WIFI---is it LEGAL to use an open signal?
Mike Hendrix
I know this has been discussed to death but has anyone ever been
convicted? Can you provide a link if they have been?
Is it legal, in any state, to use an open wifi signal?
I am on a cell phone connection or I would Google it myself.
thanks
mike
--
consignt...@gmail.com
I guess I really don't know, Mike. But I have never heard of such
a law.
If there is such a law then it will take the authorities a huge fleet
of buses to haul the offenders away.
Many many campgrounds now have free Wi-Fi that is flat open
to anyone close enough to grab the signal. I am sitting in one
of them right now and their signal covers 400 campsites and has
to extend way past that across a major highway into other
neighborhoods and business.
There also are many cities and towns setting up free Wi-Fi zones
for the public use. There is a huge one in the Santa Clara County
area near San Jose that covers many square miles of Silicon Valley.
Jan
Bob V
"Mike Hendrix" <mikeh...@rimonline.com> wrote in message
news:rh96i29nf3jcmn97k...@4ax.com...
:
:
: I know this has been discussed to death but has anyone ever been
: convicted? Can you provide a link if they have been?
:
: Is it legal, in any state, to use an open wifi signal?
:
: I am on a cell phone connection or I would Google it myself.
Since they're so easy to password protect, I would think an open signal is
free, and legal, for all to use. Hacking into a password protected signal
would, of course, be a different matter.
Technobarbarian
"Bob V" <trans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ogqpgF...@individual.net...
Well, since we have people posting wild assed guesses with no idea what
they're talking about I guess it's time for a few facts. The laws vary from
state to state, but yes there have been some arrests and convictions:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6447.html
TB
Bob V
"Technobarbarian" <Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pKGUg.1753$La2.855@fed1read08...
:
: "Bob V" <trans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Sure glad that article is so factual to clear it up for us wild ass
guessers. Arrests in Florida and Illinois, and then this quote:
"Columnist Jeffrey Seglin argued recently that there is nothing wrong with
using an open WAP if you don't have to do any hacking to get on, while a
recent New York Times op-ed piece went as far as to say that leaving your
WiFi network unprotected is a public service."
Jerry Osage
wrote:
Probably not, I don't know for sure, but with that said, how would
anyone catch you?
Now if you were at home and used the same connection every day and
downloaded streaming video all evening... and had been asked to quit,
perhaps.
But the truth is that if the owner hasn't the smarts to lock it down
he sure hasn't the smarts to figure out who is tapped into his WiFi.
Or perhaps he doesn't care or does it on purpose.
An aquaintance has an open WiFi on cable and keeps it open on purpose.
Now i'm sure the cable Co. wouldn't be happy if they knew that a
subscriber was letting neighbors 'steal' his connection rather than
subscribe. He is not 'sharing' they are stealing.
Now some people have problems with things like that and would like
"Those kind of people locked up" if you are one of those , don't do
it. To others, a doofus and his wide open WiFi is a welcome gift and
they willingly partake of the offering. It is not quite like you
slept with the guys wife, drank his scotch, and wrecked his car.
You fuel up, find an open WiFi, do email, perhaps DL RORT and up posts
and move on. I don't think Law Enforcement is going to get too worked
up if some idiot complains that some one stole a few minutes of time
from his open WiFi.
DTV encrypts their signal, they take active measures to prevent theft.
WiFiers can do the same. Open WiFi's are usually like my aquantance.
It is bought and paid for whether it is used or not, so use it.
Is it against the law? perhaps. Is it a priority for LE? not
hardly. But most likely you are breaking the law, however i suspect
that you would really have to try hard to get anyone to care. And a
lot harder than that to get anyone to do anything. An open WiFi is
just that....an Open WiFi. enjoy.
Jerry
Technobarbarian
And this makes your incorrect wild assed guess less of an incorrect
wild assed guess how? I don't get it. You have Google sitting there at your
finger tips. You obviously know nothing about the subject and you still post
nonsense. Huh?
TB
Colton Motor Express #6 Here!
> On 4 Oct 2006 05:13:33 +0200, Mike Hendrix <mikeh...@rimonline.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >I know this has been discussed to death but has anyone ever been
> >convicted? Can you provide a link if they have been?
> that you would really have to try hard to get anyone to care. And a
> lot harder than that to get anyone to do anything. An open WiFi is
> just that....an Open WiFi. enjoy.
>
> Jerry
I had someone care, just recently. I'm parked at my daughters on
dial-up. Needed a big download. Nearest free WIFI [coffee shop] about
6-8 miles away. Hotel with open WIFI about 2 miles. Poured me a big
coffee, got in the 'tow car' and parked in the Hotel Lot.
Tons of open parking.
I didn't take it too seriously, but the lot attendant gave me a huge
'scowl' when he came by, like he was personally paying for the signal.
"scowled' back at him, got my download, and left. Didn't see any red
lights coming as I left. <g> -gar
♫♪ ...BE HAPPY... ♫♪ .. DON'T HURRY ... ♫♪
http://coltonmotorexpress.blogspot.com/
79 Georgie Boy 33' Motor Home
81 MBZ 300td turbo stick shift [Tow-Car]
just can't call my ol Mercedes a 'toad' -gar
Lou
Isn't that what usenet, and in particular this group, are often all about?
Lou
Don Bradner
>Is it legal, in any state, to use an open wifi signal?
Probably not, since it would take an actual law to make it legal, and
such a law would not have a big chance of being introduced/passed
anywhere.
Without such a law, the general statutes regarding theft of services
that apply to all "utilities" would come into play, and some
jurisdictions have specific laws against the practice as well. See the
already referenced article, or Google the topic when you have a good
connection :)
The above is intended only in reference to the specific question of
legality. Very little question, really; you can consider it illegal.
Most of the discussion, including that from people who insist it is
legal (without any legal basis for their insistence) really involves
ethics, morality, common sense, liklihood of being caught, liklihood
of anyone caring, etc.
I would argue that it is a rare day that we don't violate some law,
whether it is driving 1 mph over the speed limit, failing to come to a
complete stop at a stop sign, crossing a street mid-block, crossing at
an intersection with the green light, but after the red hand has
started flashing, etc.
We are a nation of laws, but we tend to "grade" our laws, and this one
falls very near the bottom of the heap.
--
Don Bradner
donb (not don) at arcatapet.com
Posting today by Satellite from
Gettysburg, PA
Ralph E Lindberg
"Bob V" <trans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>
> Sure glad that article is so factual to clear it up for us wild ass
> guessers. Arrests in Florida and Illinois, and then this quote:
>
> "Columnist Jeffrey Seglin argued recently that there is nothing wrong with
> using an open WAP if you don't have to do any hacking to get on, while a
> recent New York Times op-ed piece went as far as to say that leaving your
> WiFi network unprotected is a public service."
I'm sorry, I missed where they were prosecutors, or judges for that
matter.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv
Lone Haranguer
If there are no laws against it, it would be legal.
However, this has been discussed and it IS illegal in many states and
people HAVE been arrested for it. Florida is one of them.
>>
>>I am on a cell phone connection or I would Google it myself.
>>
>>thanks
>>mike
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I guess I really don't know, Mike. But I have never heard of such
> a law.
>
People have been arrested in IL and FL for violating such a law.
Google and you'll find the incidents.
LZ
Steve Wolf
then, yes, it is illegal. If you had slowed their process in any way then,
again, yes. Is it a fight worth fighting? Probably not. Will it be
fought? Certainly. It is an issue just waiting for the correct three
personalities to meet. You need a supplier who didn't want to be. You need
a taker who knew he was. You need a prosecutor who has nothing better to
do. It's just a matter of time.
Steve
www.wolfswords.com under the motorhome link
Hunter
>Is it legal, in any state, to use an open wifi signal?>
It is in my state of mind <g>
Hunter
--
http://members.aol.com/hhamp5246/summer2006.htm
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy shit...what a ride!"
Colton Motor Express #6 Here!
Well said. -gar
Lone Haranguer
> Since they're so easy to password protect, I would think an open signal is
> free, and legal, for all to use.
Faulty logic. No one should have to take any additional steps to
protect property they have purchased for private use. Can you help
yourself to watermelons if no fence has been erected?
Hacking into a password protected signal
> would, of course, be a different matter.
>
Why? Just because the property owner has taken additional steps to
protect his property? Is it legal to burglarize an unlocked house but
illegal to burglarize one where the door is locked?
LZ
Albert
wrote:
All good points (snipped)
>We are a nation of laws, but we tend to "grade" our laws, and this one
>falls very near the bottom of the heap.
This brings to mind an article I read more years ago them I care to
mention.
Case number one:
A man lays a parallel line on his property close to a power
transmission line and through induction electrified is his home.
Power transmission Company sues and the judge rules that because the
power transmission Company was selling said power the men was charged
with theft and handled accordingly.
Case number two:
A man rigs up in induction system close to a commercial radio station
antenna and through induction electrified as his home.
The radio station sues and the judge rules against the radio station
because a radio station is not selling the power emitted through the
antenna.
In both cases it is the essence of common-law, there were no laws on
the books one way or the other so by the ruling of the judge it became
law in that jurisdiction until overturned by a higher court or the
passage of legislation.
-
Albert
Lone Haranguer
I think all these stories about inducted power stealing are urban
legends, AKA fables.
LZ
>
> -
> Albert
Colton Motor Express #6 Here!
Ya, I thinks it's BS also. [the theory, not the poster] if it was
possible, I'm sure my wife's brother would be doing it!
What the hey, so would I, ' them power company's gotz lotz of money'
<g>
Can you imagine, a guy parking ing next to you and putting his power
on your bill?
Hell, we could power our flashlights shavers etc. just being close to a
source. -gar
Rudy
"Colton Motor Express #6 Here!" <zdill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159975042....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Ya, I thinks it's BS also. [the theory, not the poster] if it was
possible, I'm sure my wife's brother would be doing it!
What the hey, so would I, ' them power company's gotz lotz of money'
<g>
Can you imagine, a guy parking ing next to you and putting his power
on your bill?
Hell, we could power our flashlights shavers etc. just being close to a
source. -gar
?? ...BE HAPPY... ?? .. DON'T HURRY ... ??
http://coltonmotorexpress.blogspot.com/
79 Georgie Boy 33' Motor Home
81 MBZ 300td turbo stick shift [Tow-Car]
just can't call my ol Mercedes a 'toad' -gar
Id is possible however not in a parallel line to my knowledge; the cable has
to be looped in order to adjust to the correct voltage.
Rudy
Hunter
<zdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Can you imagine, a guy parking ing next to you and putting his power
>on your bill?
>
>Hell, we could power our flashlights shavers etc. just being close to a
>source. -gar
If my neighbor has a light on his trailer that shines into my
campsite.
Do I have to put a light on to go outside? Am I stealing his light if
I use it?
Lone Haranguer
And how many miles of power line would be required to steal enough
inducted power to run your house? You'd be lucky to steal enough to
power your yard light.
BTW, it's a federal crime. I think I'd just rob banks instead.
LZ
Rudy
"Hunter" <HHam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nfl7i21u6n6fnd11v...@4ax.com...
> On 4 Oct 2006 08:17:22 -0700, "Colton Motor Express #6 Here!"
> <zdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you imagine, a guy parking ing next to you and putting his power
>>on your bill?
>>
>>Hell, we could power our flashlights shavers etc. just being close to a
>>source. -gar
>
> If my neighbor has a light on his trailer that shines into my
> campsite.
>
> Do I have to put a light on to go outside? Am I stealing his light if
> I use it?
>
> Hunter
>
>
Not if you keep your eyes closed,
Rudy
Colton Motor Express #6 Here!
OOOH... good one Hunter, I remember years ago quitting smoking, I'd
shinny up near a smoker and get just a few whifs.. nobody complained.
However, I remember in Viet Nam, we didn't take it kindly when someone
was just hangin around getting our second-hand weed-smoke!! We used
that stuff over and over... then here comes a jerk that hasn't bought
any in his life, getting high on our dollar... the nerve!! Still
hate em.... <g> -gar
Lone Haranguer
> On 4 Oct 2006 08:17:22 -0700, "Colton Motor Express #6 Here!"
> <zdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Can you imagine, a guy parking ing next to you and putting his power
>>on your bill?
>>
>>Hell, we could power our flashlights shavers etc. just being close to a
>>source. -gar
>
>
> If my neighbor has a light on his trailer that shines into my
> campsite.
>
> Do I have to put a light on to go outside? Am I stealing his light if
> I use it?
>
property and utilizing HIS property to get on line.
Would you stand on your property and use a long pole to steal his apples
and not consider it stealing?
If you have a loose enough moral code, I'm sure you could justify it
because he had no business growing apples where they were so easy to steal.
Your analogy demonstrates an inability to think rationally, instead you
try to justify a theft of services just because they are available and
chances of getting caught are near zero.
LZ
Bob V
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:4oht8tF...@individual.net...
You're reaching, and I'm sure you know it.
The point is there are businesses and cities that are providing open WiFi
hotspots for free, and legal, use by anyone. When you search for available
connections, how are you supposed to determine which are okay to use, and
which are not?
I stated an opinion that I didn't think it was illegal to use an open
signal. Certainly I could be wrong, but I haven't seen definative proof,
and apparently others are not so sure either.
http://news.com.com/FAQ+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-7351_3-5778822.html
Hunter
<zdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>We used that stuff over and over... then here comes a jerk that hasn't bought
>any in his life, getting high on our dollar... the nerve!! Still
>hate em.... <g> -gar
LOL!
AustinMN
> Bob V wrote:
> > Since they're so easy to password protect, I would think an open signal is
> > free, and legal, for all to use.
>
> Faulty logic. No one should have to take any additional steps to
> protect property they have purchased for private use. Can you help
> yourself to watermelons if no fence has been erected?
There is a huge difference. The airwaves have always been considered
public property. I suspect state laws prohibiting using WIFI would be
thrown out if challenged on a constitutional basis because it is a
field that the Feds have assumed full juristiction over via the FCC.
Austin
Jerry Osage
<lin...@direcway.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>I think all these stories about inducted power stealing are urban
>legends, AKA fables.
>LZ
>
I agree, I only know of one sucessful induction power stealer and it
didn't actually steal power, it had already been paid for when it came
into the house.
Years ago (1960's) Scientific American published an article on how to
build a fake Perpetual Motion Motor thing. A big Plexiglas disc with
magnets around the perimeter. It was mounted on an big oak base, and
slowly spun forever. The oak base had been routed out to hold the
secret energy source.
By hiding a Crystal Radio tuned to 60 Hz in the base it was able to
get enough electricity to keep turning. IIRC the antenna was 500'
coil of wire for a few mils of current. A neighbor built one and it
worked best next to a wall where it was close to the wires in the
wall. It was an interesting conversation piece, trying to figure out
the trick.
While it is technically possible it sure wouldn't be cost effective
and the apparatus would definitely be huge and visable. Also it would
need to be very close to the power wire, the closer the better.
Jerry
Lone Haranguer
> "Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
> news:4oht8tF...@individual.net...
> : Bob V wrote:
> : > Since they're so easy to password protect, I would think an open signal
> is
> : > free, and legal, for all to use.
> :
> : Faulty logic. No one should have to take any additional steps to
> : protect property they have purchased for private use. Can you help
> : yourself to watermelons if no fence has been erected?
> :
> : Hacking into a password protected signal
> : > would, of course, be a different matter.
> : >
> : Why? Just because the property owner has taken additional steps to
> : protect his property? Is it legal to burglarize an unlocked house but
> : illegal to burglarize one where the door is locked?
>
> You're reaching, and I'm sure you know it.
Not a bit. Those are valid analogies.
>
> The point is there are businesses and cities that are providing open WiFi
> hotspots for free, and legal, use by anyone.
Yes there are and they also identify and publish that information.
When you search for available
> connections, how are you supposed to determine which are okay to use, and
> which are not?
By the identity of the provider. There are several wi-fi signals
available here at my house. The only one I know I have permission to
use is run by the resort and identified as such. It's part of the
amenities I pay for with my monthly rent.
>
> I stated an opinion that I didn't think it was illegal to use an open
> signal. Certainly I could be wrong, but I haven't seen definative proof,
> and apparently others are not so sure either.
Check with the FCC. I think theft of services is covered.
Also check your state laws. I checked MN and there it is considered
illegal to access without permission.
LZ
Man charged with stealing Wi-Fi signalEmail This Post
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.
*****************
AUGUST 30, 2006 | We've all done it: You're using your laptop in a
location without hotspot access. You want onto the Internet, so you
start scanning for open wireless LANs. You find one and, regardless of
who owns it, you piggyback a ride onto the Web.
Yesterday, the California legislature passed a law (AB 2415) that takes
the first steps toward outlawing wireless network piggybacking, as well
as hacking into wireless LANs.
**************
>
> http://news.com.com/FAQ+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-7351_3-5778822.html
>
>
Don Bradner
>Case number one:
>A man lays a parallel line on his property close to a power
>transmission line and through induction electrified is his home.
>Case number two:
>A man rigs up in induction system close to a commercial radio station
>antenna and through induction electrified as his home.
I agree with the others that this is improbable, at best, but running
with the thought a bit, it is easy to see why WiFi becomes more like
Case one than Case two. In Case two, there would be no cost to anyone,
because the radio power is emanated at a steady rate.
In the case of any internet connection, there are many parties paying
to carry the traffic. Additional load costs, even if it is fractional
cents.
Lone Haranguer
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>>Bob V wrote:
>>
>>>Since they're so easy to password protect, I would think an open signal is
>>>free, and legal, for all to use.
>>
>>Faulty logic. No one should have to take any additional steps to
>>protect property they have purchased for private use. Can you help
>>yourself to watermelons if no fence has been erected?
>
>
> There is a huge difference. The airwaves have always been considered
> public property.
Air waves are irrelevant. Your signal has to pass through someone's
private property to get where you want it to go. The air waves alone
won't do that.
I suspect state laws prohibiting using WIFI would be
> thrown out if challenged on a constitutional basis because it is a
> field that the Feds have assumed full juristiction over via the FCC.
The feds may control the air waves, but they lack jurisdiction over the
private property of the person who owns the wifi equipment.
HE controls access and if you are using it without his permission you
are merely stealing a service without his knowledge.
LZ
>
> Austin
>
Janet Wilder
> Hunter wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> If my neighbor has a light on his trailer that shines into my
>> campsite.
>>
>> Do I have to put a light on to go outside? Am I stealing his light if
>> I use it?
>>
> False analogy. If you use his wifi, your signal is leaving your
> property and utilizing HIS property to get on line.
>
> Would you stand on your property and use a long pole to steal his apples
> and not consider it stealing?
>
> If you have a loose enough moral code, I'm sure you could justify it
> because he had no business growing apples where they were so easy to steal.
>
> Your analogy demonstrates an inability to think rationally, instead you
> try to justify a theft of services just because they are available and
> chances of getting caught are near zero.
> LZ
Ya had to set him off, didn't ya. <vbg>
--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life
Janet Wilder
> Yesterday, the California legislature passed a law (AB 2415) that takes
> the first steps toward outlawing wireless network piggybacking, as well
> as hacking into wireless LANs.
Just a teeny point of semantics. Do you consider using an open WiFi to
be hacking? I always thought that hacking required an actual act of
doing something with a keyboard and some code?
Most new laptops will find an open WiFi the minute you turn them on. I
don't think that's technically "hacking". Can you please explain why you do?
J
Frank Tabor
<kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>> Yesterday, the California legislature passed a law (AB 2415) that takes
>> the first steps toward outlawing wireless network piggybacking, as well
>> as hacking into wireless LANs.
>
>Just a teeny point of semantics. Do you consider using an open WiFi to
>be hacking? I always thought that hacking required an actual act of
>doing something with a keyboard and some code?
>
>Most new laptops will find an open WiFi the minute you turn them on. I
>don't think that's technically "hacking". Can you please explain why you do?
>
>J
It doesn't matter how you access it, if you didn't ask me, then it's
unauthorized access to a computer/network. Using the term hacking is
just semantics.
Colton Motor Express #6 Here!
You really ARE streching. Really, just faulty logic on your part. In
your stealing watermelons and stealing from an open house, the owner
lost something.
What has the Hotel lost after I check my email on their signal while
parked at the gas station next to the hotel?
No loss=No theft! Imagine filling out the PR. You gotta leave the
field blank on what you had stolen. <g>
BTW, if someone has jimmy'd the Quarter air machine at the station I
parked at and I top off my tires, am I stealing a 'service'? He could
have fixed it right? So could the Hotel fix the free WIFI signal.
I declare this a dead subject. HaHa... -gar
Steve Wolf
used be considered public". They aren't public any more. There are
definite property rights and frequencies are bought from the government to
be resold and rented as desired. Those days are over. The FCC are the
folks that sold the frequencies. There are no constitutional issues as the
federal government isn't going to come get you. The state is the one whose
coming.
No, you are knowingly obtaining control over the property of another.
Someone bought Internet connectivity and the equipment to make it wireless.
You're stealing what you know isn't yours. Separately, you are controlling
equipment, the wireless equipment, that isn't yours. Separately again, you
are slowing equipment, the legitimate wireless user's computers, that isn't
yours.
No, you are stealing. You are a thief. You know it, too, or the debate
wouldn't be legitimate. All that's needed is a complainant and a prosecutor
and the way to your demise is complete. It will make an interesting front
page story in the newspaper, too. By the time they spin it, it will read
something like "RVer caught manipulating Wal-Mart's computer system!"
If you are in the Cleveland area, you are more than welcome to use my
wireless service. That isn't theft. I doubt I have the right to allow
others to use it but that's another issue all together
Steve
www.wolfswords.com under the motorhome link.
"AustinMN" <tacoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159979465....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Colton Motor Express #6 Here!
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! AB2415 is all about someone stealing INFORMATION
from a wireless network. That we would all agree is illegal!
This bill will ensure the consumer is provided with a warning sticker
or information as such at time of purchase on how 'to protect his
network' "Signal' would have been a better word. All responsibility
is on owner to protect his network.
He don't protect his signal, It's open.
Now you Hack past a 'protected signal' You directly to jail. Do not
pass Go or nuthin!
Ok, it's a dead topic again! <g> -gar
Albert
wrote:
>I agree with the others that this is improbable, at best, but running
>with the thought a bit, it is easy to see why WiFi becomes more like
>Case one than Case two. In Case two, there would be no cost to anyone,
>because the radio power is emanated at a steady rate.
>
>In the case of any internet connection, there are many parties paying
>to carry the traffic. Additional load costs, even if it is fractional
>cents.
Don,
I guess my post confused some in this thread. As I understood it the
question was about the legality of the act. Apparently they missed the
point which was how the legality of an act can be derived at if no
statute exists.
Excluding the technical possibilities of theft in case 1 and 2 the
judgment was rendered on the basis of whether the power source was
being sold (had value) or whether it was not in the case of the radio
station where the power was being transmitted free to the public.
If a campground had Wi-Fi and it was advertised as being free to their
customers would that mean it would be free to the general public? Also
if they had Wi-Fi but they charged two dollars extra and the customer
decided not to pay for it but used it anyway would that be theft?
Excluding the possibility of detection because that's not the question
here the question is it the legal or moral to do so. When my children
were very young and one of them would come wagging a toy from the
playground home saying he didn't know who it will long to so he
thought it was okay for him to take it, I pointed out to him that he
may not know who it belongs to but he knows who it doesn't belong to.
I learned way back in 1953 as a Navy electrician the requirements
necessary to accomplish the a technical aspects of the examples I
used. As far as the thread is concerned I didn't think that it had
any bearing on the posted question.
-
Albert
AustinMN
> No, you are knowingly obtaining control over the property of another.
This is poppycock. I have received 7 different WAP's (in addition to
my own) in my living room. I have often discovered that I was using a
neighbors when I thought I was using my own. Again and again, I have
had to tell my laptop "never use this connection." I suspect I have had
to do it more than once for the same WAP, as a WAP stops ID'ing as
"LinkSys" and starts ID'ing as "JonesHouse" because someone said they
should change the name.
That is not "knowingly obtaining control." It's more like waking up in
a puplic, unlocked, unposted shopping mall and being arrested for
trespassing. I do not know how I got here, it was someone else's
screwup, and I'm trying not to be here.
If I sit in a Starbucks (as I often have) and can connect to 5
different networks (including ones with wonderfully descriptive names
like LinkSys, Cysco, and WAP3), it's not at all my fault if I connect
to the wrong one.
> Separately, you are controlling
> equipment, the wireless equipment, that isn't yours. Separately again, you
> are slowing equipment, the legitimate wireless user's computers, that isn't
> yours.
Yes, but why is that my fault?
> No, you are stealing. You are a thief. You know it, too, or the debate
> wouldn't be legitimate.
The debate is illegitemate. You have already condemned me for a crime
I have not committed. That makes you prejudicial, and the debate
illegitemate.
> All that's needed is a complainant and a prosecutor
> and the way to your demise is complete.
Not. Said prosecutor has to prove I was using the connection with
intent, or at least without due diligence. If my intent was to use the
public Starbucks network, I am totally and utterly not guilty,
regardless.
> It will make an interesting front
> page story in the newspaper, too. By the time they spin it, it will read
> something like "RVer caught manipulating Wal-Mart's computer system!"
No, it wouldn't. They know better. Try looking up libel. If they
did, it would pay all of my legal fees plus, including any appeal that
might be necessary.
Austin
Lone Haranguer
People were given an intellect for a reason. I'd like to see more of
them putting it to use.
Some people's heads could be replaced by a cantaloupe and no one would
notice. (EBG) (That's Even Bigger Grin)
LZ
Steve Wolf
they are stealing and works to justify it through the claim "you can't prove
I'm not that stupid". They don't need to prove you aren't stupid.
If you'd start with the premise "I'm going to use someone's wireless without
permission and see if I can get away with it" your arguements might then
have some basis for discussion.
Start here: An RVer pulls up to Wal-Mart to use their wireless without
permission. Now, without claiming to be too stupid to know that the
connection isn't something you paid for, see where the arguement goes.
Starbucks, Panera Bread and the like are different. They invite people to
use their connection.
Steve
Wes Stewart
wrote:
The airways are not public property, they are "owned" by the federal
government, in the sense that use of them requires federal
approval/licensing. You actually make my point with your statement
about federal jurisdiction.
You might argue that as a citizen, you *are* the government (and you
wouldn't get an argument from me) and therefore you own the airways.
You could try this tactic out by claiming the Rocky Flats Nuclear
Weapons facility is owned by the citizenry and you want full access.
Get back to us with the results.
The feds have allocated bands of frequencies and standards for WiFi.
Individual user licenses aren't required because of limited power
levels and type acceptance of the equipment, but rest assured the feds
are in control.
Lone Haranguer
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>> Yesterday, the California legislature passed a law (AB 2415) that
>> takes the first steps toward outlawing wireless network piggybacking,
>> as well as hacking into wireless LANs.
>
>
> Just a teeny point of semantics. Do you consider using an open WiFi to
> be hacking? I always thought that hacking required an actual act of
> doing something with a keyboard and some code?
"piggybacking as well as hacking". Hacking in my mind would be anything
that requires more than an automatic connection.
>
> Most new laptops will find an open WiFi the minute you turn them on. I
> don't think that's technically "hacking". Can you please explain why you
> do?
What makes you think I do? Read the quote over again and use your
intellect.
LZ
>
> J
>
>
Colton Motor Express #6 Here!
> www.wolfswords.com under the motorhome link.
> "AustinMN" <tacoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159979465....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >> Bob V wrote:
Here's how it is viewed in California...
>From AB 2415
The practice of "piggybacking" is becoming a serious issue for
those who reside in densely populated areas or live in apartment
buildings where the Wi-Fi radio waves can easily emit through walls,
floors and ceilings.
The warnings will only apply to wireless network routers, switches and
bridges sold after January 1, 2008.
Not in a big hurry here... we will 'start' warning consumers in 2008!
I think I can safely assume the other 49 states are 10-15 years behind
Ca. Especially OH. <g>
>The state is the one whose coming.
Not in Calif.
"Assembly Bill 2415 requires manufacturers of wireless network routers
to include a warning for consumers advising them on how to protect
their personal files"
The issue here is PERSONAL FILES.... Not the SIGNAL.. It is understod
the signal is open to any who can recieve it.
Warnings can be provided in one of three ways:
1. The manufacture can apply a temporary sticker warning that is placed
over the ports of the device that would prevent the consumer from using
the device until the sticker is removed.
2. A manufacturer can choose to include the warning during the
configuration process of installing the device.
3. The manufacturer may provide other protections that require the
consumer to take some affirmative action before allowing use of the
device.
>Separately again, you are slowing equipment,
Again from AB 2415.. "Since there is no gauge or measuring device to
show how many people are using a particular access point, it is almost
impossible to determine when someone has tapped into your connection"
I have never noticed my conection slow down when another guy opens his
laptop in the Coffee Shop.
The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a46/press/a462006094.htm
> No, you are stealing. You are a thief. You know it, too
I am not a thief, I am not a thief, I am not a thief!! It's OK to use
an open WIFI signal. You can't lay your guilt trip on me... You know
I just couldn't live with a big headline like 'Honest Gar hacks
Wally-World Network' Give it up... say I'm right. Please. :)
[damn I'm bored today.. it's raining here] -gar
Mike Hendrix
wrote:
>It doesn't matter how you access it, if you didn't ask me, then it's
>unauthorized access to a computer/network. Using the term hacking is
>just semantics.
What I am really looking for is evidence that someone has been:
1. Arrested
2. Prosecuted
3. Convicted
Has this happened yet?
Please help with references ----- web sites etc.,
mike
--
Lone Haranguer
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>>AustinMN wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bob V wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>HE controls access and if you are using it without his permission you
>>are merely stealing a service without his knowledge.
>>LZ
>
>
> You really ARE streching. Really, just faulty logic on your part. In
> your stealing watermelons and stealing from an open house, the owner
> lost something.
>
> What has the Hotel lost after I check my email on their signal while
> parked at the gas station next to the hotel?
The amount of bandwidth you used is lost to the one who is paying.
>
> No loss=No theft! Imagine filling out the PR. You gotta leave the
> field blank on what you had stolen. <g>
I stayed at a motel last winter that advertised free wifi. Unusable
because freeloaders in a trailer park nearby were jamming the service.
It would time out before you could load a weather map. I checked with
the provider of the service and the local telco that serviced it. They
were paying for maximum bandwidth but the hotel customers weren't
getting it.
>
> BTW, if someone has jimmy'd the Quarter air machine at the station I
> parked at and I top off my tires, am I stealing a 'service'? He could
> have fixed it right? So could the Hotel fix the free WIFI signal.
They could have but they are not required to take any additional steps
to protect their property from thieves.
If you take that "free air" the station's compressor will have to run
more. Maybe he will just unplug it and the next person will be SOL.
Add your theft of bandwidth to that of others and you soon have a
situation where the hotel is charging its customers for something they
aren't getting. Think of that when you are being a freeloading pig.
>
> I declare this a dead subject. HaHa...
What's dead is that thing on your shoulders.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
> No, it wouldn't. They know better. Try looking up libel.
Walmart has thousands of hi-powered lawyers. If they wanted to make an
example out of you, you wouldn't stand a chance.
How could you PROVE you were NOT trying to manipulate Walmart's computers?
If they
> did, it would pay all of my legal fees plus, including any appeal that
> might be necessary.
You'd be bankrupt before you ever got to trial. No lawyer would take it
on a contingency basis and Walmart would drag the discovery process out
for 10 years.
Now go suck on your pacifier; you're way out of your depth here.
LZ
>
> Austin
>
Frank Tabor
<zdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Frank Tabor wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:55:54 -0500, Janet Wilder
>> <kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Lone Haranguer wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yesterday, the California legislature passed a law (AB 2415) that takes
>> >> the first steps toward outlawing wireless network piggybacking, as well
>> >> as hacking into wireless LANs.
>> >
>> >Just a teeny point of semantics. Do you consider using an open WiFi to
>> >be hacking? I always thought that hacking required an actual act of
>> >doing something with a keyboard and some code?
>> >
>> >Most new laptops will find an open WiFi the minute you turn them on. I
>> >don't think that's technically "hacking". Can you please explain why you do?
>> >
>> >J
>>
>> It doesn't matter how you access it, if you didn't ask me, then it's
>> unauthorized access to a computer/network. Using the term hacking is
>> just semantics.
>
>Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! AB2415 is all about someone stealing INFORMATION
>from a wireless network. That we would all agree is illegal!
>
I said nothing about the bill. You access my network without my
permission, it's a crime. Period.
Look it up.
Lone Haranguer
No it isn't. The government is merely assisting the stupid, of which
California apparently has its share.
>
> Warnings can be provided in one of three ways:
> 1. The manufacture can apply a temporary sticker warning that is placed
> over the ports of the device that would prevent the consumer from using
> the device until the sticker is removed.
> 2. A manufacturer can choose to include the warning during the
> configuration process of installing the device.
> 3. The manufacturer may provide other protections that require the
> consumer to take some affirmative action before allowing use of the
> device.
>
>
>>Separately again, you are slowing equipment,
>
>
> Again from AB 2415.. "Since there is no gauge or measuring device to
> show how many people are using a particular access point, it is almost
> impossible to determine when someone has tapped into your connection"
Not the issue. Measured or not, the more using it, the slower it gets.
>
>
> I have never noticed my conection slow down when another guy opens his
> laptop in the Coffee Shop.
Hoo Boy!
>
> The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.
>
> http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a46/press/a462006094.htm
>
>
>
>>No, you are stealing. You are a thief. You know it, too
>
>
> I am not a thief, I am not a thief, I am not a thief!! It's OK to use
> an open WIFI signal.
Explain that to those who have been arrested for doing so.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Why? Are you mentally impaired? These links were posted last spring
when this was a topic.
Illinois WiFi freeloader fined US$250
3/23/2006 4:13:37 PM, by Eric Bangeman
An Illinois man pleaded guilty this week to remotely accessing another
computer system without the owner's approval and was handed one year of
court supervision and a US$250 fine. David Kauchak was spotted using his
laptop inside of his parked car in the middle of the night by a police
officer this past January. The officer discovered that Kauchak was using
an unprotected wireless access point belonging to a not-for-profit
agency and cited him.
Kauchak is not the first person in the US to be convicted for
unauthorized access of a WiFi network. Last year, a Florida man was
convicted of unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree
felony after being arrested under circumstances similar to those of Kauchak.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6447.html
**********
LZ
>
> mike
AustinMN
> AustinMN wrote:
> > No, it wouldn't. They know better. Try looking up libel.
>
> Walmart has thousands of hi-powered lawyers. If they wanted to make an
> example out of you, you wouldn't stand a chance.
You clearly did not look it up. You also took the comment way out of
context.
>
> How could you PROVE you were NOT trying to manipulate Walmart's computers?
Since the sequence started with criminal charges, I don't have to prove
a damn thing. They have to prove I did so. For the libel, all I have
to do is show due diligence in trying to make sure I thought I was
connecting to the Starbucks. Since I have a history on my laptop of
setting WAP's to "do not connect" the Walmart lawyers will settle.
> If they
> > did, it would pay all of my legal fees plus, including any appeal that
> > might be necessary.
>
> You'd be bankrupt before you ever got to trial. No lawyer would take it
> on a contingency basis and Walmart would drag the discovery process out
> for 10 years.
Not so. If they didn't settle, it would cost them millions to drag it
out. They'd settle. Yes they have high priced lawyers, and those
lawyers FIRST job is to minimize Walmart's costs. That includes making
sure I don't have an excuse to sue in the first place...in other words,
fire the Walmart employee who lied to the press about me and settle.
> you're way out of your depth here.
Whatever that means.
Austin
Colton Motor Express #6 Here!
Lone Haranguer wrote:
> Colton Motor Express #6 Here! wrote:
> >
> > I declare this a dead subject. HaHa...
>
> What's dead is that thing on your shoulders.
> LZ
Awlrighty.. I'll try this.. The guy with the open/or closed for that
matter, WIFI signal IS invading MY computer!! Every time I open it up.
That's damn sure illegal! I am not on HIS computer. That law has been
defined. Hell of a lot more clearly than Steve's assumption I am a
dumb and a thief. What ya say about all this? -gar
I resent being called a thief...<g>
Al Balmer
<zdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Lone Haranguer wrote:
>> Colton Motor Express #6 Here! wrote:
>> >
>> > I declare this a dead subject. HaHa...
>>
>> What's dead is that thing on your shoulders.
>> LZ
>
>Awlrighty.. I'll try this.. The guy with the open/or closed for that
>matter, WIFI signal IS invading MY computer!! Every time I open it up.
> That's damn sure illegal!
Along with cosmic radiation, TV signals both scrambled and clear,
background radiation from the nearest rocks, etc. Can you have God,
Dishnet, and Mother Nature all arrested for trespass?
> I am not on HIS computer.
Until you make an actual connection. Then you are on his system, using
his hardware, and his ISP. Nobody will complain if you just ignore the
signal.
>That law has been
>defined.
What law? Where?
> Hell of a lot more clearly than Steve's assumption I am a
>dumb and a thief. What ya say about all this? -gar
That maybe you don't know how it works?
>
>I resent being called a thief...<g>
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Rick Onanian
> False analogy. If you use his wifi, your signal is leaving your
> property and utilizing HIS property to get on line.
>
> Would you stand on your property and use a long pole to steal his apples
> and not consider it stealing?
I would eat an apple that rolled out of his yard into mine, even if
fertilizer runoff from my yard helped it grow.
Your analogy is broken too. It's pretty hard to compare stealing an
apple with using an available wifi connection. It's pretty hard to
compare lots of structurally different concepts to wifi usage.
IMO, if you put up a wifi signal that offers no indication that it's not
for public use (some security, or at least a name that says "Private
Use", then public use is ethically (although not always legally) OK.
That's not a result of any default entitlement, but rather, the nature
of WiFi.
Rich
wrote:
>
>
>I know this has been discussed to death but has anyone ever been
>convicted? Can you provide a link if they have been?
>
>Is it legal, in any state, to use an open wifi signal?
>
>I am on a cell phone connection or I would Google it myself.
>
>thanks
>mike
mike, there are two kinds of open wi-fi signals. hotels, campgrounds,
coffee shops, libraries, etc. will have intentionally open systems
intended for the use of their customers. individuals will also have
open systems usually a result of not knowing (sometimes not caring)
how to secure their systems.
i've not herd of any convitions. there was one widely publicized
arrest a year or so ago of a man who was parked on the street using an
indivisdual's open system. don't recall the specifics of what he was
exactly charged with (or if he was charged with anything), if it went
to trial, etc.
as for googling on a cell connection...most carriers have free time
after 7pm or 9pm at night. i use a cell connection when we're at a
campground that doesn't have a free or usable wi-fi connection and
save a lot of my heavy surfing for after 9pm (verizon).
we can debate all day the ethics of using, without an invitation,
another individual's open wi-fi system. that's between you and your
conscious but i personally would be wary of doing so.
7,
rich, n9dko
Rich
wrote:
>
>"Technobarbarian" <Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:pKGUg.1753$La2.855@fed1read08...
>:
>: "Bob V" <trans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>: news:4ogqpgF...@individual.net...
>: >
>: > "Mike Hendrix" <mikeh...@rimonline.com> wrote in message
>: > news:rh96i29nf3jcmn97k...@4ax.com...
>: > :
>: > :
>: > : I know this has been discussed to death but has anyone ever been
>: > : convicted? Can you provide a link if they have been?
>: > :
>: > : Is it legal, in any state, to use an open wifi signal?
>: > :
>: > : I am on a cell phone connection or I would Google it myself.
>: >
>: > Since they're so easy to password protect, I would think an open signal
>is
>: > free, and legal, for all to use. Hacking into a password protected
>signal
>: > would, of course, be a different matter.
>:
>: Well, since we have people posting wild assed guesses with no idea
>what
>: they're talking about I guess it's time for a few facts. The laws vary
>from
>: state to state, but yes there have been some arrests and convictions:
>:
>: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6447.html
>:
>
>Sure glad that article is so factual to clear it up for us wild ass
>guessers. Arrests in Florida and Illinois, and then this quote:
>
>"Columnist Jeffrey Seglin argued recently that there is nothing wrong with
>using an open WAP if you don't have to do any hacking to get on, while a
>recent New York Times op-ed piece went as far as to say that leaving your
>WiFi network unprotected is a public service."
>
i'd expect that of the NYT. to them revealing how we're trying to
interdict terrorists from attacking us is a public service. i wonder
if the internal NYT system is unprotected?
73,
rich, n9dko
Nate
"Frank Tabor" <fta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7u7i25clni0hgp8h...@4ax.com...
If the signal is open, not password protected, then it is assumed to be
authorized. Comparing that to entering ones house is silly. There is a
presumption that a house is private. There is also a presumption that an
open signal is public. Presumption play a very important role in our legal
system.
Nate
Lone Haranguer
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>>AustinMN wrote:
>>
>>>No, it wouldn't. They know better. Try looking up libel.
>>
>>Walmart has thousands of hi-powered lawyers. If they wanted to make an
>>example out of you, you wouldn't stand a chance.
>
>
> You clearly did not look it up. You also took the comment way out of
> context.
I didn't have to.
>
>
>>How could you PROVE you were NOT trying to manipulate Walmart's computers?
>
>
> Since the sequence started with criminal charges, I don't have to prove
> a damn thing.
You have to prove they libeled you and that you suffered a loss of
something as a result.
They have to prove I did so.
What makes it to the headlines and what portion is Walmart's
responsibility are two different things. Newspapers have their own
lawyers that verify the charge so THEY don't get sued for printing bogus
information.
For the libel, all I have
> to do is show due diligence in trying to make sure I thought I was
> connecting to the Starbucks.
Wrong. You have to prove you were libeled and that you suffered damage
or loss as a result.
Since I have a history on my laptop of
> setting WAP's to "do not connect" the Walmart lawyers will settle.
The lawyers are on the payroll. Walmart only settles with big
government since they are the only ones who can keep lawsuits going
indefinitely.
>
>
>> If they
>>
>>>did, it would pay all of my legal fees plus, including any appeal that
>>>might be necessary.
>>
>>You'd be bankrupt before you ever got to trial. No lawyer would take it
>>on a contingency basis and Walmart would drag the discovery process out
>>for 10 years.
>
>
> Not so. If they didn't settle, it would cost them millions to drag it
> out. They'd settle.
I'd bet heavily that they wouldn't and you'd be a pauper before you got
to first base.
Yes they have high priced lawyers, and those
> lawyers FIRST job is to minimize Walmart's costs. That includes making
> sure I don't have an excuse to sue in the first place...in other words,
> fire the Walmart employee who lied to the press about me and settle.
You'd have to prove he lied instead of being ignorant of the proper
terms. You'd have to prove he KNEW it was a lie. The newspaper's
lawyer would have verified the facts before they were printed.
>
>
>>you're way out of your depth here.
>
>
> Whatever that means.
It means you know nothing about the law.
LZ
>
> Austin
>
Lone Haranguer
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>>Colton Motor Express #6 Here! wrote:
>> >
>>
>>> I declare this a dead subject. HaHa...
>>
>>What's dead is that thing on your shoulders.
>>LZ
>
>
> Awlrighty.. I'll try this.. The guy with the open/or closed for that
> matter, WIFI signal IS invading MY computer!! Every time I open it up.
> That's damn sure illegal!
Disable your wifi.
I am not on HIS computer.
You're using his equipment if you receive or transmit anything.
That law has been
> defined.
Give us the case name, number and which court defined it.
Hell of a lot more clearly than Steve's assumption I am a
> dumb and a thief. What ya say about all this? -gar
>
> I resent being called a thief...<g>
Most thieves do. Don't ask me why.
LZ
Frank Tabor
Nope, you access my computer network without my permission, it's a
crime. Look it up. In the Federal codes.
Frank Tabor
Nope, you access my computer network without my permission it's a
crime. A federal one. Look it up in the US Codes. Under computer
trespass.
Jon Porter
"Mike Hendrix" <mikeh...@rimonline.com> wrote in message
news:rh96i29nf3jcmn97k...@4ax.com...
>
>
> I know this has been discussed to death but has anyone ever been
> convicted?
Yes.
Can you provide a link if they have been?
Sorry, we have hail and tornado sirens are going off at the moment, I don't
feel like going online and digging for a link right now. I hope my word is
good enough on that question.
> Is it legal, in any state, to use an open wifi signal?
I don't think that the question has been adequately addressed anywhere.
There needs to be legislation that spells out what is and isn't legal with
private wifi systems. Most likely the hardware will change before that
happens and render the question moot.
Jon Porter
"Janet Wilder" <kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4523f501$0$24168$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> Just a teeny point of semantics. Do you consider using an open WiFi to be
> hacking?
Yes. Unauthorized access by any means can be considered hacking.
--
Jon
JPinOH
Jon Porter
"Colton Motor Express #6 Here!" <zdill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159988555.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! AB2415 is all about someone stealing INFORMATION
> from a wireless network. That we would all agree is illegal!
What is AB2415?
--
Jon
JPinOH
Jon Porter
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:4oiobkF...@individual.net...
> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>
>>
>> Please help with references ----- web sites etc.,
>
> Why? Are you mentally impaired? These links were posted last spring when
> this was a topic.
You missed the first message where he said he's on a cell phone connection.
Slow connecion, and burns up inutes conducting a search.
--
Jon
JPinOH
Rick Onanian
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:03:50 -0400, Rick Onanian wrote:
>>IMO, if you put up a wifi signal that offers no indication that it's not
>>for public use (some security, or at least a name that says "Private
>>Use", then public use is ethically (although not always legally) OK.
>
> crime. A federal one. Look it up in the US Codes. Under computer
> trespass.
Put on your glasses. I wrote that it's "ethically (although not always
legally) OK". I not only did not imply that it's legal, but rather I
implied that it _is_ a crime.
Jon Porter
"AustinMN" <tacoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159979465....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> public property. I suspect state laws prohibiting using WIFI would be
> thrown out if challenged on a constitutional basis because it is a
> field that the Feds have assumed full juristiction over via the FCC.
I hope you don't have a cell phone. They use the airwaves. After all, they
are radios.
--
Jon
JPinOH
Jon Porter
Awlrighty.. I'll try this.. The guy with the open/or closed for that
matter, WIFI signal IS invading MY computer!! Every time I open it up.
That's damn sure illegal! I am not on HIS computer. That law has been
defined. Hell of a lot more clearly than Steve's assumption I am a
dumb and a thief. What ya say about all this? -gar
You can choose to turn of the wifi. Your choice, just like with any radio.
It's totally up to you whether or not that signal is received.
--
Jon
JPinOH
Jon Porter
> Steve Wolf wrote:
>> No, you are knowingly obtaining control over the property of another.
>
> This is poppycock. I have received 7 different WAP's (in addition to
> my own) in my living room. I have often discovered that I was using a
> neighbors when I thought I was using my own. Again and again, I have
> had to tell my laptop "never use this connection." I suspect I have had
> to do it more than once for the same WAP, as a WAP stops ID'ing as
> "LinkSys" and starts ID'ing as "JonesHouse" because someone said they
> should change the name.
You need to change the properties of the wireless to prevent automatically
obtaining a new address. How to do that is in the instructions for whatever
wireless gear you are using. It can be limited to a single connection.
--
Jon
JPinOH
Lone Haranguer
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>> False analogy. If you use his wifi, your signal is leaving your
>> property and utilizing HIS property to get on line.
>>
>> Would you stand on your property and use a long pole to steal his
>> apples and not consider it stealing?
>
>
> I would eat an apple that rolled out of his yard into mine,
Different analogy entirely.
even if
> fertilizer runoff from my yard helped it grow.
Then you are contaminating his yard.
>
> Your analogy is broken too. It's pretty hard to compare stealing an
> apple with using an available wifi connection.
Why? You can take it because it's there and you aren't leaving your
property to do so. Exactly what those who use those reasons to justify
theft of services do.
It's pretty hard to
> compare lots of structurally different concepts to wifi usage.
>
> IMO, if you put up a wifi signal that offers no indication that it's not
> for public use (some security, or at least a name that says "Private
> Use", then public use is ethically (although not always legally) OK.
Does the neighbor have to put up signs every year saying "Don't steal
the apples"? NO.
Unless the wifi specifically states that it is offered for use to the
public, it isn't. Ever heard of respect for private property? It
applies to wifi too.
> That's not a result of any default entitlement, but rather, the nature
> of WiFi.
Baloney. An argument devised to soothe an uneasy conscience.
LZ
Frank Tabor
I don't know about your conscience, but using something that isn't
mine without permission is stealing.
Jon Porter
"Steve Wolf" <ne...@w8iz.com> wrote in message
news:12i845q...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Start here: An RVer pulls up to Wal-Mart to use their wireless without
> permission. Now, without claiming to be too stupid to know that the
> connection isn't something you paid for, see where the arguement goes.
I didn't know that Wal Mart provided wireless Internet. WHat service
provider do they piggyback on, T-Mobile?
--
Jon
JPinOH
Rick Onanian
> You can choose to turn of the wifi. Your choice, just like with any radio.
> It's totally up to you whether or not that signal is received.
It's not even that hard a choice. You can have your cake and eat it too.
You just have to choose to do one of the following:
- Disable advertising of your network name
- Implement a small amount of security. such as 64 bit WEP
- Name your network "private" or similar
Any of those things tells a potential user that he's not welcome.
Jon Porter
"Hunter" <HHam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:vnd7i2l77v3o31kd5...@4ax.com...
> Mike wrote:
>
>>Is it legal, in any state, to use an open wifi signal?>
>
Can't argue that. <g>
--
Jon
JPinOH
Jon Porter
> If my neighbor has a light on his trailer that shines into my
> campsite.
>
> Do I have to put a light on to go outside? Am I stealing his light if
> I use it?
For myself, I'd want him to turn the darn thing off because it's invading my
dark. I don't want outside lights when I'm camping.
--
Jon
JPinOH
Rick Onanian
> Rick Onanian wrote:
>> Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>> False analogy. If you use his wifi, your signal is leaving your
>>> property and utilizing HIS property to get on line.
>>>
>>> Would you stand on your property and use a long pole to steal his
>>> apples and not consider it stealing?
>>
>> I would eat an apple that rolled out of his yard into mine,
>
> Different analogy entirely.
Yes, and much more apt. A wifi signal that's putting itself on my
computer is like an apple that's on my property.
>> even if fertilizer runoff from my yard helped it grow.
>
> Then you are contaminating his yard.
Kinda like the way his apple or his wifi connection is contaminating mine.
>> Your analogy is broken too. It's pretty hard to compare stealing an
>> apple with using an available wifi connection.
>
> Why? You can take it because it's there and you aren't leaving your
> property to do so. Exactly what those who use those reasons to justify
> theft of services do.
Take it? How about accept it. You're also not depriving him of it
(except for an unlikely minor deprivation of speed), nor are you using a
tool to _take_ anything.
>> IMO, if you put up a wifi signal that offers no indication that it's
>> not for public use (some security, or at least a name that says
>> "Private Use", then public use is ethically (although not always
>> legally) OK.
>
> Does the neighbor have to put up signs every year saying "Don't steal
> the apples"? NO.
No, but if he advertises "Apples here" with a sign and no fence then
it's pretty unlikely that he put the sign there just for his family.
Advertising the name of an open network with no indication that it's
private is similar.
> Unless the wifi specifically states that it is offered for use to the
> public, it isn't. Ever heard of respect for private property? It
> applies to wifi too.
Ever hear of not putting up "Come in here" signs on private property?
Jon Porter
"Nate" <nsaptaem...@nsvpbaemll.net> wrote in message
news:uLXUg.13362$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> If the signal is open, not password protected, then it is assumed to be
> authorized.
According to what legislation, code, or regulating body?
--
Jon
JPinOH
Jon Porter
"Rick Onanian" <groups.t...@xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:WQYUg.8742$Rp3.134@dukeread12...
All of which is true. However, I responding to the poster who's objection
was that somebody else's wifi signal was being received by his computer.
Which kinda brings up another thing about all of this. Long ago, legislators
ruled that it is legal to detect almost any broadcast signal. That is a huge
part of the basis of the argument over the legality of radar detectors.
--
Jon
JPinOH
Mark Jones
I just ran a google search on this subject and this issue is anything
but settled. It all depends upon the service provider and the police
as to whether they will care. That does not mean that it is legal,
just that in most instances nobody will do anything about it, but
they can if they want to.
Hunter
wrote:
>
>You can choose to turn of the wifi. Your choice, just like with any radio.
>It's totally up to you whether or not that signal is received.
It's totally up to the wifi originator whether or not I receive his
signal.
Hunter
--
http://members.aol.com/hhamp5246/summer2006.htm
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy shit...what a ride!"
Jon Porter
"Mark Jones" <noe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aKZUg.10158$UG4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I think I stated something similar earlier. It's a question that still needs
to be addressed legally, which is what this thread is about. There is a need
to spell out what is and isn't acceptable concerning use of unprotected wifi
signals.
--
Jon
JPinOH
Lon VanOstran
> For myself, I'd want him to turn the darn thing off because it's invading my
> dark. I don't want outside lights when I'm camping.
Me too. I love it on the rare occasion when we are in a campground
without sissy lights.
Lon
Hunter
wrote:
>Nope, you access my computer network without my permission it's a
>crime. A federal one. Look it up in the US Codes. Under computer
>trespass.
Hi Frank,
I agree, if I accessed your computer without your permission it would
be a crime. The thing is, I'm simply accessing my own computer,
getting my email and maybe surfing. I'm not going into your computer
at all.
Hunter
wrote:
>For myself, I'd want him to turn the darn thing off because it's invading my
>dark. I don't want outside lights when I'm camping.
LOL, actually my windows are all covered with stuff so it's pitch dark
in my bedroom in broad daylight.
Outside lights never disturb me.
Hunter
<noe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>I just ran a google search on this subject and this issue is anything
>but settled. It all depends upon the service provider and the police
>as to whether they will care. That does not mean that it is legal,
>just that in most instances nobody will do anything about it, but
>they can if they want to.
How would anyone know unless you were sitting out in front of their
house for hours?
Mountain Mike^^
parts (when i get around-tu-it).
All new ones will have Wi-fi usb adapters to pick up any stray net road
avenues, legal or otherwise. I'm going to build a nice mini-cube for my new
Sunnybrook TT. I hate laptops for the obvious reasons..........
I'm not a thief or a liar. But I pick up the occasional quarter on the
sidewalk. I leave the nickels and pennys......
This is new ground with the laws. Remember when aircraft had to get
permission to overfly your real estate? (maybe not, that was a long time
ago). Anyway the laws are way behind technology. The way to influence the
laws that will be passed by people elected by *you* is to do what you thing
they should approve off. Just like the the gun laws in Canada. Use the damn
Wi Fi's. When enough people do so, then the laws will reflect the
*intention* of someone not wanting you to do it.
Until then, God can sort it out. Everyone that doesn't agree with me
can......
MM^^<--blow me
Mark Jones
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:03:50 GMT, "Mark Jones"
> <noe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I just ran a google search on this subject and this issue is anything
>> but settled. It all depends upon the service provider and the police
>> as to whether they will care. That does not mean that it is legal,
>> just that in most instances nobody will do anything about it, but
>> they can if they want to.
>
> How would anyone know unless you were sitting out in front of their
> house for hours?
There are probably utility programs that will allow you to
observe bandwidth usage. If you weren't using it and you see
sustained heavy usage, you would know that someone was
using your connection. Hopefully if someone is smart enough
to do that, they would be smart enough to secure their wifi.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:03:50 GMT, "Mark Jones"
><noe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I just ran a google search on this subject and this issue is anything
>>but settled. It all depends upon the service provider and the police
>>as to whether they will care. That does not mean that it is legal,
>>just that in most instances nobody will do anything about it, but
>>they can if they want to.
>
>How would anyone know unless you were sitting out in front of their
>house for hours?
>
>Hunter
Well, as a matter of fact, some programs do announce the presence
of an intruder, without otherwise hindering him.
I met a woman on my ferry trip out to Dutch Harbor in the
Aleutians who invited me to stay at her house when I got up to
Fairbanks. She told her husband that she had to invite me 'cause
we "slept together". (By which she meant we slept near each
other in separate sleeping bags on the open moonlit deck of the
ship. Very romantic in some eyes, I suppose. Except for the
snoring.)
When I got up there weeks later, and set up the trailer in their
front yard, I noticed an unknown open wifi signal, so I used it
to get my email and do some banking. A few minutes later I was
out in the yard talking to her husband when Catherine came out
and said "David, there's a message on the computer that
somebody's using our system."
"Durn Pirates," he replied.
I explained that was probably me, which turned out to be all
right, but I never did get around to finding out what program she
used, or what the message said exactly.
Seems like they would enable encryption if they were worried
about it, but they didn't. Gave 'em something to gripe about, I
guess.
Bob
Hunter
<noe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>There are probably utility programs that will allow you to
>observe bandwidth usage. If you weren't using it and you see
>sustained heavy usage, you would know that someone was
>using your connection.
Yabut I'm a couple hundred yards away in my Airstream. How do they
know *I'm* the one using it?
Bob Giddings
wrote:
>On 5 Oct 2006 02:52:03 +0200, "Jon Porter" <jpo...@netwalk.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>You can choose to turn of the wifi. Your choice, just like with any radio.
>>It's totally up to you whether or not that signal is received.
>
>It's totally up to the wifi originator whether or not I receive his
>signal.
>
>Hunter
I'm with Hunter, for what it's worth. There's lots of free
public signals out there. If it's open, I assume they wanted it
that way. It was their choice.
If you want yours private, you have to put up a sign. Kinda like
a posted sign or a fence, out in the national forest. So
passersby will know when they are on private land.
But of course, anybody can make a law that says anything. And
probably will.
Bob
Colton Motor Express #6 Here!
What we are discussing here, Frank, is if this signal comes into my
home... just maybe it IS mine! I believe it is.
It's a new thing, It has NOT been settled. But, starting with the
current Calif legislation it is being designed as we post.
Again I refer to the current Calif legislation that's only intent is to
help the consumer
protect his Information by showing him how to protect his signal and
there-by his INFORMATION.
Anyone seen any other states legislation referring to the 'abuser'? I
didn't.
And the reason is, I believe, that is is a very simple thing on the
part of the purchaser of the signal to control it. DUH...
As bad as some of our elected people are, Lets see.... Spend
thousands of hours and dollars on a complicated piece of legislation,
or on a simple one like telling the consumer how to control his
signal? Problem solved. -gar
♫♪ ...BE HAPPY... ♫♪ .. DON'T HURRY ... ♫♪
http://coltonmotorexpress.blogspot.com/
79 Georgie Boy 33' Motor Home
81 MBZ 300td turbo stick shift [Tow-Car]
just can't call my ol Mercedes a 'toad' -gar
Lone Haranguer
> "Frank Tabor" <fta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a7u7i25clni0hgp8h...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:55:54 -0500, Janet Wilder
>><kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yesterday, the California legislature passed a law (AB 2415) that takes
>>>>the first steps toward outlawing wireless network piggybacking, as well
>>>>as hacking into wireless LANs.
>>>
>>>Just a teeny point of semantics. Do you consider using an open WiFi to
>>>be hacking? I always thought that hacking required an actual act of
>>>doing something with a keyboard and some code?
>>>
>>>Most new laptops will find an open WiFi the minute you turn them on. I
>>>don't think that's technically "hacking". Can you please explain why you
>>>do?
>>>
>>>J
>>
>>It doesn't matter how you access it, if you didn't ask me, then it's
>>unauthorized access to a computer/network. Using the term hacking is
>>just semantics.
>
>
> If the signal is open, not password protected, then it is assumed to be
> authorized. Comparing that to entering ones house is silly. There is a
> presumption that a house is private. There is also a presumption that an
> open signal is public.
There is no such presumption. Just convenient ethics. Using your
logic, if you leave your key in the car, you are inviting anyone who
comes along to have free use of it.
LZ
Presumption play a very important role in our legal
> system.
>
> Nate
>
>
Mark Jones
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:39:30 GMT, "Mark Jones"
> <noe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> There are probably utility programs that will allow you to
>> observe bandwidth usage. If you weren't using it and you see
>> sustained heavy usage, you would know that someone was
>> using your connection.
>
> Yabut I'm a couple hundred yards away in my Airstream. How do they
> know *I'm* the one using it?
They won't, but they might lock it down at that point.
Lone Haranguer
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>> Rick Onanian wrote:
>>
>>> Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>>
>>>> False analogy. If you use his wifi, your signal is leaving your
>>>> property and utilizing HIS property to get on line.
>>>>
>>>> Would you stand on your property and use a long pole to steal his
>>>> apples and not consider it stealing?
>>>
>>>
>>> I would eat an apple that rolled out of his yard into mine,
>>
>>
>> Different analogy entirely.
>
>
> Yes, and much more apt. A wifi signal that's putting itself on my
> computer is like an apple that's on my property.
Wrong. You can disable your wifi from seeking signals but you can't
revise the laws of gravity.
>
>>> even if fertilizer runoff from my yard helped it grow.
>>
>>
>> Then you are contaminating his yard.
>
>
> Kinda like the way his apple or his wifi connection is contaminating mine.
You can lay bricks on your property line to stop apples from rolling
into your yard and you can disable your wifi even easier.
>
>>> Your analogy is broken too. It's pretty hard to compare stealing an
>>> apple with using an available wifi connection.
>>
>>
>> Why? You can take it because it's there and you aren't leaving your
>> property to do so. Exactly what those who use those reasons to
>> justify theft of services do.
>
>
> Take it? How about accept it. You're also not depriving him of it
> (except for an unlikely minor deprivation of speed),
This is like saying it is okay to steal from the rich because they have
plenty and can do without the small amount you plan to steal. Does that
salve your conscience?
nor are you using a
> tool to _take_ anything.
You certainly are using your wifi enabling setting to pick up his signal.
>
>>> IMO, if you put up a wifi signal that offers no indication that it's
>>> not for public use (some security, or at least a name that says
>>> "Private Use", then public use is ethically (although not always
>>> legally) OK.
>>
>>
>> Does the neighbor have to put up signs every year saying "Don't steal
>> the apples"? NO.
>
>
> No, but if he advertises "Apples here" with a sign and no fence then
> it's pretty unlikely that he put the sign there just for his family.
What if you have to wear special glasses to read the sign just like you
have to enable wifi to receive his signal?
> Advertising the name of an open network with no indication that it's
> private is similar.
Not at all. If it is taxpayer funded that's a different story.
Otherwise it is private property and entitled to the same respect.
>
>> Unless the wifi specifically states that it is offered for use to the
>> public, it isn't. Ever heard of respect for private property? It
>> applies to wifi too.
>
>
> Ever hear of not putting up "Come in here" signs on private property?
Ever see a sign that says "trespassing allowed by thieves and cheapskates"?
LZ
Colton Motor Express #6 Here!
> Colton Motor Express #6 Here! wrote:
>
> > Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> >>AustinMN wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Bob V wrote:
> >>>>
> >>
> >>HE controls access and if you are using it without his permission you
> >>are merely stealing a service without his knowledge.
> >>LZ
> >
> >
> > You really ARE streching. Really, just faulty logic on your part. In
> > your stealing watermelons and stealing from an open house, the owner
> > lost something.
> >
> > What has the Hotel lost after I check my email on their signal while
> > parked at the gas station next to the hotel?
>
> The amount of bandwidth you used is lost to the one who is paying.
> >
> > No loss=No theft! Imagine filling out the PR. You gotta leave the
> > field blank on what you had stolen. <g>
>
> I stayed at a motel last winter that advertised free wifi. Unusable
> because freeloaders in a trailer park nearby were jamming the service.
> It would time out before you could load a weather map. I checked with
> the provider of the service and the local telco that serviced it. They
> were paying for maximum bandwidth but the hotel customers weren't
> getting it.
> >
> > BTW, if someone has jimmy'd the Quarter air machine at the station I
> > parked at and I top off my tires, am I stealing a 'service'? He could
> > have fixed it right? So could the Hotel fix the free WIFI signal.
>
> They could have but they are not required to take any additional steps
> to protect their property from thieves.
>
> If you take that "free air" the station's compressor will have to run
> more. Maybe he will just unplug it and the next person will be SOL.
>
> Add your theft of bandwidth to that of others and you soon have a
> situation where the hotel is charging its customers for something they
> aren't getting. Think of that when you are being a freeloading pig.
> >
> > I declare this a dead subject. HaHa...
>
> What's dead is that thing on your shoulders.
> LZ
> I stayed at a motel last winter that advertised free wifi. Unusable
> because freeloaders in a trailer park nearby were jamming the service.
> It would time out before you could load a weather map. I checked with
> the provider of the service and the local telco that serviced it. They
> were paying for maximum bandwidth but the hotel customers weren't
> getting it.
Well, well, well, Lz, I think I caught you 'stretching the facts' here
so you could further
your point.
Your the 'smart' guy... lots of 'intellect'... always put down others
intelligence.
Now you are acting like YOU have a 'pumpkin' [dead, BTW] on your
shoulders!
Lets see now, you stay at a Hotel where the scum 'trailer-trash' are
stealing the Hotels
signal.. You even call the provider!
Just tell me why you ... or the provider didn't show this ignorant
Hotel operator how to
simply 'block' the freeloaders out!!
Methinks if you were having a signal prob at that Hotel, it was
something other than
'freeloaders'. Did you really call the provider?
Just 'funnin' Lz, but it does sound a bit 'fishy' <g> -gar
Lone Haranguer
> On 5 Oct 2006 02:52:03 +0200, "Jon Porter" <jpo...@netwalk.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>You can choose to turn of the wifi. Your choice, just like with any radio.
>>It's totally up to you whether or not that signal is received.
>
>
> It's totally up to the wifi originator whether or not I receive his
> signal.
>
> Hunter
Then you need computer lessons. Unless you don't know what the word
"totally" means.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:30:10 -0400, Frank Tabor <fta...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Nope, you access my computer network without my permission it's a
>>crime. A federal one. Look it up in the US Codes. Under computer
>>trespass.
>
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> I agree, if I accessed your computer without your permission it would
> be a crime. The thing is, I'm simply accessing my own computer,
> getting my email and maybe surfing. I'm not going into your computer
> at all.
>
> Hunter
You are still using his private property and if I hooked up MY router,
you WOULD be going through my computer because that is the only way the
Direcway 4000 system works.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:03:50 GMT, "Mark Jones"
> <noe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I just ran a google search on this subject and this issue is anything
>>but settled. It all depends upon the service provider and the police
>>as to whether they will care. That does not mean that it is legal,
>>just that in most instances nobody will do anything about it, but
>>they can if they want to.
>
>
> How would anyone know unless you were sitting out in front of their
> house for hours?
>
> Hunter
So you would steal as long as you didn't get caught?
LZ
Colton Motor Express #6 Here!
Lone Haranguer wrote:
> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:11:06 -0400, Frank Tabor <fta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It doesn't matter how you access it, if you didn't ask me, then it's
> >>unauthorized access to a computer/network. Using the term hacking is
> >>just semantics.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Arrested
> >
> > 2. Prosecuted
> >
> > 3. Convicted
> >
> > Has this happened yet?
> >
> > Please help with references ----- web sites etc.,
>
> Why? Are you mentally impaired? These links were posted last spring
> when this was a topic.
>
> Illinois WiFi freeloader fined US$250
>
> 3/23/2006 4:13:37 PM, by Eric Bangeman
>
> An Illinois man pleaded guilty this week to remotely accessing another
> computer system without the owner's approval and was handed one year of
> court supervision and a US$250 fine. David Kauchak was spotted using his
> laptop inside of his parked car in the middle of the night by a police
> officer this past January. The officer discovered that Kauchak was using
> an unprotected wireless access point belonging to a not-for-profit
> agency and cited him.
>
> Kauchak is not the first person in the US to be convicted for
> unauthorized access of a WiFi network. Last year, a Florida man was
> convicted of unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree
> felony after being arrested under circumstances similar to those of Kauchak.
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6447.html
> **********
> LZ
I could not find where the Florida man was CONVICTED.. You did???
The poor slug in Illinois was probably convicted because he was a poor
slug.
Probably looking for a job on line and they 'whack' him! :)
Hell, is there NO JUSTICE??
Here's the point of view I've been trying to make all day...
from a poster to the IL conviction. Your link..
"Didn't ask permission?
He requested and got access to the 802.11x access point... he did not
nor could he demand it. The system granted his request and gave him RF
access to the base station.
He then requested an IP address from the DHCP server on the access
point.. he did not demand it. The DHCP server listened to his request
and was granted not only an IP, but a subnet, a router address and a
handy DNS server address (or 2 or 3) so that any of his networking
requests could be handled in a much friendlier way than without DNS.
this judgement is bullshit. If i ask for access via completely
legitimate means per specifications and you give it to me freely - how
can that in any way be my fault?"
I declare this a dead topic once again.... -gar