peopes beliefes on connecting to open wireless?

[markp1989]

Im curious to know that people on this forum think about connecting to open wireless?


I do it ocaisionaly when im at family memebers houses, however, i do no heavy band width usage, just web browsing

what do you all think about this?

[Lord Xeb]

Well, I am a security fanatic, so I perfer protected but my firewall is rediculous so I do not even need to connect to a protected network.

[fatality_uk]

So lets say you have a monthly mobile/cell phone contract with inclduded minutes. Will you be happy to let someone use your minutes every week without your knowledge? It appears that you are using what someone else is paying for without prior consent!

[Peronix]

I would if my internet was disconnected for whatever reason, but all my neighbours wireless networks are secured which is rather surprising. :lolflag:

[smoker]

public access, or with the permission of the whoever has the network is ok, but piggybacking on someone's network without their knowledge is a no no!

i don't know though why more people don't share connections with neighbours and share the costs, with a fast connection it seems to me a good way to save a few quid.

[insane_alien]

if i find an open network in my neighbourhood i track down which house it is coming from and inform the owner of the network and offer to secure it if they don't know how(i don't look at the passphrase). if they decline i treat it as fair game if my connection goes down and i really need something(i mean i'm not going to use a slower connection if i have a nice big pipe all to myself).

i should also probably mention that i let some of my neighbours use my connection as well seeing as they don't have a net connection and they don't do a lot of browsing anyway.

[markp1989]

at home, i have informed a few of my neighbors, and they have set passwords to it, but if some one is silly enough to leave it open then its fair game.

[fatality_uk]

at home, i have informed a few of my neighbors, and they have set passwords to it, but if some one is silly enough to leave it open then its fair game.

Really? So if your neighbour spliced your satellite dish feed into his home from your incoming cable, because you hadn't coated the cable in titanium casing that would be OK then?

[markp1989]

Really? So if your neighbour spliced your satellite dish feed into his home from your incoming cable, because you hadn't coated the cable in titanium casing that would be OK then?

thats a really bad comparason, when setting up a wireless network, you should password protect it, if you dont then your inviting people to connect

[clanky]

Using something which belongs to someone else without their permission is wrong. The fact that they didn't adequately protect themselves doesn't make it right. Just because someone forgets to lock their door doesn't make it OK to walk into their house and steal their stuff.

[fatality_uk]

thats a really bad comparason, when setting up a wireless network, you should password protect it, if you dont then your inviting people to connect

In what way is it bad? If you hitch a ride onto a wireless network that you haven't paid for or contributed towards the cost of, then you are using a service that others have to pay for. Theft I think it's called.

If your use then sends them over their monthly limit, they will get stung with a bill and seeing as you have NO WAY to monitor their use, they could be using 99.9% when your use takes them over that limit!

And don't come back with this "it's just a bit of web surfing" nonsense. I am guessing, correct me if I am wrong, that many of the site you visit while stealing other peoples service included some Flash? Add all the data, flash, small debs, images and other elements together. Any idea how much your using? No, because you don't care. It's there, so use it.

So that person, lets say it's a 69 year grandmother who bought broadband to be able to keep into touch with family who have all moved away, will have to pay MORE for YOUR use when she goes over her limit.

You feel happy to make that lady pay more each month? You really happy to see her cost of living increase because you want free wifi? You don't have any guilt that possibly this person will have to cut back elsewhere in their life to fund YOUR free internet access?

And before you think it's not possible, the scenario I have just stated. I have set up JUST such a system, securely of course.

People think of broadband and wireless as a white good. They DON'T expect that some freeloader is going to be using a service they are paying for without their knowledge or consent. Just because people don't have knowledge of how to secure their wifi, you think that gives you the right to steal part of their service?

Instead of expecting and taking what you THINK your entitled to, do some good in your community. Instead of freeloading off your neighbours, why not leaflet your street with knowledge of how to secure their wifi? There's a challenge to you!!!

[zmjjmz]

Well fatality_uk, where I live bandwidth limits are really uncommon, so if you connect to someone else's open network here it's unlikely that you're raising their bill or slowing them down at all, because according to Comcast very few people actually use all that bandwidth.

[smoker]

Well fatality_uk, where I live bandwidth limits are really uncommon, so if you connect to someone else's open network here it's unlikely that you're raising their bill or slowing them down at all, because according to Comcast very few people actually use all that bandwidth.

i agree with fatality here, just because it is uncommon doesn't make it right, unlikely to happen doesn't mean it won't happen.

[fatality_uk]

Uncommon, so not exclusively unlimited? As I said, freeloaders using other peoples service have NO WAY to know how much of the service the owner is using. Do you know how much of the service the people who's broadband you are stealing use? NO!

Here's something else to think about while your surfing with other peoples money. It's likely that some of your neighbours are using limited bandwidth services because they are cheaper. They choose these because usually they live on lower/limited incomes. So your freeloading COULD be costing them MORE proportionally than if you were using wifi in a very exclusive wealthy area. You happy about that?

[clanky]

The other thing to consider is that someone may be deliberately leaving a wireless network open in order to gain access to your computer.

[xpod]

Instead of expecting and taking what you THINK your entitled to, do some good in your community. Instead of freeloading off your neighbours, why not leaflet your street with knowledge of how to secure their wifi? There's a challenge to you!!!

Well said.
We`ve just recently moved house and while i pick up 3-5 secured wireless signals here i used to pick up anything from 9-12 at our old place.About half of those were originally open but over time we eventually got them all secured,to some degree.I knew most of the people anyway(or got to know them) so i did`nt have to go quite as far as delivering leaflets.:)

I had two connections at the old place same as i do now and i certainly dont mind helping out,if and when someone`s own connection goes down.
I`ve sent cables across back gardens and lent neighbours one of the wireless dongles in the past.

[fatality_uk]

The other thing to consider is that someone may be deliberately leaving a wireless network open in order to gain access to your computer.

Really!!! Then I am guessing that the SSID's will read "OPEN_WIFI_FREE" will they? Because I am sure that the vast majority wont know they have open wifi.

[init1]

If you don't want people entering your house, lock it.
If you don't want people using your network, secure it.

[Prefix100]

If you don't want people entering your house, lock it.
If you don't want people using your network, secure it.


This.

I also believe that ideally everyone should always have access to the internet. So if someone doesn't and they need it for something, why the hell not?
I mean the ability to secure it is there.

[civillian]

In principal, it's wrong, and the right thing to do would be to tell the nieghbor that they have an unsecured network and point them in the direction of somewhere where they can find out how to secure it.

In reality, imo it's like finding money in the street, legally you should hand it in somewhere, but what about 99.9% of the popluation would do is just pop it in their pocket.

[fatality_uk]

If you don't want people entering your house, lock it.
If you don't want people using your network, secure it.

So if you find an unlocked car, you should be free to open the door, take ANYTHING you like from the car and walk away without any repercussions?

Can you answer this please? Because I would LOVE to hear your response.

Theft is theft is theft.

[blastus]

Where I live everyone uses everyone else's wireless network because no-one knows what they are doing. I know this because I've seen the same machines on the DHCP client list on several open access points.

I just finished helping one neighbor connect to their own network instead of someone else's network even though their access point was wide open also. They didn't even know they weren't using their own Internet and I had asked them if they had setup their network OK because I saw their machine (based on their name) on someone else's wireless router and knew they didn't own a router of that type.

Just yesterday I booted my laptop into Windows to do something locally on the disconnected machine and then walked away. About an hour later I came back and noticed it was using someone's open wireless network. Great.

The problem with Windows (and somewhat Ubuntu also) is that it will connect to ANY available open wireless network WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. This is extremely annoying. On Windows for example, I cannot enable wireless without it connecting to someone's open wireless network automatically. Even if I disconnect from that network it will go out and automatically connect back to that access point or another open access point.

Microsoft apparently thinks it is OK for you to access open access points without your permission and without the permission of the owner of the network otherwise they would have designed wireless networking to EXPLICITLY ask for your permission before AUTOMATICALLY connecting to an open access point.

Futhermore, in Windows Vista (and likely in Windows XP I haven't checked) Microsoft doesn't even follow wireless standards. Nowhere in the WPA2 standard does it say that a PSK must ONLY contain letters A-Z and digits 0-9 yet Vista will refuse to connect to an access point whose PSK contains non-letters and digits. This was on a brand new laptop running Vista so it can't be the wireless card or driver.

[bobbob94]

I do actually run an unsecured wireless network and I'm perfectly happy for anyone to use it, thats why its not secured. I have a theoretically unlimited monthly limit (of course "fair use" bs applies, but neither me nor my unknown guests seem to ever get close to it anyway) Such things do exist is all i'm saying...

[blastus]

I do actually run an unsecured wireless network and I'm perfectly happy for anyone to use it, thats why its not secured. I have a theoretically unlimited monthly limit (of course "fair use" bs applies, but neither me nor my unknown guests seem to ever get close to it anyway) Such things do exist is all i'm saying...

I would mind doing that too except for the fact that if you get someone on there downloading massive torrents sucking up all your bandwidth, downloading *illegal* torrents like music/movies, or just plain doing illegal things, it is a huge risk not worth taking in my opinion. Anyone on the street in a car could also access your Internet, not necessarily just your neighbors that you may know and trust.

[fatality_uk]

I do actually run an unsecured wireless network and I'm perfectly happy for anyone to use it, thats why its not secured. I have a theoretically unlimited monthly limit (of course "fair use" bs applies, but neither me nor my unknown guests seem to ever get close to it anyway) Such things do exist is all i'm saying...

Very commendable, but if the Police do come knocking on your door asking about undesirable downloads, I am guessing that you will lock down your wireless quite quickly

[kartoshka]

i don't know though why more people don't share connections with neighbours and share the costs, with a fast connection it seems to me a good way to save a few quid.

I like this idea as well, unfortunately it is expressly prohibited by the TOS of at least one major broadband provider that I know of (my guess is this applies to most if not all ISPs). You have to pay additional fees to allow public use of that connection.

[bobbob94]

Very commendable, but if the Police do come knocking on your door asking about undesirable downloads, I am guessing that you will lock down your wireless quite quickly

no, in the highly unlikely event that happens (from the perspective of over five years with no problem) i'll explain that i have an unsecured connection and therefore have no idea who did what. i believe under uk law i'm still innocent until proven guilty!

btw, on a complete off topic note ,from your avatar i'm guessing you're as happy as me today after ending chelsea's unbeaten home run :)

[init1]

So if you find an unlocked car, you should be free to open the door, take ANYTHING you like from the car and walk away without any repercussions?

Can you answer this please? Because I would LOVE to hear your response.

Theft is theft is theft.
I'm not saying car theft or any other kind of theft is OK, I'm just saying that wifi theft is easily avoidable.

[fatality_uk]

I'm not saying car theft or any other kind of theft is OK, I'm just saying that wifi theft is easily avoidable.

For those who know what they are doing. The vast majority of wifi users don't. So those freeloading other peoples wifi, feel free, take advantage of those with less knowledge than yourself.

Steal these peoples service and while your at it, why not sell them bankrupt financial stocks. If you are going to steal, you might as well make it worth while.

This thread is indicative at what is wrong with some people in this world.
You know what, the World doesn't owe you anything.

[SomeGuyDude]

I tend to leave my network unsecured when I'm not at school. If a "hacker" honestly wanted to crack into my computer, a little WEP encryption isn't going to stop him. Meanwhile if a neighbor's connection goes down and he needs to get online for something, he can snag my connection for a little while.

You people likening it to car theft are, for lack of a better phrase, completely effing retarded.

[fatality_uk]

I tend to leave my network unsecured when I'm not at school. If a "hacker" honestly wanted to crack into my computer, a little WEP encryption isn't going to stop him. Meanwhile if a neighbor's connection goes down and he needs to get online for something, he can snag my connection for a little while.

You people likening it to car theft are, for lack of a better phrase, completely effing retarded.

Wonderful, raise the level of debate!

[Ripfox]

Yea, it's definitely not car theft lol

[init1]

I tend to leave my network unsecured when I'm not at school. If a "hacker" honestly wanted to crack into my computer, a little WEP encryption isn't going to stop him. Meanwhile if a neighbor's connection goes down and he needs to get online for something, he can snag my connection for a little while.

You people likening it to car theft are, for lack of a better phrase, completely effing retarded.
Yeah, wifi theft is not the same as car theft. If someone wants to spend 5 minutes checking their email on my network, fine. I probably won't even notice. Of course, if they're torrenting or downloading big files, then it's an issue.

[ZankerH]

I've been leeching off one of the unsecured networks in my apartment block for the last two months, because the person whose apartment's room I'm renting insists that I pay a downright criminal fee in exchange for his WEP key. I'm really in luck this block seems to be populated largely by computer-illiterate people.

To answer the OP's question, I consider an unsecured network to be like a public park without a fence. That is, I'll enter when I damn well want to, but I'll do my best to leave it clean (ie use an anonymous proxy), let other people in too (ie, not run applications that clog the tubes when there's other clients attempting to get some bandwidth through), and leave the settings alone (yes, some people actually leave 192.168.2.1 wide open) unless I absolutely need to forward a port or two.

[cariboo]

Leaving a wifi connection open is not like a public park it is more like someone leaving the gate open to their backyard and you coming in and using there swimming pool without their permission. It's time to man up and pay your buddies price for access to his router.

Jim

[teet]

I had to stay in a "temporary" apartment (actually it was 1/2 of a duplex) for a few months a while ago while doing some away work.

The place I was staying at had an unsecured wireless router. I left it unsecured (ndiswrapper was having problems with WPA password for some reason), but did block the MAC addresses of the freeloaders so that they couldn't connect. In the end, there were 10-11 different MAC addresses that connected to my router over my stay! I couldn't believe it. I could pick up a few other secured routers, but I must have been supplying a connection to the rest of the neighborhood because there weren't that many other people living nearby.

I hope that WiMax thing takes off...it would make this whole discussion pointless.

-teet

[jflaker]

According to the FCC, anyone is allowed to intercept radio transmissions and what you do with the signal is the sole responsibility of the receiver.

WITH THAT SAID: An advertising access point which is unsecured is much like a steal me sign on something in the middle of the street.......

I am NOT saying it is moral to use an unsecured network as it is the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE NETWORK OWNER.. If you do not want unknown computers on your network, you should secure your network.

NOW, The BIGGEST problem is that the lay person will give you the deer in the headlights look when you mention wireless security....They not only know WHAT it is, they certainly are not going to know HOW do implement it.

Yeah, RTFM, that's great, they still don't know what it is.

SO, MILLIONS of access points remain unsecured not because people want to keep them unsecure, but they have now clue how to even start.

I think that there needs to be an effort to educate the average consumer and the router should come secured out of the box with instructions on connecting.

[ZankerH]

Leaving a wifi connection open is not like a public park it is more like someone leaving the gate open to their backyard and you coming in and using there swimming pool without their permission. It's time to man up and pay your buddies price for access to his router.

Jim

I look at it this way: If they're too illiterate to set up a password to their router (or even the router's config), they probably couldn't even grasp the concept of someone leeching their connection and therefore, can't possibly notice it if the leechers act in accordance with the policy I've described in my above post. Therefore, even if it isn't the same as a public park in a legal sense, it realistically is. There's nothing but the user's own stupidity preventing them from securing their connection. Are you telling me to feel bad for exploiting that?

[Dr Small]

You leave the house one day and forgot to lock the doors.

A burgler walks into your house and steals your money. Do you blame the theif or the lack of your security on your part? Personally, I would blame myself, rather that the theif (although he is responsible for the theft, I am also responsible for the lack of security).

It's a 2 way street. Honestly, I have never used an open wireless network in my life. I'm in the country, and have no need to, and it would be near impossible to pick up people's wireless from the road.

With that said, if someone was piggy-backing off of my wireless, I would be responsible for not locking down the network. It's fair game if it is open.

[Lostincyberspace]

I have an open access point, and I don't care if others use it. But I do believe in not stealing anything so I generally won't use it without asking, or seeing a sign or something that says I can use it. I do have to admit I will some time check my email without asking but that is very rarely, and I limit it to just checking email. Not trying to make excuses, just trying to be truthful.

I wish there were more networks like the utopia network, where bandwidth is not limitable. I had some friends who lived in apartment complex and they shared connections to get really good speeds.

[ZankerH]

You leave the house one day and forgot to lock the doors.

A burgler walks into your house and steals your money. Do you blame the theif or the lack of your security on your part? Personally, I would blame myself, rather that the theif (although he is responsible for the theft, I am also responsible for the lack of security).

That's nice and fine, except I'm not stealing anything from you by connecting to your wireless network. And unless the user is a total control freak (which he likely isn't, given the fact that he's left his network unsecured and made no attempts to change the settings at all), he's not going to notice someone surfing on a 20/20 mbps line.

[Frak]

Legally, if it is unsecured, it's fine. Morally, IDK. I'd probably do it, so I can't say much for not doing it.

[Dr Small]

That's nice and fine, except I'm not stealing anything from you by connecting to your wireless network. And unless the user is a total control freak (which he likely isn't, given the fact that he's left his network unsecured and made no attempts to change the settings at all), he's not going to notice someone surfing on a 20/20 mbps line.
You are stealing packets (technically).

[ciscosurfer]

You are stealing packets (technically).nice :lolflag:

[p_quarles]

In spite of the righteous idignation from the "using unsecured wifi is theft!" voices, it really is up to the network operator to secure the network unless they are willing to allow others to use it. This is for the simple fact that wireless receivers are designed to auto-associate with available networks. In other words, this is how the technology works. It is also why comparisons to various forms of larceny are beside the point.

The bottom line is this: if you setup a wireless network and leave it open, it is not a matter of if but when a smartphone user walks by and unknowingly connects to your network. If one can do something without anyone's knowledge (the network owner's or the illicit user's) and without any apparent consequences, that "something" very clearly does not have the same kind of gravity as, say, car theft. If this situation costs innocent victims their livelihood, something is wrong with the billing system, not with the moral compass of the wifi trespasser.

[Ripfox]

I've done it randomly. No biggie, surfed for a few results from Google. Not a bandwidth killer :lolflag:

[SomeGuyDude]

From Wired.com: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/01/securitymatters_0110

"I'm told that uninvited strangers may sit in their cars in front of my house, and use my network to send spam, eavesdrop on my passwords, and upload and download everything from pirated movies to child pornography. As a result, I risk all sorts of bad things happening to me, from seeing my IP address blacklisted to having the police crash through my door.

While this is technically true, I don't think it's much of a risk. I can count five open wireless networks in coffee shops within a mile of my house, and any potential spammer is far more likely to sit in a warm room with a cup of coffee and a scone than in a cold car outside my house. And yes, if someone did commit a crime using my network the police might visit, but what better defense is there than the fact that I have an open wireless network? If I enabled wireless security on my network and someone hacked it, I would have a far harder time proving my innocence. "

Read on.

[geekygirl]

Funny that some people think its OK to take someones bandwidth if they leave the wireless network unsecured..thats like saying its OK to take something from someones home because they left the front door open....

Don't know about other countries, but over here in Australia we get ripped in a big way by ISP's for our broadband internet, cost as well as some nasty download limits - needless to say I would be pretty darn p*&^ed if someone decided because I had left my wireless connection unsecured (which it is not - I use WPA2 :p) to help themselves to my bandwidth because someone else has the attitude of 'well you left it unsecured so go suck a big one I will take what I want because you obviously don't know what you are doing when it comes to setting up a wireless network'

Some people get sucked in by salesman when they buy their notebooks and computers from retail stores into getting a wireless router, but don't really understand the implications of security on it because the salesman never told them about that.

Trust me there are people out there like that - does not give some geek or computer savvy person the right to leech their bandwidth though!!

c'mon, I thought more of people in these forums than that...go use the wifi at McDonalds or a coffee shop and don't be so tight fisted that you take what is not yours and see it as a right because someone had no idea about wireless security.

A better thing would be to pass fliers out around your immediate area suggesting that someone has unsecured wifi and offer to help them secure it (maybe a beer or 2 or just plain gratitude in return)...that would be a far more decent thing to do...

and thats my rant for today lol

*facepalm*

[SomeGuyDude]

GeekyGirl, can you give me a single rational reason that leeching bandwidth for a little while is even REMOTELY like stealing something from someone's house? Honestly. Equate the two.

Having experienced both, I can tell you that no. No they are not.

[p_quarles]

My perception here is that those who equate this with "theft" are from countries that tend to have bandwidth limits on most connections. Americans (where home broadband is not normally available in any but "unlimited" contracts) seem to be much more okay with it.

Again, though, the technology is on the side of those who use open connections. This is how it was designed to work. The connection software on nearly any device will auto-associate with an available network. In cases where the network is offering an address via dhcp, the device will accept that.

If someone who has limited bandwidth does not secure their network against the people who *will* connect to said network (regardless of whether they intend to, even), they are likely to get overages. That's an issue that they need to take up with their ISP, who will probably in turn tell them to lock up their network.

So, no, this is *not* like stealing a car. It's like listening to the radio. It's the same exact thing, in fact, since we're talking about unencrypted data packets sent via radio signals. And, no, it's not like someone stealing your stuff because you left your door open. It's like leaving your sofa on the front walk and calling the cops when someone takes it away.

Look, folks: it's your ISP contracts that suck, and limit how you can effectively use your own network. That doesn't change the fact that the actual wireless networking technology itself is either encrypted or fully public.

[SomeGuyDude]

I'd take the sofa analogy further by saying you called the cops just because someone fell asleep on it. It's not like people "steal" my internet connection and once they're done they took it home with them. They just used it and then moved on with little effect on me.

I understand it in the case of limited bandwidth, but in that case it 100% is your fault for not securing the network or using a crappy ISP that charges for data usage. But for someone who won't get overage charges and isn't in danger of caps on data transfers... is there any logical reason to secure it?

Hackers? Once again, if someone wants to hack into my system, a little network encryption isn't going to stop them.

[gn2]

As you live in the UK, you should have a read of Section 125 of the Communications Act of 2003 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/ukpga_20030021_en_13) which is punishable by up to five years imprisonment.

If you are prosecuted and found guilty and fined, you won't be the first (http://itn.co.uk/news/1112943368020a45ac5052f568ddbde1.html).

[slinkey1981]

My perception here is that those who equate this with "theft" are from countries that tend to have bandwidth limits on most connections. Americans (where home broadband is not normally available in any but "unlimited" contracts) seem to be much more okay with it.

Again, though, the technology is on the side of those who use open connections. This is how it was designed to work. The connection software on nearly any device will auto-associate with an available network. In cases where the network is offering an address via dhcp, the device will accept that.

If someone who has limited bandwidth does not secure their network against the people who *will* connect to said network (regardless of whether they intend to, even), they are likely to get overages. That's an issue that they need to take up with their ISP, who will probably in turn tell them to lock up their network.

So, no, this is *not* like stealing a car. It's like listening to the radio. It's the same exact thing, in fact, since we're talking about unencrypted data packets sent via radio signals. And, no, it's not like someone stealing your stuff because you left your door open. It's like leaving your sofa on the front walk and calling the cops when someone takes it away.

Look, folks: it's your ISP contracts that suck, and limit how you can effectively use your own network. That doesn't change the fact that the actual wireless networking technology itself is either encrypted or fully public.

I wrote a lot more, but this post summed it up very nicely.

[gn2]

This issue is silly where I live anyways because there are NO monthly caps on usage, we all get 320Kbps on the best days.

But where the OP lives it is most definitely illegal.

[gn2]

You people likening it to car theft are, for lack of a better phrase, completely effing retarded.

Far from it, theft is theft irrespective of the value of the item stolen.

The OP resides in the UK. In the UK internet access costs money.

Use someone else's data allowance without permission and you are stealing from them.

It's no different from stealing any other possession they may have.

Whether or not any article is secured is irrelevant to the concept of what theft is.

People have been arrested for unauthorised use of wireless internet in the UK and one individual was fined £500 in 2005 for doing so. ($770 US)

[lisati]

GeekyGirl, can you give me a single rational reason that leeching bandwidth for a little while is even REMOTELY like stealing something from someone's house? Honestly. Equate the two.

Having experienced both, I can tell you that no. No they are not.

Another analogy: suppose you live in an area where water is metered and charged for based on how much you use. Would it be alright for a neighbour to tap into your water supply and occasionally use water that you'd be paying for?

I live in a low income area. For a while I allowed my neighbour to share my connection, but changed my mind after both of us together managed to exceed my monthly data allowance within a few days of it being reset a couple of months in a row. A bit of snooping with wireshark revealed that he was doing a lot of torrent downloads. He has since made his own arrangements for an internet connection.

My ISP has recently upgraded its gear to support ADSL2+ (it flys by comparison to the speed I had before), increased my monthly cap, and supplied me with a free replacement modem/router/wifi-access-point, so I might be more agreeable to letting someone share again, but I'd probably set the router to redirect sites such as Pirate Bay to a less dubious location.

Both my wireless access points are set to WPA2


EDIT: 320kbps seems slow, see attached

[smoker]

face the fact, you can dress it up anyway you like for moral justification, but it's stealing.

if i pay £30 a month for internet access, and my neighbour is using my access without permission from me, then as far as i am concerned he is stealing £15 a month from me. if two neighbours are using my connection without permission they are collectively stealing £20 a month from me. if they ask, and are prepared to contribute, then i am happy to share and save money, and save them money also. if they only want to sponge off something i work hard to pay for, then i'll put a stop to it. my network is secure, but whether it is or not is irrelevant, they are still breaking the law if they use my network without permission.

btw, in the uk, if you're suspected of any kind of computer fraud, which may or may not be the case in this debate, you may have your computer equipment confiscated. ianal, so i'm not going to hunt down links on this (any uk lawyers on the forum?), but i am quite sure that most people with wireless access would permit most neighbours to connect if asked, and most would be quite p**sed off if they discovered their network was being used without even that simple curtesy!

[mips]

this thread is indicative at what is wrong with some people in this world.
You know what, the world doesn't owe you anything.

+1

[geekygirl]

GeekyGirl, can you give me a single rational reason that leeching bandwidth for a little while is even REMOTELY like stealing something from someone's house? Honestly. Equate the two.

I was going to say something but why bother..some of us know its wrong, plain and simple and there are others who are trying to justify their actions - which they wouldnt have to if they knew it was right anyway....

[t0p]

Using someone else's wireless connection without permission is "wrong", obviously. Buying fragmentation bombs and paying your servants to drop them on children is also wrong.

I'd say the majority of tax-payers on this forum do the latter. So I'll do what I like and challenge the critics to tell me who made them so damn perfect.

I'd also say that if I left my valuable possessions unprotected in the street, it'd be my own stupid fault if someone came along and stole them. What's so hard about encrypting your wireless connection? Even crappy old WEP will stop 99% of interlopers.

[earthpigg]

my question is this: what the hell gives you people the right to broadcast your unsecured wifi signals into my house?

its dumb that i have to wear my tinfoil hat in my own home in order to keep my thoughts to myself.

i will continue to hijack your unsecured internet and use it to seed porn torrents and top-40 music until you keep your damn wifi on your side of the property line or learn to secure it.

[mips]

my question is this: what the hell gives you people the right to broadcast your unsecured wifi signals into my house?

its dumb that i have to wear my tinfoil hat in my own home in order to keep my thoughts to myself.

i will continue to hijack your unsecured internet and use it to seed porn torrents and top-40 music until you keep your damn wifi on your side of the property line or learn to secure it.

Do you also hack cellphone signals, encrypted cable & sattelite tv etc?

[t0p]

Do you also hack cellphone signals, encrypted cable & sattelite tv etc?

I think you're missing the point. Cellphone signals, cable and satellite TV are encrypted. Unencrypted wireless traffic is unencrypted. The pig guy isn't "hacking" anything.

[fatality_uk]

I think you're missing the point. Cellphone signals, cable and satellite TV are encrypted. Unencrypted wireless traffic is unencrypted. The pig guy isn't "hacking" anything.

With the greatest of respect, I think you/others are missing the point. Encrypted or not, using someone else's wifi broadband connection without permission is theft.

The response that they should know better and that THEY should lock down their wifi is quite frankly ridiculous. As I said before, many people, average users expect their connection to be secure and do not expect/want to have others using what they are paying for. Many broadband wifi users have no idea ho to change from WEP to a stronger encryption method and exploiting that lack of knowledge is no excuse.

[mips]

I suspect there are people here that when they find a wallet lying somewhere they will keep it and not return it.

Right or wrong?

[gn2]

btw, in the uk, if you're suspected of any kind of computer fraud, which may or may not be the case in this debate, you may have your computer equipment confiscated. ianal, so i'm not going to hunt down links on this (any uk lawyers on the forum?),

I'm a former Police Constable (Scotland) will that do?

In the UK, pretty much any article that is used in the pursuance of crime can be confiscated by the Police.

Also "stealing bandwidth" contravenes The Computer Misuse Act 1990 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1990/ukpga_19900018_en_1) as well as the Communications Act 2003 which I linked to previously.

[LaRoza]

I suspect there are people here that when they find a wallet lying somewhere they will keep it and not return it.

Right or wrong?

I am not a lawyer, but there is no law that says you have to return abandoned property that I know of.

If the wallet is returned or attempted to be returned relies on the society. There was a worldwide study about this, and they found a wide variety of behavior based on the culture.

About connecting to open wireless, there are likely laws (as noted in a post above) about connecting to networks that aren't yours, however, I think connecting to a completely unencrypted network would be hard to prosecute. In many cities (including my own) there are public networks that anyone can use.

[gn2]

I suspect there are people here that when they find a wallet lying somewhere they will keep it and not return it.

Right or wrong?

Right, there are those who would keep it.

Under any code of proper morality (and UK law) they would be totally wrong to do so.

[LaRoza]

Right, there are those who would keep it.

Under any code of proper morality (and UK law) they would be totally wrong to do so.

What about a quid on the ground? Is keeping it illegal?

[gn2]

I am not a lawyer, but there is no law that says you have to return abandoned property that I know of.

There is in the UK.

[gn2]

What about a quid on the ground? Is keeping it illegal?

Yes.

Common law crime of theft in Scotland, contravention of the Theft Act in England and Wales.

[LaRoza]

Yes.

Common law crime of theft in Scotland, contravention of the Theft Act in England and Wales.

Somehow, I doubt this...

[gn2]

Somehow, I doubt this...

Doubt all you like but it is fact.

I spent 10 years in UK law enforcement and consider myself reasonably well versed in these matters.

[LaRoza]

Doubt all you like but it is fact.

I spent 10 years in UK law enforcement and consider myself reasonably well versed in these matters.

I am looking it up, and I find there is a lot of subtle legal definitions, so I misinterpreted what you said to a degree.

It seems there is a difference (at least, in the USA) between mislaid property and abandoned. Mislaid property, where it is likely the owner meant to take it, but forgot (like most wallets that are found). Abandoned property is where the owner likely deliberately abandoned it.

I also see propery law in the UK (or England, it isn't very specific) also varies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armory_v._Delamirie

[mips]

I am not a lawyer, but there is no law that says you have to return abandoned property that I know of.

If the wallet is returned or attempted to be returned relies on the society. There was a worldwide study about this, and they found a wide variety of behavior based on the culture.


I'm not looking at this from a legal perspective, more a social values one if I could call it that. But there are places where it would be against the law to keep what you found.

Would be interesting to see that study.

[mips]

What about a quid on the ground? Is keeping it illegal?

Technically yes depending on where you live. Realistically how does one determine who it belongs to. Handing it in to the police/state also does not seem right. I would say put it in your pocket or give it to a beggar/charity.

[gn2]

I am looking it up, and I find there is a lot of subtle legal definitions, so I misinterpreted what you said to a degree.

This might help: Theft Act 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1968)
http://www.police-information.co.uk/legislation/legislationindexsco.html#Theft

[fatality_uk]

In many cities (including my own) there are public networks that anyone can use.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I suspect that you are talking about "public" in it's governmental sense. If a local city council, authority or even a private business provides free wireless access and publicises the fact, there's obviously no issue what so ever.

My problem is with those who seem to think that using a private network, however un-secure it is AND that ISN'T advertised as a free hotspot, is fine. In my opinion, it isn't.

A logical argument, from the viewpoint of those advocating using private, un-secured wireless networks, could be carried forward to say that computers that don't have encryption or adequate security measures and that are available on wireless networks are free to browse. Given the fact some have said that a wifi network un-secured is the owners own responsibility, does that logic carry forward to PC's? If anyone came across a wide open PC on a wireless network, are the files and data on that PC free to browse and possibly use?


Edit: Thanks for the links gn2.


Theft
Definition
Theft is the taking and appropriating of property without the consent of its rightful owner or other lawful authority.

Question. Is a wireless network, secure or not, the property of the bill payer? Yes of course it is.

[dirtylobster]

I like the sofa analogy and that's basically how I look at it.

If I choose to have a sofa down by the sidewalk outside my apartment I think it's fine for people to sit down and rest on it or take an occasional nap but it's NOT fine to paint graffiti/take a crap on it/steal it etc.. Basically I trust the good nature of human beings. Which of course fails in the majority of cases lol.

At the moment I live in a house with the nearest neighbor far out of reach but if I lived in an apartment I'd probably split up my network in two parts; one unsecured network, open for anyone and another (behind NAT), encrypted, for my private use.

I like to travel and I usually bring a laptop and mobile phone with wifi and I love the current situation of being able to connect to the internet for free in most places (in Europe). I prefer it to stay that way. It's easy to create a ssh-secured SOCKS tunnel to your home server if you're worried about security.

As someone said, it's NOT like stealing a car lol.

[LaRoza]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I suspect that you are talking about "public" in it's governmental sense. If a local city council, authority or even a private business provides free wireless access and publicises the fact, there's obviously no issue what so ever.

Yes, I meant it that way. They made it publically accessable on purpose for anyone.



My problem is with those who seem to think that using a private network, however un-secure it is AND that ISN'T advertised as a free hotspot, is fine. In my opinion, it isn't.

A logical argument, from the viewpoint of those advocating using private, un-secured wireless networks, could be carried forward to say that computers that don't have encryption or adequate security measures and that are available on wireless networks are free to browse. Given the fact some have said that a wifi network un-secured is the owners own responsibility, does that logic carry forward to PC's? If anyone came across a wide open PC on a wireless network, are the files and data on that PC free to browse and possibly use?

There are three views of this (for me). Legal. Moral. Technical. Legally, it is wrong. Morally, it is probably wrong. Technically, leaving the network unsecure, is stupid and you should expect the worst and the second part, if something isn't encrypted, you shouldn't expect it to be secure, plain text emails included.

The law doesn't protect people, and one shouldn't expet it to.


I'm not looking at this from a legal perspective, more a social values one if I could call it that. But there are places where it would be against the law to keep what you found.

Would be interesting to see that study.

The study was in reader's digest. Luckily, online (after googling): http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/1997/03/think_01.html

Yes, it would be against the law in some places, however, I think the duty to return varies. Finding a wallet in a store is obvious. Give it to the proper lost and found (or whatever) in the store. People usually only leave wallets in stores by accident and they will likely return to find it. For on the street, looking at the ID or any license will help and you could return it directly, or you could give it to the police. However, finding a dollar on the sidewalk is silly to try to return (unless a dollar has an unusual value), but finding a wad of $1000 should be given to the police (and in some places will be yours if not claimed after some time).




This might help: Theft Act 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1968)
http://www.police-information.co.uk/legislation/legislationindexsco.html#Theft

Thanks.

[fatality_uk]

As someone said, it's NOT like stealing a car lol.

No it's not, and I NEVER said it was. My analogy centred around a car being left open so that the contents were easily accessible to counter those talking about un-secure network being the owners responsibility.

I repeat, if a car is left open, is it right to take from that car, without the owners consent, because they left the vehicle in an un-secure fashion?

[Ripfox]

I wish where I live money was called a "quid" :)

Although I cannot shake the picture of someone walking around with a squid in their pocket.

[gn2]

The law doesn't protect people, and one shouldn't expet it to.

If the law doesn't protect people, just exactly what is it's purpose?

[LaRoza]

There are three views of this (for me). Legal. Moral. Technical. Legally, it is wrong. Morally, it is probably wrong. Technically, leaving the network unsecure, is stupid and you should expect the worst and the second part, if something isn't encrypted, you shouldn't expect it to be secure, plain text emails included.

The law doesn't protect people, and one shouldn't expet it to.



No it's not, and I NEVER said it was. My analogy centred around a car being left open so that the contents were easily accessible to counter those talking about un-secure network being the owners responsibility.

I repeat, if a car is left open, is it right to take from that car, without the owners consent, because they left the vehicle in an un-secure fashion?

Read above ;)

The owners are responsibile for their network to a degree. If they use WEP encryption or less, they shouldn't pretend everyone is honest.

I left the door unlocked last night, which is unusual for me. Did I expect anyone (I didn't expect) to come in? No. My city is pretty safe that way. Would I be legally responsible if someone did come in? No. Would I deserve sympathy for someone coming in and taking my Dell 910? Probably not. No matter the law, it wouldn't change the fact my Dell 910 was taken.

(Hypothetical, that didn't happen of course)

[gn2]

I wish where I live money was called a "quid" :)

Although I cannot shake the picture of someone walking around with a squid in their pocket.

Or even six quid in their pocket.

Last thing you want is a pocket full of squid ink and krill vomit.

[LaRoza]

Although I cannot shake the picture of someone walking around with a squid in their pocket.

You too? I often pointed that out to them.


If the law doesn't protect people, just exactly what is it's purpose?

Several things. First would be punishment for those who break it, although as noted, this doesn't undo the act. Second, deterrance for others, most people would not break the law if they knew what the punishment was. There are other things, but I think those two are the most prominent. Rehabilitation, and others are also goals.

Please don't take my use of the word "protect" to mean that the police do not want to protect people, or that laws are not designed to protect people, but to mean that words don't stop people if they really want to do something.

[LaRoza]

Last thing you want is a pocket full of squid ink and krill vomit.

Experience?

[gn2]

Experience?

Apart from cash, I've only ever had dead squid in my pocket, frozen in a small freezer bag.
Makes a useful bait for fishing.

You are correct that people will always be able to break the law, but the whole reason for the existence of the law is to protect people.

As for the law not protecting people, imagine what life would be like without it.

As an example: slavery.

Made illegal purely to protect people.

[LaRoza]

Apart from cash, I've only ever had dead squid in my pocket, frozen in a small freezer bag.
Makes a useful bait for fishing.

I hope it was small, otherwise, you'd have a hard time explaining the tentacles...



You are correct that people will always be able to break the law, but the whole reason for the existence of the law is to protect people.

The whole reason for the existance of law is to exert power over other people. Many systems do this for protection, but not all.



As for the law not protecting people, imagine what life would be like without it.

Yes, this may be getting political...

However, life without law would result in people with power creating spheres of influence and control, under their own power and protection. In essence, the exact same thing that people fear will happen, has already happened.



As an example: slavery.

Made legal for money.



Made illegal purely to protect people.
That would depend on the location I think.

[gn2]

LaRoza, you have some very jaundiced and cynical views for one so young. :(

[LaRoza]

LaRoza, you have some very jaundiced and cynical views for one so young. :(

Not really, just realistic.

In my city, laws usually protect people and provide recourse for wrongs against people and property, however, I realise not all laws are like this, and not all the time.

Sandford, for all it seemed, turned out to be ugly beneath the surface (Hot Fuzz). That is what society is like. Nice and friendly when it is for their interests, and hostile when it is not.

I don't see human governments as written in stone. They are very fluid and unplanned, often resulting is single events.

If I left my purse/wallet somewhere by accident, I wouldn't be suprised to have it returned (I've done that before, and got it back).

[smoker]

I'm a former Police Constable (Scotland) will that do?

In the UK, pretty much any article that is used in the pursuance of crime can be confiscated by the Police.

Also "stealing bandwidth" contravenes The Computer Misuse Act 1990 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1990/ukpga_19900018_en_1) as well as the Communications Act 2003 which I linked to previously.

thanks for that, i thought as much, and i'm sure i've read about people's computer equipment being confiscated for anything related to misuse, minor though it may seem to some people.

what gets me is the fact that so many seem to think it is perfectly alright just to take, and not ask first. maybe i'm turning into a 'grumpy old man!' :confused:

[fatality_uk]

maybe i'm turning into a 'grumpy old man!' :confused:

Join the club! :) GOMOUF

Grumpy
Old
Men
On
Ubuntu
Forums

[smoker]

Join the club! :) GOMOUF

Grumpy
Old
Men
On
Ubuntu
Forums

maybe we'll get our own sub-forum :)
:lolflag:

[LaRoza]

maybe we'll get our own sub-forum :)


All set up: http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=69

[smoker]

All set up: http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=69


Showing threads 0 to 0 of 0 Moderators : 37

aren't the mods overworked enough there?:)

[gn2]

what gets me is the fact that so many seem to think it is perfectly alright just to take, and not ask first. maybe i'm turning into a 'grumpy old man!' :confused:

I blame the {political reference deleted}, specifically the {political reference deleted} years.

Social disintegration during the Industrial Revolution is discussed here by two very learned history professors: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd03JCA

As for G.O.M.O.U.F, that's me that is.

[Lostincyberspace]

I don't know if this has been brought up, but using unsecured wifi is not really stealing, its like using the bathroom in some ones house. At least here in the US where band width caps are generally uncommon. Most of the time you should ask, but if the person is not there and you just need to get some thing done they will most likely be fine or won't care in the least. This might not be the same for you Aussies though since cap's are notoriously hard down there.

[gn2]

It's definitely theft in the UK.

I pay £22.50 for an ADSL service with a download limit of 26gb per month.

Data above that is charged at £1.50 per gigabyte.

I also have to rent a phone line at £10 per month to receive my ADSL service.

Anyone uses my service, they're stealing from me.

[LaRoza]

It's definitely theft in the UK.

I pay £22.50 for an ADSL service with a download limit of 26gb per month.

Data above that is charged at £1.50 per gigabyte.

I also have to rent a phone line at £10 per month to receive my ADSL service.

Anyone uses my service, they're stealing from me.

That is a possible difference. We don't typically have limits like that, so the most problematic issue would be if it was eating up bandwidth.

[Dr Small]

I don't know if this has been brought up, but using unsecured wifi is not really stealing, its like using the bathroom in some ones house. At least here in the US where band width caps are generally uncommon. Most of the time you should ask, but if the person is not there and you just need to get some thing done they will most likely be fine or won't care in the least. This might not be the same for you Aussies though since cap's are notoriously hard down there.
I wonder if water for the toilets is a problem for them too :p

[xpod]

maybe i'm turning into a 'grumpy old man!'

Just an old foggie i get told by the kids.:)

This threads got me thinking about the big trampoline & swings we have out in the back garden.Many in this thread seem to think it would ok for the neighbours & Co just to pop in and make use of the things whenever the feeling takes them,just because it`s there.The trampoline itself is a big ole thing after all and is clearly visible.In fact it`s quite possibly a bit of an eyesore for some,invading their lines of sight as it were.
I suppose i should really secure the back garden and put some big ole lock on the side gate access if i really want to keep them out.

That`s probably as bad an analogy as the others in the thread but the principle is just the same.If you want to use it,ask.If you dont ask then never mind the legalities of it all ...your being an a-hole and if i was to catch you on our unsecured trampoline then boy you better have a bloody good excuse.

[gn2]

I can see it now....

C.U. get aff meh effing trampaline relsall pitranutoanye!

[seatex]

... if some one is silly enough to leave it open then its fair game.

Ditto.

[xpod]

I can see it now....

C.U. get aff meh effing trampaline relsall pitranutoanye!

"or else"???:)

After ten stretch down here the accents no quite that bad now:)

[pp.]

its like using the bathroom in some ones house.

Back when we were allowed to discuss 'other' things, there have been gun threads on and off. Most of the pro-gun people were quite explicit about meeting uninvited people in their homes and what they would do to them with respect to their guns.

So I take it that using someone's bandwidth is a capital offense for those people?

[fatality_uk]

I don't know if this has been brought up, but using unsecured wifi is not really stealing, its like using the bathroom in some ones house.

Man when some folks ae wrong, they are way, way off.

[xpod]

I don't know if this has been brought up, but using unsecured wifi is not really stealing, its like using the bathroom in some ones house.

I would have thought that most people would ask to use the bathroom in someone else`s house.

[Frak]

IIRC, in the United States, the FCC ruled that unsecured WiFi is open to the public by implication. This is somewhat of the idea of FON (for which I am a Linus, and you can come use my WiFi anytime you want.)

Anyways, CableONE caps my speed by half after I DL 2GB within the hours of 12PM-12AM. I go from 400KB/s to 200KB/s, but I don't mind.

[fatality_uk]

IIRC, in the United States, the FCC ruled that unsecured WiFi is open to the public by implication. This is somewhat of the idea of FON (for which I am a Linus, and you can come use my WiFi anytime you want.)

Anyways, CableONE caps my speed by half after I DL 2GB within the hours of 12PM-12AM. I go from 400KB/s to 200KB/s, but I don't mind.

I REALLY doubt that the FCC would make such an announcement. That would be tantamount to condoning theft, which, unless my US Law is a little rusty, is still a crime!

From the FON web site:

FON is secure With 2 secure signals. One private and one only for FON Members.
http://www.fon.com/en/info/security

PLUS FON is a subscription service, i.e. FON knows who is allowed to surf and who isn't. ergo NOT AN OPEN FREELOADER SERVICE

[init1]

IIRC, in the United States, the FCC ruled that unsecured WiFi is open to the public by implication. This is somewhat of the idea of FON (for which I am a Linus, and you can come use my WiFi anytime you want.)

Anyways, CableONE caps my speed by half after I DL 2GB within the hours of 12PM-12AM. I go from 400KB/s to 200KB/s, but I don't mind.
Over here, I get 200KB/s 24/7. I thought that was normal until I went somewhere else and was getting 1MB/s download

[Frak]

I REALLY doubt that the FCC would make such an announcement. That would be tantamount to condoning theft, which, unless my US Law is a little rusty, is still a crime!

From the FON web site:

http://www.fon.com/en/info/security

PLUS FON is a subscription service, i.e. FON knows who is allowed to surf and who isn't. ergo NOT AN OPEN FREELOADER SERVICE
How you see theft, and how we see theft are two different views.

As for FON, people can connect to my router, they have to pay FON to do so. They can also connect to my network, which is basically named OPEN.

[LaRoza]

So I take it that using someone's bandwidth is a capital offense for those people?

No, intrusion into homes is interpreted as hostile by default in some jurisdictions unless the intent is clear of course. This has to be physical. See? Physical defense, physical threat.

[smoker]

seems to me there are plenty of public toilets and no laws in some countries, in the uk, there are maybe too many laws, and definitely too few public loos :-)

[lisati]

It's definitely theft in the UK.

I pay £22.50 for an ADSL service with a download limit of 26gb per month.

Data above that is charged at £1.50 per gigabyte.

I also have to rent a phone line at £10 per month to receive my ADSL service.

Anyone uses my service, they're stealing from me.

I pay something like $NZ99 together for my phone line and ADSL service (the ISP I use is also the main TelCo in the area). The ADSL service equates to something like $NZ50 per month and has a 10Gb monthly cap before they throttle it back to "dial-up" speed. This equates to something like $5/gigabytes. I'm not sure of the exact exchange rates but guess that it would be something like 1.33 UK pounds (now where's the proper symbol?) or $us2.50 per gigabyte

[LaRoza]

in the uk, there are maybe too many laws, and definitely too few public loos :-)

In the USA, we don't make people hold it.

[init1]

Edit: double post

[Frak]

Edit: double post
What ISP?

[init1]

What ISP?
Cox

[Frak]

Cox
Hmm... haven't heard much about them (heard about them, had em once, haven't heard about them again afterward).

[SomeGuyDude]

I REALLY doubt that the FCC would make such an announcement. That would be tantamount to condoning theft, which, unless my US Law is a little rusty, is still a crime!

Once again, it's NOT theft because your router is BROADCASTING.

If I'm sitting in MY house and YOUR router is broadcasting a wireless signal into MY home, then you're implicitly sending it to me. Now, if I open up your side window and jam a cable into your modem and hook it up to my machine, then you could call it "theft".

But if I'm in my living room and see an open network, you absolutely cannot call me a thief for hooking up to it. If anything, you're invading my house with your wireless signal.

[klange]

I keep an open network because I'm forced to by the myriad of devices I have in my house (stuff that masks MAC addresses, stuff that I can't enter WPA2 keys into, etc. etc.). With that, I always have one person that keeps trying to get on, but I've developed a number of ways of dealing with them, usually by shutting it off at odd times, and more recently setting up a captive portal on my WiFi that only I can access. It's fun, actually. If they can get on and will take the time to combat my measures then they deserve passage.

[Frak]

I have two routers. One is my LaFONera, the other is my Netgear, for which broadcasts an OPEN channel, but is heavily throttled and blocks certain sites. I have my own gateway using WPA-PSK2, Hidden ESSID, and MAC filtering.

Shame I only connect through a physical cord. Haven't taken the time to setup my wireless card (broadcom something by Linksys. Macs pick it up as an airport card by default.)

[Daishiman]

This "using an open wifi-spot is stealing" position is becoming a little fundamentalist.

There are different degrees of "stealing", for one. All the sensationalist analogies that are being made in a very darn inexact manner, as they don't really reflect the normal use and operation of these devices.

Radio waves are not physical property. This is a fact in every conceivable aspect. Radio devices generally produce and must be able to deal with interference and they all operate in a similar, albeit regulated, space. Ask any ham radio operator or telecommunications engineer and you'll see that the concepts of what's acceptable in that area are substantially different.

Now, it seems some of the UKers have explained that their legislation prohibits the access of open wi-fi spots. This seems to me like a completely ridiculous concept. The moment you have an open wifi showing its ESSID you're telling all electronic items around you "you may connect and access this device". This is explicit to the point that devices, even in places which supposedly consider it illegal, connect automatically, and it is a socially acceptable norm to use those connections.

If an operator does not wish to allow others to use the device, he can simply enable encryption. If the operator is too ignorant, honestly, it's his problem. You bought and use electronic equipment, you should be responsible for it.
You're not excused from breaking stuff with your car because you don't know how to use it. Every router you can acquire commercially has a brief manual that explains things so easily that a 10-year old child can do it.
Moreover, if allowing other devices to connect to an AP is not an explicit permission, the just WHAT is? Believe it or not in many places there's a lot of open APs because their owners want it that way, and I don't feel that they should suffer the consequences of the willfully technologically-ignorant.

If a bandwidth cap is so critical for you, why the heck do you even bother with an open AP? How hard is it to mark a check box that says 'use WAP2'?

Despite disliking it, I'll make a physical analogy: an open Wi-Fi spot is like putting a water fountain in your sidewalk with a sign that says 'free drink here'. People have every expectation of being able to drink from it. Obviously if you attach a hose to it you can expect the cops to come for you (and believe me, if you generate white noise in the wi-fi spectrum they will find you), but if you really had a problem with other people using you could've easily built it inside.

We can consider it reasonable to arrest a person who drives over next to your house to leech torrents for the same reason you throw people out of public building when they make a ruckus or destroy property: they are abusing the service being offered by someone in a way that limits its owner and other users. That is clear in the same way that water is unmetered in many places yet you don't leave the faucet on 24 hours a day.

However, having a tight bandwidth to the point where you can't even let someone check their email for fear of going overboard is not something that I, as a user of an open network, should be expected to know, much in the same way that if you land on an unknown town to use a restroom and you weren't informed that there's a severe drought and everything looks normal you wouldn't think twice about washing your hands.

I don't think this is an issue that can't be solved by common sense. Common sense would dictate that if you have an open AP you can bear the brunt of normal internet usage. If you have a bandwidth cap you can simply not enable it and let people live. Your ISP isn't going to excuse your bill because you didn't know you had to pay up for overcharge. In the same manner a device has no way of knowing whether it can connect to your AP unless you disallow it, and I have no reason to ask whether I can use a restroom in a public building or sit down in a public park. In fact in my jurisdiction if you have a place of business open to the public you may use their restroom facilities (bear in mind there are hardly any public restrooms here).

Ultimately, you control the device, but not the waves. You can't let others know the intent of the radiation they generate, but you can control what goes through it and you are expected to be able to use it sensibly.

[Squid Tamer]

If I ever use open wifi, I try to reduce the amount I send/receive. That means pressing the no-images button.

I don't agree that it's okay because they broadcast the signals into your house, because you actually connected. It's not OK to steal a car even if it has "STEAL ME" written on it.

I equate wifi to money I find in the street. It's still legally owned by someone (maybe?), but it's still yours to take. If it had some kind of protection (equates to password), any boundary at all, such as a car or a yard or a bank, it's not legal to take it.

Either way, I'll keep stealin' it till some law says I can't.

[iwc5893]

I REALLY doubt that the FCC would make such an announcement. That would be tantamount to condoning theft, which, unless my US Law is a little rusty, is still a crime!

From the FON web site:

http://www.fon.com/en/info/security

PLUS FON is a subscription service, i.e. FON knows who is allowed to surf and who isn't. ergo NOT AN OPEN FREELOADER SERVICE

But it's not explicity illegal everywhere in the United States, therefore it is legal in those areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking

[nixscripter]

Since the ethics, metaphors, and laws have all been thoroughly discussed, I'll just add two things to see if I can steer the discussion in a less adversarial direction.

1. At a cafe near where I live is an open wireless network, designed to be a public access point. However, it's too open: the router is set up for default everything. I connected, and just on a hunch, tried the configuration web interface. Sure enough, it was set to the default admin password. Being a good citzen, I told a waitress that I could hack their network in theory, here's how, and their tech guy needed to fix that. She thanked me with a rather odd look on her face, and wrote something down on a piece of paper. I was glad of what I had done: I had fixed a potential security problem for a buisness, out of the spirit of good will.

A week later, nothing had changed. The point, mentioned earlier: if an expert holds up a big sign saying "security hole here" and (almost literally) waves it in the face of someone non-technical, nothing happens, despite the best of intentions on both sides.

2. I would make the simple observation that wireless access point manufacturers could take a simple, great step to making this entire discussion irrelevant: enable encryption by default. Some do that, but then they have a default key. My suggestion: put one more EEPROM in the darn things, and have the factory program it with a default encryption passphrase based on the device serial number.

The manual would then read: "step 1, plug it in. Step 2, connect to the secure network called 'niftytech' with a password of the first four digits of the serial number, written on the back of this book." This way, I wouldn't have a clue what the password was for all NiftyTech routers by buying one NiftyTech router. It would also avoid the most common reason I believe that open networks appear in the first place: the user doesn't read the manual, they plug it in, and "it works! Yay! I'm done!" This would make them RTFM by avoiding this false positive use case.

The only argument I can think of as to why this isn't being done is that they are too cheap to put in the extra chip (and the factory infrastructure to program it). I think it's worth the expense, even to their customers.

EDIT: One of the Netgear model routers, I forget which one, actually requires setup to be done over the wire first and disables wireless entirely. I consider that a partial solution, one worthy of emulation, since the "encrypt my network" checkbox is right next to "enable wireless" checkbox.

[pp.]

No, intrusion into homes is interpreted as hostile by default in some jurisdictions unless the intent is clear of course. This has to be physical. See? Physical defense, physical threat.

I see indeed. I was answering someone's argument that using bandwidth not your own was 'like' using a toilet not your own. Using a toilet usually is physical.

[fatality_uk]

seems to me there are plenty of public toilets and no laws in some countries, in the uk, there are maybe too many laws, and definitely too few public loos :-)

Im with you on the level of public loo provision! :lolflag:

[earthpigg]

here is a question:

if i am a computer novice, how am i supposed to know the difference between an intended vs unintended wifi hotspot?

by default, Johnny Noobcakes laptop connects to whatever wireless connection it can find. he has no idea how to configure it. J. Noobcakes has no idea how it is even possible to check if it is his neighbor on one side, or the cafe that he frequents on the other.

all he knows is that his wifi sometimes connects to "linksys211" and sometimes it connects to "linksys1".

[fatality_uk]

here is a question:

if i am a computer novice, how am i supposed to know the difference between a secured vs un-secured wifi service?

by default, Johnny Noobcakes wifi router is setup to pre-configured settings. he has no idea how to configure it. J. Noobcakes has no idea how it is even possible to check if his wifi is secure.

all he knows is that, following the instructions given to him by the ISP, his wifi auto connects to his home network correctly. However, despite low useage, online web surfing just 1 hour a night, every month he pays a penalty fee of £15 for going over his 3gb limit.

[BugenhagenXIII]

If there is a unsecure wifi signal, and I connect to it (without physically asking the owner, or ever even meething them), there isn't anything legally wrong with it (or, rather, there shouldn't be...I have no idea about the laws regarding this). By definition of wifi, when I attempt to connect to the network, my computer asks permission, and the router/acces point/whatever decides whether or not to give me that permission. If it's unencrypted it just gives the permission automatically. So if you connect to an unencrypted wifi, you, by definition, have permission.

That said, I don't believe it is morally right to piggy-back internet that way, but I also don't believe it should be illegal.

[fatality_uk]

i'll stop poking my stick into the beehive now :lol:

[ZankerH]

here is a question:

if i am a computer novice, how am i supposed to know the difference between a secured vs un-secured wifi service?

If you're a computer novice, rtfm. If you're a computer novice and unwilling to learn about your computer, you deserve everything you get, from people jacking your wifi to every salesman who realises you're clueless proceeding to rip you off.

[rosv]

I wouldn't do it. But then again, I wear a tin foil hat most of the time

[gn2]

I wouldn't do it. But then again, I wear a tin foil hat most of the time

These days with the number of mind control beams that are about the tinfoil hat is essential, even indoors now since the next gen ones can penetrate buildings.

[lunarcloud]

http://blogs.computerworld.com/why_its_ok_to_steal_wi_fi

If you don't secure your wireless or your tech doesn't explain security, then it's your/his fault. I always explain/ask my clients about wireless security.

Some of my clients opt to keep it open.

Your router is the gatekeeper, you are a ****** lord if you don't know your castle gates are open.

[lunarcloud]

I keep an open network because I'm forced to by the myriad of devices I have in my house (stuff that masks MAC addresses, stuff that I can't enter WPA2 keys into, etc. etc.). With that, I always have one person that keeps trying to get on, but I've developed a number of ways of dealing with them, usually by shutting it off at odd times, and more recently setting up a captive portal on my WiFi that only I can access. It's fun, actually. If they can get on and will take the time to combat my measures then they deserve passage.

You should just block his mac address.

Yea, there are some really stupid wifi devices around, though i thought they all accepted at least WEP.

[oomingmak]

i believe under uk law i'm still innocent until proven guilty!
Er ... where have you been for the last few years?

The presumption of innocence is SO last century.

:wink:

[gn2]

Now, it seems some of the UKers have explained that their legislation prohibits the access of open wi-fi spots. This seems to me like a completely ridiculous concept.

It doesn't, you just have to have permission.


Offences relating to networks and services
125 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services

(1) A person who—

(a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and

(b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,

is guilty of an offence.

(2) It is not an offence under this section to obtain a service mentioned in section 297(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48 ) (dishonestly obtaining a broadcasting or cable programme service provided from a place in the UK).

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.

Source: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/ukpga_20030021_en_13

[fatality_uk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7697898.stm

[Caps18]

I don't have a problem with it. It sounds like the police and providers do because it makes tracking down people harder. And they think that if every access point was secure they could get more money.

I'm waiting for the point and click program to defeat WEP/WPA passwords. I'm surprised it hasn't been written yet. All of the backend programs are there, there just needs to be some logic to figure out the best way to run the programs to get the key.

I can go less than a mile to the mall or Panera's to get a free open wifi connection, and have used it a few times. Even if I couldn't get it at my house, I still wouldn't pay the companies that control it. Not until I can be anonymous, can roam anywhere, can download whatever, and it's cheap. This is one of those things that the government could setup for a one-time fee and everyone could get service if they used the new technology.

[macogw]

thats a really bad comparason, when setting up a wireless network, you should password protect it, if you dont then your inviting people to connect

Lies. Passwords and encryption exist to keep people from sniffing your packets and getting your passwords that way. Someone not putting a password doesn't make it "ok" for you to connect to their network. That's only the case if it says "Public" or some such in the title or when you've got a cafe advertising "Free WiFi" and an ESSID for their network.

When I use unencrypted wifi, I use a VPN client so that my traffic is nice and encrypted. I don't want anyone sniffing my data.

[lisati]

here is a question:

if i am a computer novice, how am i supposed to know the difference between a secured vs un-secured wifi service?

by default, Johnny Noobcakes wifi router is setup to pre-configured settings. he has no idea how to configure it. J. Noobcakes has no idea how it is even possible to check if his wifi is secure.

all he knows is that, following the instructions given to him by the ISP, his wifi auto connects to his home network correctly. However, despite low useage, online web surfing just 1 hour a night, every month he pays a penalty fee of £15 for going over his 3gb limit.

The new ADSL modem/wifi & ethernet router I recently received FREE from my ISP (http://telecom.co.nz/modemoffer) came secured by default with what appears to be a key customized for each device......unfortunately there wasn't a user guide with it (contrary to the claims on the box) so personalizing its settings could have been problematical, but a few minutes on Google tracked one down in PDF form.

[xpod]

http://torrentfreak.com/isp-disconnects-customers-with-open-wifi-081102/

Leave it open and have some leech downloading his torrents & porn or have your ISP cut you off.

[oomingmak]

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/11/05/uk-isp-cuts-punters-open-wifi (http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/11/05/uk-isp-cuts-punters-open-wifi)


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/30/wi_fi_arrest/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/30/wi_fi_arrest/)

[t0p]

You're a dollar short of the bus fare home. It's late, and the distance home is too far to walk.

You see a dollar on the ground. No one else seems remotely interested in the money.

Are you going to pick up that buck and get the bus home? Or are you going to leave it, and spend the night trying to sleep under a bush somewhere because it isn't your money?

[gn2]

You're a dollar short of the bus fare home. It's late, and the distance home is too far to walk.

You see a dollar on the ground. No one else seems remotely interested in the money.

Are you going to pick up that buck and get the bus home? Or are you going to leave it, and spend the night trying to sleep under a bush somewhere because it isn't your money?

Ride the bus as far as your money will take you and walk the rest.
A dollar's worth can't be far surely?

[mips]

You're a dollar short of the bus fare home. It's late, and the distance home is too far to walk.

You see a dollar on the ground. No one else seems remotely interested in the money.

Are you going to pick up that buck and get the bus home? Or are you going to leave it, and spend the night trying to sleep under a bush somewhere because it isn't your money?

You would pick it up, it's pointless trying to return it to it's rightful owner as it would be almost impossible.

[LaRoza]

Ride the bus as far as your money will take you and walk the rest.
A dollar's worth can't be far surely?

Um, busses don't work that way.

And picking it up is fine.

I know people who take the bus for only a matter of blocks. Why do they do that? Because they have physical problems and cannot walk the distance (my city has a lot of hills, some are quite steep).

It costs $1.25 per ride.

[pp.]

There are also bus systems where a short distance (four stops) costs $2 and an additional 8 or so stops cost $0.5 more.

[LaRoza]

There are also bus systems where a short distance (four stops) costs $2 and an additional 8 or so stops cost $0.5 more.

Considering that the bus stops at every corner, that seems overkill...

Perhaps it is only marked bus stops?

A route is the unit I think, that is charged, by my county's busses.

[pp.]

Considering that the bus stops at every corner, that seems overkill...

Perhaps it is only marked bus stops?

What I had in mind was an overland bus with several hundred meters up to a (very) few kilometers between stops. Once I think about it, a similar pricing scheme applies to quite a few urban traffic systems hereabouts. One of my favorites jokes used to be about which seat or wheel I could keep after the ride for the price I had to pay.

[gn2]

Um, busses don't work that way.

They do where I live.
Once upon a time I used to drive them and take the fares.
Buses like these:

http://glasgowtransport.co.uk/bus22.jpg

[Frak]

Um, busses don't work that way.

And picking it up is fine.

I know people who take the bus for only a matter of blocks. Why do they do that? Because they have physical problems and cannot walk the distance (my city has a lot of hills, some are quite steep).

It costs $1.25 per ride.
I don't recall the cube having many hills... a lot of wires, yes, but no hills...