Using unsecured WiFi networks as hotspots: OK or EVEEL?

[joeyjazz]

When we downgraded to a DSL line last year, the wireless router they gave us was secured by a password during the initial set up.  They don't leave anything up to you.

[Destructor]

When we downgraded to a DSL line last year, the wireless router they gave us was secured by a password during the initial set up.  They don't leave anything up to you.

While I'm guessing that most cable installations will do it for you nowadays as well (or at least I sure hope so), there's always the 'no install required' option when you sign up. I know I did that.

[CeeKay]

Both of those instances are in regard to someone going out of their way to stand outside the residence of someone else that they know has internet.  Slightly different situation in my opinion as you are actively taking advantage of it.  I stand by my position that any signal that is in my house is MY signal and therefore mine to use.

+1.  if they are transmitting their personal info freely through my airspace then it's mine.  thars gold in those airwaves! 

[gellar]

I don't see a problem with it, depending on how you use it.

I don't see a lot of unsecured wireless networks anymore. For example - of the 7 neighbours with wireless networks around me, all seven are secured. And at a friend of mine's house in uCity (which is a heavy student part of town), there's four available nearby and all four are secured.

I think (unintentional) unsecured wireless networks are becoming a dying breed.

Consider your examples; student-heavy means a younger generation, people more apt to be tech-saavy.  Older generations (I'm talking 40 on up) don't tend to understand that wireless isn't encrypted out of the box.  They probably don't even know it has to be encrypted.

Is it illegal?  Not likely. 

Did you read my post above?  It's illegal in several states, including California, where they've successfully prosecuted someone for doing exactly this.

Like I said before, in the grand scheme of things, this is really a non-issue imho, but it is illegal in several places.

Do you know what the word likely means?

gellar

[Brendan]

I don't care if people are on my network so long as they expect me to capture all the cleartext HTTP traffic that comes over it.  Good times!

[Isgrimnur]

Both of those instances are in regard to someone going out of their way to stand outside the residence of someone else that they know has internet.  Slightly different situation in my opinion as you are actively taking advantage of it.  I stand by my position that any signal that is in my house is MY signal and therefore mine to use.

The satellite companies would beg to disagree with you.

[Larraque]

I don't see a problem with it, depending on how you use it.

I don't see a lot of unsecured wireless networks anymore. For example - of the 7 neighbours with wireless networks around me, all seven are secured. And at a friend of mine's house in uCity (which is a heavy student part of town), there's four available nearby and all four are secured.

I think (unintentional) unsecured wireless networks are becoming a dying breed.

Consider your examples; student-heavy means a younger generation, people more apt to be tech-saavy.  Older generations (I'm talking 40 on up) don't tend to understand that wireless isn't encrypted out of the box.  They probably don't even know it has to be encrypted.

Just two places I know that I've been multiple times recently. Since I've gotten my IPhone, I've also never seen a wireless network available at my in-laws, or at my parent's place, or near restaurants, or near work (although that's to be expected as you'd expect a business to secure their wireless), or randomly driving down the street and checking google maps, or at the mall checking movie show times. I just don't see a lot of unintentionally unsecured wireless networks anymore. Of course, this could also be because the computer is on the same power bar as the router, and the owner shuts the entire power bar down or something when they turn off the computer.

I'd be willing to bet others are seeing them slowly go away too.

[gellar]

I don't care if people are on my network so long as they expect me to capture all the cleartext HTTP traffic that comes over it.  Good times!

That's precisely why I do not connect to WiFi hotspots in general.  They scare me.  I have too much data on my laptop that can be considered VERY FUCKING BAD if it is compromised.  Cellular internets FTW.

gellar

[Isgrimnur]

Until the Justice Department decides to ask your phone company for those records as well...

[gellar]

Until the Justice Department decides to ask your phone company for those records as well...

I don't mind the phone company logging my HTTP access - that's well within their rights.  However, for anyone thinking that HTTP logs are kept for any significant period of time by any entity, let me tell you that unequivocally - they are not.  Technology is not available to handle that amount of data at this point in time.  There are Fortune 100 companies who may keep employee HTTP logs in raw formats from their proxies, but to actually parse these logs for information would be a monumental task.  There's no way any ISP is keeping this data.

gellar

[Blackadar]

Both of those instances are in regard to someone going out of their way to stand outside the residence of someone else that they know has internet.  Slightly different situation in my opinion as you are actively taking advantage of it.  I stand by my position that any signal that is in my house is MY signal and therefore mine to use.

The satellite companies would beg to disagree with you.

That example doesn't work - it's not the same thing at all.  You have to actively hack into a satellite signal in order to use it.  It's not like you can turn on your TV and pick it up with your rabbit ears.  If you could, then we'd be talking about equivalent examples.  Nor is the Barbeque example or anything other one - those involve finite quantities.  For all practical purposes, Wi-Fi is an unlimited resource.

If your signal enters my home and it's unsecured, it's fair game.  Period.  It's no more stealing than if you're baking an apple pie next door and some of the scent wafts through my open windows. 

[Toe]

Both of those instances are in regard to someone going out of their way to stand outside the residence of someone else that they know has internet.  Slightly different situation in my opinion as you are actively taking advantage of it.  I stand by my position that any signal that is in my house is MY signal and therefore mine to use.

The satellite companies would beg to disagree with you.

That example doesn't work - it's not the same thing at all.  You have to actively hack into a satellite signal in order to use it.  It's not like you can turn on your TV and pick it up with your rabbit ears.  If you could, then we'd be talking about equivalent examples.  Nor is the Barbeque example or anything other one - those involve finite quantities.  For all practical purposes, Wi-Fi is an unlimited resource.

If your signal enters my home and it's unsecured, it's fair game.  Period.  It's no more stealing than if you're baking an apple pie next door and some of the scent wafts through my open windows. 

But you seem to gloss over the fact that you are actually using their equipment (which is in their house). The signal is not techically unsecured, the device that is broadcasting it is, which again, its not yours nor on your property.

[Purge]

So it's illegal to listen to your neighbors having sex, right? Even though they are loud enough that you don't need to strain? I mean, it's not your equipment and it's not on your property.

(I was going to go with loud music, but sex? that's always A game material )

As to satellite service, you're only downloading pirated signal when you watch shows. You're giving them money by watching commercials.

[JohnathanStrange]

It may be wrong but how wrong is it? I've heard of people being warned against using their laptops in the park because a police officer assumed they were using the library's wireless signal and that was against the law unless they were in the library. Arguing that they weren't using the internet and besides it would be like using light from a neighbor's open window to read while sitting on a nearby chair, didn't matter: laptops closed or spend time in jail sorting it out.

My point is while the free-rider dilemma is real and undoubtedly has some negative economic consequences for the internet service provider, there's definitely overall economic and social benefits to the country from having those millions of wi-fi squatters' viewing YouTube ads, downloading Apple Music, online shopping, etc. and just becoming ever more familiar with the entertainment, news, and products available online.

I won't use unsecured networks for any sensitive personal or business related matter, whether purchasing something or contacting my Intel colleagues. I just don't do it. HOWEVER, if I'm suddenly curious about something, I've no problem googling it or watching a short vid or reading an article using an available connection. Even if I'm not actually sitting in the library but 1/4 mile away in my house.

"But officer, I was only looking up GoogleMaps to find the direction to my cousin's house."

"Tell it to the judge. In this town, we don't like two-Mb bit thieves like you!"

[JCAnejo]

Daehawk

[Blackadar]

But you seem to gloss over the fact that you are actually using their equipment (which is in their house). The signal is not techically unsecured, the device that is broadcasting it is, which again, its not yours nor on your property.

The signal sure is on my property. 

According to your definition of "using", if your neighbor blares their stereo, it is "stealing" to listen to the song.  After all, the music is playing from their stereo....therefore, I must be "using" their equipment to hear it.      While I'm sure the RIAA would love such a definition, that's not the case in reality. 

Seriously, broadcasting an unsecured wireless connection is like taking your weekly pay, converting it to pennies and then throwing the pennies outside your house for 100 feet.  You sure don't have the right to bitch when your neighbors start collecting coins found on their driveway. 

[Toe]

But you seem to gloss over the fact that you are actually using their equipment (which is in their house). The signal is not techically unsecured, the device that is broadcasting it is, which again, its not yours nor on your property.

