Posted on 01/07/2008 10:46:22 AM PST by SubGeniusX
Network security firm Sophos recently published a study on what it terms WiFi "piggybacking," or logging on to someone's open 802.11b/g/n network without their knowledge or permission. According to the company's study, which was carried out on behalf of The Times, 54 percent of the respondents have gone WiFi freeloading, or as Sophos put it, "admitted breaking the law [in the UK]."
Amazingly, accessing an unsecured, wide-open WiFi network without permission is illegal in some places, and not just in the UK. An Illinois man was arrested and fined $250 in 2006 for using an open network without permission, while a Michigan man who parked his car in front of a café and snarfed its free WiFi was charged this past May with "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks." On top of that, it's common to read stories about WiFi "stealing" in the mainstream media.
It's time to put an end to this silliness. Using an open WiFi network is no more "stealing" than is listening to the radio or watching TV using the old rabbit ears. If the WiFi waves come to you and can be accessed without hacking, there should be no question that such access is legal and morally OK. If your neighbor runs his sprinkler and accidentally waters your yard, do you owe him money? Have you done something wrong? Have you ripped off the water company? Of course not. So why is it that when it comes to WiFi, people start talking about theft?
The issue is going to come to a head soon because more and more consumer electronics devices are WiFi-enabled, and many of them, including Apple's iPhone and most Skype phones we've used, come ready out of the box to auto-connect to open WiFi networks. Furthermore, as laptop sales continue to grow even beyond desktops, the use of open WiFi is only going to grow along with it.
Steal this WiFi connection!
When you steal something, there's typically a victim. With WiFi, Sophos thinks the ISPs are the victims. "Stealing WiFi Internet access may feel like a victimless crime, but it deprives ISPs of revenue," according to Sophos' senior technology consultant Graham Cluley. Furthermore, "if you've hopped onto your next door neighbors' wireless broadband connection to illegally download movies and music from the 'Net, chances are that you are also slowing down their Internet access and impacting on their download limit." In Sophos' view, then, both ISPs and everyday subscribers can be victims.
In one fell swoop, "stealing WiFi" gets mentioned in the same breath as "illegally" downloading movies and music. The fact is, people join open WiFis for all manner of reasons: to check e-mail, surf the web, look up directions to some place, etc. Those don't sound like nefarious activities, however, and certainly not activities which are likely to get someone in trouble. Of course if you run an open WAP (wireless access point) and it is heavily used for just e-mail, you could still hit your bandwidth cap (if you even have one), but that has to happen only once for that user to figure out what's up, and fix the problem. And let's be honest: it is their problem. No one forced that user to install a WAP or to leave it wide open. We'll get back to this in a minute.
The argument that using open WiFi networks deprives ISPs of significant revenue is also a red herring. Take the case of public WiFi hotspots: official hotspots aren't that difficult to find in major cities—every public library in Chicago has open WiFi, for instance. Are the public libraries and the countless other free hotspot providers helping defraud ISPs? No, they're not. There's no law that using the Internet requires payment of a fee to an ISP, and the myriad public hotspots prove this.
Really, there's only one time when you could argue that an ISP is being gypped, and that's when someone is repeatedly using his neighbor's open WiFi in lieu of paying for his own service. Is this really wrong? Let's consider some parallel examples. If the man in question were given a key and told that he could enter his neighbor's house whenever he wanted to use a PC to access the Internet, would this be wrong? Of course not. They key here (pun intended) is the "permission" given by the owner of the home. Our leeching friend would clearly be in the wrong if he were breaking into the house, of course, because he would be sidestepping something clearly set up to keep him out. If he has permission, I suppose one could argue that it's still not right, but you won't find a court that will punish such a person, nor will you find too many people thrilled at the idea that someone else can tell them who they can and can't allow into their homes for what purposes.
Some people leave their wireless access points wide open deliberately. A friend of mine and recent seminary graduate lived in a campus-owned apartment building. In addition to being a man of the cloth, Peter is a longtime Linux user and open-source advocate. While living here in Chicago, he got his DSL from Speakeasy and shared the connection with others in his building... and anyone else who needed a quick Internet fix (Speakeasy even encouraged this). He even positioned his router so that anyone in the church across the street could pick up a signal. Obviously, not everyone is like Peter. But despite easy-to-read instructions and a plethora of warnings about the need to secure your WAP, some people just can't be bothered to enable the most basic security settings.
To the person with a laptop and a sudden need to check e-mail or surf the web, it's not possible to tell who is leaving their access points open deliberately and who just plain doesn't care. The access point is there and the virtual doors are unlocked, so why not take advantage of it if you're in need?
A couple of caveats: be familiar with the law of the land. As the examples at the beginning of this story show, it's illegal to access a WAP without permission—even if it's wide open—in some places. Also, you should never use an open point for anything illegal or even unneighborly. Don't log onto the first "linksys" WAP you see and fire up a torrent for your favorite, just-released Linux distro.
And as always, don't leave your own 802.11b/g/n router wide open unless you're comfortable with random surfers using your 'Net access for their own purposes.
Open WiFi is clearly here to stay.
LOL! Connecting to an open wi-fi is not "sniffing the packet streams." I'm not sure that you even know what you are talking about at this point.
My understanding is that if you leave the connection unencrypted you are in a better position in court, because the prosecutors can’t prove you were the one doing the illegal downloading (etc.)
It IS an invitation. Why are you broadcasting it other than to invite connections? You already know it and any computer you want to connect to it already knows it. It's only purpose is to solicit new connections. That's why you are supposed to turn off broadcasting it if you don't want anyone else to use it. Duh.
Read the post I was responding to.
Title 47, Chapter 1, Part 15, Subpart A, Section 15.9 addresses the issue of eavesdropping. Here is a textual link
I don't need a licence so long as I am within frequency and power requirements set by the FCC.
Nor does my signal interfere with you in any way unless YOU specifically request access to it by attempting to connect to it.
So your argument has no merit.
I don’t need a license to receive TV, so your argument has no merit.
I only use this ............:o)
http://www.google.com/tisp/install.html
Course all I can get on it is crap !
I've posted links to the some of the relevant FCC regulations. I'm familiar with the legal constraints as I have both an FCC First Class Radiotelephone license and an Extra Class amateur radio license. Certifying that a device meets FCC specs before going on the air includes signing my name and license number. I've also been building computer systems since 1980...including security. While employed at the phone company, I had to sign an affidavit concerning privacy of communications annually. The relevant sections of the Communications Act of 1934 were excerpted regarding interception of communications and the penalties for divulging the information.
What's your relevant experience on the topic?
I don't think so. That would fall under "destruction of property." You can, however, forcibly kick them off your network by properly securing the network so that it denies unauthorized access attempts. Plus, if they get away with a virus-infested computer, they can infect other networks and systems.
Now, a friend of a friend set up a trap on his wireless network so that any unauthorized nodes would be commandeered, their hard drives wiped, and Linux installed.
Incorrect. The SSID, or Service Set Identifier, identifies a particular wireless network in range. It does not, however, constitute or imply an "invitation" or authorization to connect to the network.
The recent RIAA litigation success may show otherwise.
That would be vandalism. Your friend's rights stopped when he inflicted damage on the other system's hard disk. Had he stopped at logging the MAC address and barring further communication, he would not have had a problem. What a lovely tort the victim would have if his business records were destroyed. There might even be criminal penalties if the act occurred in a state with the appropriate laws on the books.
Yes, I know. I heard the story through the grapevine. As I understand, the network in question was also heavily secured against unauthorized access, so I don't think anyone's hard drive was wiped.
But yes, under Virginia law, it would be a crime. We have both laws for computer network trespass and property destruction here.
That is precisely the reason for the legal banners. It was once common for the login process on UNIX systems to have a phrase similar to "Welcome to System XXXX". That was interpreted in court as tacit permission access the system. There was a mad scramble to update every system in the company to emit the legal prohibition banners in a manner visible before an attempt to login occurs. I had to modify the UNIX systems on 12 UNISYS mainframes in August 1984 to comply with company security. My colleagues with the 3B20S systems had many more systems to update.
Hats off, you've been in industry since before I was born (sixteen months after the referenced date).
LOL, I love it!
Pay ‘em???? I’m thinking of charging a fee to everyone that beams an electron into my wireless laptop. It’s my wireless card, keep your unauthorized electrons out of it....That applies to all you TV satellites broadcasting signals thru my roof and all radios beaming thru my walls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.