Man in Florida arrested who was using unauthorized Wi-Fi - Page 4

It doesn't matter if the signal was over the air or over the wire. You accessed a network for which you did not have permission to access. That is theft, you are a criminal. Nowhere in your postings do you state that you agreed to a TOS with the entity providing the wireless signal. This means you did not enter into an agreement with that company.

From what I've read you assumed that because a wifi signal was available un-encrypted it was free for use. That was your first mistake, you then accessed the network at the police station. Which at this point I assume you also did not ask permission to use. Seeing that you were already be prosecuted for theft of services it would seem logical that you would at least ask the second time around.

Incompetence by the owner does not give you permission to steal. Just because there are no laws specifically calling out wireless does not mean it's ok. There are plenty of "Theft of services", "Unauthorized use of a computing device" laws out there that you can be prosecuted under.

It's obvious that the owner of the network did not give you permission to use his network otherwise he would not have called the authorities on you.

Sadly there are many other people on this forum that are just as misinformed as you are and feel that it's all free for the taking, it's not. Unless you have specific permission from the owner of the AP by means of a TOS, verbal or written communication, the owner has every right to have you arrested as you are a criminal.

Guys in their vans plotting the position of Access Points are Wardrivers. We don't care if the point is open/closed, ad-hoc or access point. The software we use logs the existance and the GPS position. At no time does a wardriver ever attempt to connect or associate with that Access Point. Many drive with TCP/IP services disabled as an extra measure.

Why? Because connecting to an access point (network) you do not have permission to connect to is a crime.

wardrivers have access to WIFI. it doesnt matter if u log on or just get access to a signal even for a milisecond.in this case you are all a bunch of criminals.
these guys even build antennas they place on their car roof, and drive miles detecting wifi.


then you post on the web the places of all open coonections.and what for???what is the point of this practice?if it is not to tell to someone he can park his van in front of an house or have free internet access because his neighboor has an open connection.

com'on stop to play the hypocrytes and think twice before to post.

70 % of people think when the connection is open u can use it.
and I m not talking about the USA, but several coutries in Europe.
laws in the USA are different than the USA. So please stop to think the USA is the entire world and US laws dictate other coutries....

thank you for your opinion...

Having access to the signal (Beacon) is one thing, connecting and associating with the network and then using that network is another matter. The latter being a criminal act if you do not have permission to use that network. The software used does not connect to the AP, it in effect sends a 'Ping' the AP responds with a 'Pong'. This is not a connection.


All access points are posted whether encrypted or not. If criminals decide to use the data to break the law that's their problem.

[quote=johnhamler]
com'on stop to play the hypocrytes and think twice before to post.

70 % of people think when the connection is open u can use it.
and I m not talking about the USA, but several coutries in Europe.
laws in the USA are different than the USA. So please stop to think the USA is the entire world and US laws dictate other coutries....


70% of the people are wrong and potential criminals. There are also laws in Europe, Japan, Switzerland and just about every other country. These laws state that accessing a computer network which your are not authorized to use is a crime.

BTW, if you'd like to PM your city and kanton to me I'd be happy to PM you back with the computer laws for your area.

well, what do you mean by authorization?
for me as long you are on an open connection , you are authorized.Coonecting or having access?, this the justice doesnt know even the difference.

people are arrested because they download illegal things from the internet, if you do the same from your own WIFI, you are still a criminal.
the problem is not if you are authorized to be connected or not, it s a problem of what you download.
the police has decided i was not doing anything illegal, I have been released with my laptop, they only wanted to know what the hell I was doing in my car.
the problem come from this idiot broadcasting miles away and who was unaware he had an open connection. I think this case will be closed anyway.
so you mean that 70% could be some potential criminal.
I know in the USA you can not even pi against a wall.

