Man in Florida arrested who was using unauthorized Wi-Fi - Page 5

I dont know about "unprotected broadcasting" like you encountered in the market, seems to me that would not be your problem. If the guy opened his/her connection in the store and didnt have any security implemented he was asking for it. If on the other hand a guy was using a hotspot he paid for then you went through his PC to get a network connection, yep do the time...you were wrong. Im running Wi-Fi now like many others im sure and the first thing I done when putting in the router was to read the manual, I had heard of WEP and WPA before I ever had a network at all and figured they were probably important (really important if you pay bills and stuff like that online, which I do). I have 64 bit WEP implemented rite now and have been thinking of going WPA and MAC addressing in the near future. I went with 64 bit WEP because it was a snap to get up and going and because where I live not many people have phones let alone broadband or wireless connections (not really a very dangerous area for hackers around here, anyone say ghetto?) But just for argument if I didnt implement ANY security on the router then I wouldnt be suprised at all to find someone had found my signal and logged on, if on the other hand he took some action to bypass my security I would be pissed and would press charges (or whatever you do when you find someone stealing from you). Good thread tho, may be upping my security alot sooner after reading this...hehe.

Well after reading a bit more on the thread (i thought I was on the last page when I posted this) it seems you are trying to rip people off john. I mean you are saying things like "dont do it where they can see" and "dont stay on the line too long", obviously by saying these things you KNOW what you are doing is wrong. You sound like a thief man, if you want a broadband internet connection go buy one like everone else, leave others people stuff alone. I personally hope to see ya convicted. In the first couple of pages of the post you try to sound like you done it by accident (like you didnt notice the warning your PC gave you about linking to a different signal or something along those lines), well after reading your later posts its quite evident that you actively go around looking for a "free ride" or better yet someone with an unprotected network so you can rip them off. Now your crying about getting convicted? Hehe I hope you enjoy your felony for something as stupid as logging into the internet.

Is there a way to petition this stuff out the government and have them fix this.

I know of several cafes with free WiFi. Several malls doing it. I have several friends and myself open WiFi for use by people if they want to. Community Wireless.

Its like leaving a quarter / dollar bill on the road. Finders keepers. Forget comparing apples and trees.

It is an open signal. There is no way to distinguish whether the owner intends to or does not intend to allow other people to access the WiFi.

So, if its not secured then its assumed to be open / free.

Its as simple as that. No one is entering someone elses house to access their HARDWIRE.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

I have had 4 WiFi signals in my neighborhood. Guess what all of them were called... LINKSYS. Including mine. So at any given time my wireless card is unable to distinguish between the signals I end up access someone elses base station would mean I am stealing their internet. BS.

I ended up changing my base station to LinkSysX.

So, if you dont want someone to access its your prerogative to secure it. If someone tries to hack through then thats illeagal.

Well its no big deal to change your SSID and I dont see why people leave it the way they put it at the factory but thats the individuals choice. You could also just turn off the "Broadcast my SSID" feature and nobody would probably even see your network. Heres the problem tho, if you want to leave your network open thats fine, even makes you sound like a pretty cool guy and no they are not accessing your hardware (unless your PC is on and your network is open, then if you say left file sharing on your screwed). My money however is hard earned and not spent so my neighbor can have a fast internet connection, as a matter of fact I dont care if my neighbor or anyone else for that matter has ANY internet connection. Yes the radio signal is in the open but its MY router broadcasting MY broadband connection to MY network and that private property. Also there are hackers and any number of other crooks out there that would really like to see people leaving theyre network open, if they do someone damage who is it going to get traced back too? Hmmm probably your network. Well I cant believe theyre are people out there that have no problem being ripped off by someone, a totally foreign way of thinking to me. Do I think someone should be brought up on charges for accidentally logging on to someone's network? Hell no I dont (like everyone says its the owners responsibility to secure his network) but does that make it ok for the idiots that go around with the Wi-Fi sniffer and look to jack someones connection, nope your a thief like any other. Just my opinion. If there are free cafe's that have Wi-Fi for everyone, thats great go use it and leave peoples private network alone, that was not a very good point to make...really if there are so many FREE hot spots then why do so many people charge money? Yeah rite, if anything I look for these laws to get tougher as they should. I have a PDA thats Wi-Fi enabled, I had it WAAY before I had a broadband internet connection, did I go around looking for someones network to piggyback? Nope cause its not mine and no matter what you say its wrong (unless you have actually asked said person and they said yes).

nobboker2,

you are right, I go for a "free ride"(like millions of people in this world), and? what is your point?.when I switch my TV in my van, I have free TV...when I switch radio, I have free radio...., when a guy send a wifi signal on my computer , I have free internet...so???sniffers? well, man, use a password!
you do not bring anything new here, we have already spoken about analogies...

and I am really sorry for you if you think you are being riped off!and I am sorry that you think you are surrounded by crooks, criminals, murders,students trying to get free internet!!...there must be millions of criminal in a town like NY.

when I say "not stay too long in your car", it is simply there are no law about this, and you could have lot of paperwork to do even if you are innocent.Cops can stop you for ANY reason.by exemple: stay to long in your car close of an airport is suspicious,take pictures of planes is supicious too..

I think the criminal is the one who do not use a password for his system.
99% of people I have talked with about this, think the same.
if I am a criminal, in this case, I want a LAW which specifies exactly what we can do and what we can not do.Is that to much to ask?Yes, it seems to be too much for this world!
Until now, I am a free man, and I have not been charged of anything simply because I have rejected all accusations and I have plaid not guilty.(and BTW I continue to have some free rides!!)No law is prohibiding me to use a free hotspot.And I dont care who broadcast, not my business!

BTW, I have been sued by an individual. The brodcaster will have to explain why he was broadcasting publicly and why he did not use a protection Key.
He will have to show proves I have stolen is internet connection.with bills?
He will have to explain why if he knew I was intercepting his WIFI for months, why he did not do anything to stop me!
if the brodcaster want go further, he has to write to the juge for an audition.


do you know WIMAX? it is a new WIFI which broadcasts with a radius of 15 miles.Can you imagine the number of "criminals"(like me) who will have access to this system?it is why we need specific LAWS...

I think you missed the ntire point others and myself make... there isnt any way to TELL wether you are on someone's private network or not.

Free WiFi spots arent just in some cafe. There are free access points in parks in cities, literally you sit on a bench in the middle of the park and browse the internet. Why do I know this? Because I do musical theater tours and sometimes that is the only way I can get on the internet to send email or work on other projects... and guess what? Those may or may not be intended to be legal. I know many that are and some I just happen to find.

Wether or not the law currently states it, what needs to happen is the broadcaster needs to be responsible for encrypting their connection, and ISPs need to set by default for it to be encrypted. Heck even just not broadcasting the SSID would work at least for some way of telling wether or not a network is intended to be public or not.

There are some cities trying to provide free wireless internet across the city right now(Not happening thanks to legal issues and stupid governments at theis moment). Other cities provide certain areas that you have access because they cant afford to provide it across the entire city. And if you think that broadband prices are the way they are due to competition, you should research where our country stands in as far as broadband access compared to every other out there. The prices are the way they are due to ignorance on the part of the US people and a willingness to pay it combined with a lack of aggressive competition. Providing free internet has done nothing to it, in fact those companies charging for access are the ones preventing the widespread deployment by the above cities of free wireless internet. Why? Because it would put them out of buisness? Possible, maybe even probable. At the least is would cause them to reassess their pricing structure due to the presense of a competition. Thus the legal litigation that is causing the above not to happen, big companies seem to own the US.

Seablade

I went back on the "crime scene"to sniff what was going on "in the air"

the broadcaster not only has installed a wep key, but his SSID is not broadcasted any more...

all I can see is his MAC # and a locker symbol(protected)...

he didnt broadcast his name because he doesnt want i find where the WIFI signal come from.But at the begining, he was broadcasting his shop'name.

so why did he installed a lock if at the begining he say it was not public.
by protecting his system , he has demonstrated that his installation was at the first instance not protected(and open to the public), if it was, he would not have changed anything.

