Seriously. I used to think ATers had better than average critical thinking abilities, but I'm having my doubts lately.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,967
- 19
- 81
One man arrested in my state for just connecting to a wifi
It's a crime in the UK.
Also pray your neighbor isn't a hacker purposely leaving his network open. He can see anything you send across it pretty easy.
It's a crime in the UK.
Also pray your neighbor isn't a hacker purposely leaving his network open. He can see anything you send across it pretty easy.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,967
- 19
- 81
ok neighbor's sprinklers are on and you rig it so the water comes to your yard only...not touching anything but the water sprayed from the sprinklers.
Either way no matter how you hash it, connecting to an open network uninvited will soon be criminal in all states...however; I see security becoming more and more used each day with these one button type wizards that can lock down a network pretty well.
If I had more tech saavy people in my neighborhood, id open a wifi just to reverse hack and screw with them. Send them to goat.. and stuff.
novasatori
Diamond Member
- Feb 27, 2003
- 3,851
- 1
- 0
a better analogy would be
neighbor is an amateur plumber, and does his own plumbing, but some how the plumbing for water winds up connected into the living rooms of all adjacent houses
instead of having it disconnected at his house to prevent his neighbors from using it, he calls the police
they are all charged with federal offenses and they get owned in jail, while he could have simply had the connections terminated at his home.
QueBert
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2002
- 22,412
- 731
- 126
my story, had a neighbor who had wireless, it was unsecure, his router was closer to my pc than the router in my house and his signal always came in stronger. I had a POS card that wouldn't let me select a channel (my router was on a different one) and I had no way to tell this pc to connect only to my router. I told him he needed to WEP up his router, he said "nope" I explained what was happening with me connecting he said "well don't connect" I tried to explain I had no options and was always going to connect to his router. He said if I used his internet without his permission he would call the police.
he never called, and up until the day he moved I was on his wireless whenever I was in the room with the PC that picked up his signal ha.
I just did a scan of wireless networks in my area, 8 came up, 3 were unsecure, I connected to 2 of the 3 first try.
he never called, and up until the day he moved I was on his wireless whenever I was in the room with the PC that picked up his signal ha.
I just did a scan of wireless networks in my area, 8 came up, 3 were unsecure, I connected to 2 of the 3 first try.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,830
- 3
- 0
My network is open so that people can use it. It's called sharing. Speed is limited to 2mbps, so they can't use all my bandwidth, and it's no skin off my back.
slag
Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 10,473
- 81
- 101
No, baloo, you're missing the bloody point.
reread it until you get it right. I'm receiving a signal thats broadcast on my property. Im not walking over to his house and using his unlocked hose. Hes turning on the water, handing me the hose, then chiding me for using it.
It doesnt matter where the AP is. What matters is that its unlocked and he's inviting me to use it because he's giving it to me. By leaving the AP/router, whatever, open, he's inviting me to use the signal he's broadcasting to me and anyone else in the area.
The laws are bunk. Its clear as day.
QueBert
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2002
- 22,412
- 731
- 126
I agree, what's to stop a neighbor from telling another neighbor they can use their wireless, then deciding to screw them over one day calling the cops and screaming "THIEF!" Just like I could use my neighbors without asking, and if I got caught I just tell the police "he said I could use it" it's a he said she said thing.
If someone leaves their garage door open and you decide to waltz in, it is still trespassing - no matter what way you cut it.
This water/hose/sprinkler argument is bullshit, find a different one.
Originally posted by: her209
So what are you calling it?
Both are open, doesn't mean its legal to enter/gain access.
Not closing and locking your garage door is equal to not closing and encrypting your wireless network.
Wrong. Just because something is difficult to prosecute doesn't make it grey. There are numerous cases where people have been prosecuted for logging into unsecured wifi networks as listed in this thread already. Simply because this situation involves newer technology and laws are not cleanly on the books doesn't mean it's grey. Is it hard to prosecute, yes? Has it been done, which means that a law has been broken, yes. It's theft of a service (among other things) plain and simple.
