do you consider accessing your neighbor's internet for personal use stealing? [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

nickel

08-09-2005, 07:59 PM

Stealing your neighbor's Net

The spread of wireless is opening lots of opportunity to log on for free, but experts urge caution.
August 9, 2005: 5:24 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Forty bucks for high-speed Internet access? Not a bad deal. But how does free sound?

To a growing number of Internet piggy-backers, it's the sweet sound of pirating their neighbor's wireless network.

Most new computers are equipped for wireless Internet access, and more and more people opting for Wi-Fi in their homes. But as the networks become stronger and more prevalent, more of those signals are available outside the home of the subscriber, spilling over into neighbor's apartments, hallways and the street.

Add to this the growing number of cafes and other public "hot spots" that offer Wi-Fi (for wireless fidelity) connections and the ability to buy more powerful antennas that can pick up signals several hundred feet away. The coverage in some places can be pretty near flawless.

One study by Jupiter Research said 14 percent of wireless network owners have accessed their neighbor's connection. Yet anecdotal evidence suggests that more and more people are logging on for free.

"I haven't paid for Internet since I've been in New York City," said one friend of this reporter. "Ditto," chimed in another.

And as the practice of using someone else's connection without paying for it expands, it raises the question: Is there anything wrong with that?

Will this land you in jail?
The legality of stealing your neighbor's connection is murky at best.

"All of this stuff is so new, it's hard to say what the liability issues are," said Robert Hale, a San Francisco-based attorney who recently published an academic paper on the subject.

Hale points out that there is a federal law on the books that ostensibly prohibits using someone's access point with out their permission. But "without permission" is vaguely defined and the law seems more geared towards computer hacking.

It seems pretty clear that if you hack your neighbor's password then it could be reasonably argued you didn't have authorization.

But securing many older wireless systems with a password is difficult and even newer ones can be a challenge if you're running multiple computers or multiple operating systems. And, while it may be a violation of the user agreements with Internet service providers, some community-minded users deliberately leave their connections open for others to borrow.

"It's a gray area," said Paul Stamp, an analyst at the technology consultants Forester Research. "By not restricting access it could be argued that you're implicitly making that available."

"A broad statement concerning the access of unprotected wireless networks as being always legal or illegal simply can't be made," said Jackie Lesch, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice. "It's just kind of dicey."

On a federal level, according to Lesch, prosecuting decisions are made on a case to case basis, mostly depending on the type of system accessed and what it was accessed for.

On the state level it could be more clear. "It's unlawful access", said John Geraty, an officer with the Internet crimes against children unit of the San Francisco Police Department.

According to Geraty, using your neighbor's wireless is specifically prohibited in the California penal code. "It's not yours and you're taking it," he says.

But Geraty said his department doesn't deal with that type of crime specifically and an officer at the department's fraud desk -- whose jurisdiction it would fall under -- said she couldn't recall anyone ever being arrested for it.

Experts do agree that the likelihood of getting caught and prosecuted for stealing a wireless connection probably depends on how often you do it and how you're using it.

"The damages are really the big issue," said Hale. "Are you just poking around, checking your e-mail, or are you doing it on a regular basis and affecting this person's bandwidth?"

Location also seems to play a part.

"If you're in a Manhattan building with 30 apartments that's one thing," said Julie Ask, research director at the technology consultants Jupiter Research. "But if you're the guy who parks your car in front of a suburban house in the middle of the night and you've got the screen from your laptop glowing, well..." speaking of a man who was arrested earlier this month in Florida for just that.

Exposing yourself
Legal questions aside, reliability is another reason to pay for your own access. If you are a heavy user or need the Internet to work from home, relying on a connection that your neighbor could shut off at any moment is probably not a good idea.

There is also the possibility that someone could have set up the unsecured connection as a trap. Experts say it's possible for the network subscriber to gain at least partial access to your computer, read your e-mails and see the pages you visit if you are using their connection. Any personal information you send online could then be compromised.

So while pirating your neighbor's Wi-Fi it may seem like a good way to siphon a free service, you may end up feeling pretty stupid if you get a summons for sneaking a peak at the latest sports scores or your favorite Web sites are the topic of conversation at the neighborhood Christmas party.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/technology/personaltech/internet_piracy/index.htm?cnn=yes

BigJon

08-09-2005, 08:11 PM

No locky, no stealy.

sunrisetech

08-09-2005, 08:16 PM

I agree. If it's free to find, it's free to use. But there is the flip side of your neighbor being able to "see" your computer too.

ialsohaveadream

08-09-2005, 08:49 PM

Man, it's times like these that I want to be a better nerd, so that I could know how to do such things. I pay $40 a month for a terribly slow broadband connection.

I have many questions about this, but mainly:
If you log onto someone's wi fi, they can see the stuff on your computer?
Is the reverse true (you see stuff on theirs)?
Does it slow down your neighbor's connection?
If there's multiple wi fi spots around, and you've got a spiffy antenna, can you use a local business' connection?

Mike_N_Ike

08-09-2005, 09:49 PM

I'm going to go with not stealing. I only say this because I believe that 99.9% of the time, 99.9% of the people who has unencrypted wireless networks won't notice or be affected by another person using their internet. So since you're not taking anything from them, it's not stealing. It'd be like if their patio light shined into your yard and you used it to read.

brainsmile

08-09-2005, 09:57 PM

it's sort of like watching tv from your neighbors open window. :)

cheapie

08-09-2005, 10:07 PM

it's stealing. if the person is paying for 1meg speed and you're using half of it w/o paying, and depriving him of what he paid for you're ripping him off.

Grimm

08-09-2005, 10:50 PM

it's stealing. if the person is paying for 1meg speed and you're using half of it w/o paying, and depriving him of what he paid for you're ripping him off.
It's not stealing. It's a fair trade. The biggest limitation in wireless networking is not the internet conection, it is the neccisity of sharing wireless bandwith with other nearby wireless networks.

If you set up your own wireless network you would be cutting his bandwith in half because of the overlap. So if you occationaly jump on his wireless you are getting a little bit of his internet connection in excange for letting him use all of the wireless bandwidth. A courtious neighbor would shield his wireless so as not to interfere with anyone elses bandwidth.

By not sheilding his wireless he is taking more from you than you are from him. If soneone drive up outside a house and logs on with a notebook that is different. The intent is to steal bandwith, not share it.

It's like a fruit tree that has branches that overhang your property. Legaly the tree belongs to the neighbor, but the branches that overhang your property are fair game for you. If the neighbor makes reasonable security precautions then it is wrong to break past them as it is an invitation of provacy. But an open connection is just that open.

Here is an interesting conundrum. If you are setting up a wireless connection in your home, you set it up and get network access. You are relieved it worked on the first try as you are not to computer literate. So you happily go about surfing the web. A few days later the police knock on your door. You are arrested. It turns out you did set everything up wrong, you didn't plug in the router hub. You have been using your neighbors open wireless network instead. Even though you did not intend to. How do you prove that you had no intent to steal bandwidth? A minimal amount of effort on your neighbor's part would have prevented this. All he had to do was enable one of many security features. Sould you go to jail or suffer serious fines and a criminal reccord for your neighbor's failure to take the most basic of security precautions?

It's only stealing if you break into a network. If it is left open it is a gift, intended or not.

Gothic Girl

08-09-2005, 11:01 PM

I don't know, I'd have to go with stealing. You're taking something from someone without their permission. It's like when you go to a grocery store or something similar where they have flowers and whatever else sitting outside the front doors and just walking up and taking it. Even though nobody's out there to see you take it, you're still taking it without permission.

Grimm

08-09-2005, 11:18 PM

cheapie

08-09-2005, 11:41 PM

not really. it's like you walking up to a moonie and snagging a flower out of the moonie basket w/o paying or telling them.

MikeD

08-10-2005, 03:56 AM

not really. it's like you walking up to a moonie and snagging a flower out of the moonie basket w/o paying or telling them.

:stupid:

I'm with stealing. Get your own d@mn high speed connection! But the point was made (and it's true): you gotta lock your network down. You don't, you're asking for trouble...

dsuds

08-10-2005, 04:10 AM

If it overlaps my personal space then I don't consider it stealing. I'm just sitting here and your carelessness allows me to access from my easy chair... so be it. Consider the flip side, their wireless is causing interference with your 2.4GHz cordless phone or your own wireless network.

But if I'm using a directional "shotgun" antenna to pull in his signal then yeah, it's stealing.

Of course, if you use their connection for any activities that will bring the wrath of "da man" down on you, then it is also stealing.

Jeffbx

08-10-2005, 05:10 AM

It'd be like if their patio light shined into your yard and you used it to read.

I'm gonna go with stealing. Mike, that was a good analogy but that only applies if you're just sniffing his traffic, not surfing. By surfing, you're actually making a connection to the router inside of his house & using his equipment & subscription without permission. It's exactly the same as plugging a cable into his cable TV outlet & dragging it over to your house, except the connection is virtual rather than physical.

Should you go to jail or suffer serious fines and a criminal record for your neighbor's failure to take the most basic of security precautions?

It's only stealing if you break into a network. If it is left open it is a gift, intended or not.

OK, let's reverse it. You're happily surfing around on your WAP that you proudly installed last month, and there's a knock at the door. It's the police with a search warrant - they storm into your house, take your PC, take your work laptop, take anything that looks like it might be computer related & arrest you. Turns out that SOMEONE (neighbor? creepy guy in a van? you don't know) has logged onto your WAP and was soliciting sex from underage kids. Now you're a suspected pedophile, and you need to hire a lawyer to (hopefully!) clear things up.

Since you didn't secure your WAP, should you be considered criminally negligent for allowing someone to carry out illegal acts without your permission on your privately owned network? Or should they not be there in the first place? I'm gonna opt for #2 on that one.

mcs328

08-10-2005, 07:26 AM

I'm going to go with stealing. When I set up my wireless network in my condo I was surprised to see 3-4 other people with the same model and having the same Name. They all said Netgear. I admit I used their connection because I wasn't sure mine was connecting but once I figured it out I just used mine and encrypted it.

So my question is since I live in a condo with other people that use wireless and the only Internet/cable provider we have is Comcast...is it really stealing? Comcast cable internet bandwith is shared anyways and it's speed is determined by how many other people are in your neighborhood...so is it really stealing? That's my understanding of cable internet vs DSL.

jstreet

08-10-2005, 07:38 AM

Remembering sending this story out to our listserv @ work awhile back (7/7/05) ---

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Police have arrested a man for using someone else's wireless Internet network in one of the first criminal cases involving this fairly common practice.

Benjamin Smith III, 41, faces a pretrial hearing this month following his April arrest on charges of unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony.

Police say Smith admitted using the Wi-Fi signal from the home of Richard Dinon, who had noticed Smith sitting in an SUV outside Dinon's house using a laptop computer.

The practice is so new that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement doesn't even keep statistics, according to the St. Petersburg Times, which reported Smith's arrest this week.

Innocuous use of other people's unsecured Wi-Fi networks is common, though experts say that plenty of illegal use also goes undetected: such as people sneaking on others' networks to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information and send death threats.

Security experts say people can prevent such access by turning on encryption or requiring passwords, but few bother or are unsure how to do so.

Wi-Fi, short for Wireless Fidelity, has enjoyed prolific growth since 2000. Millions of households have set up wireless home networks that give people like Dinon the ability to use the Web from their backyards but also reach the house next door or down the street.

It's not clear why Smith was using Dinon's network. Prosecutors declined to comment, and a working phone number could not be located for Smith.(Link no longer works, but here it is -- http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050707/ap_on_hi_te/techbits_wi_fi_theft_1 )

I think it's stealing, even if you're using capacity that the user isn't. That said, I've done it before, but I don't think it's right. Is covertly installing a program on someone's computer to use their excess CPU cycles for your own pet projects right either? Nope. Or hacking a telco so you don't have to pay long distance charges across lines that are already there? Nope.

The "excess capacity" or "I'm not hurting anyone" excuses might be mitigating factors in doling out punishment, but it's still wrong.

Itsme

08-10-2005, 07:54 AM

I'll bet it would be considered stealing if you try and use the bandwidth, and for some crazy reason your neighbor's system hiccups right when he is doing some critical stock trade...and he loses money...and sues you.

DarkFury

08-10-2005, 08:22 AM

I agree. If it's free to find, it's free to use. But there is the flip side of your neighbor being able to "see" your computer too.
But if you don't enable "sharing" then I guess they really can't do anything to you...

But yet and still... folks gotta lock up their wireless routers if they don't want intruders. The days of leaving your front door open are over.

avlena

08-10-2005, 09:21 AM

But if you don't enable "sharing" then I guess they really can't do anything to you...

But yet and still... folks gotta lock up their wireless routers if they don't want intruders. The days of leaving your front door open are over.

I personally don't think it's stealing if the owner leaves it as open, and I don't think ignorance is an excuse for someone who gets upset over someone "stealing" his/her wireless bandwidth. The tutorials that come with the routers make things very simple, and if you're clever enough to try and setup a network, you should be clever enough to know the dangers of leaving it open. IMHO, if you leave the network open, then it means you're willing to share with your neighbors out of the goodness of your heart.

Bottom line, take responsibility for what's yours. if you don't want people taking your wireless, lock it up!

Grimm

08-10-2005, 09:22 AM

Isn't there a legal precident? A TV signal is free to use if it is unencrypted. It enters your home and it is yours. An encrypted signal is not yours to use. Even if you can break the encryption it is illegal. An unsecured wireless signal is an open broadcast it not intended to be private. What's next? Having someone arrested for interupting a conversation you are having on a CB radio?

OK, let's reverse it. You're happily surfing around on your WAP that you proudly installed last month, and there's a knock at the door. It's the police with a search warrant - they storm into your house, take your PC, take your work laptop, take anything that looks like it might be computer related & arrest you. Turns out that SOMEONE (neighbor? creepy guy in a van? you don't know) has logged onto your WAP and was soliciting sex from underage kids. Now you're a suspected pedophile, and you need to hire a lawyer to (hopefully!) clear things up.

Since you didn't secure your WAP, should you be considered criminally negligent for allowing someone to carry out illegal acts without your permission on your privately owned network? Or should they not be there in the first place? I'm gonna opt for #2 on that one.
One would hope that they would not charge you as they were unable to find any evidence on your computer, but you chose to leave the connection open. It's on you.
Look at it this way. Let's say you were going away for a week and invited a friend to stay in your home and the police come knocking on your door when you get back. They arrest you because someone was selling drugs from your house last week and search your house. You can prove you were not there and tell them who was... should they charge you? You shouldn't be letting a drug dealer stay in your home.

In your example, the logs from the router would show the mac address logging onto your network at the times the crimes occured. The police could determine it was an outside intruder and when that computer was used again they could find it, perform a search and arrest the right person. The trouble you got was from leaving a connection open. Something you shouldn't do in the first place. You need to take responsability for your actions.

bachviet

08-10-2005, 09:40 AM

It's not wrong until you access their computers.

nickel

08-10-2005, 10:18 AM

I personally don't think it's stealing if the owner leaves it as open, and I don't think ignorance is an excuse for someone who gets upset over someone "stealing" his/her wireless bandwidth. The tutorials that come with the routers make things very simple, and if you're clever enough to try and setup a network, you should be clever enough to know the dangers of leaving it open. IMHO, if you leave the network open, then it means you're willing to share with your neighbors out of the goodness of your heart.

Bottom line, take responsibility for what's yours. if you don't want people taking your wireless, lock it up!
well, you can't really go by that theory, because they could leave their garage open, but that doesn't give you permission to take their car for a spin.

i do think you are taking something from them when you access their internet, but would i do it? sure, i have and i will.

Grafalgar

08-10-2005, 10:32 AM

Imo, not stealing for the reasons stated in the article. It's stealing if you use another individual's internet connection without authorization. Authorization being indicated by a password or some other measure that, in the very least, attempts to make the connection exclusive. An open wireless connection is "public", no one needs authorization to log on, not stealing.

Also, I think there's a "fair use" (but not in the copyright sense) aspect here. If I'm hogging all my neighbour's bandwidth playing BF2 or downloading a million mp3's or whatever .. that's reason for concern .. you're not stealing at that point, you're robbing. But if you're just surfing about, checking out sport scores or whatever, doing relatively minor things (as far as bandwidth is concerned) then by all means, go for it.

Personally I think wireless networks should default to secured, not the other way around, that way when you find an open network you know someone chose it to be that way. Just so gray areas like this can be avoided ;)

Edit : Also, as a side note, does it bother anyone else when people refer to it as "your internet" .. "stealing their internet" .. "I have the internet"? I twitch every time I see that, especially as headlines to articles :)

well, you can't really go by that theory, because they could leave their garage open, but that doesn't give you permission to take their car for a spin.

Gotta love the avalanche of analogies in this thread :)

Anyway, the garage thing doesn't work .. you'd be trespassing (ie, going onto their property to gain access to something they own). Only way that'd work is if you took your laptop into their home and plugged your rj45 into the hub or cable modem or router or whatever.

I still think the fruit-tree analogy works best :)

guiseppewv

08-10-2005, 10:51 AM

No locky, no stealy.

:stupid:

it's stealing. if the person is paying for 1meg speed and you're using half of it w/o paying, and depriving him of what he paid for you're ripping him off.

I would agree if you are using up a majority of their bw but chances are 90+% of the people do not use 100% of their bw with the exception of some occasional "spikes". If you are running a web site or something from their connection then you are stealing b/c you are depriving them of bw.

avlena

08-10-2005, 11:01 AM

well, you can't really go by that theory, because they could leave their garage open, but that doesn't give you permission to take their car for a spin.

i do think you are taking something from them when you access their internet, but would i do it? sure, i have and i will.

As Graf pointed out, that analogy isn't accurate. Wireless goes outside your private property. What if you left your car in the middle of a public park, with the keys in the ignition, unlocked, and a sign announcing it as such? What if you parked it in your neighbor's driveway in such a condition? Aren't you just asking for someone to use it? However, since I've never heard of a community car, let's take a different analogy.

If I were do leave my desktop in a public place, with no password or any sort of security, and put a sign above it: "Open", most people would assume it's a public computer. Should I start hollering about how they're stealing computer usage for me? No, it's my own fault, and it would be ridiculous if I claimed: "well, I didn't know people would use it if I left it open like that".

Kevster

08-10-2005, 11:02 AM

I keep my wireless locked down as hard as I can make it, and I only allow one neighbor to use it by filtering her MAC address. She is retired and is a great neighbor to have - I wanted to help her out and share my connection so she didn't have to pay that additional cost every month. She doesn't use that much bandwidth either. I have another neighbor who is a serious fvcktard and there is no way I would ever share my internet access with her. I monitor my access list often and only allow internet access to be shared. My systems are on a completely different subnet than my neighbor's wireless client to keep my data seperate, and I lock down my server and workstations as much as I can as well.

nickel

08-10-2005, 12:06 PM

As Graf pointed out, that analogy isn't accurate. Wireless goes outside your private property. What if you left your car in the middle of a public park, with the keys in the ignition, unlocked, and a sign announcing it as such? What if you parked it in your neighbor's driveway in such a condition? Aren't you just asking for someone to use it? However, since I've never heard of a community car, let's take a different analogy.

If I were do leave my desktop in a public place, with no password or any sort of security, and put a sign above it: "Open", most people would assume it's a public computer. Should I start hollering about how they're stealing computer usage for me? No, it's my own fault, and it would be ridiculous if I claimed: "well, I didn't know people would use it if I left it open like that".
true... in hindsight, my analogy sucked :P

i guess they are the one paying for the internet access and you are benefitting from it without permission and without having to pay a cent.
it just doesn't seem totally right.

avlena

08-10-2005, 12:29 PM

true... in hindsight, my analogy sucked :P

i guess they are the one paying for the internet access and you are benefitting from it without permission and without having to pay a cent.
it just doesn't seem totally right.

I think that leaving your wireless network open is giving implicit permission. Otherwise, why else would you leave it open? (I know, ignorance, but again, I dont' think that's a very good excuse)

Grimm

08-10-2005, 12:32 PM

i guess they are the one paying for the internet access and you are benefitting from it without permission and without having to pay a cent.
it just doesn't seem totally right.
I see this as a flaw in your argument. You only acknowledge financial costs. There is a cost to me when my neighbors use a wireless connection. They limit the bandwidth of my wireless connection. There is only so much spectrum to go around. Even an idle network uses bandwith in overhead. So, by just having a wireless network that reaches my home it costs me something, or at least potentialy costs me something.

You are aware of this limitation to wireless networks, aren't you? The protocall is designed to allow for multiple networks. It divvys up the spectrum between the networks, severly limiting the transmission speeds of all the wireless networks that overlap. So by not having a wireless network I am doing my neighbors a favor.
I would rather that a neighbor piggybacked on my wireless network (if I had one) to get internet access because I wouldn't want to compete with them for spectrum. The bottleneck created by a second wireless network would be much greater than that created by one additional user. Of course, I would do that via MAC filtering and not by being stupid enough to leave my connection open.

InfiniteNothing

08-10-2005, 12:39 PM

Maarchk

08-10-2005, 01:49 PM

Hmm, i think it is stealing, but rarely would i be pressed to file charges or have a problem with it. I have cable internet and my neighbor has dsl. So from time to time, we have one of our connections go down and simply use the other persons. I'm sure other people could access it but i dont really see a problem with him and i sharing when neccessary. It would only bother me if someone took a lot of my bandwidth and i could notice it, or if they were doing sketchy things. Neither one has come up, but i am still thinking about setting up passwords anyways.

Mark

WhiskeyPapa

08-10-2005, 02:35 PM

I initially checked "always stealing", but now I don't know. The fruit tree analogy made me reconsider. I believe there will be very specific laws about this within the next few years.

nickel

08-10-2005, 03:08 PM

I think that leaving your wireless network open is giving implicit permission. Otherwise, why else would you leave it open? (I know, ignorance, but again, I dont' think that's a very good excuse)
well... yeh, some people do not know how to block their internet access to keep it free from predators. call them ignorant, but...if ignorant people weren't allowed to own computers or get on the internet it would be quite a barren place. :P

DarkFury

08-10-2005, 03:11 PM

well... yeh, some people do not know how to block their internet access to keep it free from predators. call them ignorant, but...if ignorant people weren't allowed to own computers or get on the internet it would be quite a barren place. :P
This is where "reading the users manual" kicks in...

It's right there in black and white... if they choose to ignore it, it's their fault. :D

nickel

08-10-2005, 03:13 PM

This is where "reading the users manual" kicks in...

It's right there in black and white... if they choose to ignore it, it's their fault. :D
i'm not saying they aren't at fault for not protecting themselves.

DF - would you mind your neighbor leeching your internet? i mean, you "thought" you had secured it, but they figured out a way in.
would you have a problem with that?

ialsohaveadream

08-10-2005, 03:36 PM

I initially checked "always stealing", but now I don't know. The fruit tree analogy made me reconsider. I believe there will be very specific laws about this within the next few years.
Yeah, and I think this is FCC territory, more than state laws.

Mike_N_Ike

08-10-2005, 06:48 PM

The only reason I didn't check stealing, is that I cannot see what the person who owns the wireless router is left without as a result of their neighbor using their internet connection - especially if the two use the internet at different times.

DarkFury

08-10-2005, 08:01 PM

i'm not saying they aren't at fault for not protecting themselves.

DF - would you mind your neighbor leeching your internet? i mean, you "thought" you had secured it, but they figured out a way in.
would you have a problem with that?
If I didn't do whatever I could to secure it... then I get what I get...

But the first thing I do is set the security on my router.

Just like my house, I can lock the doors and put down my garage door... but if I forgot to do so, and someone got in and stole my stuff.... well it would be my fault. Guess that is what "insurance" is for. :shrug:

Jeffbx

08-11-2005, 05:39 AM

Gotta love the avalanche of analogies in this thread :)

Anyway, the garage thing doesn't work .. you'd be trespassing (ie, going onto their property to gain access to something they own). Only way that'd work is if you took your laptop into their home and plugged your rj45 into the hub or cable modem or router or whatever.

I think nickel's analogy was good - just as the signals are leaking onto your property, YOUR signals have to 'trespass' back onto his property, log into his equipment, and tie up the line that he is paying for. The only difference, as I mentioned before, is that it's a virtual connection rather than physical. You are still using his equipment and leased line without permission. Whether it's open or not does not imply that's it's available for use.

Under the fruit tree analogy, you would be OK to SNIFF the traffic that's coming onto your property. By actually logging on and *using* his connection (sticking with the fruit tree here), you're going into his garage, getting his ladder, basket and clippers, and using them to pick the fruit. (I love analogies!)

Jeffbx

08-11-2005, 05:46 AM

Isn't there a legal precident? A TV signal is free to use if it is unencrypted. It enters your home and it is yours.

Again, sniffing vs. using. You can SNIFF the traffic. No one can stop you from doing that. Sniffing is equivalent to watching TV - you just interpret the wavelengths that are hitting your house. By logging in, you are not just watching wavelengths - you are logging in & using his equipment without permission.

One would hope that they would not charge you as they were unable to find any evidence on your computer, but you chose to leave the connection open. It's on you.

One would hope, wouldn't one? ;)

However, I'd much rather see the practice of stealing bandwidth outlawed rather than having the responsibility of hiring a lawyer every time someone does something illegal on my network.

Look at it this way. Let's say you were going away for a week and invited a friend to stay in your home...

Ahhhh - there's the difference. You invited him - you know he's there, you're responsible for him being in your house. Not so for the creepy guy in the van parked outside.

InfiniteNothing

08-11-2005, 06:58 AM

well... yeh, some people do not know how to block their internet access to keep it free from predators. call them ignorant, but...if ignorant people weren't allowed to own computers or get on the internet it would be quite a barren place. :P

Or maybe the just want to share :P The encryption/password is how I tell the difference between "I want to share" and "please don't use my internet connection".

DarkFury

08-11-2005, 09:03 AM

johnnymk

08-11-2005, 09:16 AM

Heh...

If a neighbor has his window open... and is watching a Pay-Per-View on his Big screen TV...

Is it ok to watch the Pay-Per-View through the window from your property if he doesn't close his curtains... or is that STEALING!!!. :heh:

Or what if there is a nekkid woman whom you could see through the window?

Grimm

08-11-2005, 09:44 AM

Ahhhh - there's the difference. You invited him - you know he's there, you're responsible for him being in your house. Not so for the creepy guy in the van parked outside.
This is apples and oranges here. I think we can all agree that someone driving up to a house and logging in to an unsecured network is wrong.

The basis of my argument is that as a neighbor their wireless network is broadcasting onto your property. A part of that wireless network is a connection to the internet.

Back to the fruit tree analogy. I don't see using his internet connection as going into his garage and borrowing his tools. Fruit trees don't maintain themselves they need to be watered and fertilized. Just as you are gaining the benifit of the internet connection by an open wireless network, you are gaining the benifit of fruit from a tree the neighbor waters, maintains and fertilizes.

A wireless signal is more like a neighbor's radio that is too loud so you can hear it in your house than a pay-per-view event. It is intruding on your home. If you enjoy the songs on the radio you benifit from them. If you do not, it is noise and undesirable. If you benifit from your neighbor's wireless then it is like enjoying his music from a loud radio. If you are having your own wireless network slowed by his it's more like noise. Why does my neighbor have the right to slow down your wireless network? If he left it open one would assume he is aware that he might interefere with others and is leaving his open so that they can just use his instead of having to tolerate a slowdown.

A computer is a powerful tool. Wireless networks are part of that tool if you choose to use them. The responsability for using that tool properly is the owners. While there is no licencing required to use a computer that does not excuse the owner of that responsability. Leaving a wireless connection open is an invitation in and of itself to your neighbors to use the network, and the attached internet connection. It's like having a road through your property wit ha sign that says "please use at your own risk". The sign implies that the road is there to use, open for all. Without security of any sort, wireless networks are designed to connect to anyone, they yell, "here I am, log onto me". So, the owner of a property is responsible to put up a No Tresspassing sign. It's easy, enable any one of the security features. If someone hacks around a security feature there is no doubt they are tresspassing, bust them.

DarkFury

08-11-2005, 10:03 AM

A wireless signal is more like a neighbor's radio that is too loud so you can hear it in your house than a pay-per-view event. It is intruding on your home. If you enjoy the songs on the radio you benifit from them. If you do not, it is noise and undesirable. If you benifit from your neighbor's wireless then it is like enjoying his music from a loud radio.
You took my post too literal here... What about a large TV, with the "big game" on premium cable or DirecTV with the volume turned way up so that you can hear and see it from your property.

Either way, you are recieving "entertainment" and "services" you didn't pay for... that your neighbor didn't attempt to stop you from receiving.

Jeffbx

08-11-2005, 10:47 AM

Heh...

If a neighbor has his window open... and is watching a Pay-Per-View on his Big screen TV...

Is it ok to watch the Pay-Per-View through the window from your property if he doesn't close his curtains... or is that STEALING!!!. :heh:

That's OK. It's also OK to watch over his shoulder while he's surfing or reading his e-mail, if he has a mongo monitor.

Jeffbx

08-11-2005, 10:58 AM

The basis of my argument is that as a neighbor their wireless network is broadcasting onto your property. A part of that wireless network is a connection to the internet.

To a point, yes. The part of my argument I guess I'm not getting across is that you're not using the part that's *broadcasting* into your house.

To sniff his signals, pick the fruit that's hanging over the fence, watch the pay per view through the window, or tune into the TV broadcast are all the same. You're just using overspill.

HOWEVER - to connect to a WAP, you're not using the overspill. You couldn't care less about the overspill. You're sending your wavelengths into his house, requesting an IP address from his router, authenticating your machine on his network, and sending your packets down the physical cable that's coming into his house. That's the difference.

DarkFury

08-11-2005, 12:26 PM

Heh... a new word for leeched wireless... "overspill". :heh:

Man... this thread is going places. :hihi:

ufcrusher

08-11-2005, 01:24 PM

A couple of points that should be mentioned.

1) Some people might remember that the ISP's have been fighting for years to make it that their "product" could not be freely shared. Originally, they were fighting the newly formed block colatlitions where they used coffee-can antennas and signal boosters to give widespread access to larger areas. The ISP's wanted EVERYONE to pay for their own access, not be able to jump onto some "Neuvo-hippy's free web" As such, they changed their user agreements and took other steps to monitor how many different people were using accounts. Thus, this issue is near and dear to their cold blooded black hearts.

2) THe products all default to NO protection. The average user DOES NOT read the manual. Hell, the average amercian cant program their VCR! To blame them because they are techologically retarded is unfair. The manufacturers cannot default it to a high level of protection because a large amount of people own different brands of equipment. I.e. - Netgear router, Lynksys card, Belkin USB adapter. Plus, if they have a Pre=N router with only a B card....the card might not support the same levels of protection.

3) Although unsecured networks are open, its not YOUR network. Would you walk up to someones hose turn the nob and drink the water? Would you even use the water to cool yourself off so it lands on their grass? All those people who say that they arent taking anything tangible.....yes, it is probably not going to be problematic, but if everyone thinks its not an issue, small things add up.

4) In certain places, such as apartments/condos/townhomes/rowhomes there is no way you will be able to prevent your signal from going outside of your home. Even if its locked down, people will still see it and TRY to access it. They wont be able to get in, but if people would stop thinking it was ok, they might stop trying to get onto other peoples networks.

So yes, I think its wrong to go on other peoples networks, but people need to learn to help themselves protect whats theres. It is in most regards a victimless crime, unless you are the ISP provider and losing out on business because of this.

Kevster

08-11-2005, 01:25 PM

Heh... a new word for leeched wireless... "overspill". :heh:

Man... this thread is going places. :hihi:

Actually I think the word he meant was spillover. It is a term used in antenna design as a fraction of the power lost in the interception of the transmitted signal by your antenna. It is essentially transmitted power not intercepted by your antenna and lost to the background (and that becomes something you may have to account for in your overall receiver system noise temperature). It is one of the many efficiency sub-components of the overall effieciency number for your antenna. Other subcomponents include ohmic heating, phase nonuniformity, blockage, surface roughness, and cross polarization. All these are factored into your overall antenna efficiency which is a factor in the gain of the antenna you are using. Going by a rule-of-thumb engineering approximation, a parabolic antenna with a horn-reveiver has an efficiency of ~.55.

Whoops! Sorry about that. It was the engineer in me screaming to get out there for a second. Isn't it about time for another hot chick thread?

Jihforce

08-11-2005, 01:36 PM

I think that leaving your wireless network open is giving implicit permission. Otherwise, why else would you leave it open? (I know, ignorance, but again, I dont' think that's a very good excuse)

Just because I leave my front door open, doesn't mean you're invited to come in you know. :D

I don't think it matters wether its ignorance or not, fact is, you are using someone else's resource when you tap into their bandwidth, therefore, its illegal. However, the owner is also responsible to lock it down, to avoid theft of info and any malicious activities.

I find it difficult to accept some analogies being thrown around. Its basically saying that its legal because the idiot didn't lock it down? If i left my door open and someone came in and stole my stuff, its still a crime regardless of whether I leave my door open or not.

Grimm

08-11-2005, 02:07 PM

3) Although unsecured networks are open, its not YOUR network. Would you walk up to someones hose turn the nob and drink the water? Would you even use the water to cool yourself off so it lands on their grass? All those people who say that they arent taking anything tangible.....yes, it is probably not going to be problematic, but if everyone thinks its not an issue, small things add up.
I will argue this one point. There are several points brought up by Jeffbx and uf that are very valid and also very arguable, but I don't want a 3 screen or more post.

It's my bandwith, just as much as it is his. I live in a condo. All the water in the complex is paid for comunaly, so it's my water too. If I walk up and use someone elses hose to get a drink I am not going to feel guilty about it. If they see me they aren't going to run out and try to chase me off, so long as I turn off the water and don't try to steal their hose, they aren't going to have a problem with it.
If I were to piggyback on someone elses connection I for internet access I would be going through shared bandwidth, through their WAP, router, and cable modem, and then onto their service providers equipment onto the internet.
Realisicaly, the WAP and router is the same piece of equipment. If I have my own wireless network it will have the same impact, or more, on the WAP/router as it does when I am using theirs. See, all the signals get broadcasted, theire WAP receives them and then rejects them as from another network or processes it from it's own. The the signal goes to the cable modem. That is the only part of the process that really impacts the inadvertant provider at all. The 3' of cable between the router and the cable modem. You are probably using 2% of the transmit ability between that cable modem and router. This is insignificant and it could be argued that it was allowed by the wireless network's owner as inconsequential.
Now, here is the only real part of the "crime" internet access. It is probably a breach of the contract between the owner of the wireless network and the cable/phone company. By leaving the wireless connection open they allowed others who were not permitted by the contract to access the internet through their cable modem. Now, if you are like me, I already have internet access through my cable company. So I am most likely using the exact same equipment and resources as my neighbor to access the internet. So am I stealing internet that I already pay for?
Or have I only tresspassed on a WAP that was left open that would get my wireless NIC's signal anyway?

It's the responsability of the end user to secure his wireless connection or at least make a token effort to. He/she must do this to honor the contract he has with his provider to not share his access. Even a weak password is enough to tell neighbors that the connection is not theirs to use.

Again, the situation is that a neighbor is there. They have to live with the situation they are in. It is very different when someone drives up to steal internet or hack their network. Someone who does damage or does something illegal throug a wireless connection should be held responsible for their acts, but not for the act of doing it through an open conection.

We don't need draconian laws about wireless communication, we need ettiquite and to educate people about the ettiquite.

Jihforce

08-11-2005, 02:20 PM

Nah, I think we need people who have better morals. Taping into someone else's resources is just plain wrong.

DarkFury

08-11-2005, 02:24 PM

A couple of points that should be mentioned.

2) THe products all default to NO protection. The average user DOES NOT read the manual. Hell, the average amercian cant program their VCR! To blame them because they are techologically retarded is unfair. The manufacturers cannot default it to a high level of protection because a large amount of people own different brands of equipment. I.e. - Netgear router, Lynksys card, Belkin USB adapter. Plus, if they have a Pre=N router with only a B card....the card might not support the same levels of protection.

Wouldn't that count as "negligence" on the part of the owner. Just because you put a lock on the door.. if you don't lock it then you are still somewhat at fault. :D

Honestly it's to the point where these folks need to just stick to "wired" networks... and take their antennas away. Problem solved. :heh:

ufcrusher

08-11-2005, 02:27 PM

For arguements sake, each unit pays for their own water use. Its not communal. How would that change your views?

As for your bandwidth arguement...I am not 100% sure how you are justifying that its your bandwidth when your neighbor pays for it? Is this just you furthering your arguement regarding the limited number of "channels" that the wi-fi networks can use? Thus, you are saying that since you DO pay for the same provider but dont use a wireless router, that means you arent using anything you didnt have entitlement to before?

How would that be any different from a situation where you have a timeshare property in a remote area which is only owned by 3 people, one of which who owns 10 shares and lives there most of the year. The agreement is for use of the property and sports equipment there on but specifically exludes any personal property left by the other 2 owners. The property is so remote that all of his communications are via satelitte communications..since there are no cell towers there. You get up there, realize you need to make a call and try your cell phone. After discovering it doesnt work, you look around and find that the one guy has left his sat phone out on the shelf below his personal locked shelf. From the logo on the phone, you see that its the same company you have and you know that ALL of their contracts are for unlimited use. Figuring that you need to make the call, it was left out in the open, and no harm no foul, you go ahead and make the call. Would you view that as being wrong?

Grimm

08-11-2005, 05:54 PM

For arguements sake, each unit pays for their own water use. Its not communal. How would that change your views?
Well, I can't say for everyone, but I for one would never deny a thirsty man a drink. If one of my neighbors wants a bit of water from the hose on my porch, he's welcome to it, even if it costs me 1/2 a cent...

As for your bandwidth arguement...I am not 100% sure how you are justifying that its your bandwidth when your neighbor pays for it?
Exactly when did my neighbor pay to use the 2.4 Ghz frequency? Does he pay to use it exclusively? Or, is it by law that it is shared? I think it's shared. In fact I know it is shared. Unless my neighbor happens to be a major media mogule and he licences the 2.4 Ghz frequency from the FCC sometime soon, I think that is gonna be the way that it stays.

Is this just you furthering your arguement regarding the limited number of "channels" that the wi-fi networks can use? Thus, you are saying that since you DO pay for the same provider but dont use a wireless router, that means you arent using anything you didnt have entitlement to before?
You're taking my discusion of the internet provider (the cable company) out of context. What I was stating is that the provider shouldn't have an objection to shared wireless connections as long as it is getting it's pound of flesh from both parties.

Thanks for putting the words in my mouth. That is not what I said. Stop trying to entrap me with the shyster doubletalk.

johnnymk

08-11-2005, 06:29 PM

Wouldn't that count as "negligence" on the part of the owner. Just because you put a lock on the door.. if you don't lock it then you are still somewhat at fault. :D

Honestly it's to the point where these folks need to just stick to "wired" networks... and take their antennas away. Problem solved. :heh:

:stupid:

Yep, problem solved. Let the people who know how to secure their connection use wireless and let the ones who don't know any better either take a chance of someone tapping into it or go wired.

Way to go, DarkFury. It makes total sense.

Grimm

08-11-2005, 11:02 PM

:stupid:

Yep, problem solved. Let the people who know how to secure their connection use wireless and let the ones who don't know any better either take a chance of someone tapping into it or go wired.

Way to go, DarkFury. It makes total sense.
It's not hard and takes no technical knowedge. All you have to do is follow the instructions on the glossy little paper insert. It's not rocket science.

Houdini

08-11-2005, 11:29 PM

Well, I can't say for everyone, but I for one would never deny a thirsty man a drink. If one of my neighbors wants a bit of water from the hose on my porch, he's welcome to it, even if it costs me 1/2 a cent...

I think you're missing the point of his argument here. What if he didn't want to increase his water bill and was using it to wash his car or to pressure wash his side of the condo? Perhaps it's still a shaky analogy anyway as his use of your internet connection in most cases won't increase your internet charges (though many plans have bandwidth caps, no?)

Is it stealing? I guess in a way it is. I'd prefer someone have my permission before using my connection. :shrug:

Grimm

08-12-2005, 12:04 AM

I think you're missing the point of his argument here. What if he didn't want to increase his water bill and was using it to wash his car or to pressure wash his side of the condo? Perhaps it's still a shaky analogy anyway as his use of your internet connection in most cases won't increase your internet charges (though many plans have bandwidth caps, no?)

Is it stealing? I guess in a way it is. I'd prefer someone have my permission before using my connection. :shrug:
I think you are missing the point. When is the last time someone washed their car with your wireless network?
Ok, seriously, The cost to the person being piggybacked off of is negligible if not non-existant. The owner has the choice to turn off that hose at any time by enableing security protocols. It's not hard. What if people don't know how? Well, then they shouldn't be using it. Should a person who doesn't know how to use a chainsaw operate one? People need to develop a minimal amount of computer skills if they use one. They need to know how to turn on and update virus scanners and they need to be able to enable some minimal security on their networks. People who don't stop viruses/malware on their systerm endanger everyone else. People who don't control their wireless connection endanger themselves and everyone else.

The only open wireless networks should be ones that are intentionaly left open.

Jeffbx

08-12-2005, 05:23 AM

Actually I think the word he meant was spillover.

Thanks, Kevster - I knew it was something like that!

Itsme

08-12-2005, 08:49 AM

It probably dosn't matter how logical the arguements are.....if a case regarding such an issue ever came to court, even if 95% of the public felt one way or the other, it is almost impossible to figure out how a judge or jury would decide.

mcs328

08-12-2005, 09:24 AM

Grimm

08-12-2005, 10:39 AM

Analogy :)

Let's saw bandwith was a 6 lane highway. To drive on the highway I need a car(computer/modem/wireless card) and gas (monthly internet access payment). I get to where I going (yahoo, G|A, porn sites etc...) because I have the means, a car, and I go places because I pay gas every month. My neighbor can just as easily buy his own car and pay for gas to get on the same highway but instead he hides in my trunk or rides my bumper on a skateboard. Here I am cruising with this extra weight in my car and this guy isn't helping me pay for gas. In effect he has saved money from buying a car and paying for gas because he's freeloading off of me and when I'm not there he takes my car and he drives around (stupid me for leaving the keys in the car of course). With cable at least the more people with their own cars who pay gas that's money in the bank for service provider but the road is filling up with cars and theirs not enough highway/bandiwth.
So, what's bad about carpooling?

Your analogy is seriously flawed. If your anology were to hold you would have to take into account that your car could only go half speed if your neighbor owned a car. You would also be driving in all six lanes at the same time when there were no other cars. Also it isn't costing you any extra gas when you have him in your trunk, it is slowing you down to the same speed you would be going if he had a car though. Your advantage would lie in when he wasn't in your trunk you could go full speed again. If he had a car you would never get to go full speed.

mcs328

08-12-2005, 10:59 AM

Blah...I thought I just add another analogy to confuse more people :)

Grimm

08-12-2005, 11:13 AM

Blah...I thought I just add another analogy to confuse more people :)
I think it would be a better idea to refine or dispute the existing analogies to aid in the resolution of the argument instead of confusing it. It is a complicated issue, that's why we try to use an analogy to help people consider it. Finding and refining an anology to be appropriate is difficult.
Yours was a good attempt, but it think that you failed to consider the opposing argument when crafting it.

I think I view the problem much differently than most people.

ufcrusher

08-12-2005, 12:51 PM

Jihforce

08-12-2005, 02:33 PM

He also neglects the fact that there's a fix amount of bandwidth that is given to each subscriber. If he's taking up 20% of that subscribers bandwidth, then he should have to pay for 20% of it.

Personally, I like MCS's analogy of the high and cars. However, instead of "carpooling" i would say that stealing bandwidth is like syphoning gas out of your neighbor's gas tank because he didn't lock the cap. Is he stupid for not locking it? sure, but is there a sign that says "free gas" posted on his car? Nope not really.

I figure that if I pay for it, I should be the only one using it. And if someone else wants to use it, they should ask.

Grimm

08-12-2005, 03:34 PM

If I understand Grimm correctly.....and he hasnt been willing to clarify yet:
Grimm's perspective is simply that more people having routers/ISPs means slower traffic. (Which if memory serves is only true for cable not DSL) Thus, if you "share" the ISP/router everyone benefits from it being faster.

NO!No! No! No!
I am refering to the wireless network not the internet. Believe it or not.... no, just believe it. I have a fair understanding of network technologies, wireless, cable, DSL, ethernet. I understand the limitations of the technologies.

What you are not grasping is that overlapping wireless networks rob each other of speed. They are forced to share spectrum. They all have to reduce transmit rates to share the frequency. Even an idle wireless network robs bandwidth from the others because it eats bandwidth up in overhead.

While the 56mbit of wireless bandwidth might seem like a lot compred to your 3mbit internet connection, it's not quite so clear cut as that. See, your neighbor is not getting a 56mbit connection to your cable modem. At that range he is lucky if he is getting 15mbit of bandwidth. Further divide that by sharing, overhead and retransmitted packets and it drops pretty quickly to a level where he isn't impacting your internet connection nearly as much as you think.

Most people are polite enough to limit their piggybacking to a minor level. Those that don't get locked out, so it is in their best interests to do so. Even a novice user will end up locking them out when they call tech suport and the calble/DSL tech realizes the problem and walks them through locking down their WAP. You can't game over a wireless network form next door, the lag will kill you. You can't do major downloading or fileshareing, you will get locked out. So what's left? Some web browsing, occational file downloading and email. These are not bandwidth intensive. It's not going to harm the neighbor. No one is going to be eating up anyone's cable bandwith using wireless, no one with an ounce of sense or courtesy anyway.

He also neglects the fact that there's a fix amount of bandwidth that is given to each subscriber. If he's taking up 20% of that subscribers bandwidth, then he should have to pay for 20% of it.
it would have to be a fact for me to neglect it as a fact.

ufcrusher

08-12-2005, 04:01 PM

But you are neglecting the fact that most routers automaticaly search for area that are not in use. The chances of having enough wireless networks/wireless items in one area that they truly interfere seems trivial.

I have run into interference with a 2.4ghz Panasonic (original model) and a 802.11b wifi router. Everytime I used the phone in the same general area as the router one was inoperable. HOWEVER, it was only with that particular phone. All of our other 2.4ghz phones had no issues and it was a first generation phone that I bought when they first hit the market.

That same phone has no difficulty with a 802.11g network and that network doesnt have any interference issues with any of the other 2.4 or 5.8ghz items in use.

Jihforce

08-12-2005, 04:38 PM

Grimm, i think you're making this all to complicated. I see your argument as far as taking up frequencies and interferance, but like UF says, that's trivial. Now if you are talking about simply login into a person's wireless network (without malicious intent) then I agree, that's shouldn't be illegal. HOWEVER, if you are using someone else's wireless network to access the web, i disagree. As I said, ISPs limit bandwith per subscriber. In my case, I cannot exceed 1.5mbps when i download, if you are "stealing" .5mbps by downloading using MY network, you are effectively taking away 33% of my bandwidth, which I consider illegal because you are using a sevice that I am paying for, without my permission. That is the whole issues. To me, a wireless network is like a hose, you can borrow if you like, but if you are going to fill up your pull with my hose and with my water...I don't think so.

One thing to note, the original question is whether you consider "using your neighbor's INTERNET" stealing or not. Not just their wireless network.

Grimm

08-12-2005, 10:54 PM

One thing to note, the original question is whether you consider "using your neighbor's INTERNET" stealing or not. Not just their wireless network.
Of course it is illegal, it is a breach of contract between the person who left their network open and their broadband internet service provider.

While you may think someone using up 1/3 of your internet badnwith is wrong, it isn't really since you invited them to do it. Leaving a wireless roughter open is an invitation to your neighbors. It's a big 'ole open house sign on your front door. I have not heard anything thus far to disuade me from that point of view.

Leaving a wireless router open is a stupid thing to do. It's not ignorant, people choose not to avail themselves of the information included with the router. People need to be responsible for their transmitions.

sunrisetech

08-12-2005, 11:16 PM

This has been a most interesting thread to read! For the record I pay for my own internet but no doubt if I got a wireless adaptor I could log on to a neighbor's connection. For my own privacy I prefer being hard-wired in. But it seems that if someone is ignorant enough to leave their wireless connection open for anyone to piggyback then they deserve to have it happen. If not by you or me then you know someone else will.

Jihforce

08-13-2005, 01:12 AM

Of course it is illegal, it is a breach of contract between the person who left their network open and their broadband internet service provider.

While you may think someone using up 1/3 of your internet badnwith is wrong, it isn't really since you invited them to do it. Leaving a wireless roughter open is an invitation to your neighbors. It's a big 'ole open house sign on your front door. I have not heard anything thus far to disuade me from that point of view.

Leaving a wireless router open is a stupid thing to do. It's not ignorant, people choose not to avail themselves of the information included with the router. People need to be responsible for their transmitions.

As "innovative" as your ideas are, I don't think I buy it. You tend to place the blame solely on the person leaving the network open, while not faulting the "trespasser". I think some responsibility should be placed on the "trespasser".

nickel

08-13-2005, 05:29 AM

Grimm, are you on your neighbor's internet without their knowledge by any chance?

Grimm

08-17-2005, 01:05 PM

Grimm, are you on your neighbor's internet without their knowledge by any chance?
Absolutely not. It's not safe to do so. Like I want them reading everything I do online.

While I do have wireless network cards (for when I bring my laptop over to friends houses that do have a wireless network, so don't even start) I wouldn't use one at home. I hardwired my home so that I wouldn't have to. Wireless networks are too easy to crack.

As "innovative" as your ideas are, I don't think I buy it. You tend to place the blame solely on the person leaving the network open, while not faulting the "trespasser". I think some responsibility should be placed on the "trespasser".
It's not tresspassing if someone is invited in. And that is exactly what is happening with an open wireless network. The WAP is yelling "here I am, log right on!".
The owner is responsible. If I get on a HAM radio and broadcast, I am responsible for anything I broadcast. The FCC can come kick down my door if I commit offenses that are grevious enough. As an owner of a vehical I am responsible for that too. If I park in front of a fire hydrant, if it's found abandoned or in a handicaped space I can be fined. I am responsible for that vehical.
A wireless network protrudes outside of your domain. Therefore, you are responsible for operating it in a responsible manner. Leaving it open is irresponsible. You are enabling people who choose to engage in criminal behavior. You are viloating your contract with your ISP. And you are endangering anyone who might have their information on your PC (employees, family, friends).

Jihforce

08-17-2005, 01:35 PM

nickel

08-17-2005, 01:40 PM

Jihforce

08-17-2005, 01:43 PM

yeh, and why can't i get free cable from the cable company?
everything is right there for the taking.

Lets not forget Satellite TV. They broadcast it too, it shouldn't be illegal, right?

InfiniteNothing

08-17-2005, 01:47 PM

Are these things possible? I thought cable companies beefed up their encryption to bypass black boxes and I haven't heard much about satalite. I know when I try and hook up my TV to Cable all I get is static.

DarkFury

08-17-2005, 01:48 PM

I tend to think your way of thinking is far too one sided.
I guess if you are able to gain access to a cable box, you'd "steal" cable huh? After all, they didn't lock it, so its an open invitation. Right?
If somehow the cable signals were leaking into my house, and I had NOTHING to do with it (I didn't mess with that cable box Mr. Officer.. :shifty: ) then yeah, I'd watch the "free" channels until they shut em down. :D

Lets not forget Satellite TV. They broadcast it too, it shouldn't be illegal, right?
Yup... and they encrypt it too so that you must have special equipment/permission to decode it.

But if it weren't encrypted... wouldn't everyone with normal equipment to view the signals watch it? :D

cruelpupet

08-17-2005, 02:03 PM

From what Ive read here sofar all the analogies have issues. The most accurate is the moonie analogy where the flower is offered. Here is why...

When you just plug in a WAP and leave its default settings in place, it is setup to Broadcast its SSID. That broadcast is an invitation to anyone within range to connect.

Somone also mention a TV broadcast signla analogy. This also brings up a good point. Since this is part of the public spectrum, the FCCs ruling on this is that it is up to the broadcaster to encrypt and secure their communications.

cheapie

08-17-2005, 02:37 PM

BUT...the tv broadcast isn't a limited resource like bandwidth. and you don't pay the tv station for X amount of signal.

my door is set up to let people in my house. it is NOT an invitation to invite anyone within range to come in.

InfiniteNothing

08-17-2005, 03:34 PM

I think you have the analogy wrong. The person who paid for the signal in the TV analogy is the TV broadcaster. Not paying for TV is anlogous to not paying for broadband. I think in the analogy the limited resource can be thought of as TV shows.

cheapie

08-17-2005, 03:39 PM

I think you have the analogy wrong. The person who paid for the signal in the TV analogy is the TV broadcaster. Not paying for TV is anlogus to not paying for broadband. I think in the analogy the limited resource can be thought of as TV shows.

what? the tv station is attempting to broadcast the signal to as many people as possible. and consuming the resource (signal) does not lessen the amount of resource to the broadcaster. unlike sucking bandwidth from your neighbor who is paying for it.

InfiniteNothing

08-17-2005, 03:42 PM

what? the tv station is attempting to broadcast the signal to as many people as possible. and consuming the resource (signal) does not lessen the amount of resource to the broadcaster. unlike sucking bandwidth from your neighbor who is paying for it.

The router is also trying to broadcast it's identification signal to as many people as possible. And, okay, this point has been made a million times... stealing internet doesn't necesarily suck any more bandwidth from your neighbor than paying for internet.

Jihforce

08-17-2005, 04:22 PM

okay, this point has been made a million times... stealing internet doesn't necesarily suck any more bandwidth from your neighbor than paying for internet.

That doesn't take into account that people PAY for a certain bandwidth to access the internet. If you "borrow" some of it, you effectively cut down the speed in which that pereson accesses the internet and their ability to download and upload.

I find it funny because people think that just because you pay for internet, you can simply go everywhere and use the internet. Kinda like Grimm's analogy of water. I'm sorry, but i don't buy it.

Grimm

08-17-2005, 04:27 PM

I tend to think your way of thinking is far too one sided.
I guess if you are able to gain access to a cable box, you'd "steal" cable huh? After all, they didn't lock it, so its an open invitation. Right?
One sided!?!? Nope, I have considered the issue from all four sides. Have you?
Why do you attack me like that? I don't agree with you so I must be a common criminal? We are trying to discuss the morality and legal ramifications of the issue, not accuse each other of a lack of morals. How about I accuse you of theft for attempting to deprive access to property in my home? It's not appropriate for me to do so as you are assuming your argument is correct without a preponderance of evidence, just as it is not apropriate to infer that I would steal cable signal based on my argument that unsecured wireless signal into my home is fair for me to access.

If the cable company installs their cable box inside your home, then yes, unless you have a contract with the cable company stating otherwise you can access it and aquire free cable. If, however, your cable box is like every other cable box in the country and not located inside your home, but out on the street or on a utility pole, then it is not inside your domain and it is illegal to aquire the signal without a contract with the cable company.

If a cable company broadcasts unsecured data into my home via cable it is mine to do with as I please. That is law. If they secure it with weak encryption and I break that encryption to access the signal then I have broken the law and am stealing the signal. If I alter the box on the street to cause the broadcast to reach my home it is against the law, I have tresspassed on their property to aquire it. It's the difference between one company mailing another it's secret recipie and one comapny sending a spy into another to steal the secret recipie. In the former it's legal, in the later it is illegal.

Lets not forget Satellite TV. They broadcast it too, it shouldn't be illegal, right?
It is perfectly legal to access an unsecured broadcast that enters your home. That is why you can put up a satalite dish and receive it legaly so long as it is not encrypted. The minute you attempt to decrypt the signal you are breaking the law.

BUT...the tv broadcast isn't a limited resource like bandwidth. and you don't pay the tv station for X amount of signal.

my door is set up to let people in my house. it is NOT an invitation to invite anyone within range to come in.
yes it is a limited resource. There is only so much spectrum. You do pay the TV station, but not directly. You are offered the entertainment in exchange for the opertunity to expose you to advertising. Advertisers compensate the TV stations because you are watching. It is a business arrangement. Without the viewers there would be no revinue from advertisers. And a broadcast signal is the property of the person who's home it enters.

InfiniteNothing

08-17-2005, 04:39 PM

That doesn't take into account that people PAY for a certain bandwidth to access the internet. If you "borrow" some of it, you effectively cut down the speed in which that pereson accesses the internet and their ability to download and upload.

I find it funny because people think that just because you pay for internet, you can simply go everywhere and use the internet. Kinda like Grimm's analogy of water. I'm sorry, but i don't buy it.

But that's not true. The DSL/Cable company do not assure you any bandwidth. When you hear 1.5 Mb... that's a maxiumum number. The more people that use it the more it cuts down below 1.5Mb. But this doesn't take into account the further wireless bandwidth cut. Let's say there are 12 channels. Sam is using channels 1-12. If bob moves in next door and puts up a network... his network (if using equal bandwidth) cuts Sam down to 1-6 effectively cutting his wireless bandwidth in half. If they share they both use 1-12 and everything works. Okay now IRL it works similarly and things can pretty easily get so crowded you won't be able to run your full bandwidth to your ISP.

Jihforce

08-17-2005, 05:08 PM

One sided!?!? Nope, I have considered the issue from all four sides. Have you?

of course i have. i just don't agree with you. that is because I find it morally and legally wrong to use someone else's resources without their permission. The way you approach this issue is like people are asking for it, so its ok to exploit them.

Why do you attack me like that? I don't agree with you so I must be a common criminal? We are trying to discuss the morality and legal ramifications of the issue, not accuse each other of a lack of morals. How about I accuse you of theft for attempting to deprive access to property in my home? It's not appropriate for me to do so as you are assuming your argument is correct without a preponderance of evidence, just as it is not apropriate to infer that I would steal cable signal based on my argument that unsecured wireless signal into my home is fair for me to access.

Attack you? I didn't call you names. Sure, some of my statements maybe be laced with sarcasm. But that's not an attack. Based on the things you say, I get a general idea as to what your point of view is. Then I try to apply them to a different scenerio so I can get a better grasp of your view and whether you are consistant with them or not. I never called you a thief and I used the world "trespasser" and "steal" loosely, they is why I put them in quotes.
In regards to the cable box, not all cable boxes are outside of the property and not all are locked because I've been to properties that have their boxes in plain site. Which is why I asked you that question, if it where unlocked and within your property, would you? its a yes or no answer. Simple as that.

The way I see it is the owner of the WAP is retarded and deservers whatever ramifications that stem someone using their service for whatever reason. However, the person who uses it without permission is a crook and should be penalized as well.

Grimm

08-17-2005, 05:09 PM

This argument gets very simple if everyone uses some minimal security on their wireless networks.
It is not an unreasonable onus to place on wireless network owners that they implement minimal security. Just like someone can't play loud music at night. It disturbs others and is for the public good that it is not allowed. Open wireless networks are a public risk. It is an avenue for illegal actions, such as distributing a virus anonymosly or uploading illicit material to the internet. It is entirely reasonable to ask users to implement a minimal amount of security for their connections. It's like requireing trigger locks on guns (but with out the 2nd Amendment issues).

It's a broadcast signal, so it is already established that the government is entitled to regulate it. Just require some security so that it can be determined that a person either hacked in or was permitted access. No one accidently enters their neighbor's wireless password. If you want to use their signal, you will have to ask. If someone wants to share a connection they can tell the neighbors the password.

Jihforce

08-17-2005, 05:19 PM

But that's not true. The DSL/Cable company do not assure you any bandwidth. When you hear 1.5 Mb... that's a maxiumum number. The more people that use it the more it cuts down below 1.5Mb. But this doesn't take into account the further wireless bandwidth cut. Let's say there are 12 channels. Sam is using channels 1-12. If bob moves in next door and puts up a network... his network (if using equal bandwidth) cuts Sam down to 1-6 effectively cutting his wireless bandwidth in half. If they share they both use 1-12 and everything works. Okay now IRL it works similarly and things can pretty easily get so crowded you won't be able to run your full bandwidth to your ISP.

What i said is still true. I didn't take into account the community sucking up bandwidth because that is more of an issue the ISP needs to address. I do know how ISP and WAPs work. I have one and have setup numerous ones. I live in a 9 floor, 90 unit apartment and i do know the definition of "too many WAPs".
How about a test? Get a WAP, have 10 friends log on to it and download something. Then you try downloading or surfing the internet and let me know whether that doesn't interfer with your bandwidth and web surfing experience.