Do you see my point?

if you do not, here an analogy:
you are busted by a cop cuz you drive at 90 miles instead of 70.
you say to the cops you were driving at 70, and your speedmeter showed 70.

then a few miles later, another cop (informed by radio), stop you, and ask you why now you drive at the correct speed?

another one: your mom asked you why the chocolate tablet is half eaten during the night. you say it is not you and you have been the only one to be suspected.
the next day, the chocolate tablet did not disappear this time.
what a coincidence???(dont take your mom for stupid )




so who is guilty now???

Bingo. Very good point.

lets forget the WIFI for a minute , is it legal to connect yourself to a home netwrok or an office network , on which you are not the owner ?? there is no firewall on it , no protection at all , but still it is not considered legal , why? , well simply cause you are not the owner and do not belong there !

The problem with this is those who started the ''Public Hot Spot'' , now when people see a non protected wireless point , they think that it automaticly becomes ''Open to public''
Well thats not true ...

The problem is that , there is no way to know the difference between an unprotected wireless point which is open to public and an unprotected wireless point which it isnt open to public ....

I would really recommend that those manufacturers , those who build these wireless router and everything , should script something to know if the owner wish to make his WIFI point public , or private , no need to really protect it , but that way ''The user'' would have no excuse if he was caught on a non protected private wireless point. (private)

Thats my opinion

It's illegal to go and connect yourself to a wired home network because that would require you to break and enter. You can't compare a wired network to wireless simply because, well, one is wired, the other isn't They're different. If you're broadcasting an unprotected signal, you might as well be placing an RJ45 jack at the end of your driveway.

after just reading a PORTION of this thread, here are a few comments:

some of the analogies offered are flawed… btw, i’m speaking from the basis of US law

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION AND FREE COMMENT CONCERNING THOUGHTS EXPRESSED IN THIS THREAD. IN NO WAY SHOULD IT BE CONSTRUED AS GIVING LEGAL ADVICE.

the analogy about the apples is wrong... in the US there are two general classifications of property - "real" property (land and all things attached) and "personal" property (everything that's not real property)...

with real property you own it from the center of the earth (consider oil and mineral rights, etc.) and all the sky above... an analogy would be the invisible plane of the goal line in fball or the cone above the basket in hoops (basket interference)... if your neighbor's tree has limbs and fruit that extend over your property, that fruit is your property...

you can even hire someone to prune the tree and bill your neighbor for the work...

from the IT standpoint, it's obvious that all wireless devices should come with security features activated, much more detailed instructions about wireless problems, etc... in other words, as others have said, secured should be the default mode from the manufacturer and it should take a very overt action by the end user to deactivate it and proof thereof (breaking a seal, etc.)...

contrary to some posts, yes we do need to protect idiots (more appropriately, the ignorant) from themselves...

some examples that have been given are totally false... people say "breaking AND entering", the law says "breaking OR entering"... if you enter someone's home even though the door is wide open, AND your intent is unlawful, there's no difference between that and picking his lock...

about the guy that parks in front of someone else's house on a regular basis and uses their network, unless there is a specific statute or case/common law to the contrary, he has committed no crime... HOWEVER, he most certainly has committed a tort (a civil wrong) against the person... the tortfeasor (guy who wrongs another) could be sued for a whole list of items... theft, harassment, etc...

to contrast this with the person who is in their own home, they have wireless and they inadvertently connect to someone else's network, the key words are "intent" and "overt"...

the intent of each is obvious - in the first instance, the intent of driving to someone's home, parking and using their network is obviously an overt act done with the intention of using someone else's network (property)... there's nothing per se illegal or wrong with parking on a street, but his intent makes it part of a series of events to purposely, knowingly and with premeditation commit an act that is harmful to another (tort)...

