Has anyone read about this wifi stealing case:
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49292380,00.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6958429.stm
I personnally think its up to the owner to secure it otherwise how does a roaming system know the difference between a public hotspot and a private network. After all, most systems are set to automatically connect to any available network. Network client software and windows gives plenty of warning about the need for securing it when installing the system anyway, so i firmly believe its public candy unless it is secured. Somebody mentioned in the article that
Its the same with private land, unless you put a sign up, put a fence around it and/or lock gates, you cannot expect to convict someone of trespassing! I reckon as its conclusion says, very cheeky yes, crime no. and i bet its something all wifi laptop owners here have done at some stage wether intentional or not. The law needs to be very careful how it convicts this case. Im not saying its ok to break into a network, snatching wep keys etc, as this -IS- hacking and is illegal. - fair enough. Think of it this way (many people do), if you were standing in the street and someone had a garden light on illuminating the street and you used that light to help you with something, would that be stealing? They are paying for the light and you are using it without their permission.
What do you guys think?
[Edit]----------------------------------------------------------------
JUST SO IM CLEAR, IM NOT SAYING WHAT THIS GUY DID IS RIGHT (as so many of you seem to think!) Im merely trying to discuss a possible problem with the rules and regulations regarding networks with no restrictons or warnings.
If you remember several years ago, a hacker got off because the system had "welcome to the network"(or something) on a dial in service. The hacker recieved no messages telling him he sould not be there and no attempt to stop access via logins or passwords. Which is why every network now carries an "Authorized persons only" message and/or a secure login.
My argument is the law should be more clear in respect to how far you are allowed to go before you are 'digitally trespassing', especially in the realm of wireless networks.
I have never once in the bleow posts stated that blatant taking over of someones connection all the time for heavy internet use is ok or that i think it should be made legal. Just clearer boundaries over to what you can or cannot connect to.
Say you are waiting for a bus and each time you are at the bus stop, your roaming PDA connects by itself to the nearest wifi point (which was the original design of wifi devices) and starts downloading a ton of stuff via email, every day. How do you disprove or they prove you are not repeatedly targeting their connection?
As flameduck said somewhere below im more worried about the near future.
Weather we like it or not and there is going to have to be some proper rules drawn up to stop people breaking the law by simply walking down the street with automatically connecting devices that envitably send/recieve packets over the connection. Relying simply on "reasonable exceptions" is not good a enough, they need something more solid.
The whole idea of wi-fi by design of both HW and software is to be able to connect wirelessly to the nearest fixed unlocked access point (or locked IF it has the key). But the future also has provisions for people to connect via a multitude of hotspots (already happening in many cities around the world), which mabe soon become so common as to be like mobile phone coverage, that would need a hell of a lot of 'wifi signs'.
What kind of problems would this create? - This is my argument, not wether this guy was right in freeloading in that way, (no! hes a cheap git who needs a slap), i just dont understand how it can be criminalised when there are such confused, irresponsible and negligent attitudes towards simple security. Which will obviously seriously impair the expansion of the 'sponsored free wifi' idea of fully automatic roaming (like the way a phone attaches to the nearest cell).
I mean, do you share your bank details with people, would you like your account to have free access? why else do we have SIM cards? PIN numbers? Passwords? WEP & PSK? Thats all im saying and thats my argument, is that its a law with a double standard. I dont want something for nothing, i pay for all my software & services i use unless it is indeed free. I certainly dont have an everything for nothing attitude. What i am trying to say about the users responsibility is true though, look at car security. If you leave your car unlocked, doors open, and the engine running you probably wont have much sympathy from anyone, not the police, your wife or more importantly the insurers. Regardless of weather the guy who nicked it is a criminal, they would blame YOU! (even though they world arrest and charge the offender, and rightly so).
Wouldnt it be cheaper and easier (before the s hits the fan) to simply educate rather than prosecute in the first place, and make any wi-fi point not giving out any indication that its private, provision to be assumed public??
This way there is no grey area, its either restricted or it isnt.
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49292380,00.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6958429.stm
I personnally think its up to the owner to secure it otherwise how does a roaming system know the difference between a public hotspot and a private network. After all, most systems are set to automatically connect to any available network. Network client software and windows gives plenty of warning about the need for securing it when installing the system anyway, so i firmly believe its public candy unless it is secured. Somebody mentioned in the article that
just because someone leaves their car or house unlocked doesnt give you the right to burgle it
is nonsense! As no property is really being stolen, as the person is on a flat fee anyway, and if they dont want to share bandwidth then they need to lock it to prevent computers from automatically stumbling into it.Its the same with private land, unless you put a sign up, put a fence around it and/or lock gates, you cannot expect to convict someone of trespassing! I reckon as its conclusion says, very cheeky yes, crime no. and i bet its something all wifi laptop owners here have done at some stage wether intentional or not. The law needs to be very careful how it convicts this case. Im not saying its ok to break into a network, snatching wep keys etc, as this -IS- hacking and is illegal. - fair enough. Think of it this way (many people do), if you were standing in the street and someone had a garden light on illuminating the street and you used that light to help you with something, would that be stealing? They are paying for the light and you are using it without their permission.
What do you guys think?
[Edit]----------------------------------------------------------------
JUST SO IM CLEAR, IM NOT SAYING WHAT THIS GUY DID IS RIGHT (as so many of you seem to think!) Im merely trying to discuss a possible problem with the rules and regulations regarding networks with no restrictons or warnings.
If you remember several years ago, a hacker got off because the system had "welcome to the network"(or something) on a dial in service. The hacker recieved no messages telling him he sould not be there and no attempt to stop access via logins or passwords. Which is why every network now carries an "Authorized persons only" message and/or a secure login.
My argument is the law should be more clear in respect to how far you are allowed to go before you are 'digitally trespassing', especially in the realm of wireless networks.
I have never once in the bleow posts stated that blatant taking over of someones connection all the time for heavy internet use is ok or that i think it should be made legal. Just clearer boundaries over to what you can or cannot connect to.
Say you are waiting for a bus and each time you are at the bus stop, your roaming PDA connects by itself to the nearest wifi point (which was the original design of wifi devices) and starts downloading a ton of stuff via email, every day. How do you disprove or they prove you are not repeatedly targeting their connection?
As flameduck said somewhere below im more worried about the near future.
Weather we like it or not and there is going to have to be some proper rules drawn up to stop people breaking the law by simply walking down the street with automatically connecting devices that envitably send/recieve packets over the connection. Relying simply on "reasonable exceptions" is not good a enough, they need something more solid.
The whole idea of wi-fi by design of both HW and software is to be able to connect wirelessly to the nearest fixed unlocked access point (or locked IF it has the key). But the future also has provisions for people to connect via a multitude of hotspots (already happening in many cities around the world), which mabe soon become so common as to be like mobile phone coverage, that would need a hell of a lot of 'wifi signs'.
What kind of problems would this create? - This is my argument, not wether this guy was right in freeloading in that way, (no! hes a cheap git who needs a slap), i just dont understand how it can be criminalised when there are such confused, irresponsible and negligent attitudes towards simple security. Which will obviously seriously impair the expansion of the 'sponsored free wifi' idea of fully automatic roaming (like the way a phone attaches to the nearest cell).
I mean, do you share your bank details with people, would you like your account to have free access? why else do we have SIM cards? PIN numbers? Passwords? WEP & PSK? Thats all im saying and thats my argument, is that its a law with a double standard. I dont want something for nothing, i pay for all my software & services i use unless it is indeed free. I certainly dont have an everything for nothing attitude. What i am trying to say about the users responsibility is true though, look at car security. If you leave your car unlocked, doors open, and the engine running you probably wont have much sympathy from anyone, not the police, your wife or more importantly the insurers. Regardless of weather the guy who nicked it is a criminal, they would blame YOU! (even though they world arrest and charge the offender, and rightly so).
Wouldnt it be cheaper and easier (before the s hits the fan) to simply educate rather than prosecute in the first place, and make any wi-fi point not giving out any indication that its private, provision to be assumed public??
This way there is no grey area, its either restricted or it isnt.