Agreed it IS stupid. And so is leaving keys in the car. But that doesn't give someone else the right to use your property regardless of where it is parked.
Agreed it IS stupid. And so is leaving keys in the car. But that doesn't give someone else the right to use your property regardless of where it is parked.
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Correct, and I agree. Leaving your wifi open is a stupid thing to do. Same with leaving your keys on your car, your house unlocked, and thinking your 18 your old daughter going to prom is going to come back a virgin still. Just because it's a stupid act on the person doesn't mean it's right for others to break the law to exploit another person's stupidity.
Point taken. I didn't understand the law before this thread, hah. Thanks for the mini lectures.
ok, firstly to get this out of the way, i wouldnt leech as im always happy to pay my way......
however, if you dont secure your wireless network to let your friends use their laptops/PDAs on it when they come over, then the guy next door should be able to as well......my reason for saying this? simple.....
Your ISP leases you your broadband line......lets say that again, Your ISP leases YOU your broadband line, or in the event of a house with multiple occupants, they lease that household the line......that doesnt however include your friends coming over and using up bandwidth as well.....i think that would be covered by the fair use part of the policy, so if you allow a small lan to happen (ie 8 mates come over for a night of CS:S, but it ends up going from just an internal lan game to a wan game) then i would say you are breaching their fair use policy......which means you should be paying for a business account, then you can treat your home like a hotspot in a hotel or airport etc.
If you are willing to break the fair use policy in this way, why shouldnt the guy next door jump on board?......
However, if you secure your network, but the guy next door cracks it and leeches, then get the ah heck sent to prison, he hacked you, and that is not good things.
however, if you dont secure your wireless network to let your friends use their laptops/PDAs on it when they come over, then the guy next door should be able to as well......my reason for saying this? simple.....
Your ISP leases you your broadband line......lets say that again, Your ISP leases YOU your broadband line, or in the event of a house with multiple occupants, they lease that household the line......that doesnt however include your friends coming over and using up bandwidth as well.....i think that would be covered by the fair use part of the policy, so if you allow a small lan to happen (ie 8 mates come over for a night of CS:S, but it ends up going from just an internal lan game to a wan game) then i would say you are breaching their fair use policy......which means you should be paying for a business account, then you can treat your home like a hotspot in a hotel or airport etc.
If you are willing to break the fair use policy in this way, why shouldnt the guy next door jump on board?......
However, if you secure your network, but the guy next door cracks it and leeches, then get the ah heck sent to prison, he hacked you, and that is not good things.
Based upon the fact that many people and businesses purposefully broadcast wifi signals for free public use I say if its unsecured you are inviting the public to use it.
geecee
Platinum Member
- Jan 14, 2003
- 2,383
- 43
- 91
One of my friends had his own DSL and had bought a wireless router and USB wireless adapter and simply connected to the wrong router. This went on for a few weeks until I was helping talk him through turning on his router's WEP (over the phone) and he tried to change some settings on his router and we realized he had actually been connected to his neighbor's router the whole time. I think most reasonable people would agree that he doesn't really deserve to be convicted of theft. He is guilty of wireless ignorance/not RTFM, but he had no intention of stealing his neighbor's bandwidth. If they're going to pass strict laws regarding this kind of behavior (as theft), networking companies/bandwidth providers better start better educating their customers to the dos and don'ts of wireless networking.
40Hands
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2004
- 5,042
- 0
- 71
Well too bad for the schmucks that don't secure their wireless, eh? The only people who are going to be caught on others networks are the idiots who drive around in their vans and park outside peoples homes.
