WiFi piggybacking illegal?!?

Has anyone read about this wifi stealing case:
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49292380,00.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6958429.stm

I personnally think its up to the owner to secure it otherwise how does a roaming system know the difference between a public hotspot and a private network. After all, most systems are set to automatically connect to any available network. Network client software and windows gives plenty of warning about the need for securing it when installing the system anyway, so i firmly believe its public candy unless it is secured. Somebody mentioned in the article that is nonsense! As no property is really being stolen, as the person is on a flat fee anyway, and if they dont want to share bandwidth then they need to lock it to prevent computers from automatically stumbling into it.
Its the same with private land, unless you put a sign up, put a fence around it and/or lock gates, you cannot expect to convict someone of trespassing! I reckon as its conclusion says, very cheeky yes, crime no. and i bet its something all wifi laptop owners here have done at some stage wether intentional or not. The law needs to be very careful how it convicts this case. Im not saying its ok to break into a network, snatching wep keys etc, as this -IS- hacking and is illegal. - fair enough. Think of it this way (many people do), if you were standing in the street and someone had a garden light on illuminating the street and you used that light to help you with something, would that be stealing? They are paying for the light and you are using it without their permission.

What do you guys think?

[Edit]----------------------------------------------------------------
JUST SO IM CLEAR, IM NOT SAYING WHAT THIS GUY DID IS RIGHT (as so many of you seem to think!) Im merely trying to discuss a possible problem with the rules and regulations regarding networks with no restrictons or warnings.

If you remember several years ago, a hacker got off because the system had "welcome to the network"(or something) on a dial in service. The hacker recieved no messages telling him he sould not be there and no attempt to stop access via logins or passwords. Which is why every network now carries an "Authorized persons only" message and/or a secure login.

My argument is the law should be more clear in respect to how far you are allowed to go before you are 'digitally trespassing', especially in the realm of wireless networks.

I have never once in the bleow posts stated that blatant taking over of someones connection all the time for heavy internet use is ok or that i think it should be made legal. Just clearer boundaries over to what you can or cannot connect to.
Say you are waiting for a bus and each time you are at the bus stop, your roaming PDA connects by itself to the nearest wifi point (which was the original design of wifi devices) and starts downloading a ton of stuff via email, every day. How do you disprove or they prove you are not repeatedly targeting their connection?

As flameduck said somewhere below im more worried about the near future.
Weather we like it or not and there is going to have to be some proper rules drawn up to stop people breaking the law by simply walking down the street with automatically connecting devices that envitably send/recieve packets over the connection. Relying simply on "reasonable exceptions" is not good a enough, they need something more solid.

The whole idea of wi-fi by design of both HW and software is to be able to connect wirelessly to the nearest fixed unlocked access point (or locked IF it has the key). But the future also has provisions for people to connect via a multitude of hotspots (already happening in many cities around the world), which mabe soon become so common as to be like mobile phone coverage, that would need a hell of a lot of 'wifi signs'.

What kind of problems would this create? - This is my argument, not wether this guy was right in freeloading in that way, (no! hes a cheap git who needs a slap), i just dont understand how it can be criminalised when there are such confused, irresponsible and negligent attitudes towards simple security. Which will obviously seriously impair the expansion of the 'sponsored free wifi' idea of fully automatic roaming (like the way a phone attaches to the nearest cell).

I mean, do you share your bank details with people, would you like your account to have free access? why else do we have SIM cards? PIN numbers? Passwords? WEP & PSK? Thats all im saying and thats my argument, is that its a law with a double standard. I dont want something for nothing, i pay for all my software & services i use unless it is indeed free. I certainly dont have an everything for nothing attitude. What i am trying to say about the users responsibility is true though, look at car security. If you leave your car unlocked, doors open, and the engine running you probably wont have much sympathy from anyone, not the police, your wife or more importantly the insurers. Regardless of weather the guy who nicked it is a criminal, they would blame YOU! (even though they world arrest and charge the offender, and rightly so).

Wouldnt it be cheaper and easier (before the s hits the fan) to simply educate rather than prosecute in the first place, and make any wi-fi point not giving out any indication that its private, provision to be assumed public??
This way there is no grey area, its either restricted or it isnt.

I agree completlet. It's really the fault of the manufacturers for not setting the WEP protection as being on by default.

It's like selling a car that doesn't need to be locked unless you set it to.

It's also the fault of the owner of the router for not setting encryption himself.

I had the encryption turned off on my router a while back and found someone had been connecting and really slowing down my connection. I didn't blame them for it, or even try to find out who they were, I just turned WEP on and got with things.

They really do blow these things out of proportion, it's also another example of technology stories being reported by people that really don't have a clue what they're talking about.

The guy obviously has got a crap lawyer as he could just site all the times hackers have been let off the hook because they were not challenged or warned off upon entry to the system (in relation to the trespass reason above)
If you access a website (or publicaly available network) without needing a password or other security, with no messages warning of restricted access, its owner cannot sue you for using his private web bandwidth by visiting the site can he? It seems the latest government has passed yet another badly thought out law (add that to the 1000s of badly thought out new ones) without thinking of the consequences.

I've never been able to get secure wireless working properly - no matter what the operating system or router, once WEP has been activated (and the correct passkeys entered everywhere), no hardware would communicate with the router.

Instead, I go by MAC address - and yes, I do know it can be spoofed. However the chances of anyone coming along and doing so when I've got it active is pretty remote.

I, personally, have no real problem if someone else used the wireless connection. I check my ISP's usage regularlly anyway, so could always kick them off if need be.

It should be noted that I dont actually use Wireless much - I find it way too slow for gaming, and instead use a 1000Mbps wired network.

"I do know it can be spoofed"
Ah but that would require hacking, a deliberate intrusion. Thats not the same as someones PC simply stumbling accross your unsecure network and automatically connecting to it. And the user saying:
"oooh! my wifi just connected to a hotspot!, i think ill check my mail and browse a bit"

Its clearly theft, using the earlier example...if i choose not to lock my car it doesn't give anyone the right to take it. If 1 person pays for something and someone else takes it, its theft.