That's the problem, people assume that because a connection is unencrypted that they've been granted authorization to use it. That's usually not the case. Yes, there are owners of networks that leave their conenction open for people to use. But on the other hand there are owners who don't not know how to properly set up their connection. Does that mean you can take advantage of them? No. It's up to you (the user) to ensure you have permission to use the network.

I agree.

There are two issues here. One is connecting to the network, whether it be 1 computer or just the wireless router (which is considered a computing device under most laws)

And the second is what you do after you connect. Just like any other network you're governed by acceptable use and computer laws regarding hacking, phishing, spamming, child porn, etc.

If the case is closed and you're let off, consider yourself lucky. In the future I would always ask permission first. Since you said the SSID was the name of the company it would have been really easy to go to that business and ask the manager in a polite way if it was ok to use it to check your email, etc. That would have prevented any of this from happening in the first place.


If you feel that your Police department is lacking in the knowledge then I would contact (politely) the moderators of the Netstumbler forums who are well versed in computer law and many of whom are law enforcement or retired law enforcement. I'm sure they'd be happy to forward pertinent information.

first, the "crime" was commited in my country and I am resident of this country.
then I have myself installed an open connection, and I am not going to sue someone who use my WIFI.

if it was illegal, in this case I could run a business and call the cops every 2-3 weeks and ask each time500$.why not 2000$.So i dont have to work anymore!
No wonder people come close of an open connection, speacially when the broadcaster is on a public area with shops, bars, ...

what is the use of these WILAN detectors?, to detect open connections for your laptop.
Usually if something is sold in a country and it is not legally authorized to use, they print" for exportation only"it means you can buy it, but you can use it only in a foreign country.(like USA?)

I dont see why I should pay a fine, without having said anything.the next time, they will say I have commit again the same crime.and If I have paid, it could be worst the second time.



never accept a crime by yourself.
as someone say, lawers, judge, doctor, use the same system. it is not in their interest to make me guilty.
many times, people sit close of me, in the same restaurant, and open their laptop, and send emails...even the cops told me: "ah, you do like in the airports"...
for them I was alright.
once again, the plaint comes from an individual.I can get a free attorney if I want.

Technically Pinging is a connection, even if only for a brief second, it sends a call and requires a response from said network in order to work. What else would a connection be?

Now here is the fun thing, by your definition if I just ran a packet sniffer by your deifnition I would be doing nothing illegal. Others would disagree as I am accessing information not bound for my computer and would have to make an effort to do so. A packet sniffer requires no connection, all it does is listen. I can then use said sniffer to sniff out various passwords and do various cracker-like things later.

Personally I think that would be much worse myself.

As I said the laws are NOT very well defined in this country, they need better definition, and in all honesty things like Wireless access needs to be encrypted or otherwise protected if not intended for public use.

Unfortunatly I doubt a better definition will come along anytime soon.

Seablade

You could but you'd waste more time in courts and the police and justice system would quickly tire of you and suggest you look into means of securing your connection. Your ISP may also find out and see that you may be violating your AUP and terminate your service.


WLAN detectors detect both un-encrypted and encrypted APs if the user chooses to use the information in an illegal manner that's their crime.


Because the police and owner of the AP agree that your access was not authorized and that's a crime. If you ask and get permission before connecting then you should not be comitting a crime.

Packet sniffers that put a wireless card in monitor mode do not require a connection, akin to listening to a FM radio, it all depends on what you do with the information once you have it. If packet sniffing for fun then it's advisable to direct the output to /dev/null. It's still not activity I'd want to be caught doing in my car.

I use the ping analogy as it's generally considered to be a benign act of discovery only. It's a seperate matter if you use the response to do further investigation.

The laws directly pertaining to wireless are a grey area and do need further definition (in the US as I understand it there are laws awaiting approval that address this) but it has been found that once you're on the network it doesn't matter how you got there and there's laws for dealing with that.

The issue as I see it is that Microsoft and the manufacturers make it too easy for a user to unknowingly break the law. By design AP are shipped without encryption or security enabled and Windows automatically connects to the strongest signal.