People are so nice to leave their networks open to the public!
in this particular instance i would say it should be considered a forgiveable offence, especially if neither party had a bandwidth allowance limit.....because your guy was paying for DSL himself, so its not like he didnt want to pay and just leech for free....i'd say if for some reason it went to court a judge would rule it pointless and kick the case out of court...lol
the ISP and router companies tho do need to make things easier to setup, or at least provide a more simply laid out and thorough list of actions to secure the network and make it plainly clear what can happen if you dont
No laws should be made for this. If someone is too stupid to lock down their AP, too bad. Learn to use the equipment retard! EVERY AP comes with some form of encryption, USE IT! It would be a different story if someone cracked an AP to gain access, but for something that is wide open, too bad. Open Wifi spots (hot spots) are all over the place. Am I going to worry now about connecting to a hot spot because I think I might be breaking the law? How are you going to write that law that would exclude hot spots from "illegal entry"? There are also accidental connections that can be made with an open wifi network. What? Are you going to throw the book at those people too? This should be REALLY easy to write into a law. If you break an encrypted wifi network and gain access to it without permission, you are then engaging in an illegal act. If you gain access to an open network (I would consider it public), too bad. The person setting up the network is responsible. They don't need to purchase extra equipment or software to secure their network, they just need to RTFM!
Lumathix
Golden Member
- Mar 16, 2004
- 1,686
- 0
- 46
Not the same.
People at work, with access to the conference room can see a sign saying "Free to take" the cookies. People with unsecure networks most likely don't know anything about WiFi and don't actually know that others can leech off it. Your analogy is illogical and doesn't fit here.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
That one of the things that makes this so hard to nail down. Its not just people intentionally stealing stuff. You've got people paying for internet, setting up a router and plugging a card in...and then using their neighbors network without even realizing it. How can you convict some one for stealing when they didn't even try to do it...wireless just grabs the best signal and is done with it. Sometimes, thats your neighbors.
You could argue that if you are already paying for the service, you're not stealing it in this case...but thats not really true. Your neighbor payed for his bandwidth and you're stealing that from him. You pay for a bunch of bandwidth you don't even use.
Regardless, I think this is theft...but theft in its most petty form. I mean, most users don't fully utilize their line and wouldn't even notice you were there.
In regards to the cable already in the apartment, I just bought a house and the cable was already up and running on Saturday when I hooked our TV up. On monday I called to get my internet/cable setup etc the lady said that they were going to cut the line that day, but since it would be 2+ weeks before they could get out to set everything up they would just leave it alone.
Im sure they will just use the payment from the previous owners to cover the cost etc, but that doesnt mean I am stealing... I did the ethical thing and told them it was already running.
Professional courtesy from the provider I guess.
Im sure they will just use the payment from the previous owners to cover the cost etc, but that doesnt mean I am stealing... I did the ethical thing and told them it was already running.
Professional courtesy from the provider I guess.
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Argh.... LOOK, I said it earlier. If you don't secure your wifi and leave it open and someone uses it WITHOUT expressed permission that is stealing. Letting your friends use your wifi connection while they are visiting is EXPRESSED PERMISSION. They aren't stealing. The neighbor using it without asking is STEALING.
Business that broadcast open wifi connections for public usage have signs stating FREE WIFI USAGE. I went to barnes and nobles yesterday and it had a big green sign on the door stating this. In this instance, it's open and free because it's stated as such. If a business doesn't state it in writing anywhere as public access, then using that connection is STEALING.
Look. It's a black and white situation. There is no "grey" here at all!
Use any excuse you want. Until a law has been inacted in your state to explicity state that unsecured wireless access points are free to use for anyone that can access them regardless of the situation, then it is stealing. Plain and simple.
Business that broadcast open wifi connections for public usage have signs stating FREE WIFI USAGE. I went to barnes and nobles yesterday and it had a big green sign on the door stating this. In this instance, it's open and free because it's stated as such. If a business doesn't state it in writing anywhere as public access, then using that connection is STEALING.
Look. It's a black and white situation. There is no "grey" here at all!
Use any excuse you want. Until a law has been inacted in your state to explicity state that unsecured wireless access points are free to use for anyone that can access them regardless of the situation, then it is stealing. Plain and simple.
No one yet in this entire thread has addressed the true complexities involved here and how current laws must be changed or updated for this purpose.
First off, who owns the wireless signal coming into my house? 2.4GHz is public spectrum. Does the person broadcasting that signal bear responsibility for where it goes and who accesses it? Or does the person receiving it now own it as "found property"? That has not been clearly defined with regards to Wi-Fi.
