencrypted signal within range of any of my devices. I am going to sue them for polluting my electromagnetic space. Everything they do on the internet is visible to me (or my kids if I had them) and I find that disturbing considering what people do on the internet (especially considering the decent amount of pr0n that probably passes through your house every month wether you see it or not, ever think of that? ) Hell, people complain about me poluting their personal air space all the time (It's a college neighborhood apartment with two rooms of old people that make it their job to complain about everything the college kids do including loud music). Ok, ok, not exactally the same thing but is an equally worthless lawsuit/problem in my eyes.

And please for the love of god don't take this post entirely seriously. I am simply trying to make an analogy to show how worthless this lawsuit is in my eyes. I am not claiming to know much of anything about law or for that fact care (Apathetic? Maybe, but it's the truth. I stay out of trouble. If the law was less of a beaurocratic bunch of mental masturbation maybe I would make an effort. I think things like this should be simple enough for the layperson to represent themselves.).

Word to your mother.

And yes, I understand the difference between loud music (no choice but to listen to it and be disturbed) and intercepting a wireless signal to determine it's content (a personal choice and somewhat technically demanding).

Bottom line is, if somebody is downloading porn and you have kids using a wireless capable device, the potential is there.

The true bottom line is that people should be expected to secure their wireless signal. It is a reasonabledemand for something that is not essential to life. Don't know how? Then you have to pay somebody to do it, plenty are willing. This is the economics of things that arent necessity.
If I bought a performance engine for my car, did something stupid like not install the timing belt correctly at all when I swapped it in and then got angry when my engine destroyed itself then I can't yell at anyone because I didn't know how to install it.

Once again, not exactally the same thing, but whatever.


New post because the edit function doesn't seem to work for me.

But would not securing YOUR network fall into negligence? Many people (I assume the MAJORITY) don't know you can secure your wireless network. Maybe the routers should come with some type of encryption already enabled and supply the password in the manual? I understand the attractice nuissance argument, but does that make it legal? "But judge, they left their keys in the car door. It sang to me. I just had to take it for a joy ride!"

that should be the idea yea, supplying the password alrady in the package

Why do people persists in debating this, the law states it's a crime. Sure, if someone doesnt secure their property, take it if you want, but don't be surprised when you're arrested.

it was easier than this, the idiot had ID'd himself to the cop that he thought was a teenage girl. Had given the cop his work cell phone # and home phone #.

My take on accessing an unsecured wireless network from public property (aka the street out front) or from your own private property is that it should be legal. They are willfully broadcasting a signal over your property or the public property. It is THEIR responsibility to secure the signal they are broadcasting out.

The best comparison is satellite direct TV, they can’t prosecute you for picking up and decoding a direct tv signal that is coming onto your property. They have tried to get people for possession of a hacked or modified decoder box, but those that have fought it have won. Because there is an exclusion of having one for "testing purposes". But, at the sametime you can't take and just hook up to the cable company's junction box with a hard wire.

snafle, thank God there is someone here blessed with common sense

sad how many ppl wear ignorance like a medal of honor

don't know why i keep wastin' my time with this but i do know from messages that some have been educated...

again, the airwaves are like highways, some are free for public use... private property (cars) travel on them... that does not give you any right whatsoever to the private property...

It's fairly enjoyable, I like a debate.

Just accept it- it's something that another person is paying for. Using their bandwidth lowers their enjoyment/use of the servie they pay for. Tapping into a satelite feed doesnt do that.

The guy wasn't arrested for logging onto the network as such, more for using someone else property. Since we seem to like analogies, having a ping of the network is I guess like looking into someones front room as you walk by- nice telly etc. If they have their blinds down, then its WPA, hehe.

Now, you can see their room, you can see the tv. But you can't really recline with a cold one, ca you. Now walk into their house, watch the telly, drink their beer. That's a crime.

I bet you someone will bleat- "But it's their property then", yeah, it is. So is bandwidth. The fac you are venturing onto their property is irrelevant for this- you are still taking up their space on the couch, drinking their beer, etc.

Or another one. You're at a cafe, on the last table. You get up to go to the toilet, leaving some clear notification it's you're table. You come back, someone there. You'd be pissed, it's your "property" again- you don't own it, but you have reserved it for your use.

Our society and most others are built on this- you don't use smeone elses stuff without permission. If they are broadvasting round the neghbourhood, tell them so and ask if they mind you using. Offer to help them setup WPA. Just have permission to use it.

Its the law.

Its common sense.

Its the way things are.

it's what you were supposed to learn in kindergarten...

I thought we learned to share in Kindergarden?

yes, if the owner gives permission...

alot of these guys here are arguing things such as "what if i dont know im connected" or "its their fault for leaving it in the open". they are just trying to justify getting something thats not theirs for free. it doesnt matter if u didnt know, ignorance is never a defense. well you know what? im gonna go wait outside of your house until your little daughter is playing on the lawn. then right when she steps foot on the public street, im kidnapping her. hey, its your fault that you dont keep her on a leash, and hey, i didnt know she was your daughter. fair game by your logic. i guess u can never file a kidnapping report cause then you would be a hypocrit.

Just a question, I know wifi does not require a license, pointing out the fact that his signal is "spilling" into my space not that I care, but if his dog pooped in my yard it would be different. Just like if you were driving your car and had pord on a video visable to the public you could be pulled over and charged.

As far as the name calling "unfortunately you are a fool too" all I have to say is "can't we all just... get along?"

I am a truck driver and do not claim to know all the laws of The United States, however I do know the laws that pertain to me and my job, that does not make me ignorant. Do you know all the rules as defined by the FMCSR? I think not but that does not make you ignorant because they may not pertain to you.

But that is ok.

This article might be of interest to you.

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/6505.html

The college dropped the charges.