So by your reckoning, if you rented a flat and went away on holiday for a couple of weeks, it would fine for me to use it while you're away, without your permission?

No it wouldnt. However, if i was stupid enough to leave the door 'unlocked and open', you did not mess it up or damage anything you would probably have squatters rights, The authorities would remove you on my return, but if you went peacefully and apologetically then you would probably not even be chargeable.

I dont see how it can be if there is nothing to indicate that it is private property and you are not resorting to hacking in any way. If there is no safeguards against access, its the same with trespass on land, someone has paid for that but you could use it, not knowing.

For example, if i was sat in a fully public hotspot but my wireless decided to connect to some dumbasses unsecure wireless on the other side of the road instead, then how can i possibly be breaking the law?
Especially if i was not aware my PC was even connected.

They should make a legal provision right now that any unsecure wireless connection point is public domain, otherwise you could have a lot of totally innocent individuals falling foul of it.

Not everyone is on a flat-rate, no-limits monthly fee. Some still have to pay extra if their monthly limit is exceeded, or in some other way end up in trouble with their ISP.

I agree with that, though - as long as there's no malicious activity.

You also don't know what the other person is downloading. What if it's kiddy porn, or something, and the cops come knocking at YOUR door? :/

Exactly my point, which is why it should be secured.

Anyone who does not keep a secure wireless network and especially on pay-per-meg is dumb. Its the equivalent of opening your bedroom window and throwing money into the street shouting "here you go, free money!". (would a judge convict anyone of picking that up? Probably not as it would be being 'given away')

Your rights to your own property are not contingent on how well you secure that property. Maybe your neighbour has a few outdoor power points, so what you should do is buy a few really long extension cables, jump the fence and plug them in, then reap the rewards of free electricity! It's his stupid fault for not putting a lock over the top of them!

With WiFi, someone else is paying for it, and you're using it without their permission, which is stealing. It doesn't matter that they're so lame it's still called "Linksys" and doesn't even have WEP on, let alone WPA. I can see the case of some people not knowing any better and the computer just connecting, but unfortunately for them ignorance is not a defense.

Not the same thing at all, as it would be pretty impossible to do this accidentaly and you would be trespassing to get to it as well.

The case may be different however if you set up an extension lead running off your property onto public land and left it mounted to a tree with a sign saying "Unsecured powerpoint!" then im sure you would not be able to blame or even sue someone for plugging something into it. (Or even if you were successful this would hardly be fair justice as you practically invited them in) Especially if their plug jumped into it automatically by itself.

Dont get me wrong, I believe 100% full-time leeching is moraly wrong, i just dont see how it can be illegal. I pay for my internet, i have a 100Mbit hardwire connection to the net and WPA security on my router which i allow my neighbour to use sometimes. However on the RARE occasion i am out with my laptop in a park or something, i get a signal and my laptop connects itself to a network then i will use it, simple as that. Im not nicking anything (no pay-per-meg here) and i certainly don't feel guilty for it. I believe if the host doesn't want me there they would close the door (as pointed out above ignorance is no defense).

I view it as being more analogous to someone showing a movie on the side of their house and you can see it. Which I don't call theft. Someone checking their email on your wifi isn't stealing anything.

When I got my router I figured that my 2 neighbours (either side) have a combined age of 4 million, so it'll be okay just to leave it! :)

But if they somewhat die and a new lot move in, I'll look into it then. :D

Dabz

Oh No! I connected to Burger King network and googled something? Am i going to die?

It will probably be considered a terrorist act.

At least he didn't rev his engine in a racist manner.

He didn't take it. The Internet connection is obviously still there, just working slower. It would be more analogous to power skateboarding. Which (while dangerous) is not to my knowledge illegal.

An Internet connection is not your private property. It is the property of your ISP. Most ISPs have contracts called "Terms of service" which outline how you're allowed to use their Internet connection. In my case for instance they stipulate that *I* am responsible for all traffic from my network and that the task of securing the network is *MY* responsibility. I suspect most ISPs have similar clauses in their Terms of Service, and that it truly is your responsibility to make sure no unauthorized access occurs.

Not in a legal sense. According to English law: "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". Most countries have similar laws, meaning that using a random unsecured accesspoint (public or private) is not illegal.

exactly, which is why this arrest is madness. And opens the door for more, very complicated madness.
This could in effect threaten the real public free wi-fi hotspots in general:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4721723.stm

Basically the police have the power to walk up to anyone using a laptop in public and demand to know exactly what their doing with it?? Police state here we come.

Im glad i moved overseas.

> Oh No! I connected to Burger King network and googled something? Am i going to die?

If being at Burger Kind does not kill you then nothing will.

> "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"

They are also guilty of theft even if they intend on giving it back before it was noticed missing - so this quote is far from entirely accurate. Modern law is a heck of a lot more convoluted. Theft is generally considered to be taking or using something you have not paid for, regardless of motive, with a billion and one exceptions for every billion people.

In the same way that the electricity supplied to your house is not your property? Or your phone line? That's why I provided the stealing power example, because essentially it's the same idea. As long as someone else is footing the bill for your activity, it's theft. If you don't want to think of the network access itself as theft, then think of the dollars your downloads might be adding to someone's bill. As for it not being physical property, that's irrelevant, as by your actions you're depriving someone from full access to something they're paying for. You should know by now that under common-law theft hasn't been required to be respecting to a physical item for a long time.

What's the difference between this and stealing satellite TV then, apart from the fact it's some scary media mogul lawyer goon in one situation and computer illiterate Aunt Melba in the other? They broadcast satellite freely, and it's their fault the encryption is so bad/non-existant. Yeah knock yourself out on that one.

What I find so ridiculous about this argument you guys are trying to spin up, is that we're on a forum of programmers and content producers where the same argument should apply to the products we produce. You've failed to protect your program adequately, so I can just take it. I'm not stealing it really because it's not actually depriving you of it. How was I to know that downloading a game from Pirate Bay was illegal? I thought because it was on the internet and publically accessible it must be OK. It's really just being cheeky is all.

Yeah right.

I posted an email to this BBC page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6960304.stm

but it didn't get printed, sniff, I must have been too slow.

