Using free WiFi? Go to jail under this new law!

[KG4JYD]

A bill presented by Delegate LeRoy E. Myers Jr. to the Maryland House of Delegates would criminalize purposely surfing the Internet on someone else's wireless connection (http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=188912&format=html). The bill would make intentional unauthorized access to another person's computer, network, database, or software a misdemeanor with a penalty up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000. The Maryland public defender's office has submitted written testimony opposing the specific ban and penalty suggested in Myers' bill. Noting that wireless connections are becoming common in neighborhoods, the written testimony says: 'A more effective way to prevent unauthorized access would be for owners to secure their wireless networks with assistance where necessary from Internet service providers or vendors.

[KE5TND]

Seems ridiculous to me. If you don't want someone using your wireless network then password protect it.

[W3MIV]

Seems ridiculous to me. If you don't want someone using your wireless network then password protect it.

Suppose for a moment, you have a shed. In the shed you keep an assortment of gardening implements. You normally leave the door closed, but without a padlock. If someone enters your shed and takes one of your tools, is that not theft? Or, is it theft only if you secured the shed?

Using someone else's internet connection without that owner's permission (and, indeed, also that of the ISP in many cases) is simple theft of something for which the owner is paying a fee, and to which the usurper has no right.

[KE5TND]

Suppose for a moment, you have a shed. In the shed you keep an assortment of gardening implements. You normally leave the door closed, but without a padlock. If someone enters your shed and takes one of your tools, is that not theft? Or, is it theft only if you secured the shed?

Using someone else's internet connection without that owner's permission (and, indeed, also that of the ISP in many cases) is simple theft of something for which the owner is paying a fee, and to which the usurper has no right.

Yes I see what you are saying but by taking a tool from my shed they have physically deprived me of something. In using my wireless connection that I was too lazy to secure even though I would only have to do it one time unlike locking the shed every time I used a tool, they haven't really took anything from me.

Again I absolutely see what you are saying but I can't see the need for any more laws on the books when this is something that could be easily avoided if people took the time to deal with it themselves.

[N3ATS]

Suppose for a moment, you have a shed. In the shed you keep an assortment of gardening implements. You normally leave the door closed, but without a padlock. If someone enters your shed and takes one of your tools, is that not theft? Or, is it theft only if you secured the shed?

Using someone else's internet connection without that owner's permission (and, indeed, also that of the ISP in many cases) is simple theft of something for which the owner is paying a fee, and to which the usurper has no right.

Right on.

That's why I password protect my wireless system, do not broadcast a SSID, and maintain 128 bit security. I don't want someone downloading kiddie porn on my connection.

[KE5TND]

That's why I password protect my wireless system, do not broadcast a SSID, and maintain 128 bit security. I don't want someone downloading kiddie porn on my connection.


agreed, I take the exact same precautions you do

[N3ATS]

Yes I see what you are saying but by taking a tool from my shed they have physically deprived me of something. In using my wireless connection that I was too lazy to secure even though I would only have to do it one time unlike locking the shed every time I used a tool, they haven't really took anything from me.


You are stealing bandwidth that you are not paying for

[KG4JYD]

Suppose for a moment, you have a shed. In the shed you keep an assortment of gardening implements. You normally leave the door closed, but without a padlock. If someone enters your shed and takes one of your tools, is that not theft? Or, is it theft only if you secured the shed?

Using someone else's internet connection without that owner's permission (and, indeed, also that of the ISP in many cases) is simple theft of something for which the owner is paying a fee, and to which the usurper has no right.


Bad analogy.

Your router broadcasts it's presence. When someone's computer sees that router broadcasting it's signal, it asks it "hey, can I connect to you?"

If the router says "yes" the other computer then says "please help me connect" and then the router establishes IP, DHCP, etc.

So by not securing your router you are actually inviting and facilitating people using your Net connection.

[N2RJ]

Right on.

That's why I password protect my wireless system, do not broadcast a SSID, and maintain 128 bit security. I don't want someone downloading kiddie porn on my connection.

I hope you're using WPA. If you're using WEP it's easy to crack and it's as good as open.

[N2RJ]

Bad analogy.

Your router broadcasts it's presence. When someone's computer sees that router broadcasting it's signal, it asks it "hey, can I connect to you?"

If the router says "yes" the other computer then says "please help me connect" and then the router establishes IP, DHCP, etc.

So by not securing your router you are actually inviting and facilitating people using your Net connection.

That is correct.

Windows in fact will look for and connect to first wireless connection it can find.

It's all automatic and for many computer users it's without your knowledge.

[KE5TND]

Bad analogy.

Your router broadcasts it's presence. When someone's computer sees that router broadcasting it's signal, it asks it "hey, can I connect to you?"

If the router says "yes" the other computer then says "please help me connect" and then the router establishes IP, DHCP, etc.

So by not securing your router you are actually inviting and facilitating people using your Net connection.

so basically using the tool analogy would turn it into more of this type situation:

I have a guard sitting at my tool shed 24 hours a day holding a sign that says free tools. You walk up to my shed and say hey can I use your tools for a while and the guard says well yes you can, here you go. Now if I had WPA enabled the guard would say no I'm sorry you can't use these tools without knowing the proper password. You don't know the password so no tools for you. If you choose not to broadcast a SSID then you are taking that free tools sign away from the guard and turning off the lights at the shed. Sounds reasonable to me.

[K8YZK]

I think it is already a federal law anyway, but one that is not enforced a great deal if at all. If not then I know it is in Michigan.