in the second instance, it’s obvious that the person’s intent is to use his network, his connection, etc. and NOT to steal from another…

hope this helps clear up some of these points…

this is a very interesting area of law and we will be seeing the federal and state governments clarifying their positions and certainly new law will emerge…

and for the person who referred to “ignorant” judges, lawyers, etc., I’d be very careful about throwing rocks… the courts and congress will use experts who are not “ignorant” about these issues to promulgate the necessary rules…

when Congress wants laws/rules made concerning very technical issues, they pass “enabling statutes”… a perfect example of this would be the EPA… do you (or most ppl for that matter) know how many ppm of mercury should be allowed in fish, in your drinking water? i doubt it… they therefore “enable” experts to make the rules/laws that should apply…

also, ALL of us are ignorant about MOST things… again, might wanna remember that before you generalize and demean a whole class of individuals… you might learn that modesty and respect for others, regardless of who they are, will get you much further in life and praise and respect from those who are truly knowledgeable and experienced…

i daresay your knowledge of law is just a scintilla… these comments prolly doubled it lol… i would still apply the following legal term to it: de minimis non curat lex (the law does not deal with trifles)…

a good rule of thumb, if you think you're prolly doin' something wrong, using someone else's property, etc., most likely you are lol

and a note for those advocating WEP... WPA offers far more protection, so if you have the option, use it...

So then lets say we switch from Wireless Internet to Wireless Phone , lets say there was a way to use the phone line of your neighboor using you Wireless phone , just by simply opening the phone and searching for a wireless signal ....

So it wouldnt be illegal to use his phone , to make a long distance call in Africa ??? your neighboor would be stuck with outraegous overseas fees , one day you get caught using your wireless phone while calling in africa on his line ,

you would go in court and tell them , well its his fault , since his line wasnt secured , so i thought it was ""Open to public" ???

Then if thats legal , it means that i can go to my friend's house , park in the driveway
, use his internet to download the "Super Mega Biggest file that ever existed on the internet" and then let him pay for the bandwith i used , since "it was not secure , so open to public"

The fact is that , the bandwith you are using actually doesnt belong to the neighboor , it belongs to the internet provider , but the internet provider is renting a service which gives the permission to "the neighboor" to use that bandwith , then "the neighboor" can give permission to other people to use that same bandwith . that means if "the neighboor" did not give you permission to use the bandwith , then you have no right to use it , so it's actually stealing , plus it's fraud , beucause you are using a service to which you dont have permission , plus you are using "bandwith" and the bandwith you are using is charged on "the neighboor" account , so he's gonna have to deal with bandwith fees that he did not use ...

Sorry, but you're missing a vital part of this argument: cost. Since when does extra bandwidth on a broadband connection with a fixed price cost you any more? It doesn't matter if my throughput is 5MB or a 500MB in a month, the cost is the same. The cost to run one computer or ten computers off of a single broadband connection is the same. By your theory, the cost to run one cell phone is far different than the cost of running even two cell phones.

So, let's say, in theory, that an ISP gives you a broadband account with a maximum throughput of 1GB per month or say that they give you a variable rate based on your bandwidth usage. Now if someone comes along and starts using your connection, that's stealing.

But to say that someone is stealing from an unlimited resource such as a fixed-rate broadband connection doesn't make sense to me.

Personally, I wouldn't do it because the law is pretty stupid sometimes and because I don't know if they have a "variable rate" connection (if there is such a thing).

sorry but this is so glaringly wrong i just have to respond...

less finite? lol why do you think ppl pay for more bandwidth and companies charge more? because it IS FINITE...

and just because i'm not using my bandwidth at any given time does NOT mean you have any right to it whatsoever...

it is MY personal property and you have no right to it at all...

would you care if someone used your car, house, etc. just because you weren't using them at the time? or if they were "only" using them for "legal" actvities? i think so...

how about your long distance when you're not using it...

you "watched a court show"... hmm, must assume it was a drama (fiction) or one of the "judge xyz" shows... so it is totally meaningless as far as the rule of law is concerned... if you want to learn something about "real law" please take some paralegal courses or at least watch Court TV where the cases are REAL and the announcers are lawyers who know and speak about REAL LAW...

as far as your "car running" analogy, once again you are totally wrong...

following your line of reasoning:

- if a woman walked down the street at 4am NUDE (dumb i agree) it would be HER fault if she was raped, huh?

- if you leave the door to your house open, then anyone has a RIGHT to come in and use your property, after all, you are not using it then...

- if you (i live on the coast so i see this all the time) leave your boat unattended then anyone should have the "right" to use your property since you obviously aren't using it...

and as for software being different because it's not finite... you are hittin' me where i live... i've been a pgmr/analyst for 20 years...

the law recognizes a huge difference in property and human life... you have the right to take someone's life to protect your own or another's life and that's it.. the supreme court has NEVER upheld the takin' of life for the protection of property...

however, property is valuable... i think my father said it best when sentencing (yes he's a judge) someone for grand theft and the defendant was very hostile because it was a harsh sentence and he did not physically hurt anyone... (he had stolen and disposed of very beautiful and valuable hand carvings by a man who had an eye disease and was going blind... he would never be able to remake them or enough new items to be able to support him and his wife) "property has virtually no value in comparison to human life... however, property represents the work, sweat and time of another, therefore you have not only stolen his property but you've stolen all these things from him as well as future security"...

well i've spent years writing code, traveling, thinking, leaning, etc. and it cost me more than money... so when i write code, you are gettin' the benefit of all my years of experience... yes my time is very expensive but my clients realize that they are paying not just for any actual code i might write, but for all the other assets i bring along...

and as someone was very astute in pointing out, some of you that have been brought up STEALING music, software, movies, etc. have no appreciation, no conception, that what you are stealin' is wrong, just as wrong as stealing a car, painting, dvd, computer, etc... you have rationalized that it is not stealin' but your are totally and completely wrong...

the law recognizes this, those of us who were taught the difference between right and wrong know it, but somehow you have managed to convince yourselves that it's not and that is truly sad... you seem to have no concept of personal responsibility or a power greater than mankind, and for that i feel very, very sorry for you...

i have to sleep with myself, look myself in the mirror, look into my wife's eyes, look into my sons' eyes and that humbles me and makes me know that if i can't be honest with myself, with a higher power, there's no way i can be honest with them...

i guess you consider us old fashioned, naive, suckers, etc. and that is your right... but i do hope that some day you examine what foundation, what sense of right and wrong, you have based your life on and i hope that you are satisfied with what you see or that you find a foundation that you can feel comfortable with...

these are just the ramblings of someone you don't know so of course feel free to ignore them... i wish you all the best on your journey through life, i hope it is exciting and enlightening...

Comcast charges me $10 per month more for 8mbps instead of 6mbps...

it's national and been commented on several times in these forums... it's only fair, you want a larger pipe, you pay more...

don't mean for this to sound as blunt as it does, but it is the truth...

your opinion or what "makes sense to you" is meaningless as far as the law goes...

the law is not perfect, just like doctors it's called the "practice" of law...

it's not always fair or equal or blind or many other things we all wish it was... it does constanly change and evolve and when "loopholes" are found they are the responsiblity of the legislature to close, not the courts...

and when you hear of someone gettin' out on a "technicality" then again it's the job of the legislature to change the law or of law enforcement to do a better job, etc... yes it lets a bad guy get away, BUT it puts the legislature on notice that it exist and should be changed... everyone seems to forget this and concentrate on the instant case when it would be far better if they lobbied the lawmakers to change it so that it never happens again...

i'm certain that this will surprise you...

defense lawyers (represent the accused) have meetings with proscecutors (represent the people/state) so that the defense lawyers can point out where problems exist in search warrants, etc. so they can be changed and will hold up to the standards of law...

see, defense lawyers, even though they represent "the bad guys" live in the same community as everyone else, so it's in their interest to see that the guilty are found guilty and make society safer for us all...

their job is NOT to get their clients off, as so many assume, it's to see that their clients get a fair trial...

Not every boradband are using unlimited download , for example here in Canada , Quebec , you can go with the service provider , Videotron , you have the 5,1mbps , that cost something like 39/month , but you only have 10Gig , you have to pay 59/month to get the 7,1mbps with unlimited download and upload .....


And even if you were connectiong on a signal where the person is getting unlimited broadband activity at no extra charge ,

Like i said , the owner did not give you the right to use his bandwith , so even if hes not gonna suffer extra charge , you still have no right to use it , just because the door is unlocked , doesnt give you the right to enter ....

I am the ignorent, because if I knew that someone were sueing me for that, certainly I would have avoid his wifi.I still think he is a bastard!!
But at the begining, I didnt not know that I could "hurt" someone to be on his wifi.

As I have not found anyhing clear about this problem, I took my chance and I have plaid non guilty. In my stupid country, we do not have this "guilty or not guilty"terminology.
If you pay the fine sent by the local police office, you are guilty, but if you refuse to pay the fine, the plaignant must go see the judge.

at this time of writing this, the case is still open, but so far, I have not been "invited" by any judge to present my defense.

if this case go further, it can go to the top, and change the laws.But I really think that none really care of these "stolen internet" because if a governemnt were really worry, they would have set some laws long time ago.

this shows you, how a government like the USA, make fun of you(and us in europe).
they say they fight terrorism, but we all know that some guys use this system.

another thing hapened to me a few weeks ago(apparently these days,federal agencies are looking for troubles). I can tell you that sometimes the US government is totally clueless(specially new agencies), and since th 9-11 they did nothing except to take more money from taxpayers to run new useless security offices like the TSA, homeland security,...and all other crap agencies who do not know anything about visa, people, and of course internet connection.(sorry if you work for a gov agencie, but some of your collegues must really do something else)

and this is the same in France, England,....specially england, when some terrorists were preaching in the streets(around spring 2004) and using the internet for their mad plans.
what the Brit gov said:" it is legal"...you know what happened next!


no one can say that the internet "it is not yours"so do not use it.
Simply because the internet is for everybody and by going on the internet, it is my right, cuz it belongs to no one.
if I "see" a wifi and this wifi is sending the internet( by air), I think it is my right to use it.(analogy: sun used for cell panels, since when can someone sue me because a sun'ray passing through his house goes on my panels.?the sun is for everybody like the internet, so use it at your own discretion)

sometimes I wonder on what planet I am?

if this wifi was sending something else , by exemple a costly connection to africa, sure it is not mine.

to the guy who post something about rap:

if a woman walk at 4 am in the streets and she is nudeand rapt, you say it is not her fault ; and if a woman rapt you at 4 am, I am sure you would be very happy

in some US state, it is prohibided for the police for incitation. like selling drug to try to catch you.

when someone broadcast internet wifi in a public area, he invites you to be connected.this is called incitation, and if you are incited to commit an illegal act,he can not sue you.

Well "The Internet" does not belongs to no one , but the signals you were receiving belong to the sender of those signals and that would be the Internet Service Provider , and the provider gives the right to "the guy in his house" to use that signal , but they (Service Provider) do not give you (personnaly) the right to use them , neither "the guy in his house"

It is like saying : if i see a guy on the street throwing his house keys , it is my right to pick them up and enter in his house ....



Would you have known before what those signals were containing , i mean would you have known before receiving those signals in your laptop , if those signals would have contain important data , that you were not suppose to see ???


Don't get me wrong , im not saying that you are a criminal , i do think that the situation is totally ridiculious , i mean if you were just sending emails and things like that who cares .... and the gouvernement should focus on more important things than arresting the guy who is sending email via , the neighboor or local store wireless internet , this is plain stupid ...


But on the other hand , if we start not caring about people who use other people wireless access point , well everyone will start doing it , and then were gonna be invaded by hackers and everything , and its gonna get hard to control the situation at that point .

Wireless is just gonna get bigger and bigger , and if we dont make any laws right now , there are gonna be alot of people using the wireless technology against other poeple ,

And the other problem is the fact that people are all excited about that wireless thing , but they are not informed , thats why , if i start scanning around my house ill see alot of access point that are not secured , and then people say , why did i get hacked , well DUMBASS(im actually watching That 70s Show while writting that post ) , read the freakin manual , and protect yourself , you dont leave your house with the doors open , then dont leave your internet open for access , protect it , like you would protect your house ....

Thats my opinion