- Jun 10, 2004
- 14,345
- 4,964
- 136
I'm going to break my self-imposed ban on posting to add some fuel to this thread.
Some points:
Connecting to an unsecured router involves a series of DHCP operations.
Here is a outline of DHCP from Wikipedia (gives you the general idea):
Now a good lawyer would recognize that:
a)the client machine requesting a IP lease is equivalent to asking permission to connect
b)the router/computer offering an IP lease is equivalent to offering permission to connect
c)the IP lease selection is equivalent to giving the client machine permission to select a local IP in order to finalize the connection
d)the IP lease acknowledgement is equivalent to giving the client machine the green light to use network resources and establish a connection
Because the router is unsecured, DHCP by default grants permission for connecting clients to use a local IP and utilize network resources. Thus, permission to use the router is implicitly granted.
Again, in the hands of a competent lawyer, it could very well be convincingly argued that permission was indeed granted because an unsecured router essentially grants permission to utilize network resources to any clients that request it. Therefore, because permission was granted to utilize the resource it is not stealing. Ergo, it cannot be sustained as being illegal, because DHCP is essentially a series of authorization "handshakes". The client that connected was fully authorized to utilize the network resource, whether the owner intended to allow this or not.
It should be pretty obvious by now that labeling the usage of open wireless connections "illegal" is problematic, and that a comparison to theft is a flawed analogy. The question then becomes, is the (ab)use of open wireless networks is (un)ethical? Obviously using such a network for criminal activity, child pr0n, etc. is unethical - but what about casual web surfing or checking email? Arguably you are still using the Internet connection someone else paid for, but a counter-argument is that they are freely providing authorization for public use.
Conclusion: The public needs to be educated on how to enable at least rudimentary security on their routers in order to avoid this issue altogether. When security is enabled there is no question as to the legality/ethical nature of connecting to the router in question.
Some points:
Connecting to an unsecured router involves a series of DHCP operations.
Here is a outline of DHCP from Wikipedia (gives you the general idea):
Now a good lawyer would recognize that:
a)the client machine requesting a IP lease is equivalent to asking permission to connect
b)the router/computer offering an IP lease is equivalent to offering permission to connect
c)the IP lease selection is equivalent to giving the client machine permission to select a local IP in order to finalize the connection
d)the IP lease acknowledgement is equivalent to giving the client machine the green light to use network resources and establish a connection
Because the router is unsecured, DHCP by default grants permission for connecting clients to use a local IP and utilize network resources. Thus, permission to use the router is implicitly granted.
Again, in the hands of a competent lawyer, it could very well be convincingly argued that permission was indeed granted because an unsecured router essentially grants permission to utilize network resources to any clients that request it. Therefore, because permission was granted to utilize the resource it is not stealing. Ergo, it cannot be sustained as being illegal, because DHCP is essentially a series of authorization "handshakes". The client that connected was fully authorized to utilize the network resource, whether the owner intended to allow this or not.
It should be pretty obvious by now that labeling the usage of open wireless connections "illegal" is problematic, and that a comparison to theft is a flawed analogy. The question then becomes, is the (ab)use of open wireless networks is (un)ethical? Obviously using such a network for criminal activity, child pr0n, etc. is unethical - but what about casual web surfing or checking email? Arguably you are still using the Internet connection someone else paid for, but a counter-argument is that they are freely providing authorization for public use.
Conclusion: The public needs to be educated on how to enable at least rudimentary security on their routers in order to avoid this issue altogether. When security is enabled there is no question as to the legality/ethical nature of connecting to the router in question.
Can an inanimate object enter into a legally binding contract with another inanimate object? (router with computer)
QueBert
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2002
- 22,412
- 731
- 126
what I don't understand, my wireless adapter (Buffalo) simply connects to the strongest unsecured network, regardless of it I tell it to or not. I just hooked it up to my PC and turned it on and I was instantly connected to a network, that wasn't mine without me doing jack shit. If I turn my TV on and notice I have Cinemax, and I don't pay for it. Why should I be held accountable for it? Technically I should contact Charter and tell them I suppose, but why is it "stealing" In either case I'm not doing a damn thing to initiate it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter