Using free wireless at library described as theft

Anchorage Daily News ^ | 2/24/07 | ANDREW WELLNER

[conservative in nyc]

Brian Tanner was sitting in his Acura Integra recently outside the Palmer Library playing online games when a Palmer police pulled up behind him.

The officer asked him what he was doing.

Tanner, 21, was using the library's wireless Internet connection. He was told that his activity constituted theft of services and was told to leave. The next day, Sunday, police spotted him there again.

"It was kind of like, 'Well gee whiz, come on,' " police Lt. Tom Remaley said.

The police officer confiscated Tanner's laptop in order to inspect what he may have been downloading, Remaley said. Remaley on Friday said he hasn't looked inside the computer yet; he's putting together a search warrant application.

Alaska state troopers had chased Tanner off a few times at other locations, Remaley said.

Tanner said that was true. He has a device on his keychain that sniffs out wireless networks. When he found one, he would park in his neighborhood and use his $800 Dell laptop to hop on the Web. But worried neighbors summoned the troopers, who told him to park in a public place.

"I went to the public library because I go there during the day," Tanner said.

Though the library was closed, its wireless was up and running, he said.

Tanner said he was upset that he hasn't gotten his computer back yet. The police have told him he won't until the case is concluded, he said.

Jeanne Novosad, the library system manager, said the wireless connection is normally shut off when the library is closed. But the library was waiting on a technician to install a timer and the connection was left on after hours for several days, she said.

[Poser]

"Um, sorry, that is incoherent. The wireless network is either configured for open access, or it requires a key."

Um... sorry but THAT is silly. By your definition, anything that isn't nailed down is free for the taking. My gas grill isn't welded to the porch and the cover isn't locked, but you don't have permission to use it. The same is true for my wireless network, whether it is open or requires a key. I pay for the service, so the service belongs to me.

Try this model instead: If somebody else paid for it, it isn't yours unless and until they give you permission to use it.

When I was young, we didn't have to lock our doors and most people left their keys in their cars. Your attitude put an end to those times.

[ctdonath2]

I _do_ give it away. Yes, my router is open. I appreciate being able to find an open port at a pressing moment, so I open mine for others to use.

Thus, if the library has theirs open, I assume they're letting others use it - especially if it's supported by my tax dollars!

[ctdonath2]

You brought up "scanners".

It's further relevant because off-limit frequencies are legally declared off-limits. Internet frequencies, as you put it, are not off-limits. Listening is legal, transmitting "may I connect?" is legal, and further use after receiving "yes you may connect" is legal.

[ctdonath2]

By your definition, anything that isn't nailed down is free for the taking.

You misunderstand. Permission IS requested AND granted. It's as if there's a sign on your gas grill saying "yes, you may use this" - and your grill is sitting on the public sidewalk. The router configurably broadcasts its availability - that's an offer of service, which can trivially be shut off.

Additionally, the wireless network at the library in question IS set up SPECIFICALLY for public use.

It is also common practice (unlike with gas grills) to leave wireless networks open for public access. Mine is open.

[Obi-Wandreas]

Again, your router is giving permission to use it. If you have an unsecured router, you have installed a device which is giving away what you've paid for. If you don't want to give it away, you need to make sure you're router isn't handing it out. That's purely your responsibility.

Again, the router is broadcasting. You're not leaving your keys in your car - you're actively placing them in my house on my living room table. There's a difference between an unlocked door and a herald shouting "Come on in!" which is essentially what a router does.

[Poser]

"Again, your router is giving permission to use it. "

My router cannot give you permission to use my property, just as my gas grill is not giving you permission to use it. It's mine. It's may not be locked but it's not yours.

The idea that anything not locked is free for the taking is wrong.

[Poser]

"You misunderstand. Permission IS requested AND granted."

BS. You turn the knob on my gas grill and the gas comes on. It still isn't yours.

A machine cannot give you permission to use my stuff. Only I can do that. Ask the owner first.

[Obi-Wandreas]

The signal is going onto other people's property. On other people's property it says "Use Me!" If you don't want people to use it, don't let your equipment announce to people that it wants to be used, especially when it goes onto other people's property.

Again, it's as though your gas grill walked into my house with a sign that said "Use Me!" It's not staying on your property. It's not sitting there minding its own business. It's not because its not locked, it's because it's broadcast actively and being offered.

If you don't want people to use it, don't offer it. If you're broadcasting unprotected into somebody else's house - you are offering it, plain and simple. Since we don't want our neighbors using our AirPort network, we put on a WPA password. Alternatively, we could have dialed down the signal strength so that it didn't reach their houses. If we sent it into their houses unprotected, however, that would be our fault for not controlling our equipment.

[Poser]

"The signal is going onto other people's property."

Then I guess it's OK for me to tape your phone calls and post them on the Internet.

Using other people's things without permission is stealing. It's wrong.

If you want to use somebody else's WIFI, ask them. I'm pretty sure that most of them are unaware that their signal is open. I'm also sure that most of them would say no.

Using the fact that most people are not tech savvy to assume they want you to use their property and claiming they would have protected it if they didn't want you to use it is disingenuous at best.

Every time you steal their service, the web requests you make have their IP address on them. You look at kiddie porn and it can be traced back to them.

I understand that it's probably not costing them anything and probably doing no damage to anyone. Butt... The right thing to do is ask.

In the case of this article, the police could easily resolve the problem by asking the Librarian if the feed was meant for free public use.

[Obi-Wandreas]

If I'm broadcasting my phone calls to you so that you can hear, then there's nothing stopping you. The phone is wired closed-circuit system. If I shout and you can hear me, that's different.

The "not tech-savvy" argument is one I find even more disingenuous. Routers give you instructions for how to use them. If you don't know what a machine does - whether it's a router, chainsaw, or a car, then you shouldn't be using it.

And, had you read this post, you would have seen that we do inform people when we find an open network. From our house here, however, we can see 2 others. Last night we could see 5. We have no way of knowing whose they are. If they were unsecured, they would be literally shouting "Use Me!", and any computer in range would connect automatically, with no indication as to whose network it is, other than the fact that it is being offered for free.

Again, if you put something in somebody else's house which actively tells people to use it, then you have no right to complain if they use it.

[Poser]

"If I'm broadcasting my phone calls to you so that you can hear, then there's nothing stopping you."

Except that it is wrong (and also illegal).
Stealing my WIFI is wrong.

The "not tech-savvy" argument is one I find even more disingenuous. Routers give you instructions for how to use them.

Now you're making me laugh. Anyone who has ever set up a wireless router can tell you the approximate odds that a non-tech savvy person will get the security right.

The loss of the concept of right and wrong is a bad thing.

[JasonC]

Ignorant nonsense. When you deliberately check the box that says "require no further permission from me to use this", you are explicitly giving anyone permission to use it. If you don't want them to, you check the box that says "require further permission from me to use this" i.e. a WEP key. It is crazy to deliberately configure it for open access and then object to people accessing it - why on earth did you pick open rather than secure in the first place?

It is not a physical object that you have to lock up or people can walk off with it. If is only open if you deliberately configure it to be.

[Poser]

Ignorant nonsense. When you deliberately check the box that says "require no further permission from me to use this"

Now you are just name calling. I have installed four wireless routers and have never once encountered that question. Either you are the ignorant one, or you are less than truthful. I'll assume that your router included security encryption options in the installation program.

In any case, it's still wrong to steal services without asking. Ask the first 100 wireless laptop users you see what WEP encryption is used for and you will find that they don't have a clue. Most people can't get to the control panel, much less set the encryption on their wireless card or router.

Here are more important questions: Why are there so many people who think it's alright to use other people's Internet connections without permission? Why, when told it is wrong, do the immediately resort to name calling?

These same people would never think of taking my car if I left it parked with the keys in the ignition. They wouldn't think of taking my coat if I left it hung on a hook at a restaurant. They wouldn't even take my money if I left it laying on the bar while I went to the men's room. Yet, they have no problem using my Internet connection.

I've got a quarter that says a good percentage of them steal software as well.

Call me any name you like, but wrong is wrong.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

"The signal is going onto other people's property."

Then I guess it's OK for me to tape your phone calls and post them on the Internet.

Using other people's things without permission is stealing. It's wrong.

If you want to use somebody else's WIFI, ask them. I'm pretty sure that most of them are unaware that their signal is open. I'm also sure that most of them would say no.

-

Actually didn't I read somewhere that wireless phone calls in fact do not have a legal protection from tapping?

If you're on a hardwired land line or cell phone, intercepting your phone call is illegal.

If you're on a wireless broadcasting from phone to base before the wire heads into the wall, and that radio signal is intercepted between the phone and the base - I believe it's not protected legally.

Likewise, would not the wireless connection open to that router, not be unprotected legally?

My opinion, is there's no "there" there.

Police are probably right to roust people doing this like they roust parkers on a weekend.

No more. No less.

[taxesareforever]

Thus, if the library has theirs open, I assume they're letting others use it - especially if it's supported by my tax dollars!

You'd think the library would be happy not to have people waiting in line to use their (our) computers. Guess not. Once they get our tax dollars they feel that they own everything and taxpayer get lost.

[JasonC]

Because people are specifically and deliberately setting up wireless networks for anybody to use, as a convenience, and the "open access" configuration is specifically and exclusively meant for that precise use. Go stay in almost any modern hotel, or have a bagel at Panera, and there will be open access wireless deliberately provided for anyone who wants it, as a customer convenience.

People naturally and entirely reasonably assume, that if you specifically choose open access you intend the same open use. Guess what, that is what the library is actually doing for its patrons, to start with.

People who do not want others using their connection for speed reasons or whatever, set up their networks as closed ones that require confirmation numbers to access. Every competent person can and does do so. You can't run through a network installation at all, without making the choice between them.

And yes you have encountered that question, you just don't recognized that that is what "open" or "secured" mean, technically. Or rather you do, but are stuck defending your stupid analogy of an unlocked car (which is an item one person can't use while another is using it, that is not deliberately set up to be shared out if you click one checkbox, etc).

If you don't want your network to be open, don't pick "open access". Duh already.

[Mr.Unique]

They might also suspect that he was looking around for downtown businesses that were easy targets for breakin on a Sunday, when there isn't much traffic. Sometimes if the police are suspicious, they'll ask you to move on.

This kid may not have been doing anything, but if you park in a place where there's not a logical reason for you to be, especially for extended times, the cops are going to ask questions.

Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Richard Kimball]

If someone parked on the street directly in front of your house and sat there for several hours, you would probably have questions. If it happened several weeks in a row, you might get nervous about it.

As far as the police questioning him being ridiculous, I think it depends upon the circumstances.

[ctdonath2]

When you set up a machine to broadcast "Hey! I'm here! Free and open access! Yes you may attach, with no key required!" that's giving permission.

[MaxMax]

You are correct. When I was PI training, this was covered,
the police can check you out but not make you leave.
Of course they can bully you or make up a crime.