Second, in order to actually connect to that network, I must send a signal back to the broadcast device. I would say that my neighbor now owns my signal as well, so I am putting myself at risk for them to use my signal aren't I? Could the argument not be made that now my neighbor is stealing my signal, despite the fact that it's intended to reach HIS receiver? Signal broadcast is not as simple as a car analogy or an apple tree as everyone has made it to this point.
Third, there is such a thing as "found property" laws. If a kid leaves a bike laying in the middle of the street and another kid picks it up and rides away with it, would the law charge the kid with theft? 99% of the time, no. It's not his bike, he probably knew it, however, because it was essentially "abandoned" in a public area, it technically is no longer the property of the owner. This is how the police find evidence on suspects in trash cans, etc. Is my neighbor abandoning his signal he's sending to everyone in the neighborhood? Could his signal allowing my access be considered "found property" as well? The car analogy fails because there are systems in place to uniquely identify such property by VIN, license plate, owner registration, etc.
Having said that, do you wish to see the government require you to register your wireless access point and subsequently pay taxes on it to facilitate the process of maintaining all that data like we have with vehicle registration? How about taxes on your wireless devices? What about government mandate that you MUST uniquely identify your WAP with government provided identifying information to allow for easy identification by passers by that the signal belongs to you and you only? When any of you can start answering these questions, you're well on your way to drafting the start of any legislation which should govern wireless network access. So far, no one has even come close to approaching the answers to these questions.
The best analogy I can come up with and I'm sure it has flaws, would be my neighbor placing his televsion set in a publicly viewable window. If I sit on my property and watch his TV attached to his cable, am I stealing his cable? I can photograph that TV from public property, so if I can see it, it's legal, right? So here's another question that needs to be answered. If I connect to that same cable that is "displaying" internet access and I am on public property, is it stealing? I can watch his television signal from public property through his window and that's not stealing. I can photograph him/her naked from under the same circumstances and that's not illegal, right?
The only sticking point here is that in order to use that internet access, I have to send my signal back onto his property. To those who said there is no gray area, you've not thought of all the possbilities and current laws yet.
First off, who owns the wireless signal coming into my house? 2.4GHz is public spectrum. Does the person broadcasting that signal bear responsibility for where it goes and who accesses it? Or does the person receiving it now own it as "found property"? That has not been clearly defined with regards to Wi-Fi.
Second, in order to actually connect to that network, I must send a signal back to the broadcast device. I would say that my neighbor now owns my signal as well, so I am putting myself at risk for them to use my signal aren't I? Could the argument not be made that now my neighbor is stealing my signal, despite the fact that it's intended to reach HIS receiver? Signal broadcast is not as simple as a car analogy or an apple tree as everyone has made it to this point.
Third, there is such a thing as "found property" laws. If a kid leaves a bike laying in the middle of the street and another kid picks it up and rides away with it, would the law charge the kid with theft? 99% of the time, no. It's not his bike, he probably knew it, however, because it was essentially "abandoned" in a public area, it technically is no longer the property of the owner. This is how the police find evidence on suspects in trash cans, etc. Is my neighbor abandoning his signal he's sending to everyone in the neighborhood? Could his signal allowing my access be considered "found property" as well? The car analogy fails because there are systems in place to uniquely identify such property by VIN, license plate, owner registration, etc.
Having said that, do you wish to see the government require you to register your wireless access point and subsequently pay taxes on it to facilitate the process of maintaining all that data like we have with vehicle registration? How about taxes on your wireless devices? What about government mandate that you MUST uniquely identify your WAP with government provided identifying information to allow for easy identification by passers by that the signal belongs to you and you only? When any of you can start answering these questions, you're well on your way to drafting the start of any legislation which should govern wireless network access. So far, no one has even come close to approaching the answers to these questions.
The best analogy I can come up with and I'm sure it has flaws, would be my neighbor placing his televsion set in a publicly viewable window. If I sit on my property and watch his TV attached to his cable, am I stealing his cable? I can photograph that TV from public property, so if I can see it, it's legal, right? So here's another question that needs to be answered. If I connect to that same cable that is "displaying" internet access and I am on public property, is it stealing? I can watch his television signal from public property through his window and that's not stealing. I can photograph him/her naked from under the same circumstances and that's not illegal, right?