Anyway what I said was this.

Here are some scenarios:

1) I'm on metered broadband and a freeloader downloading stuff means that one month I exceed my limit and have no more Internet, or get a sh*tty letter, or have to pay more. Not good.

2) freeloaders downloing mp3s and divxs could severly slow down my connection which I use for work. That would be very annoying.

3) freeloaders download child porn or carry out phishing scams or ebay fraud or whatever using my connection. The police knock on my door (or kick it down).

Until broadband is totally free and has a huge bandwidth so that 1 and 2 don't matter any more I would say it IS stealing. Once those aren't a consideration any more then it will become a more philosophical matter for sure.

You are taking this way out of context. Im not talking about hackers and perverts maliciously stealing internet and identity. Im sure most perverts are by now experts in data security and could snatch a wep key out of the air or spoof a MAC in no time.

Im talking more about the average joe who stumbles across a freely available access point, his pc automatically connects to it, messanger starts up and emails arrive.

My original question (if you read my posts carefully) is basically is this person a criminal? And if so Should they be? Especially when the future of wireless will hopefully be like cell coverage.

I dont think so, because he could honestly believe he has a public hotspot or free service of some kind. I know ignorance is not an excuse but nor is lack of security on the part of the person ignorantly providing the access (btw your responsibility when you have an access contract to secure it).

> My original question (if you read my posts carefully) is basically is this person a criminal?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse (except of course when the court says it is). The default assumption someone should take is that they are not allowed to use a wifi connection they happen to come across - UNLESS they know it is a public hotspot.

The guy in the article was actively seeking out open access points to use. That probably had a lot to do with him being charged.

It's a bit different to innocently accidentally connecting to one. Free hotspots are usually located in coffee shops, airports, and main streets in cities. There are usually signs up to indicate such. There aren't so many private businesses and homes that would offer them, so you can be pretty sure that when you're in my apartment building, and you connect to Linksys or Netgear, it's not a free AP. (FYI it's not mine :P)

I'm not sure of the exact verbage of my access contract with Bell Canada, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in there stipulating how secure my wireless access point or any other part of the network after the ADSL modem needs to be. Maybe you do have something, but I doubt it's the norm. They never sold me a WAP, and I doubt they even know I have one.

No it isn't. It is a specific requirement in in every private (ie non-corporate) Internet subscriptions I've ever had that:
a) You only have one computer access the line.
b) If you need more, you buy extra routers or whatever from the ISP, that are set up correctly and securely.
c) If you chose to use your own equipment, you are responsible for ensuring their security.

Besides which there is (to my knowledge) no such thing as publicly available power outlets or phone lines. There are literally 100s of (intentionally) public WiFi access points (like say public libraries), even in my technologically backwards country.

Actually I believe the correct term is fraud.

Not all satellite TV is broadcast freely. In fact I'm fairly sure most of the channels are commercial. As for encryption being poor, I don't remember (back in the time before cable) that my decoder would pick up commercial channels I hadn't payed for "by mistake", or evein if I asked it too. In fact it was quite a requirement in order to get commercial satellite TV without paying for it that you did so dishonestly. So not even that is remotely the same.

Oh I don't know. Because it's called pirate bay perhaps?


4) I'm sitting in a shopping center/train terminal/whatever getting my breakfast on. The boss phones with a problem I need to solve ASAP. The place I'm at has public access Internet, so I switch on my laptop and connect to the first access point in the list. I do my thing and log off. 2 hours later I get arrested by the Police and thrown in jail 6 months (for theft) or 6 years (for fraud) because of the hundreds of unencrypted access points to chose from, I chose the one who wasn't intended for public use.

So it's okay to steal from big businesses, just not from you?

And how do you tell if it's a public hotspot? Because if it isn't it would have some form of access control.

As you do, when you're not at home and need Internet access.

So technically you could be a criminal.

How is the UK not a police state right now?

You don't. Criminal law operates on "reasonable expecation" in many areas, so there's no reason it should be any different here. If you connect in a hotel, shopping centre or train station ( as in your example ) you had a reasonable expectation of accessing a public wifi point. If you do so in a quiet residential street, you had no reasonable expectation of finding one.

The locked car analogy breaks down right there. If you drive around in a car, with the door open and a big sign saying "I will drive anywhere!", you are just begging for somebody to hitch a ride.

A free WiFi access point is, as far as an system should be concerned, a deliberate act to provide wireless Internet access for free -- just like hitch-hiking, and that is (mostly) an accepted practise.

Think of it by the actions associated with public (unsecured) wireless Internet and stupidly set up (unsecured) wireless Internet.
Either case provides the exact same scenario, often without a sign and often without any change to the essid. How is the user to know the difference? The law should take into account that People Are Not Telepaths.

> And how do you tell if it's a public hotspot? Because if it isn't it would have some form of access control.

If you see a sign saying this is a public hotspot then you are pretty clear, if you don't then you are not. Your example above is bogus as well, if you are sitting right next to a sign that says this is a public access area and some other goof setup their wifi with no security as well then charges should not be brought against you (I will not say will not, I've lost all faith in governmental ability to make a good choice when faced with unclear options)

Hmm, but i would like to know where that reasonable exception line is drawn. This seems a bit unfair especially because laptops simply connect to the nearest thing.
I still believe that the law should be changed to say that any network that does not directly tell the user not to trespass or does not provide a logon should be a free network, otherwise how else are people gonna know?

Not usually for internet access.

My point was that there's nothing stipulated in the AUP about how much protection I should have on my Internet connection. Bell doesn't care as long as I'm not running any servers or DOS attacks. Maybe your AUP is different, but I don't think mine is unusual at all.

Your argument about a lack of power outlets or phone lines doesn't do anything to address my point. Basically your problem is that with stealing electricity you lack the /opportunity/ you have with wireless access. The actual technicalities once you make the connection are no different. If getting free electricity was as easy as getting free wireless, would you do it?

I'm pretty sure you know that public payphones were once vulnerable to a Captain Crunch toy whistle.

Come on. There are loads of places for illegal downloads without "Pirate" in their name. I guess the rest of my argument was OK though, since you said nothing about it?

Did he say anything about big business? He's probably just theorising that in the future, internet access will be ubiquitous and free, in the same way that the roads are free. It's not an unusual concept.

You go and ask the nice Starbucks girl at the counter. Just because something is there and able to be used doesn't mean it's yours. I can't wait for the next guy who parks his car outside running while he goes in the 7-11 to buy some milk. "Hey, a running car, it must be free!"

Yes, I certainly do wardrive while I'm not at home.

Good one.

Still, it takes away available bandwidth and thereby has a negative impact on the throughput speed that the owner can get himself. that makes his own downloads take longer, so if nothing else you're stealing his time.

furthermore, a much more dangerous issue: what if the person 'borrowing' the internet connection uses it for illegal purposes? Hack other computers, download child porn, etc. Any evidence of that activity will point back to the IP address of the router, and the owner can end up in serious problems trying to prove it wasn't him/her doing it.

One of my neighbours has a really long range unsecured wireless access point, and she seems to run her entire business within unsecured Windows shared folders with public write permissions. Happens to include many credit card numbers, with names and expiry dates, that are unfortunately very hard to miss.
I have, on more than one occasion, accidentally snooped in that stuff. (Computer unexpectedly connected to her access point instead of mine, I went browsing in what I thought were my shared folders and found credit card numbers).
Nobody can gather the courage to let her know...

Good grief. It's illegal to steal wireless access. There's been news reports in the paper and on TV. It's been discussed on morning radio and posted about in thousands of internet forums. It is therefore expected that any reasonable person is aware of the illegality of using someone elses internet, either by design or by accident.

It is not a reasonable expectation that people secure their access points. Many wireless routers were supplied to non-tech-savvy individuals to "get their laptop on the internet". To them, their wireless router is "the little box thing that does my internet". It is not reasonable to assume "these people are asking for it", despite the attraction of such a viewpoint!

Someone caught stealing wireless by accident should be given a warning and told not to do it again and indeed I'm sure this is precisely what happens in the vast majority of cases. There will, of course, be coppers out there who wil throw the book at someone for the slightest breach (remember the girl who was charged with criminal damage because she picked a flower outside a pub?), but most will use their common-sense (and avoid the paperwork).

The bloke we're talking about deserved what he got. He was being malicious and calculating in his intent to procure a service he was not entitled to.

? Who says I steal from big businesses? I don't steal from anyone. That was a weird statement.

How could this possibly be the same as my argument, as you say the software is protected by a code and a licence agreement telling you not to intrude on the software. Im talking about networks that do not give out even the smallest sniff that they are restricted only, with no signs, no passwords or anything. Im not talking about using methods to deliberately break in, just the fact that the door is wide open and people can simply walk in when their wireless device is roaming.

Educate her, im sure she will thank you for it. Oh, no wait... that would be admitting to breaking the law. What an ironic twist to a silly system :)
Seriously though, she needs to be told because such neglegence coud leave her legal 'open season' in itself. Prehaps an anonymous letter through the door :/

Boy, can we argue somethings here huh? Anyway:) Lets define stealing.

1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. (www.dictionary.com)

With this definition, can he be charged? I dont know. The next question is, can somebody own a wavelength (or what ever a wireless sends )If somebody can own a wave length, then this man stole. In the situation about, stealing a light from somebodies yard to illuminate the area, the answer is no. Thats almost like being arrested for stealing air. Until somebody OWNS air, its not stealing. You have to claim rights to something, before it is called stealing.

Look at the part of definition, that stands out to me.....'to take (the property.....' So again, the judge will ask, Does (what ever company) that runs this wireless own, what ever it is this man is being charged with? And if Im not mistaken, what ever it does take to run wireless, was stolen in this case. The man is guilty. Wether we find it to be cheap, or exspensive, great, or not great, if somebody owns something, and others take it, its stealing. Just because we find it easy or simple, or not that important, somebody on the other side of that wavelength, NEEDS that money to survive. Your stealing wavelen,,,,, I mean money out of somebodies mouth.

I dont think so, not in the pubic ranges anyway. Only the media items being transfered over it should be considered 'property'.

He is not stealing the router which provides the wireless or any users data, he is simply connecting via a publically available non-restricted network, in the public spectrum range without actually costing the owner of the installation any money
(assuming the uk has moved out of the darkages and no longer has money-A-meg - if so then the ISPs should be more responsible and warn their customers otherwise that could be seen by some as negligence or profiteering, think of how pissed you would be with the bank for such negligence with security).

So what your saying, is, he cant get in trouble for getting connected. He can only be in trouble for using, once connected?

I would personally leave some files scattered throughout her folders saying 'sorry, but I got here by mistake. I'm sure you realise that's a bad thing what with all these personal details lying around and all, so maybe you should look into putting a password on your wireless access before someone uses this information for evil.'


With regards to equipment handed out by an ISP, it IS reasonable to expect that the ISP will deliver either a pre-secured router, provide a setup disc that does the job, or at least instructions on how to do so using big print up the top that says -WARNING- or -THIS IS REALLY BLOODY IMPORTANT-.

Just found out I steal quite a lot, my neighbour has loads of lights in his garden so I can actualy sit in mine (in some places) and not turn on my lights. Holy Grail! I'm stealing!!!!

Have we all gone crazy?

If some guy has music blasting out, am I stealing?

If somebody's dog escapes and goes into my property, am I stealing?

Sorry, but it's the other way round. If I hire a satellite TV service and then I broadcast it freely to my neighbours, who is breaking the law? If I turn on my TV and pick up a signal that is freely available, how can I be blamed? It's the guy broadcasting who is breaking the law.

I'm a HAM radio amateur and pay a licence to broadcast, had to take an exam too. Is this guy broadcasting an internet WIFI paying a licence to do so? Why is he doing it? Has he at least a permission from his ISP to do so? why hasn't he at least enabled a minimun security?

I think that it's imposible a judge will comdemn you for turning on a laptop and conecting to someones WIFI. I'd say that there is more to this story than someone driving around and seeing if he can connect.

If you are not paying for the connection and it is not intended and advertised as a public service then I say it is stealing. Someone not knowing how to protect themselves should not mean that it is an open invitation for you to take something from them. The burden is upon YOU to have the responsibility and respect and discernment to direct yourself. Just because there may be public wifi areas seemingly blended in with individual's private networks does not mean that you should have blurry boundaries in your decision making.

Someone not knowing the pure minimum on internet and security perhaps just should not use it or ask someone who actually knows more about it than "if I press this button there will be a desktop on my screen, coooool"

A minimum of natural human intelligence can be assumed as well and that minimum actually includes at least a very minimal step to protect your property.
No attempt of protection just means he does not mind if it is used by others.

Normally the courts decide for those who used it and against those that proofed that they don't meet the requirements to be declared as "minimal intellgent human beeing able to survive" as they behave far more stupid than needed and desirable and try to blame others for their shortcomming.

any court giving the "morron" right in such a case is asking for a wave of more morrons trying such stuff.

If you look at stuff in the USA and the stuff brought to court, you will actually see WHERE this would lead ... and I don't think that would be a good thing.

I dont think its imoral though, unless you go out of your way to do it.
If you turn on your PSP (say), and it tells you that you are HiFi connected, I dont think you are morraly barran to use it, unless it means leaning three feet out of your bedroom window (or the like)

No, just the people making bad analogies.

>> If you are not paying for the connection and it is not intended and advertised as a public service then I say it is stealing. <<

Ever heard of the expression "It fell off the back of a lorry"?

But it's not even this case. Another sample: My neighbour has a tree, but it tends to grow over my property, I get his shitty leaves all over the place, but in exchange I get a nice shade. Luckily my neighbour and me are nice people, but if he dared acuse me of stealing I'd take him to court. It's him who is invading my property. The same goes if his WIFI waves invaded my property.

Unless you go into someone's property to connect to an, let's not forget it, insecure system. Stealing is hardly the word, maybe "inapropiate use". If you find a €50 euro bank note lying in the street and you just decide to keep it, instead of taking it to the police in case anyone has reported it missing; you can't be accused of stealing or mugging.

Now I've said it before, it seems this guy was actively looking for let's say abandoned WIFI conections, he didn't just happen to find one. Still not stealing, but more serious than just making an inapropiate use.

Umm...I have wi-fi in my house. How do I secure it?

read the manual that came with it, it should pretty much spell out all the steps.

You do have a couple of options:
1) Use WPA encryption if you have the choice. WEP is trivial to break
2) when specifying the strength choose 128 bit instead of 64
3) Optionally, restrict it to the MAC address of the network card(s) in your own computer(s), that way the router won't talk to other machines than those particular ones.

The argument of "it is not stealing because it is not a physical thing" is not valid. At least not valid here in the US. We have laws against Theft of Services. By using someone else's WiFi you are stealing their service.

Personally, I think using someones unprotected WiFi is a very lame reason to get in trouble. Unless you are doing something else illegal along with it. Browsing their PCs trying to steal info, or using it to download illegal things and trying to hide that you did it, etc.

If you just happen to connect to someone else's WiFi and use their connection as you normally would, then I don't see it as that big of a deal. But, my opinion does not mean that you couldn't get in trouble for it.

And, for the guy who said his WiFi connection wasn't fast enough to game... If you are talking about gaming on the Internet, then a WiFi connection is very much fast enough. Most WiFi is 54Mb nowadays, and the older stuff is 11Mb. Both are fast enough for any Internet game. And more than likely faster than your Internet connection. If you have a internet connection at home faster than 54Mb, then you are one lucky SOB.

-----
If you find a €50 euro bank note lying in the street and you just decide to keep it, instead of taking it to the police in case anyone has reported it missing; you can't be accused of stealing
-----

Actually, you can. You are expected to attempt to find the rightful owner. At least that is the case in the US. Of course, a law like that is in the books in case you find a bank bag full of money. I really doubt anyone ever got put in jail for $50. But it is conceivable.

Two big problems with wifi is that the response times are much more erratic than using a wired connection, and it's more prone to packet loss thanks to the increased potential for interference.

both of those things can greatly affect the ability to play online games, which typically need a very steady connection with very low response times.

(a nearby 2.4GHz wireless phone or a microwave can really wreck havoc with your wifi connection. And even if you don't use any of those, your immediate neighbours very likely are)

All this "all the poor people that dont know what their doing and dont know their router from their USB" Come on! the warnings are there in black and white. Who in their right mind uses sophisticated hardware or machinery without taking a flick through the manual? And if you find you dont understand it then you find some joe that does, same way you wouldnt work on your car, electrics or plumbing without some knowlage of what you are doing. No one has yet convinced me that its not at least 50/50 the fault of the people providing this guy with free wireless.

Edit..

My wifi is hopeless for games, and it 100Mbit wireless+router on a 100Mbit hardwired internet connection and it still suffers from occasional drop outs between the router and the laptop, especially when theres interference.

This thread appears to be blame to the punter for not securing their network, but not blame to the user piggybacking off it 'by accident'.

Surely if it's the wifi owners responsibility to secure their connection it's of equal responsibility of unauthorised users not to use it?

The 'I want something for nothing' attitude on the internet is horrendous. At the end of the day someone else is paying for it and unless you've asked their permission it's somewhat rude if nothing else.

And interestingly (or not) D4NM4N is selling stuff he has spent time creating himself, why don't you just give it away? After all, no one would actually be taking it, they'd just have a copy, you wouldn't have lost anything?!

WHOA!, slow down there .Rob. !!! If you read it again, i am not saying its ok at all to steal something at all or that we should get something for nothing. Just that we should be very carful as to what constitutes an intrusion on a network. Merely devils advocate if you will. Yes ive worked hard on my software, someone stealing my software is taking bread from my family but at least i TRY and protect it with codes and licence etc, so at least users know its not entirely free. If i distributed the software with no licence info or security, then i could hardly blame anyone but myself if someone got the wrong idea.

Please check my edit at the top, ive tried to be more clear what i was trying to say.

Well I don't know which kind of subscription you have, bet the Terms of service Sympatico publish on their websites, seem to indicate that you are entirely responsible for any traffic from users of your account. Which seems to suggest that if you don't have a secured Internet connection, you're the one liable for what other people do with it.

Sure it does. It's a "man on the clapham omnibus" situation. Would the man on the clapham omnibus know that a publicly accessible network, was indeed not public? I seriously doubt that.

My own moral and ethical qualms (as they were) have nothing to do with the legality of the issue. I would say no, but I have my own Internet connection, despite an open relay in my neighborhood, running on at least a 10/10 line.

No. Because the clapham omnibus man knows through media awareness and established law, that piracy is illegal.

Roads are not free. Roads are payed for through taxes and tolls. Are you saying that people who drive cars are "stealing" the roads from people who don't drive cars? Because both parties are paying for it, yet people without cars are being deprived of their use.

Yeah. Like she would know. Not withstanding me not wanting to go stand in line for 30 minutes. Again.

What if he isn't using it? Is it okay to connect to someones unsecured (but otherwise private) wireless AP while they're on holiday for instance?

Not really. Most tools for tracking "cybercriminals" (like say the FBI's Carnivore) are much more sophisticated than that.

Rubbish. At least in Denmark the issue has not been widely publicized and I'm pretty sure there hasn't been set a legal precedence yet.

Or even better. Print it out on her printer.

Don't worry, The light police will get to you in time!

I'm fairly sure the RIAA would think so. If they could find a way to charge you for other peoples loud music in poor taste, they would.

Americans :o> Seriously though, lots of people use things they haven't a clue how to operate.

Here's the deal though. There's no way you can tell if you're authorized to use an open relay. Sure you can just assume that you're not, but that would be an incorrect assumption in many cases.

In Cisco training courses they will tell you that the MOTD when connecting to a router, should display text stating that whether the router is on a private or public network, so as to remove any possible ambiguity. Now this isn't even something you can just arbitrarily find yourself connected to. This is something you need "special" software and training (compared to Mr. Clapham Omnibus) to access, and know the IP in advance in order to see. Why do you think Cisco feels it necessary to point that out? Could it be that it is not always absolutely black or white whether you're allowed to do something or not? Could it be because you could stumble upon it by accident (say by making a typo in the IP when you're trying to connect)?

I think you people need to realize something:
a) Not everyone who has an unsecured AP is a moron.
b) Not everyone who uses an unsecured AP is a jerk.

Yawn.

Which is no different to what I said. The AUP does not define how secure I need to make it, only that I'm responsible for what is done on it. Bell aren't going to cancel my account because my router only has WEP on it instead of WPA.

Whereas we live in a world where people are not educated enough to secure their WAPs. The problem is that you imply it's OK to assume that a publicly accessible network is intended to be public, when the general expectation in society is that nothing is free. That was my point, so thanks for bringing it up.

You know exactly what I mean, you're just being argumentative. Of course the roads are not free, that's why I said "in the same way the roads are free". It means that everyone will pay for it in their taxes because it's considered such an important public commodity. But you knew that.

Actually it's my experience that they either know, or will give you a printed sheet of paper with instructions on how to connect. Most of the people working at those places are university students or people young enough to have a Facebook or MySpace and generally are literate enough to tell you what the SSID is.

The other free WiFi networks have a page that comes up when you first try to browse the web where you have to Agree to some terms and conditions. They also have SSIDs like "FreeInternet" or "Starbucks" or "McDonalds" or "CafeFree".

There are clear differences in assumption that you're choosing to ignore. People generally assume nothing is free. If there are signs up publicising that there is free WiFi, or they are in a public or commercial area with a free signal then it's a safer bet. Just as people are not stupid enough to think that an unlocked car with the keys in the ignition is for public use, surely it's no big stretch for them to realise an open network is not necessarily free.

The reality is that connecting to any network is done at your own risk, and you may end being prosecuted for it, so you owe it to yourself to be informed of what you're connecting to. You're trying to imply that it's OK for the person connecting to be uninformed, but whoever owns the network is at fault for not putting a padlock on their stuff.

If you're in an area with publicly advertised free WiFi, and you happen to stumble upon the wrong network, I'm sure the courts will be far more understanding than the guy in the article that everyone seems to be ignoring for the sake of argument who was wardriving.

Whereas apparently it's OK to abuse the poor computer illiterate person with an open router, you're too stupid to set up your device to not connect automatically to any open network?

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people using unsecured wireless networks with names like Linksys or Netgear are very well aware of the fact that they are connecting to some dopey bugger's network and are just being cheap bastards. These aren't the people downtown or in the airport on laptops, they're the people in your apartment block or your next door neighbours taking advantage.

Ok, lets take an idea for example, and get a little crazy with it (sorry to late:) ). Lets say, the world stopped producing air in 50 years. The planet is oxygen depletted. Now, there is a guy, who runs a machine, that makes air. He has to spend 24 hrs to make this air. Is everyone saying he works for free? He deserves to be payed.

Same thing with internet. This stuff just didnt come, when the planet was made. Some person, spends 8 hrs a day, to provide for his family. The SAME way, you spend time making your game, and somebody just comes by and takes it. All of your work, just walked out without somebody paying for it. Wether its an enormous mass, or a cheap imagination, somebody still had to provide it. :)

The whole idea of wi-fi by design of both HW and software is to be able to connect wirelessly to the nearest fixed unlocked access point (or locked if it has the key). But the future also has provisions for people to connect via a multitude of hotspots (already happening in many cities around the world), which mabe soon become so common as to be like mobile phone coverage, that would need a hell of a lot of 'wifi signs'.

What kind of problems would this create? - This is my argument, not wether this guy was right in freeloading in that way, (no! hes a cheap git who needs a slap), i just dont understand how it can be criminalised when there are such confused, irresponsible and negligent attitudes towards simple security. Which will obviously seriously impair the expansion of the 'sponsored free wifi' idea of fully automatic roaming (like the way a phone attaches to the nearest cell).
I mean, do you share your bank details with people, would you like your account to have free access? why else do we have SIM cards? PIN numbers? Passwords? WEP & PSK?

Anyway, im off to the pub as its saturday night :P

Hmmmm, that does make sense D4NM4N. You make some value points But the point in this case, do you have a right to USE that bank PIN number. What should seperate criminal and non-criminal, is did the man USE this hotspot? Its ok, to stumble across a bank card with a PIN number, but its criminal to go and USE this card, knowing that its not yours.

To educate the user, belongs on MS or what ever you use. This should be a feature in computers, for people who are unclear. It should be programmed that ifd you do hit a hot spot, it should read something such as...

"HotSpot! You have reached multiple connections. Continue with your default connection? yes/no"

"If no, read the warning."

This idea would definetly work. I think LOL

I 'piggyback' my 'wifey' as often as possible.

Deliberately using someone else's wifi without permission is legally classed as theft in the UK. It didn't used to be but they've started prosecuting people for it.

I dunno about the legality of it all, I just think it's bloody cheeky.

> I dunno about the legality of it all, I just think it's bloody cheeky.

Your right, it is bloody cheeky for people to use something they don't pay for.

On the other side the wireless providers should require that some kind of blocking is setup *unless this is supposed to be free access* to any wireless access.

Luckily, my ISP (who also provided the wifi modem/router) made it idiot-proof to set up, with full security. :)

My question still is What right has someone to irradiate my property with his radiation? A WIFI However modern this might be is just broadcasting radio waves. It reminds me of a story written a few centuries ago by Cervantes. It more or less goes along these lines:

Two men travelling along a road, the sun sets so they stop to pass the night. A fire is lit, and while they are warming next to the fire one of them brings out a chicken and starts roasting it. Both men seem quite happy and talk away. Once the chicken is nicely roasted the chickens's owner starts eating. The second man, who is very hungry also, wonders if he is going to share. So he asks him, the first man refuses and says the chicken belongs to him only, but he will agree to sell him a portion.

This makes the chickenless man angry and he points out that they were sharing the fire and the night, so it would only be fair they shared the chicken too. But the first man will have none of it and points out that the chicken is only his, and that if he wants some he will have to pay for it.

Hunger turns into anger, so the man with no bird to eat starts inhaling the wonderful aroma of the beautifuly roasted chicken, and making sounds as if he himself was also enjoying a succulent meal. So the chickens owner offers again to sell him the leftovers, but he is refused _"no, no. It's alright, the wonderful aroma has served me as well as the real thing. This wonderful smell has satisfied my hunger totaly" was his reply.

Well this made the man that had roasted the chicken realy angry, so he claimed that since the aroma of his chicken had fed him well it was only fair he was paid for this service. Of course the other man refused. This led them to argue all night until dawn. they both continued their way still arguing until they arrived to a small town. So endless was their dispute that they decided to take their case to court.

The judge, who was well know for being a very fair and wise man, listened to each one in turn and retired to deliberate. When he came back, said he was ready to pass his sentence.

"Hmm..." the judge started " Since the smell of the chicken satisfied the hunger of the denounced man, it seems only fair that..." Here the chickenless man started to protest seing that not only he went hungry but that on top of it he was having to pay for a chicken he didn't eat. He was quickly ordered to shut up, and the judge continued. __" ... It seems only fair that he pays for the service provided and this should be a silver coin..." The chicken owner gave a shout of glee seeing that justice was finaly going to be made. But was also told to shut up and respect the court.

Finally the judge was able to conclude, he asked the sentenced man to bring out a silver piece. ordered absolute silence and asked that he let the coin hit the marbled floor. Then he asked the denouncer if he had heard the sound of the coin hitting the floor, and to the affirmative answer he added _"consider yourself paid. I have ruled".

I use 802.11g here at my house. I play (used to) World of Warcraft using it, I play many FPS games online, and my XBox 360 has wireless and it plays on Live just fine. Wireless nowadays is pretty bullet proof. I have cordless phones in my house, I have a microwave, and I have two daughters, both who never get off of the phone or their cell phones and I do not have any troubles with my wireless connection dropping, ever.

I think you either haven't tried it in a couple years, or you are just repeating falsehoods you have read on the Internet somewhere else. I have been a Network Administrator for 17 years, and if my Internet Connection had any problems, I would know, and I would fix it or replace it with something that was reliable.

I am amazed at the attitude in this thread.

The motivation behind this is obviously that the ISPs don't want several neighbors to only have to pay for one connection. Over here the attitude is if you want a private network, you turn on a password. If you just want it to be there for everyone to use, you leave it open, because it is convenient for everyone. The idea is that soon enough it won't matter where you are, there will always be a wifi connection available.

I don't think any ISPs here charge by the amount of data you transfer. It is all unlimited, so maybe that is what the difference is.

Again I will post my Big Brother posters from the UK, since no one responded:

@leadwerks
[ROBOTIC HYPNOTISED VOICE]
What posters.... big brother is our friend... he watches over our ssssafeetieeee... Informing on your neibours iss good yesss.
[/ROBOTIC HYPNOTIZED VOICE]
It would be interesting to know what the 'benefits' are? Very 1984! (for those who havent read it, get hold of it, as i read in some paper "it has been ordered out of print by the government" (or something). Its by Gerorge Orwell)

@Madmax, LOL, best example yet ;)

Which government?!? That's an outrage...

Totally agree. And this applies to all walks of life of course.

Haha, true true.

Yep agreed. You also see it in life generally like when the container ship wrecked recently very near to me on the south coast and all the scavengers went down there. Basically with the something for nothing attitude you stand a greater chance of not working hard (and smart) and making something of yourself. Millionaires don't have that scavenging attitude, they go out and make stuff happen, they make mistakes, learn and keep on going. It's also the something for nothing attitude that has led to us living in a polluted world full of rubbish.

*apparently* the american government according to this guy:
http://bdaugherty.tripod.com/articles/orwell.html
Im sooo sure there was an article in the papers about the same thing happening in the UK, not a direct 'ban' but more of a slow dissapearance of the book (no more reading it in schools, libraries stock less and less until gone, less copies being printed, etc.). Mabe it all has something to do with the abandonment of teaching history in british schools too :/
I wish i could find the article :(
Cant believe everything you read though ;)

This could of course be just tabloid propaganda however and i cannot find anything on the web to back it up, but to be honest it wouldnt have surprised me if true, at all. :/

LOL i did find this one a little ironic though :P
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391081-details/George+Orwell,+Big+Brother+is+watching+your+house/article.do

I seriously hope that isn't true. Infact, I'm pretty sure it can't be true because there'd be various parties that would kick up a major stick, if it was.

@ D4NM4N, thanks. :D

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/203-7521211-1782321?ie=UTF8&tag=firefox-uk-21&index=blended&link%5Fcode=qs&field-keywords=1984&sourceid=Mozilla-search

Doesn't look out of print to me.

Yeah. Just the usual tabloid bullcrap, then, which is why I never read tabloid papers.

Name one person whose worked hard and smart, and made something out of himself. The only person who really comes to mind are Hugh Hefner, and maybe a handful of assorted musicians.

Hahah. There are three ways to obtain wealth in this world. You can inherit it, marry it or steal it.

If it weren't for those looters, who do you think is going to clean up the wrecked container ship mess?

me, and my story is still onging...

people who make comments like that aren't millionaires ;-)

The looters made the mess WORSE and got in the way of clean up crews.

Contrary to what the Communist above claims, you can still make money by coming up with an idea and applying a lot of hard work. Being an entrepreneur can be tough, because you don't know if you are doing things right or not, and you have to be creative and willing to learn. For example, I tried advertising with Google, and got nothing but Spam bots and lost $800...and sales went down. Then I tried with GameDev, and sales were much better. You have to adjust.

At the same time, there are plenty of sleazy businesses out there that produce nothing useful. It's not like business itself is either good or bad. It depends on what kind of people are involved. In the US, there seems to be a lot of parasites, but this is also home to a lot of good businesses.

It's funny how the same people who say you should not hurt someone if they invade your home are so militant about the government protecting their internet connection.

uh-oh

Richard Branson (from Virgin) ?

I guess Bill Gates & Paul Allen somewhat count as well, although a really large part of their success was being in the right place at the right time.

> although a really large part of their success was being in the right place at the right time.

But that applies to anyone who makes it big. Luck is not to be denied as a factor as well.

others I could list
Ford (the motorcar guy)
Wright Brothers
The guys who started google
same for the guys who started Yahoo
Steve Jobs
Steve Wozniak
Abraham Lincoln
US Grant
Benjamin Franklin (deserves top billing really)

feel free to add other non-US names everyone.

Was Born Rich.

I don't think someone who went to the most prestigious prep school in the world, and had a several million US dollar trust fund counts as someone whose "worked their way up".

I never said you couldn't. I said you couldn't name one who had.

Also feel free to name anyone born after WWII. So basically that leaves us with Steve and Steve (Jobs and Wozniak). Great list you have their.

Anything to back that up?

Most 'rich' people's don't bother to quit school at 16 to start their own tiny printing business. they also don't tend to pick "selling records out of the trunk of their car" as a career like Branson did.

He's one of few self-made millionaires without relying on their family fortune.

Do you think to look up ANYTHING you say? Or is Google just an obfuscating defence mechanism?

In the early days of Student and the start of his mail order business, Branson wasn't subsidised by his family, who weren't rich. As far as I'm aware (I've read his autobiography), the only capital injection from his family into his business was when his aunt mortgaged her house to loan him a relatively small amount of cash (10s of thousands of pounds). His parents also bought him as a present a second hand car, which he then gave to Mike Oldfield in return for performing live to promote Tubular Bells. That's not a great deal more than my personal arragements. It's certainly average at best for a middle class family. Branson wasn't born into poverty, but he wasn't born into wealth, either.

Of course a hell of a lot of ultra rich businessmen were born into money (Trump for example, but Trump Sr wasn't). But that doesn't mean they all were, and claiming that in a blanket manner is just silly.

It would be like me assuming that everything you write is unresearched dribble, when in reality it's probably only 50/50.

Yep :) that would clear things up a bit. (But think of the horrific change in design needed.)

Trouble is omething like this kind of defeats the whole concept of wi-fi, which (by both hw and sw design) is intended to connect to the nearest open access point. As i said above: what happens when 'sponsored free wifi' points are as common as mobile phone cells?

Would you want to keep getting a menu and warnings over which cell you could connect to with your phone on every street corner?
That is one reason the wifey key is there in the first place, its a message to the automatically roaming PC/PDA telling it:
"if you dont have the key installed then try the next one on the list of aquired networks as i am private".

Which is why i think the law on this is sketchy at best and needs some thinking over. Isnt it up to the ISPs to make sure their customers (who are in the end responsible) are aware of the risk? In the same way banks are responsible for informing users (equally as responsible) not to share their pin numbers and account info? This isnt so much about right or wrong, rather a question of should it be possible to happen so easily in the first place (unless public access is the intention of the AP administrator).

Not really. I know he went to a fairly posh private school.

Most 'rich' people aren't dyslexic either.

> So basically that leaves us with Steve and Steve (Jobs and Wozniak). Great list you have their.

And the google guys, and the Yahoo guys, and I don't know how many other internet startup people (and what, a hundred or so Apple and MS employees that got stock early on). I'm sure you will find a way to shoot them down as not counting for some reason though.

I was going to say something, but I think I wont bother. Realy all what had to be said on this has been said and drifting off onto the "If you work hard, you will be rich" topic.

I enjoyed this topic, and although controversial, I think everyone has pointed out their thoughts on the matter. Now it's time we all re-read carefully and came up with a more enlightened opinion on the subject.

I'd like to thank all participants for being "civilized" not like it was common in these boards a time ago, It's nice to be able to talk about matters to exclusive to games developing in this forum. And good as well, because all this very well might allow us to make better games.

Amen

People who can raise "almost one million USD" in venture capital from "friends and family" aren't rich?

> People who can raise "almost one million USD" in venture capital from "friends and family" aren't rich?


I rest my case.

Wealth is a relative concept. And to prove my point: the google people went to University therefore they were born wealthy. :)