But that doesn't absolve the user the respsonibility of ensuring that what they are doing isn't illegal.

Also, because there are no wires, the usage of someone else's network wirelessly isn't seen is the same light as plugging in a wire into the wall by the general public. This needs to be changed.

I wonder though... Exactly how do you thinkt he law would react to a syn flood attack by random wardrivers. You could employ to seperate technologies, one a packetsniffer to determine the local subnet etc, and two a simple synflood algorithm. Technically neither of those activities actually involve connecting to the network, one is just listening blindly and one is just broadcasting blindly..

Now obviously the act of an attack like above is illegal, but how could it be proved since there was no connection to the internet, not to mention it could be done without even touching the laptop by dirving down the road with a laptop set to broadcast a syn attack, again only broadcasting.

Actually come to think of it, is the syn flood attack even illegal by itself? I am not sure according to our modern laws it is, but since it is usually followed by other methods it tends to be a non issue.

But anyways the point above stands, completly unrelated technologies that can be done by using seperate non-illegal(?) means. Combine those ideas with different activities, like requests for a web page, and all the sudden you are no longer actually connecting to the network, merely blindly transmitting and listening.

Yea for grey areas in the law.

Seablade

Here's a simple analogy I'd use for technically incompetent law workers (lawyers, judges, etc.).

This is what it's like when someone has an unencryped Wi-Fi network and gets ticked when passerbys use it...
You're walking down the street and you meet someone who's putting their garbage at the end of their drive way. They start chatting with you for a bit and invite you in for coffee. This person walks with you up to their front door, opening it for you. All of a sudden, the guy gives you a good wack to the side of your head, pushes you to the ground and slams the door.

So, who's the jerk here?

To hack into an encryped network would like like picking this guy's lock and breaking into his house. Using their unencryped network is hardly the same. Sorry, but with the way technology is, having an unencryped network is as much an invitation as inviting someone into your house -- whether or not you (as the network owner) are aware of it.

I've been through all the analogies before and they all flawed in one way or another. The open/locked door, the watering the lawn, the extension cord in the neighbor's outlet, the unlocked car, throwing something away in the neighbor's garbarge, placing a stamped letter in your neighbor's mailbox, reading a paper/book by using the neighbor's light, watching the neighbor's TV through his window, etc.

The problem I see with your analogy is the bolded section. The person invited you in. He gave permission. With the unencrypted network you assumed permission they analogy doesn't work.

Bottom line is you're not 100% sure unless you ask the owner permission first. It's quick,simple and easy. But be aware, that if this is a residential network the owner may not realize that he may be violating his AUP (Acceptable Use policy as defined by provider) by allowing you access. As most residential AUPs do not allowing sharing of the connection outside the premises. Businesses have different AUPs. If you don't then you're breaking the law(s).

That's exactly what the problem. The law doesn't understand technology enough to prove this out.

Exactly! So it is [at least partly] the network owner's responsibility. This "crime" takes two to perpetrate. So why is only one party considered guilty?

If you think about it, it would solve a lot of problems if they were both considered at fault since this type of matter could obviously be settled civily and/or independently. They should either both be charged or niether, since they are both committing a "crime" (according to legalities, anyway). This would incline the network owner to say that it was OK [at the time] and then encourage him to encrypt the network to avoid any further unknown use.

This is a great point, and one that I hope no one ever presses.

I do not encrypt my network anymore. I have too many people coming over my house to game and what not to be bothered setting up thier lappies all the time. My neighbors on both sides are very old and don't own computers. If someone wants to wardrive me, or use a boosted antennae to access my network go ahead. If you're killing my bandwidth I'll kick you out. Otherwise, be my guest.

This violates my ISP's AUP though. So, I'd hate to get arrested for not encrypting my network. But, if someone kills my network and erases data (which I have backed up) then poo on me. If I lived in a city, or could detect other networks in my neighbor hood, I'd encrypt my network.

If you're in public and you get a signal, find out if it's free use. Otherwise ask permission. It's common sense. Don't be a fool. If you parked your motorcycle at the curb while you're sitting on the bench using your lappy, and a motorcycle enthusiast came up and started oogling you bike and then asked if he could sit on it, you'd probably say. Yeah cool (and start up a convo.) If someone just came up and sat on it, you'd start a fight. Make sense?

It is not against the law to scan for networks. Not at all. It is illegal to install software on those networks, or try to log on to those networks, or attempt to connect in any way to any network network you do not have permission to connect to. It's just a good thing that people do not check logs all that often unless a problem happens. lol. When was the last time you checked your router's log? You do log, right...?

Well, it turns out in Canada they could care less. I called the cops on my neighbor/friend since he connects to my wireless network without my permission and they just said to secure the network and call back if it remains an issue.

When I told them that I wasn't comfortable with putting a restriction on my internet and I would prefer them to come and speak with my neighbor they essentially hung up on me (they said sorry and goodbye first). No investigation! Nothing! Stupid OPC.

Yeah! I'm one happy Canadian!

Why exactly are you not "comfortable" securing your network? I can't understand why it wouldn't be the other way around.

I like analogies.

here one:

your neighboor has a tree in his garden.some of the branches go over your yard and you can even pickup apples.

I know the law for this one.

1.if apples stay on the branch, it is not yours.
2. if apples drop on the ground on your side, it 's your apples.

what I do not know.
what would happen if branches go at the same level of your barbecue or just stop sun light coming in your living room? can you cut them?

anyway, 3 pages has been sent to the court to counterattack the Idiot . today 31st aug 2005.
including map of wifi area showing a radius of 150m.
wifi explaination with all hotspots in several countries
wilan detector I have found in a brochure (saying, detect if ur neighboor has a good wifi)
security from a an adsl manual.(encryption key,...)

some guys get away , and some guys have been fined.I think the justice decide whatever they want.i can be in a good day or in a bad day.

I think each case is different,...But I can say that if you use an open connection, do it when noone can see you (not in your car), and if you are in public, do not stay to long on the line, and dont come back on a regular basis.

Lot of people are just jealous"why should you have a service you are not paying??""it is not yours!!" , then these same people put less fuel when returning a rental car, or stand a few miles away from an airshow to watch planes for free, or overspeed on the highway.(yes, this is stealing too)

I wonder how many millions of people are connected on an open connection and the justice and fabricants dont care!

stand up and fight!

I dunno about that one. The apples are still technically "his" because, by taking one, you are taking something from him that causes him to have "less". If someone happens to lose a diamond ring on your property, I'm quite sure that doesn't make it yours!

I like the tresspassing analogy, as I think it corresponds the most accurately...

If you walk onto someone's yard, you are only considered to be tresspassing if the owner places an obvious symbol that tresspassing is not allowed on his property (ie.: "No Tresspassing" sign, or a yard-encompasing fence). The owner of the Wi-Fi network you used did not implement any indication that you should not use his network: such as encryption, a password, or a message saying "do not use". This should be, at the very most, a civil case that he must file against you.

Oh, and in case this comes up: for him/someone to argue that you were stealing his bandwidth is as ludricrous as the owner of a yard accusing you of ruining two sqare feet of grass by walking on it.

If the legalistic junkies can't wrap there heads around that, say that you'll pay the fifty cents to reimberse him the cost of his alleged "bandwidth loss" just as you would pay to have the allegedly-ruined grass replanted. OK, maybe don't say that, but you get the point of how ridiculous this whole thing is

I'm no lawyer, but I think that makes some sense.

and what happen when your yard is full of dead apples...?

Uh...clean 'em up? I don't think it's quite the same, because you don't have to "clean up" a wi-fi signal if it goes onto your yard