The signal sure is on my property. 

According to your definition of "using", if your neighbor blares their stereo, it is "stealing" to listen to the song.  After all, the music is playing from their stereo....therefore, I must be "using" their equipment to hear it.      While I'm sure the RIAA would love such a definition, that's not the case in reality. 

Seriously, broadcasting an unsecured wireless connection is like taking your weekly pay, converting it to pennies and then throwing the pennies outside your house for 100 feet.  You sure don't have the right to bitch when your neighbors start collecting coins found on their driveway. 

Sure, the signal is on your property. You can look at it all you want (actually there might even be some question on wheter or not you are breaking some electronic easedropping laws). But the instant you start sending and receiving data through a device on someone elses property that is not yours, without their knowledge, you are stealing. You are using their hardware to send and receive data without their knowledge or permission.

[JohnathanStrange]

  (to be taken in the spirit of casual discussion, I've no real passion either way: I access the internet whenever and wherever I'm at as the mood strikes. To me, how I access the net is almost like arguing which direction I should face if pray or whether to stir my coffee with in a clockwise motion or not.)
 
Blackadar's analogy is still apt. What if I found that my neighbor's lack of curtains and fear of the dark combined with his big screen tv and stereo system meant that my house was now illuminated and I no longer needed to turn on my lights to read or my TV to see The Amazing Race or Veronica Mars reruns? How much of a crime is it if I open my windows and sit in my chair in my house and read an article using the light that he paid for? Bombarding my house with his electromagnetic radiation overspill should be penalized with...my being made the criminal?

What should the penalty be for the ruthless ne'er-do-well sending out in response (to the negligent internet emitter) his own stream of bits (some of which just happen to collide with the neighbors' router) in order to watch a YouTube video or google "Megan Fox" photos. Call him a thief? The real criminal is the the internet provider and his customer who use our airspace, both public and private, to transmit their potentially lethal radiation (who knows for sure that their frequencies DON'T cause cancer? Any additional risk shouldn't be borne by anyone but the provider and his customer ) and then have the nerve to say "So what? It's legal. Just don't dare open your notebook computer (using the wireless adapter card that's now a standard feature) to access the internet that's streaming through your house/apartment/atmosphere at this very moment. It's meant for your neighbor."

Seriously, if those accessing the internet on unsecured networks are thieves, it's natural to ask what the penalty should be? Just saying someone's a thief is easy. You're a thief if you take an extra packet of nutrasweet home from the coffeshop or the used newspaper left on the subway, you didn't pay for it. What should the penalty be for wifi thieves?

  The grin is because as issues go, we really have bigger problems like the lack of quality AI in our turn-based strategy games and how, when we access our inventory in Call of Cthulhu we only get the journal and get stuck. Now that's a crime!

[Toe]

What should the penalty be for the ruthless ne'er-do-well sending out in response (to the negligent internet emitter) his own stream of bits (some of which just happen to collide with the neighbors' router) in order to watch a YouTube video or google "Megan Fox" photos. Call him a thief? The real criminal is the the internet provider and his customer who use our airspace, both public and private, to transmit their potentially lethal radiation (who knows for sure that their frequencies DON'T cause cancer? Any additional risk shouldn't be borne by anyone but the provider and his customer ) and then have the nerve to say "So what? It's legal. Just don't dare open your notebook computer (using the wireless adapter card that's now a standard feature) to access the internet that's streaming through your house/apartment/atmosphere at this very moment. It's meant for your neighbor."

It is not the internet that is streaming through your house. Its the signal of someone's wireless router. A major difference.

[Isgrimnur]

Not only that, but the use involves you deliberately sending your data to trespass back onto his property.  By your logic, this also means that you could hijack a cordless phone receiver to make your phone calls.  After all, his base station is sending a signal into your property. 

As to satellite service, you're only downloading pirated signal when you watch shows. You're giving them money by watching commercials.

Can I see a copy of your cancelled checks that you sent them?  The advertisers pay the channels based on their saturation.  For someone watching an illegal feed, your numbers are not being reported, so you are actually costing the channel in terms of ad revenue.

According to your definition of "using", if your neighbor blares their stereo, it is "stealing" to listen to the song.  After all, the music is playing from their stereo....therefore, I must be "using" their equipment to hear it.      While I'm sure the RIAA would love such a definition, that's not the case in reality. 

