Laptop user arrested for ‘illegal log-on’ to house wi-fi

Hi HALO
i have just read the full transcript of the case, i did hear something on the TV regarding it earlier?

it is strange that people leave the net unsecured, my neighbour has just the same thing,his daughter uses a router that is quite powerful and there is nothing but open space between us (about 10 yards) and i can easily pick up the signal from them. sometimes when i log on i get the request do you want to see available networks and without fail i have a strong signal from them and it would be very easy to use her network but it's slower than mine so i am not interested.

i have mentioned it on several occasions but they do not seem interested for some reason saying always your the only one who has said anything about it,

now i just keep quiet.

http://bestsmileys.com/computer2/6.gif

 

By reading the comments underneath the article it seems many people still seem to have very mixed feelings about this TBH they seem sway way over to the ,theres the "its an open network why shouldnt I?" and theres the "Its not yours dont touch!" crowd,I'm firmly in the latter irrelevant of the law and feel pretty strongly about it,I'm glad the police did what they did who wants strange men in cars with the glow of a laptop screen on thier face in your street?

To quote one of the comments

:cry My mental capacity sucks

 

Not that long a go I was called in to install some extra computers in a company that had just moved into a works in a small town on Exmoor.
They already had one pc and a BT business hub which they couldn't get to work properly.

When I looked at the hub connections there was no security set and two other 'users ' connected!

Once I resolved that situation the legit DSL settled down a treat.

 

Many dont know how illegal it is. It really needs to be defined. You would be surprised how many people I know think nothing of doing it, and when I mention it, they are like..really..its illegal?

Now cracking a network is one thing..but when its freely available, and today's OSes show these unsecure networks and dont mention any legal pitfalls...on top of free hotspots all over the place...

 

That would be the only issue I would have. How would you know a free hotspot vs an unsecured hotspot?

 

Its been a gray area for a while, I think. There was thoughts as to ethics vs legality, then legal precedent was set a while back when some dude was arrested in his van outside a house using their wifi without permission.

 

Say you come across a wallet lying in the road

You know if it's yours or not.

 

Worst_analogy_ever.

Everyone knows what a wallet is, and how to use it.

Not everyone knows how the internet works, what is allowed, and some, even how to use it. A computer offers to hook up to an unsecured network, people say yes.

If everyone said no to questions on their screens, there would be no malware outbreaks these days.

 

Still, everyone knows what a wallet is, and if someone lost it, they know its not theirs if they stumble across it. Momma always taught me that stealin' was wrong...

With the people who know whats right and whats wrong re: the internet being the minority, the analogy wears thin. So many people still think that there is nothing illegal about downloading unauthorized software. Same with music. This is changing with public awareness on the issue.

Granted, there are those who know better, but so many more that don't.

You cannot expected to be held accountable to know what is right in a situation, if you never were taught what is right/wrong in that particular situation. People don't learn by osmosis.

Which is why there needs to be warnings set in place like OSes, advertisements on the net, TC commercials, radio ads, newspapers, yada.

There isnt enough of that to address this particular issue.

I can count how many people I personally know who knew about the legal precedent being set by the arrest of that guy a while back.

1. As in, me.

 

Stirred up some comment though!

Bear in mind that stateside law is somewhat different from UK law.

Also the phrase 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse in law'

 

Thats a good point, but it also lies upon the government to educate their citizens of a law, which bounces back to my original point.

Point is, everyone here knows what I am saying.

Stealing a car/wallet is one thing, but using an internet connection when it pops up on your screen as available is quite another.

 

Well, security isnt important to everyone. Thats why this is a difficult subject. Yet, if someone leaves their keys in the car, and someone takes it, its stil breaking the law sure.

Every analogy wears thin here, because you aren't stealing a car. You arent stealing anything that can be physically measured, seen, or touched. You are using something that was there prior to you using it, and is there after as well. If you throw a starbucks coffee cup in someone's garbage can along the street, is that illegal? Same thing. You used something of theirs, but it was there before, it will be there after, and you didn't 'take' anything.

How do you police something like that?


Difficult situation, and Im more than sure that these thoughts will be amongst arguments lawyers will bring up to a judge.

As for convincing others to secure--I'd use the car analogy. Not eveyone taps in for internet access. Less savory people go for identity theft.

 

Some years ago when 'phone phreaking' was in vogue there were a few failed prosecutions for 'stealing something intangible'. The prosecution which finally stuck was for stealing the phone company's electricity.

 

A good anology I can think of is someone hooking thier car on the back of your car as your driving along without your knowledge,your gas meleage goes up,your cars performance has dropped and you dont know why so maybe you should take to garage to be looked at?

Or in or this case get on to your ISP and ask them whats why its not running as sweet anymore or if you pay for your bandwidth why your gas mileage bill higher than last month with the same amount of driving

Most times the car will unhook itself before you know any different but what if the cars front bumper falls off and you have to drag it around even after the car has unhooked itself because the other guys car had had malware?

Its pretty obvious your gonna get a beatdown if you secretly hook your car onto someone elses for a tow in this case though the other cars can be invisible

 

What if one day the music/movie industry came after you for downloading/distributing huge amounts of their product?
You may not have knowingly done anything but proving so may be very costly.

 

Then that would be your own mistake. DVDs have always had illegal copying warnings, and now they have that flashy one. VHS tapes had them too. You can't cry ignorance if the warnings are right there in front of you.

Now CDs have these warnings too. Same idea....

Anyone ever seen those warnings for WiFi? I haven't.

 

I was pointing out another reason for someone to take interest in borrowing/stealing someones connection and the damage that can be done.

No I haven't seen the WIFI warnings. The security features are pointed out. But not the importance of using it.

 

Precedence has been set with the RIAA regarding that matter. They were not able to hold a person accountable because her ISP connection was being used for illegal activites.

They tried, but they lost.

 

Very well, I digress....

 

I had no problem explaining to my Dad, if someone does something illegal, such as kiddie porn, who are they coming for?

Given how easy it is to encrypt a wireless connection, and how easy it is to explain the concequences, as far as I'm concerned an unprotected signal is really just a hot spot. I don't do it, don't have to, but it is like a water hose left on, if you are making the water available to everyone then it is up for use.

 

Any competent adult should know that just because you can see something

It doesn't mean it is free or even that you can have it.

Knowing the difference between meum and teum is part of growing up.

Two more situations to ponder.

First my neighbour grows prize roses in his garden. If I lean over the fence and enjoy the sight and scent of the garden what am I stealing?

Secondly one with a commercial interest. There are expensively produced firework displays in my local park several times a year. Tickets are costly.
If I stand at the park entrance and watch the aerial display what am I stealing? Or are they causing a nuisance by preventing me sleeping?

Is the transmitter of the wifi signal invading my privacy by flooding my laptop with his signal when I am on my property or the public highway?

 

I agree with the dont know how to use it then learn. But it has to be said there are so many people who think they know about computers out there that its no wonder people get so confused.

I was setting up a wireless connection for my friend and she said my cousin has been round and told me to do it this way so I have started it. Well why didnt he finish it then? Because he doesnt really know what he is doing.

Sorry rant over but he had left it unsecured because he didnt understand about WEP codes.

Plus anyone stealing your network can download anything porn or worse and you would be liable.

 

i posted earlier about my neighbor leaving his net unprotected but i have no problem identifying him.

i am not sure why others say you could unknowingly connect to an unauthorized network.

then i have only seen this one and do not know if all others carry ID.

http://bestsmileys.com/signs14/1.gif

 

Many wifi systems are supplied with the security off by default. many are sold, like corn flakes from the pile em high sell em cheap merchants. The buyers are often not computer savvy PICNIC (problem in Chair not in Computer).
So it is entirely conceivable that two or more neighbours will succumb to the same special offer and install the same 'box' which will broadcast the same SSID, without security. Windows default is to connect to 'any available' Looking in the available wireless networks I often see 'D-Link..' repeated sevral times in the list - all unsecured. How does the average use know what he is in fact connecting to?

This is tantamount to suggesting that if anyone steals any of your property and misuses it for criminal purposes you would be somehow liable!
This may, but not always, be true for a gun but lesser things?

 

Agreed I especially dislike this part of one guys analogy it isnt really probable and should be disregarded

 

Someone ( possibly on here) made a comment about that subject and suggested if monitoring was going on by authorities, for predators of child porn they would go after the computer numbers. Pity to be hooked to someone like that.

 

You can't see air, right?

Any competent adult who has been taught to know what is right and what is wrong about particular things...no human is born with a genetic memory, sorry. It is all taught.

If nobody was ever taught about how it works, why its wrong, yada, yada, you still expect them to just 'know?'

The wireless revolution is not old enough for your example to hold water. Its new, many do not understand it, laws are sketchy, some places free, some not. Some secure, some not. Nothing clearly stating that the unsecured wireless network you hooked to is indeed not a public hot spot. How about the OS that will sometimes hook to these unsecured networks automatically? There is no mention of legalties of this matter, or at least not enough to create a public awareness.

Sorry.

 

I knew someone long ago who used to say, "locks simply keep a honest man honest"

 

Sorry, for what.

The incident under discussion took place in the United Kingdom. In the UK there is not a single thing which is not owned by somebody. An adult is only required to know whether (s)he is the owner. If no then (s)he has no right to touch, access etc.

This is not a question of splitting hairs. See means sense, interact with.......even breathe.


All my analogies have been along the lines of you see/feel/hear etc something.
You should know if that something is yours.
If not you know it is someone else's.
Maybe they will let you have a share, maybe not. But it is up to you to ask, not up to them to have to challenge you.
Simple really.

I did suggest how it might be practically difficult for some to recognise that they are connecting to someones else's property.

 

That is learned behavior.

Learned means someone taught it.

That someone taught it, means it was known by them.

I'm sure you can agree on something that simple. Then realize that using an internet connection is not as simple, because people as a whole dont know what bandiwdth is, etc. They know it was freely available, and the OS, etc. mentioned no legality concerns.

If they were never made aware of such legality, then how can they be expected to know?

A child as an infant only knows what it wants, and it expects to get it. It does not know right from wrong, only needs and wants. As they grow older, we teach them what is right and wrong. They do not learn it themselves.

In essence, public awarenes is not widespread enough(at all, really) to expect that everyone knows it to be illegal. The education of it being wrong is not there. Thats my argument. I'm not denying there are those who DO know better, but they are the minority by far.

How can you deny that?

 

So why does it matter how someone comes by the information?

I think you are mixing legal considerations with moral ones here.

In the UK, as I said, the legal situation is perfectly clear and it also doesn't matter, legally whether you have learned this or not. You are considered just as guilty. Other people may also be guilty or liable if they fail to comply with some legally required notification process, but that does not change the duty of every responsible adult to comply with the law, wether he knows it or not.

Sounds tough? absurd? call it what you will but ther it is.

the phrase oft quoted is

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If you are talking morally, then surely it is the duty of any responsible adult who introduces something (builds it , buys it, starts it etc etc) to find out whatever is pertinent to control that something so that it does not become a danger / nuisance to others?

So the guy with the laptop has a moral duty to find out how to correctly operate wifi.

There is a famous Uk test case known Rylands and Fletcher about what is known as 'strict liability'. It is about a reservoir, but has points of applicability here.

I repeat again in the Uk you cannot get away with things by saying "I didn't know, yer 'onor"

 

Fair enough. Do you have a link to the exact law, verbatim?

 

There's plenty about Rylands v Fletcher on the net.

But there's no statute as such which says you have to know the law.

You are just 'deemed' to know any act that Parliament has passed, and any regulation that Government has proscribed under any act.
I know that's quite a tall order but that's the way the courts work here.
You might like to know that the present Government has introduced one new crime for every day it has been in power. A record.

Thi is of course only relevant if you fall foul of prosecution. So it is in your own practical interest to find out that law relating to anything you choose to do, as well as your moral duty.

Addendum to my comment that everything in the Uk is owned by someone. If there is no obvious owner the item, tangible or not, is automatically the property of the Crown ( these days the State)

Aren't you glad you and King George got divorced? We are all officially subjects here, not citizens. There is no UK 'Bill of Rights'

 

The first paragraph says it in plain English but there are plenty of links to study for interested parties

http://iamthelaw1.blogspot.com/2007/05/tort-rule-in-ryland-v-fletcher.html

http://bestsmileys.com/jail/1.gif

 

I dunno exactly what the laws here in the US are, but I do know that some skel (if you saw my neighborhood, you would realize how accurate that is) was scarfing off my bandwidth from my wireless. I took a few steps and now my laptop is the only one that can access the wireless (MAC restricted access)

I admit that if I am out somewhere with my laptop and i have a signal with an open network, I have been known to use it, but then again, I am not even sure how to tell the difference between an open network or a hotspot network. I know that locally there are a fair number of hotspots too. I try not to do it too often tho..


~C

 

I didn't know that was illegal... I guess I'll never do that again, unless the network belongs to some old laddie or someone that doesn't look computer savvy.

 

For those who feel responsible for illicit use of their Wifi bandwidth try this.

Say your credit card is stolen or you go to an ethnic restaurent and the details are stolen. Say the card is then used to purchase webspace to host a fraudulent/terrorist/illegal website.

Do you feel responsible?

Or say the stolen card is used to purchase weapons, later used in an armed robbery with fatal consequences.

Do you feel responsible?

 

Your analogy still wears thin.

You and I both know that it isn't even in the same realm.

You really gotta quit the analogies, because none fit.

 

Despite the therapy I can't

 

When therapy fails, self medicate

 

Scrumpy is the only medication we have in Somerset. Unfortunately it just increases the craving.

roflmao

 

I found 10$l in a public place and put the 10$ in my pocket.

I still feel guilty about taking someone else's lost 10$.

If the 10$ was in a wallet with ID I wouldn't have taken the 10$

Stop picking up on and decrypting my mental mind's eye wireless network unless you are going to help me improve my brain and my wireless network.

 

Admit to nothing and click the format button.
If you go out of the way and park outside someone's house you should get arrested and taken to a psychological evaluation. If you are in the city and there is an unsecure wifi connection available with others using laptops I am 100% sure no one is going to catch you if you decide to connect. Now Suburban private homes should be protected at all cost Most of them don't have a clue how to secure their home network. Companies in the city who are to cheap to hirer a competant network administrator to secure their network deserve to have their bandwidth stolen and their network files corrupted for being cheap.