Found this while doing a search on it.
"You can read it for yourself, but the important part (check out paragraph (a)(2)) covers anyone who "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access." Nobody knows exactly what that means in terms of wireless connections. The law was written in 1986 to punish computer hacking--and nobody contemplated 802.1x wireless links back then."

Probably would go that you do not have authorization to use someone elses wifi. Maybe that is why Starbucks has FREE wifi.

[KE5TND]

Maybe that is why Starbucks has FREE wifi.

Around here they actually charge for it. You have to have a t-mobile hotspot account to access their system.

[n2ize]

Actually if I could trust people to do what's right and not do anything illegal that I could get in trouble for then I would keep my network open and WELCOME people to use it. I have more bandwidth than I need most of the time. I would rather see it being used by people 24/7.

But I lock it down because I can;t trust the public to use it legally. Someone might download kiddie porn or copyrighted material and I'll get the blame. So I keep it locked. Otherwise I'l love to keep it open and share it with everyone.

[K2WH]

Old news but, same as stealing Cable or listening to cell phone conversations over the air.

K2WH

[KB9YCO]

I thought I remembered that there was a law about accessing unsecured wireless connections in the past and that it was changed just because of the reasons that have been cited in this thread, the responsibility of a wireless owner in regards to having security protections, etc. Anyone remember that or am I dreaming?

Upon further research (and after writing the above) I have found that there are actually no laws currently covering this, at least not specifically unsecured WiFi connections from a private party, i.e. a neighbor, etc. At least not yet... if it really becomes an issue then there just may be some laws covering it. This was as close as I could find:

§ 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-.html)

I'm not really sure if that covers it or not since there is a lot of information there. It seemed like perhaps that particular link is in relation to using an unsecured connection for fraud.
It's an interesting story though. Anyone else have any solid information on the legalities surrounding this issue? It will be interesting to see what comes of it. All I've found were a lot of moral arguments and hearsay without any actual laws to back any of it up.

[N3ATS]

I hope you're using WPA. If you're using WEP it's easy to crack and it's as good as open.

Thanks, I am using WEP. I will look into WPA.

[AE6IP]

TANSTAFW

I've no idea where y'all get the idea that someone else's wifi is "free". They paid for the hardware. They pay for the electricity. They pay for the internet connection that makes their wi-fi appealing to you in the first place. They've probably got a contract with their ISP that means you're causing them to break the rules when you camp on their gear.

[kc7jty]

how can the government keep accurate tabs on everyone if others are using someone else's network by hacking in anonymously?

[n2ize]

TANSTAFW

I've no idea where y'all get the idea that someone else's wifi is "free". They paid for the hardware. They pay for the electricity. They pay for the internet connection that makes their wi-fi appealing to you in the first place. They've probably got a contract with their ISP that means you're causing them to break the rules when you camp on their gear.

Not nessesarilly. Unless theree is a limit to how many computers are allowed to connect to a given WAP at any moment in time.

The wayI see it, unless I secure my wireless before I place it upon the aire then it is free to all.

[NR7J]

Thanks, I am using WEP. I will look into WPA.

There's a BUG on my screen also you should rename the link to "Obama Hussein does NOT have any accomplishments" vote Hillary (for now)

[AE6IP]

Not nessesarilly. Unless theree is a limit to how many computers are allowed to connect to a given WAP at any moment in time.

That's one of several ways in which ISPs limit customer access in their AUPs.

The wayI see it, unless I secure my wireless before I place it upon the aire then it is free to all.

But the way the law sees it is different, and in court, the law trumps.

Of course, if your AUP doesn't prohibit your neighbors from accessing your IP connection (rare) and you inform them that they are free to use your AP then you're fine.

[KB9YCO]

That's one of several ways in which ISPs limit customer access in their AUPs.



But the way the law sees it is different, and in court, the law trumps.

Of course, if your AUP doesn't prohibit your neighbors from accessing your IP connection (rare) and you inform them that they are free to use your AP then you're fine.

What law, where? I have yet to find a specific law mentioning WiFi. I'm not questioning what you're saying, not disagreeing with the ethical question of "borrowing" wireless, I'm just wondering where there is a specific law covering this. I've seen some references to a couple of states in relation to people accessing the wireless offered to customers of businesses, but I have yet to see anything specifically referring to private parties and wireless. I've found a ton of places on the internet talking about this issue, but again, no specific laws that mention WiFi.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[AE6IP]

What law, where? I have yet to find a specific law mentioning WiFi. I'm not questioning what you're saying, not disagreeing with the ethical question of "borrowing" wireless, I'm just wondering where there is a specific law covering this. I've seen some references to a couple of states in relation to people accessing the wireless offered to customers of businesses, but I have yet to see anything specifically referring to private parties and wireless. I've found a ton of places on the internet talking about this issue, but again, no specific laws that mention WiFi.

In this instance, contract law, but only if your ISP's TOS/AUP contains language restricting your use of the the IP connection.

If I have an ISP (as I do) with an AUP prohibiting use by other than the direct customer, then you are causing me to violate my contract if you 'steal' my wifi.

Beyond that, my contract with my ISP gives me only so much bandwidth, and that's a finite thing. If you use it, you deprive me of it. That's theft of service.

This is really no different than if you plug into my electrical service without my permission and take electricity, except that most US electrical customers pay by the kw/h while most US IP customers pay for a fixed rate of service.

If my TOS/AUP allows sharing among neighbors (that would be rare, but does happen) and I give you permission, then there's no problem. But silence is not assent, and because you can doesn't mean you have the right to.

[N2RJ]

TANSTAFW

I've no idea where y'all get the idea that someone else's wifi is "free". They paid for the hardware. They pay for the electricity. They pay for the internet connection that makes their wi-fi appealing to you in the first place. They've probably got a contract with their ISP that means you're causing them to break the rules when you camp on their gear.

That is true, but if they leave it open, one can only assume that they either don't know how to set up the security on the hardware or left it open on purpose.

Most people I talk to with wi-fi routers don't know how to secure it and don't care if people use their connection.

[N2RJ]

Old news but, same as stealing Cable or listening to cell phone conversations over the air.

K2WH

You brought up a good point. The ECPA is in fact a stupid law that never stopped anyone from listening to cell phones. THose who wanted to listen to cellphones bought scanners from Canada where they actually have the common sense not to enact stupid technology laws that are easily circumvented anyway.

[NC5P]

The routers come open by default. That is much of the problem. The answer is to put a random password on each router, requiring people to change it. They could still reset it to open but at least they would have to actively do so.

This is another example of how Americans try to solve every problem on the planet with their favorite universal solution: JAIL!

(I wonder if jail can cure cancer or global warming?)

[kg6amw]

Remember to use a very tough random password which includes upper and lower case letters, numbers and punctuation. An example of very good password would be

r@g8s-eh*xenEz9praY4fR$&Rut&ef7P

[W1GUH]

Suppose for a moment, you have a shed. In the shed you keep an assortment of gardening implements. You normally leave the door closed, but without a padlock. If someone enters your shed and takes one of your tools, is that not theft? Or, is it theft only if you secured the shed?

Using someone else's internet connection without that owner's permission (and, indeed, also that of the ISP in many cases) is simple theft of something for which the owner is paying a fee, and to which the usurper has no right.

OK...so, say, you go out to that shed the next day and your spade is missing. So, you think to yourself "I'm going to get that bas----, and call the cops. Will the cops get you your spade back? HA! Like, they're going to do anything at all about this?

Your agument is totally absurd. Maybe in that "perfect world" you could get some kind of retribution, but to expect "the law" to get your spade back is the ultimate "no accountancy" thinking.

There's a huge difference between your shed and Wi-Fi, and, in your ivory tower of so-called intellectual thought, you're completely out of touch with the real world.

Fact is, using someone else's wireless network to get on the web is doing nobody, anywhere, any harm at all. Do you ever leave your home? Do you ever get out and experience real life? It really doesn't sound like it.

[K8YZK]

OK...so, say, you go out to that shed the next day and your spade is missing. So, you think to yourself "I'm going to get that bas----, and call the cops. Will the cops get you your spade back? HA! Like, they're going to do anything at all about this?

Your agument is totally absurd. Maybe in that "perfect world" you could get some kind of retribution, but to expect "the law" to get your spade back is the ultimate "no accountancy" thinking.

There's a huge difference between your shed and Wi-Fi, and, in your ivory tower of so-called intellectual thought, you're completely out of touch with the real world.

Fact is, using someone else's wireless network to get on the web is doing nobody, anywhere, any harm at all. Do you ever leave your home? Do you ever get out and experience real life? It really doesn't sound like it.

No Albert's argument is not absurd(Albert see I am sticking up for you).
Instead of a shed, it's your house, and you leave the door unlock. Someone comes in and steal your tv,computer, and your wives diamond ring. You are going to call the cops and try to get it back, or just say the hell with it, I will go out and buy others. Stealing is stealing no matter if it is wifi(harder to prove), a spade or your TV.

no harm being done, well maybe not yours, but what about the hackers in your neighborhood that might use it to get into your back account, or hack the government.

[W0MT]

Suppose for a moment, you have a shed. In the shed you keep an assortment of gardening implements. You normally leave the door closed, but without a padlock. If someone enters your shed and takes one of your tools, is that not theft? Or, is it theft only if you secured the shed?

Using someone else's internet connection without that owner's permission (and, indeed, also that of the ISP in many cases) is simple theft of something for which the owner is paying a fee, and to which the usurper has no right.

Albert,

I think your analogy is totally wrong. Someone entering your property and taking or borrowing your tools is far different from someone on their own property using your wifi connection. In the first case, your neighbor had to enter your property physically. In the second case, they did not have to enter your property physically–your wifi entered their property. In the case of your tools, had you thrown the tools onto the property of your neighbor, you would be hard pressed to complain if your neighbor used them. Letting your wifi enter your neighbor’s property is the same as throwing your tools onto his property. If you don’t want your neighbor to use your wifi, don’t let it enter your neighbor’s property. Or second best, encrypt it so that your neighbor cannot use it.

[AE6IP]

Fact is, using someone else's wireless network to get on the web is doing nobody, anywhere, any harm at all.

You might want to read up on 'bot-nets and rethink that position.

[W3MIV]

Albert,

I think your analogy is totally wrong. Someone entering your property and taking or borrowing your tools is far different from someone on their own property using your wifi connection. In the first case, your neighbor had to enter your property physically.

I would argue that, in the case of the WiFi intrusion, that the usurper is committing the very same sort of "breaking and entering" when she intentionally decided to log onto the neighbors "property," which in this case is the electronic equivalent of a personal space. That I do not fence my yard does not change its status as private property.

In the second case, they did not have to enter your property physically–your wifi entered their property. In the case of your tools, had you thrown the tools onto the property of your neighbor, you would be hard pressed to complain if your neighbor used them. Letting your wifi enter your neighbor’s property is the same as throwing your tools onto his property. If you don’t want your neighbor to use your wifi, don’t let it enter your neighbor’s property. Or second best, encrypt it so that your neighbor cannot use it.

Nice try, but no cigar is forthcoming. With a set of tools (or any other material objects), I have custodianship over them, either inside or outside of my property, and intentionally tossing them out of my yard constitutes an abandonment of custodianship; no such readily available control over the signal of the WiFi apparatus avails to me. That I may leave my doors unlocked does not constitute an invitation to enter uninvited. In the case of the electronic signal, it is pervasive in ways that lie beyond my restraint. While I may agree with you that prudence dictates the use of a simple WEP code, that is not really material to the issue of the breach -- it is merely analogous to the padlock that I chose not to latch.

[W4INF]

your subject line is all jacked up because there is such a thing as free wifi such as is provided at many starbucks, mcdonalds and even the Dodge services center here in town, to name just a few. They provide wifi for free, hence 'free wifi'.

What you are posting on is hijacking your neighbor's unsecured wifi so until you know anything about the subject matter, it may be advisable to not try to post on it, or you will continue to jack up the subject line. :eek:

Better luck in the future,
Andrew

[KG4JYD]

Nice try, but no cigar is forthcoming. Is that a Bill Clinton pickup line? :p

[wg7x]

Folks,

This is just another example of legislative stupidity. If you use certain hardware then you should be aware of its advantages and disadvantages.

Using flawed analogies to excuse stupid behavior is in itself stupid. Using a broadcast modem that advertises its presence and solicits users demands that the owner do the proper installation to restrict its use. If the owner of the WI-FI device does not use intelligence and prudence when installing and using this device, then they have no recourse if something bad happens.

So, I have no sympathy for an uneducated user of WI-FI. But... I also think that legislation is not the answer. More laws is never the answer to stupidity, but education can cure ignorance.

As Ron "Tater Salad" White says: "You can't cure stupid!"

Legislators make their living by inventing more legislation. So, of course, their solution to any perceived problem is to make a law regulating that behavior.

Problem solved! Such simplistic thinking is exactly why this country is so screwed up!


But that's another post for another day.

Simple answer: If you don't want other folks using your WIFI and internet connection; secure it!

End-of-Story!

73 Gary

[N2RJ]

You might want to read up on 'bot-nets and rethink that position.

If we get caught and go to jail we should all sue Microsoft and Apple (and others) because their operating systems automatically connect to open wi-fi routers, whether you're given permission to use it or not.

Speaking of which, don't some of the devices you work with and write software for do the same thing?

This is one BIG reason I think this is a stupid law. Most people don't know that the "free" wi-fi they're using is actually someone's router they unintentionally left open, and the OS automatically breaks the law for them.

[W3MIV]

If we get caught and go to jail we should all sue Microsoft and Apple (and others) because their operating systems automatically connect to open wi-fi routers, whether you're given permission to use it or not.

Speaking of which, don't some of the devices you work with and write software for do the same thing?

This is one BIG reason I think this is a stupid law. Most people don't know that the "free" wi-fi they're using is actually someone's router they unintentionally left open, and the OS automatically breaks the law for them.

Whether or not the proposed law is meritorious or not is not at issue. At present, it is nothing more than a bill. I can't imagine that it will be passed and that the governor, stupid as he may well be, will enact it. All very remote, in my opinion, and the bill was probably introduced on request. AOL , in particular, used to try these sorts of things because they saw revenue that was not being captured, although it was their system that was being used by pirates.

If such a law were passed, ignorance of its provisions does not excuse violation. A citizen bears a responsibility to become familiar with any laws or regulations that pertain to any equipment that the citizen plans to operate. That is as much a requirement for a WiFi router (if the law be enacted) as it is for an automobile or a passenger bus.

In my neighborhood (ne plus ultra in terms of affluence, but not intelligence), there are a plethora of WiFi routers that show up on my system. In the evening, it may be as many as six separate routers, three of which are using "linksys" as the SSID. Two are unsecured, and one is listed as WEP.

In my house in VA, the next door neighbor has a WiFi router, also with the SSID "linksys," and it is unsecured. The router in my house there also uses "linksys" for the SSID, but it is secured with a simple WEP. I rent that house (short-term transients), and the internet service, TV and utilities are part of the package I supply (at an obscene profit), so the SSID, the actual WEP code and other details are affixed in plain view to the top of the router for the convenience of renters, who generally are not among the most savvy surfers. They still call me up and ask how to enter the information.

Inside the house, my system swamps the neighbors, but should I turn my router off, I can continue to work away on the neighbors systems, to which my computer automatically links.

[AE6IP]

If we get caught and go to jail we should all sue Microsoft and Apple (and others) because their operating systems automatically connect to open wi-fi routers, whether you're given permission to use it or not.[quote]

Sorry, but if you tell them not to, they won't.

[quote]Speaking of which, don't some of the devices you work with and write software for do the same thing?

No.

This is one BIG reason I think this is a stupid law. Most people don't know that the "free" wi-fi they're using is actually someone's router they unintentionally left open, and the OS automatically breaks the law for them.

Ignorance is no excuse, sayeth the judge.

[K9STH]

My youngest daughter's husband is employed by Nortel as a field engineer solving problems with some pretty serious computer systems. He installed a WiFi network in their house and encrypted it to prevent others from being able to use it. The last time my wife and I visited he set up one of their laptops for us to use whenever we wanted to access the Internet. However, when I was using the computer from the family room I would often have problems unless I went to another part of the room. The computer worked but the "speed" just was not anywhere near as good.

We finally discovered that the WiFi installation of one of the neighbors had a better signal in that particular part of the room than the one that my son-in-law had installed. Even though the neighbor could not access my son-in-law's system the laptops in the house could access the neighbor's WiFi. The neighbor's Internet connection was no where the speed that my son-in-law's connection provided and that was why the difference in the speed that I was observing. Several changes were made at my daughter's house to insure that their computers would not try to access the neighbor's WiFi as well as to prevent anyone else from being able to access my daughter's WiFi system.

AT&T wanted to use a WiFi connection between the computer in my main radio shack and the "hub" for my fiber connection to the AT&T system. The hub is actually located in my home office right next to the monitor on the computer that I am using at this moment. The "shack" computer is about 20 feet from the "hub" and AT&T thought that the r.f. link would be fine. However, I was concerned with the possibility of interference from the link. But, AT&T could not make the r.f. link work! Finally, they connected the "shack" computer to the "hub" with Cat 5e cable.

Now my next door neighbor is a computer consultant who works out of his house. Frankly, he has a very extensive WiFi system which connects several computers. His main "hub" is on the side of the house nearest my house and is less than 15 feet from where my "shack" computer is located. I believe that is the reason that AT&T had problems connecting my computer by r.f. link. Fortunately, even when I run almost full legal power I do not interfere with anything in my neighbor's house except for a single speaker (he has several speakers attached to various computers). If I happen to operate on 75 meter phone sometimes I do "come through" that speaker. I have offered to provide a ferrite choke for the speaker but he says that it doesn't bother him. If I am operating for a "little while" he just unplugs it.

The City of Richardson is presently installing a city-wide WiFi system that will be provided to the residents at no charge. A good friend of mine owns the company that is installing the system. This system will be paid for by commercial users and by the city government. I don't believe that this system will replace the fiber connections that AT&T provides (the fiber connections are at a much higher speed). But, for those people who do not want to pay for the fiber connection the city-wide WiFi system will get them on the Internet at a reasonable speed.

Glen, K9STH

[k2rl]

Unlike the tool shed analogy, an unsecured wifi access point invites and facilitates connections. No trespass is required. If your photons are landing on my property they are now mine. Consider this, many public libraries, businesses, etc. offer free wifi connections without obligation of any kind. When you see an access point named "linksys" and especially one with a password of "admin" you cannot be sure where it's located.

Many municipalities have a law that requires you to lock the doors and take the keys with you when you park your car. Otherwise you invite theft. I think this analogy is more applicable to an unsecured wifi connection. If you have a wifi access point, make your intentions known. Secure it if you don't want others to use it or leave it wide open if you don't mind.

[K5FH]

Unlike the tool shed analogy, an unsecured wifi access point invites and facilitates connections. No trespass is required. If your photons are landing on my property they are now mine.

I was wondering when someone would bring up that argument.

Back in the early days of MDS (Multipoint Distribution Service) television there were many experimenters who built crude microwave receivers and used a metal Sno-Coaster as a parabolic dish to receive the signals. Most MDS systems only carried HBO and most systems only had two channels to choose from.

The argument for the legality of using homebrew equipment to intercept an over-the-air pay-tv service went as follows:

Non-geek: "But the signal isn't intended for you! You're not paying for the service so you're stealing the signal!"

Geek: "Hey, if they don't want me receiving their #%&* signal, tell 'em to keep it out of my backyard!"

Yada, yada, yada...

Now, fast-forward to 2008. Seems like the argument hasn't changed much in 30 years.

[ad5mb]

My neighbor told me to use his connection. SSID: Linksys.

I can see 6 Linksys routers from my QTH. Everyone who has a router named Linksys has the default password and no firewall.

I mention this to my neighbor. He told me: "I got a new ISP. My new SSID is Actiontech"

I can see 6 Actiontechs from my house...

Rig here is a Linksys WRT-54GS running DD-WRT as a client. It is mounted on a 25 foot mast in an ammo can. POE. Hyperlinktech 24 dBi parabolic pointed at the city plaza, where I can see three open hotspots at about -75 db from 250 yards away.

Inside, WRT54G V6, WPA2 Personal with one DHCP for the laptop; otherwise static IPs all around.

Moving up to a triple homed server running ZoneIP and Radius when and if the Bronco stops breaking down every weekend.

[K8YZK]

"My neighbor told me to use his connection. SSID: Linksys."

Nice neighbor, just curious did you take him some cold beer, for use of his wifi?

[w6ire]

Sometimes when I walk by the newspaper rack, I will pause for a moment and read the front page, then scamper away without paying. This is clearly theft and every bit as egregious as "stealing" a Wi-Fi connection.

Once I used the bathroom at a McDonalds but I did not buy any food. The sign on the door read For Customers Only. So I committed the crime of stealing the bathroom for a minute since I was not a customer. This is clearly theft and every bit as egregious as "stealing" a Wi-Fi connection.

The speed limit on the highway where I live is 65 mph. I drove 65.1 mph. This is clearly a crime and every bit as egregious as "stealing" a Wi-Fi connection.

Every year the legislative branches of our government pass hundreds of new laws. Almost everything is illegal when you look into it. When people must contend with thousands of laws, laws cease being so important to people. Most of these laws are never enforced except in rare instances, so it's really just a joke anyway.

By the way, not to change the subject, but am I the only one who notices how often the phrase "child pornography" gets included into discussions on this site? I'm always amused at how fixated on child pornography most hams seem to be. Kiddie Porn seems to be something hams can't stop thinking about. Anyway, it's just an observation. YMMV.

[N2RJ]

Sorry, but if you tell them not to, they won't.

Try telling that to grandma who got a new laptop for Christmas. She'll probably give you a blank stare and wonder WTH are you talking about.

Ignorance is no excuse, sayeth the judge.

There is also the issue of your signals landing in my back yard. In Canada the supreme court ruled against DirecTV for this, opening the gateway for pirated/hacked access cards to be LEGAL in Canada.

[N2RJ]

I was wondering when someone would bring up that argument.

Back in the early days of MDS (Multipoint Distribution Service) television there were many experimenters who built crude microwave receivers and used a metal Sno-Coaster as a parabolic dish to receive the signals. Most MDS systems only carried HBO and most systems only had two channels to choose from.

The argument for the legality of using homebrew equipment to intercept an over-the-air pay-tv service went as follows:

Non-geek: "But the signal isn't intended for you! You're not paying for the service so you're stealing the signal!"

Geek: "Hey, if they don't want me receiving their #%&* signal, tell 'em to keep it out of my backyard!"

Yada, yada, yada...

Now, fast-forward to 2008. Seems like the argument hasn't changed much in 30 years.

In Canada the supreme court ruled against DirecTV in this very situation.

Their verdict was different to your interpretation.

[KD6NIG]

Most routers now will not enable wireless without some kind of intervention, by default (ie, you could have it open, but by default it will be set off). However, since the routers all have default userids and passwords......anyone from the outside could turn that off and then use that access point.

The reasoning to have a secure wireless network is massive. I wouldn't want to be responsible for anything more than myself. Anyone could park down the street and do anything on my connection-and any traces would come back to me, as if it was a computer on my network that I was using.

I have secured many a wireless network for family and friends. It was one of the first things I'd ask anyone when I noted a wireless router sitting on the desk or whatever. The clueless looks I would get when I asked if they had secured the network would result in me redoing the network for them.

As people get newer routers the number of "open" networks will lessen and thats when a law like this will really come into play. Right now people are still using older routers that were open by default. But as the "need for speed" starts being more prevelant with the new unapproved "N" standard coming out, security will increase.

I support such a law IF the connection is accessed by some outside means, ie, default password and SETTINGS ARE MODIFIED, but not if the person just chooses to ignore security themselves. But, as usually happens when technology runs amok, its easier to make a law to protect the masses instead of educating them on how to secure a router.

I just bought an N router 2 weeks ago and during the setup process if you selected no security you got this window that popped up telling you it was a bad thing and wanting you to confirm the decision. You also couldn't get the router started without specifying a admin ID and password (though I suppose you could set it as "Admin" and "password" like many do).

I'm sure I could have went online and found the default password and IP and did it all myself, but actually since my old router was the same brand as the new, you left the old hooked up at first and it copied all the settings (including my long jumbled up wireless key) and put them into the new router. So I didn't have to redo my port forwards or anything-it mapped them to the new. There were some new settings but if it didn't find them in the old it prompted you as to how you wanted them set.

Right now though being secured I wouldn't even be bothered with in my neighborhood. There are 5 local networks-and I'm the only one secured.

Its even worse in my mom in laws neighborhood-out of 12, 3 are secured. Including hers, when she got the router they kept the DSL on one computer only until I had time to go out and set it up for her :)

There is a funny one there though-a network called "DAVIDQUITUSINGMYINTERNET" or something like that. The funny thing is, although thats the title of the network, it remains unsecured. You'd think if you knew someone was using your network and you could just secure it to block them, you would :)

[AE6IP]

Try telling that to grandma who got a new laptop for Christmas. She'll probably give you a blank stare and wonder WTH are you talking about.

If my grandkids weren't teenargers, I might find that remark funny. In my family, 'grandma' is the 25 year tech veteran I sleep with.

But when I got a laptop for my Mom, I made sure it was set up properly.

There is also the issue of your signals landing in my back yard. In Canada the supreme court ruled against DirecTV for this, opening the gateway for pirated/hacked access cards to be LEGAL in Canada.

That's nice, but we've been discussing US law here.

But even in Canada, the DirecTV decision would only be half relevant. You have to send signals back to my router for you to be able to actually use my WAP and there you'd be trespassing again.

[K5FH]

In Canada the supreme court ruled against DirecTV in this very situation.

Their verdict was different to your interpretation.

What did they rule, and what was their rationale for the decision? Without knowing the specifics, I would guess that they agreed with the argument about the signal being "in the backyard." This is a very old argument. Most of us feel that the electromagnetic spectrum is fair game for receiving and someone doesn't want us receiving what they transmit, keep the signal out of my backyard...the ECPA be damned.

However, since wireless routers involve two-way communications a case might be made that using someone's wifi without permission is trespassing. Some jurisdictions might define it as theft of services. The nation's courts haven't really addressed this to any great extent. It probably won't be until there is a test case brought before the US Supreme Court that we will finally have some kind of definitive answer.

[K3UD]

I think that our Starbucks (Hopkinsville KY) is the only one that does not have a wireless network available for their customers. I was told that they have a nationwide contract with T-Mobile and there is no T-mobile connectivity in Hopkinsville. I was in an automated car wash and detail center the other day and had my iPod Touch with me. Sure enough the car wash had an open wireless network for the use of their customers. Ironic in a way, carwashes with hot spots and Starbucks with no wireless.

73
George
K3UD

[W3MIV]

I think that our Starbucks (Hopkinsville KY) is the only one that does not have a wireless network available for their customers. I was told that they have a nationwide contract with T-Mobile and there is no T-mobile connectivity in Hopkinsville. I was in an automated car wash and detail center the other day and had my iPod Touch with me. Sure enough the car wash had an open wireless network for the use of their customers. Ironic in a way, carwashes with hot spots and Starbucks with no wireless.

73
George
K3UD

And, so far as I know, the WiFi in those Starbucks that offer it is NOT free.

I made the mistake of choosing a Red Roof Inn in Rochester because it offered WiFi in the rooms. I thought it was free the way the RRI website touted it; alas, it, too, was from T-Mobile, and I found that there was a $10 per night surcharge for the service. Right next door was a McDonalds that had free broadband WiFi for the customers.

The issues, however, are a far cry from the initial topic of the thread.

[wg7x]

Qouth W6IRE By the way, not to change the subject, but am I the only one who notices how often the phrase "child pornography" gets included into discussions on this site? I'm always amused at how fixated on child pornography most hams seem to be. Kiddie Porn seems to be something hams can't stop thinking about. Anyway, it's just an observation. YMMV.

Man,

I have not noticed anything of the sort! Is it possible that you have the problem?

Please don't presume that all of us are as sick as yourself!

Please seek treatment immediately!

[W9AFB]

Leaving your internet connection open is like leaving your car running unlocked at the local convenience store. It's not the governments fault if your car gets stolen.

[N2RJ]

If my grandkids weren't teenargers, I might find that remark funny. In my family, 'grandma' is the 25 year tech veteran I sleep with.

But when I got a laptop for my Mom, I made sure it was set up properly.

That's nice, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

[KD6NIG]

Thats one of many concerns. With Comcast (my provider) attacking people using Bittorrent by either blocking the transfers or getting them because they use over the "invisible transfer caps" I want to be sure that I'm the one utilizing the line fully-not somebody else, and although I don't agree with the 'defeat' methods they use against people using that program, I don't want someone coming on my connection and using it either. Especially without my knowledge-they would be told NO if they tried to use it with my permission.

I won't even go into the content ramifications which includes what is mentioned by some. Though there are some "legal" uses for that protocol, most of it is, lets be honest, the trade of copyrighted material.

The bottom line for me is, if something is done wrong on my internet connection and I have to take responsibility for it, then I'm going to secure it to the best of my abilities. If someone EXPLOITS something intended to secure, then they should be pursued for it. But, if I leave the door wide open and invite them to do so, then I'm a party to it.

But with many ISPs having policies that place responsibility directly on the end user, you need to be concerned about what your line could be used for if you leave it open-because when the ISP gets contacted about information regarding an IP address, they will toss you right under the bus.

One thing I like about my new router too is that the program that came with it (that I now run on my "always on" machine) will log attempts of people trying to connect to my network and failing (since I have security activated) including MAC addresses. Maybe. I tried to hook an old security camera to my network this weekend and plugged it in with the wireless on before hooking up an ethernet cable to configure it-since my network key had changed since the last time I used it, it recorded the mac address and the failed attempt to log into the network. If it will do this with a 'foreign' computer I'm not sure, but it intrigued me enough to turn logging for it on so I can see if I get anything.

Course, for any law like this to have any teeth, you'll have to have proof that the person intruded and did the suspicious act also. So you'll need some kind of method of logging also even if you run security to prove they maliciously entered (or you left it wide open and they used it that way, as this law seems to imply would be illegal also.)

The burden of proof of wrongdoing not being your fault would be on you in any case. Unless the person was caught red handed and your connection was the one he/she was using, of course.

I would hope that people who openly share their internet connections log activity just in case someone does something funny. Otherwise they will be left holding the bag. I'm hoping commercial establishments with hotspots do this, otherwise they are basically operating on a trust agreement as well.

Security is good, but logging will help also in case someone ever does get past it. At first I thought this network advisor thing it installed when I configured the router was annoying, but when it picked up the 'intrusion' and got the mac address, it changed my mind a bit......

Now, I don't use BT or filetrade or anything like that so my line sits mostly idle unless I'm on youtube or doing a legit download (windows update, etc). But there are people who do that legitimately, which is where the "blocking" my ISP does comes into question. But, the illicit use of the medium is what brought that on in the first place. Of course.

But because I'm not only an internet user and a computer tech (though its not my paying job anymore) I do pay attention to the issues regarding ISPs, and after reading one person posting on a bulletin board that he just "has a computer seperate from his network setup, and he just uses his neighbors connection late at night and when hes at work to download "ripped DVD movies" via BT on that "seperate computer" so if "someone gets in trouble, it will just be my stupid neighbor who didn't secure his network" and he'll just switch to another open one if he finds out and gets caught.....

I'd say I'd want to make sure my network is secure too.

[W3MIV]

I use Verizon FiOS at my Maryland location. The modem/router they supplied is a WiFi unit with the usual four hard-wire ports. The WiFi is preconfigured with WPA already active, and the code is printed on the label of the router along with the serial number. I should point out that the tech who sets the system up for the new customer briefs them on secure use of the internet and steps them through the learning curve to access the router and configure or reconfigure the default settings.

I have that WiFi turned off, because I continue to use the Apple Airport Extreme, which I have found to be the best performer of all that I have tested (read: suffered). I have that system secured using 128-bit encryption, and it is set not to broadcast the SSID. With all of the other WiFi systems within easy access, several of them (as I posted somewhere above) unsecured, I don't worry too much about anyone seeking to access mine.

[n2ize]

I won't even go into the content ramifications which includes what is mentioned by some. Though there are some "legal" uses for that protocol, most of it is, lets be honest, the trade of copyrighted material.
.


Actually there is but one and only one use for the bit-torrent protocol , namely to transfer data between points.

I thin you really mean to say there are "some" people who use it do transfer legal non-copyrighted material. I would argue that there are not just some but MANY people who use it for transfer of legal data.

These days bit-torrent is quite popular and widely used for transferring open source software. It is widely used among developers and end users alike. The majority of the Linux distros these days are obtained online via bittorent download. Matter of fact just this weekend I had bit-torrent up and running so I could download several different full featured Linux distros including the latest versions of Fedora, Kubuntu as well as the Live CD/DVD versions along with several other large software projects. All 100% legal stuff. I also generally keep the Bittorrent up and running so that I can share the material with others.

It's sad that nowadays bittorent has gotten the reputation as a "rogue pirate protocol" to the point where some ISP's automatically assume that if a client is running bittorent he must be breaking the law and thus it's okay to cap his Internet connection when in reality there are so many of us who use bittorent for perfectly legitimate transfers.

[kf6rdn]

I've seen Torrents of TV shows, both legal and not.


As far as the Wifi, I guess I'm the only one that's neighborly and leaves it open.

But not 100% trusting as I block ports 25, and the NETBIOS ones. (CIFS or Windows F&P services).

I do log everything so if something came up I could show that..

I've only had someone connect for 20 mins in the couple years I've left it open.

[AE6IP]

That's nice, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

perhaps in your household. On this coast, mileage definitely varies.

Even consumer reports has articles on securing your network these days.

[KC8PQN]

Seems ridiculous to me. If you don't want someone using your wireless network then password protect it.

I would pass-protect my connections to the net if I had a problem with these....> FREE LOADING UMMM .. WORTHLESS HAMS WERE DOING THIS WITH MY INTERNET CONNECTION. or I guess I would except it and join in on the enabler of progress for the better.,, Dan kc8pqn.

[N2RJ]

perhaps in your household. On this coast, mileage definitely varies.

Even consumer reports has articles on securing your network these days.

You need to get out of California a little more, Marty.

[KD6NIG]

Actually there is but one and only one use for the bit-torrent protocol , namely to transfer data between points.

I thin you really mean to say there are "some" people who use it do transfer legal non-copyrighted material. I would argue that there are not just some but MANY people who use it for transfer of legal data.

These days bit-torrent is quite popular and widely used for transferring open source software. It is widely used among developers and end users alike. The majority of the Linux distros these days are obtained online via bittorent download. Matter of fact just this weekend I had bit-torrent up and running so I could download several different full featured Linux distros including the latest versions of Fedora, Kubuntu as well as the Live CD/DVD versions along with several other large software projects. All 100% legal stuff. I also generally keep the Bittorrent up and running so that I can share the material with others.

It's sad that nowadays bittorent has gotten the reputation as a "rogue pirate protocol" to the point where some ISP's automatically assume that if a client is running bittorent he must be breaking the law and thus it's okay to cap his Internet connection when in reality there are so many of us who use bittorent for perfectly legitimate transfers.

Oh I know it has legitimate uses, but because of the illicit uses ISPs are moving to block or disrupt it.

But, its the same as this law. Because a few (well, ok in the case of BT, more than a few!) choose to use something wrong, they have to legislate or attempt to block the technology for everyone.

Honestly after reading some of the stuff in the dslreports forum about the invisible bandwidth caps Comcast and others like to impose, I think its only going to get worse before it gets better. I'm not a power user by any means, but there are people moving 400 gigs of stuff a month over cable lines. That can't be legal trading :)

But, since the limits are arbitrary as well (they don't give a specific figure, they just say the "top 1%" are subject to possibly being axed for excessive usage) people get more mad about that also.

Couple that with "We aren't doing anything to BT connections" when they were and I think some people do it out of spite.

[AE6IP]

You need to get out of California a little more, Marty.

I know the difference. I've got family in MT. Just sent my brother-in-law his first laptop, with wifi router, ever. He didn't want my help setting it up. Said he could do fine with help from local friends. He will too.

You need to get out of the 90s.

[W3MIV]

Because a few (well, ok in the case of BT, more than a few!) choose to use something wrong, they have to legislate or attempt to block the technology for everyone.

This is quite a normal failure of government, especially of "modern" government. The root of the problem lies in a lack of understanding in detail, and a consequent attempt to regulate by way of generality because that lack of understanding prevents the creation of any attempt at specific solutions targeted at the real problem.

I mentioned somewhere above that Verizon's FiOS installations seem to be targeting the "unsecured router" issue effectively. That is clearly because they have a vested interest in solving the problem of excessive pirating of their bandwidth.

Legislatures have no such interest, therefore they respond to requests to draft legislation following the guidelines provided by the individual, company or organization making the request, usually through a lobbyist. At the state level, it is usually easy to obtain access to a committee hearing on a topic such as this one, and to provide testimony that may affect the outcome of the proposal. If the proposal originated in a professonal association seeking to protect its "rights," there needs to be adequate testimony of quality in opposition -- not merely a bunch of "freedom fighters" howling against RIAA in general.

[N2RJ]

I know the difference.

Clearly, you don't.

I've got family in MT. Just sent my brother-in-law his first laptop, with wifi router, ever. He didn't want my help setting it up. Said he could do fine with help from local friends. He will too.

I'm willing to bet that there's going to be one more unsecured router in Montana, probably with the default password too.

You need to get out of the 90's.

You need to admit when you're wrong. One of your biggest flaws.

[kl7aj]

Suppose for a moment, you have a shed. In the shed you keep an assortment of gardening implements. You normally leave the door closed, but without a padlock. If someone enters your shed and takes one of your tools, is that not theft? Or, is it theft only if you secured the shed?

Using someone else's internet connection without that owner's permission (and, indeed, also that of the ISP in many cases) is simple theft of something for which the owner is paying a fee, and to which the usurper has no right.

You you you.....Capitalist, property-rights advocate, reactionary Paleo-Con, YOU! How dare you suggest that a criminal should be held responsible for his criminal activities! Get with the program; join the Indusstrial Revolution!



:) :)

Eric