The only sticking point here is that in order to use that internet access, I have to send my signal back onto his property. To those who said there is no gray area, you've not thought of all the possbilities and current laws yet.
And then what SSID are you going to connect to? What happens if my SSID is named the same as yours, and your wifi client connects to mine because I have a stronger signal? Can I then sue you or have you jailed because you were stealing my broadband connection? Hey, there is NO "grey" area. You stole my sh!t, now you need to go to jail!
Correct. Justifying stealing bandwith that someone else is paying for by saying "if my comp. can detect it then I feel bad not" is an assanine way of justifying yourself. It boils down to this: if someone else is paying for it and you are using it without their knowledge and not compensating them for it then you're stealing the bandwith.
Anubis
No Lifer
easier??????? it takes less the 30 seconds to figure this out
go to router - go to advanded then wireless then enable WEP key
its like 5 clicks , IT COULDENT BE ANY FVCKING EASIER
kranky
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 21,019
- 156
- 106
Rogue brings up a lot of interesting points, all of which are smoke and mirrors (not a slam at you, Rogue). I don't want a bunch of complicated laws designed to plug tiny loopholes that people want to exploit. The analogies to physical items break down and therefore don't make sense.
Did I invite someone to use my bandwidth, yes or no? That's all there is to it. I paid for the bandwidth. If someone is using it uninvited they are wrong. It's absolutely black and white and I don't see any grey area at all.
All the "grey areas" are attempts to justify using something that wasn't paid for, based on a flawed assumption that if I *can* do something then it must be OK to do it. That's exactly how you end up with a million laws. No one wants to start from the premise that if you weren't invited to use my bandwidth, then it's wrong to do it.
Did I invite someone to use my bandwidth, yes or no? That's all there is to it. I paid for the bandwidth. If someone is using it uninvited they are wrong. It's absolutely black and white and I don't see any grey area at all.
All the "grey areas" are attempts to justify using something that wasn't paid for, based on a flawed assumption that if I *can* do something then it must be OK to do it. That's exactly how you end up with a million laws. No one wants to start from the premise that if you weren't invited to use my bandwidth, then it's wrong to do it.
Fact is, everything I discussed is based on current law as applied to something currently NOT covered by virtually any law. My intent was to show that there are a number of laws which could quickly be applied to this problem, however, they may not fit properly. Just about everything I said is valid. The light from a television which exits a window and is "received" by my eyes would be very similar to a wireless broadcast. The only difference is my eyes don't send anything back to the television inside the house. I think you dismiss my questions too easily as "smoke and mirrors."
There is often times a difference between right/wrong and the law. Using something of someone elses without their permission is wrong. Just because there are no explicitly defined laws saying it is wrong, doesn't make it right, acceptable or justifiable.
Savarak
Platinum Member
- Oct 27, 2001
- 2,718
- 1
- 81
for those of you who used the hose/water analogy... the water going INTO your property becomes non-attached and therefore sorta your property now.... by the same virtue, spraying water BACK into their property, even tho its not the same water, becomes the neighbor's property... what they do with that water is now their business, if they want to respond by sprouting out more water in varing forms, they can... their unsecured signal "spray" goes into my home, and my computer picks it up... then my computer "sprays" some stuff back... now it just so happens that this can be used to send information... basically like indian smoke signals but with water/wireless packets.
if the signal is encrypted, then its like acid water and you must not touch it or retaliate, causing war
, but unsecured is like tap water.
that said, i pay for my cable at my apt near school, and the dsl at home is also paid for, even tho at school i can pick up maybe 3 unsecured wireless, and at home i can pick up 2 others
if the signal is encrypted, then its like acid water and you must not touch it or retaliate, causing war
, but unsecured is like tap water.that said, i pay for my cable at my apt near school, and the dsl at home is also paid for, even tho at school i can pick up maybe 3 unsecured wireless, and at home i can pick up 2 others
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter