Laptop user arrested for WiFi use

[Jay Carr]

Quote: Originally Posted by Wee_Guy Or you could just send them to the moon! (that would be what the fine would be paying for)

Does that mean that the people of the moon would create a culture that is a mixture of all of Englands other former prison colonies?

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by GavinBKK From The Times in London: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle2310670.ece The array of opinions in reader's comments was interesting reading.

(US-centric interpretation follows.)

He could not connect without permission from the server. If permission was granted (without "hacking") to connect to the wireless network, it wasn't stealing. Period.

If I leave my door unlocked, it's not illegal for someone to take it upon themselves to come into my apartment. They can even sit down on my couch and watch my television (assuming I owned one), and all I can do is tell them to leave. There is no crime unless they refuse to leave. It is my responsibility to secure my apartment. If it's not secured, there is no breaking and entering, even if I left the door unlocked only by accident.

Like my drill sergeants used to tell us when something came up missing from an unsecured locker:

"Private, if you didn't secure it, it wasn't stolen; you gave it away."

I'm not familiar with the UK's justice system, but in the US, this charge would be so easy to defend against that I wouldn't even bother paying an attorney.

The officer in this case should be relieved of his position for showing a complete lack of judgement and intelligence, and wasting valuable taxpayer resources.

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by styrafome There's still plenty of room for it to be a crime. If you leave your MacBook Pro in your car, and you don't lock the car, and someone steals your MacBook Pro, is the thief Not Guilty because you made two mistakes?

Yes, it's a crime, because they knowingly took something that didn't belong to them that could not be reasonable considered to be something someone had already lost. Now, change the scenario to something more comparable: You leave the radio on in your car, and someone comes along and starts to listen, without touching your car, changing stations or adjusting the volume. Is the listener guilty of theft simply because they are listening to music from a radio that doesn't belong to them? What did they steal?

Or, even more similar, let's say you have a CD changer hooked up to your car via an FM modulator. If someone else starts listening to your CD (that's already playing) by tuning their own radio to the channel transmitted by your CD changer, have they committed a crime? Don't those radio waves belong to you?

Quote: Originally Posted by styrafome If you leave your credit card behind on the store counter, and the guy behind you uses it, is that guy Not Guilty?

They cannot use your credit card without misrepresenting their identity with the intent of committing fraud. They would not be guilty of stealing your credit card. You left it for them. They would be guilty of fraud or closely related crime.

[styrafome]

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher Now, change the scenario to something more comparable: You leave the radio on in your car, and someone comes along and starts to listen, without touching your car, changing stations or adjusting the volume. Is the listener guilty of theft simply because they are listening to music from a radio that doesn't belong to them? What did they steal?...Or, even more similar, let's say you have a CD changer hooked up to your car via an FM modulator

Yes, it is very important to choose appropriate analogies. The car radio analogy is somewhat simliar, but by nature not close enough as an infinite number of receivers can play back the signal with no degradation for any individual user. With an access point, the bandwidth is essentially free...unless you need it.

If someone is using your unsecured connection and there is excess capacity, you are not hurt in the least. However, if you rely on your broadband service level for your job and you need all available bandwidth to upload or download some large files to meet a deadline, and some freeloader is running torrents on your access point, then you are being materially deprived of a finite resource you paid for.

That's separate from the question of whether you are morally obligated to secure it. For example, if you own 10 acres of land that borders a road, and you discover that someone has been selling vegetables every day from a stand along the road that happens to be a small area of your property that you almost never set foot on, who has the greater responsibility to act first: Should the squatter leave first, or should you build a fence first? Most people would say that legally speaking, the squatter needs to leave first.

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by styrafome For example, if you own 10 acres of land that borders a road, and you discover that someone has been selling vegetables every day from a stand along the road that happens to be a small area of your property that you almost never set foot on, who has the greater responsibility to act first: Should the squatter leave first, or should you build a fence first? Most people would say that legally speaking, the squatter needs to leave first.

Legally speaking, if the land is not posted (visible No Trespassing signs) or fenced, and the squatter has not otherwise been informed that his presence is not welcome, then he cannot be convicted of criminal trespassing, at least in most US jurisdictions. So, yes, it is the landowner's legal responsibility to act first by ensuring the squatter is aware that his presence is not welcome by communicating that explicitly or implicitly. Only after such communication has been occurred does the squatter have a legal obligation to leave the property.

Still, in the case of the person arrested for using an open Wi-Fi network, his computer was explicitly given permission to join the network. It is the network owner/administrator's responsibility to deny permission for access if they do not want the network accessible by unauthorized persons.

[woody78]

Quote: Originally Posted by Zalister That's ridiculous. The peanuts on the counter are meant to be free, someones personal internet is not. Saying someone can use an unlocked router is more like saying, "if the front door is unlocked I can steal your computer." And, for the record, taking advantage of someone "just because they made it easy" is not the greatest of moral arguments.

Fair call. However there's a lot of free WIFI hotspots these days and how is a member of the general public supposed to differentiate between a free -sanctioned- hotspot, and one that is a product of human error? It's not always obvious.

Back to my analogy, I've often taken peanuts from a bar and in some places the bar staff tell me I need to pay for them. There's a safety net there: someone to tell me whether to pay or not. There's no safety net with WIFI, and therefore anyone caught using someone else's WIFI should be let free unless you can prove there was malicious intent.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by woody78 There's no safety net with WIFI, and therefore anyone caught using someone else's WIFI should be let free unless you can prove there was malicious intent.

If you read the article from the OP, the guy was sitting outside of a house. If it was a coffee shop, you could make the claim that he didn't know, but not a house!

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by woody78 I've often taken peanuts from a bar and in some places the bar staff tell me I need to pay for them. There's a safety net there: someone to tell me whether to pay or not. There's no safety net with WIFI, and therefore anyone caught using someone else's WIFI should be let free unless you can prove there was malicious intent.

Would you find it fair if the bar staff told you the peanuts were free, then had you arrested for theft after you didn't pay?

The guy in London obtained permission, by way of protocol, from the network, to join the network. Despite having permission to use the network, he was arrested.

[fazstp]

If you found an open connection would there be a way to contact the owner of a connection to officially ask for permission? If I'd found one the other day when I was trying to upload a 50MB file on dial up I admit I would have been tempted. I can see it's dodgy though, especially if the owner of the connection pays for excess usage.

[cwtnospam]

I think the Bar analogy isn't accurate. Using wifi is more like using some one else's external water spigot or electrical outlet. You see it's there, and you know it isn't yours. There is no sign saying it's free to use, so you should assume it isn't. This is especially true since it's so easy to name a free wifi access point something like FREE or OPEN TO PUBLIC!

[NovaScotian]

The analogy that springs to mind for me is an old one:

Many years ago, when affordable FAX machines were just appearing in offices, you'd come in in the morning to find a mile of paper on the floor; all of it advertising, i.e. SPAM, though that term wasn't in use. Eventually, spamming a FAX was made illegal in the US because it consumed the owner's resources (the then expensive paper) without the owner's permission.

If ISPs in GB charge for bytes beyond a set limit, then piggybacking on someone's account might cost them money, but certainly uses up a resource they have to pay for by moving them toward their limit. Roughly the same in my book as sending unwanted FAXes.

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam I think the Bar analogy isn't accurate. Using wifi is more like using some one else's external water spigot or electrical outlet. You see it's there, and you know it isn't yours. There is no sign saying it's free to use, so you should assume it isn't. This is especially true since it's so easy to name a free wifi access point something like FREE or OPEN TO PUBLIC!

But it is just as trivial to not grant permission to external computers requesting permission to join the network by securing it. It is the responsibility of the network's owner to keep (non-hacking) people out.

Bypassing even minimal security measures may in fact be illegal, but in lieu of even minimal security measures, the network was effectively a public network. Potential users have a reasonable expectation to be made aware that their presence is unwelcome.

If I am walking somewhere, I do not have to ask permission from the owner to cut across unfenced, non-posted private property, provided I've not otherwise been notified to not trespass. Lacking a fence and No Trespassing signs is implied permission. I can even stop and lawfully have a picnic on that property if I so desire. My legal obligation is only to leave when asked/told to do so.

At the end of the day, the only thing that happened was that a guy accessed an open network from a public location using proper protocol, without resorting to any sort of "hacking." Charging him for a crime was absolutely absurd (again, by the standards of US law).

(In fact, in the US, having unfettered access to a location is oftentimes all that is required to authorize the police to search that location. If my landlord unlocks my apartment and authorizes the police to perform a search without a warrant, it is very highly probable that the results of such a search would be admissible in court, because the landlord had access, and thus the authority to authorize the search. If I had a locked safe or lock box in my apartment, to which the landlord had no key, he would be unable to authorize the search of said safe/lockbox. Such a search would require either my permission or a search warrant.)

One might argue that what the guy did was unethical, but that is far different than being illegal.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher But it is just as trivial to not grant permission to external computers requesting permission to join the network by securing it. It is the responsibility of the network's owner to keep (non-hacking) people out.

It's trivial for you and me, but to most home users it's like magic that it works at all. Obviously, sitting outside their house to get connected demonstrates knowledge of what you're doing, just as the act of plugging into another person's outlet or water spigot isn't accidental.

[NovaScotian]

@ J Christopher: But as I said in post #31, you are using his resource, a resource he has to pay for. Walking across a lawn does not consume anything. This is more like going to your neighbor's house and hooking up a hose to fill your swimming pool. There is no prohibition on the faucet, it's outside the neighbor's house, it's not locked, you didn't legally trespass to get to it because there was no sign or fence, but you stole his water, and he'll have to pay the water bill.

[Jay Carr]

I'm with NovaScotian, that's a good analogy.

So far this debate has been rather interesting. In reading this posts it has occurred to me that this debate is really about whether or not your are actually harming someone else if you jack their signal. Thus if you are, in any way, degrading their quality of internet usage or causing them to have to pay more money, then the answer to this debate is obvious.

So let me ask this question. Will using a neighbors internet connection significantly degrade the quality of their experience and can it, under certain circumstances, cause them to have to pay more money? Because in either of those situations I think it would definitely be illegal and immoral.

And, to throw one more thought out: Even if it's not stealing from the person with the open WAP, what about their ISP? I mean, if you can get it for free then why would you pay for it, right? Is the ISP losing a potential customer? Are they seeing a loss for this? Just a thought...

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by Zalister And, to throw one more thought out: Even if it's not stealing from the person with the open WAP, what about their ISP? I mean, if you can get it for free then why would you pay for it, right? Is the ISP losing a potential customer? Are they seeing a loss for this? Just a thought...

Most of the time it's a violation of the terms of service agreement to share your internet connection with anyone outside your family. With that in mind, connecting (even with permission, but that's another issue!) puts the owner of the network at financial risk.

[NovaScotian]

Electricity is similar. My neighbor has several outdoor outlets that he uses for yard lights. One of them is two feet from our property line under a weeping crab apple tree. I can reach it without leaving my property or being seen from his home (as it happens they're away at their summer cottage for the month of August so I wouldn't even have to be stealthy).

If I use his outlet to run my hedge clipper is that OK or not? Does it depend on the size of the load I impose; is it worse if I run a line into my house to power my refrigerator?

I think not; I'm just stealing power from him whether the draw is 1 amp or 15. How is his internet connection different from his water or power utilities? Is it just because I don't have to make a physical connection or enter his property that it's ok to piggyback on his router from the street? Is the distinction where you are?

On the other side of me, my neighbor reseeded part of his lawn immediately around his hose connection. He came over and asked if he could water it from mine using my hose so he wouldn't have to walk on it. Why did he ask?

[biovizier]

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher The guy in London obtained permission, by way of protocol, from the network, to join the network. Despite having permission to use the network, he was arrested.

I think the above statement is the crux of this argument, and why the situation differs from the analogy of the neighbour's electricity or water, or the truly passive ones of the radio signals.

Would anyone that understands these things care to describe the details of the negotiation that goes on between a laptop and a router to establish a connection? From the router advertising its presence, running a DHCP server, handing out an IP address, etc., etc.

Perhaps the arresting officer and the owner of the router didn't understand the technology, but it seems to me that permission was in fact granted by the router, which of course is only doing what it was told to do by the human that configured it.

[NovaScotian]

So you're implying that I couldn't complain if my neighbor filled his hot tub from my hose connection because I should have turned it off at the winter cock inside the house if I didn't want him to or that my neighbor should pop off the breaker on his yard outlets when he isn't using them himself? That the issue is whether you are actively preventing such use?

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian @ J Christopher: But as I said in post #31, you are using his resource, a resource he has to pay for.

This is a valid argument if and only if the resource is limited such that by joining the network, the "leecher" was using non-surplus bandwidth. This might be because the service is payed for on a per byte basis, the service has a maximum amount of data that can be downloaded in a particular billing cycle and the leecher's use of the bandwidth contributed to overage, or the owner was currently utilizing bandwidth at a rate such that the leecher's connection slowed down the internet connection.

If the leecher was utilizing surplus bandwidth, then from a practical perspective, the bandwidth can be treated as a non-limited resource, very different from water or electricity, which are typically purchased by the unit.

Either way, it is still an argument about ethics, and not legality, unless the UK (or London) has a law prohibiting people from joining open networks without explicit permission from the network's owner or administrator.

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Most of the time it's a violation of the terms of service agreement to share your internet connection with anyone outside your family. With that in mind, connecting (even with permission, but that's another issue!) puts the owner of the network at financial risk.

That also supports my assertion that it is the network's owner who is legally responsible to secure the network.

In my apartment complex (I live there; I don't own it!) we have internet service included with rent. Every bedroom has an ethernet connection. If we are found by our service provider to have made available an open wireless access point, we lose our internet service. The responsibility for making sure only authorized persons utilize the access point lies solely with the person whose ethernet access point is being utilized for the wireless (sub-)network. We are not held responsible for anyone hacking into the wireless network.