Actually, I'm sure the RIAA would make a fine case that the person in question was in violation for not having (paid for) a performance license.

[JohnathanStrange]

What should the penalty be for the ruthless ne'er-do-well sending out in response (to the negligent internet emitter) his own stream of bits (some of which just happen to collide with the neighbors' router) in order to watch a YouTube video or google "Megan Fox" photos. Call him a thief? The real criminal is the the internet provider and his customer who use our airspace, both public and private, to transmit their potentially lethal radiation (who knows for sure that their frequencies DON'T cause cancer? Any additional risk shouldn't be borne by anyone but the provider and his customer ) and then have the nerve to say "So what? It's legal. Just don't dare open your notebook computer (using the wireless adapter card that's now a standard feature) to access the internet that's streaming through your house/apartment/atmosphere at this very moment. It's meant for your neighbor."

It is not the internet that is streaming through your house. Its the signal of someone's wireless router. A major difference.

A distinction but not a difference; an unauthorized signal is trespassing - never mind they've been given the right to send electromagnetic radiation because they bought a device . And as for "hijacking" anyone's system  (in response to another poster) which implies significant interference with someone's operations, that's not what's happening.

In any case, deliberately avoiding what I think is the real issue "What if any penalties should free riders face?". What jail terms? What fines?

If we say, for the sake of argument, it's some sort of crime, then a crime calls for punishment. What kind of punishment? So how many prisons should we build and how many thousands of inspectors and police officers hired to stop this menace?
How serious is this for you? Or society? Myself, I see it as far below littering and talking too loud on your cellphone.

[Isgrimnur]

What should the penalty be for the ruthless ne'er-do-well sending out in response (to the negligent internet emitter) his own stream of bits (some of which just happen to collide with the neighbors' router) in order to watch a YouTube video or google "Megan Fox" photos. Call him a thief? The real criminal is the the internet provider and his customer who use our airspace, both public and private, to transmit their potentially lethal radiation (who knows for sure that their frequencies DON'T cause cancer? Any additional risk shouldn't be borne by anyone but the provider and his customer ) and then have the nerve to say "So what? It's legal. Just don't dare open your notebook computer (using the wireless adapter card that's now a standard feature) to access the internet that's streaming through your house/apartment/atmosphere at this very moment. It's meant for your neighbor."

It is not the internet that is streaming through your house. Its the signal of someone's wireless router. A major difference.

A distinction but not a difference; an unauthorized signal is trespassing - never mind they've been given the right to send electromagnetic radiation because they bought a device . And as for "hijacking" anyone's system  (in response to another poster) which implies significant interference with someone's operations, that's not what's happening.

In any case, deliberately avoiding what I think is the real issue "What if any penalties should free riders face?". What jail terms? What fines?

If we say, for the sake of argument, it's some sort of crime, then a crime calls for punishment. What kind of punishment? So how many prisons should we build and how many thousands of inspectors and police officers hired to stop this menace?
How serious is this for you? Or society? Myself, I see it as far below littering and talking too loud on your cellphone.

Good luck preventing unauthorized signals from any source passing through your airspace.  Do they make house-sized Faraday cages?  The right stems from the certification of the device, not the purchase by the owner.  The FCC mandates what devices may and may not do.  Read the back of a garage door opener some time. 

As for interference, if the user is capped or attempting to use their full bandwidth, you are certainly interfering with the payor's operations.  Some crimes do not require the determination of proximate harm. Speeding down an abandoned highway with no other drivers within 100 miles is still illegal and will result in a fine if caught. 

As for the punishment, fines based on level of infraction I believe would be fair.  Determination of usage can certainly be ascertained through logs.

[brettmcd]

What should the penalty be for the ruthless ne'er-do-well sending out in response (to the negligent internet emitter) his own stream of bits (some of which just happen to collide with the neighbors' router) in order to watch a YouTube video or google "Megan Fox" photos. Call him a thief? The real criminal is the the internet provider and his customer who use our airspace, both public and private, to transmit their potentially lethal radiation (who knows for sure that their frequencies DON'T cause cancer? Any additional risk shouldn't be borne by anyone but the provider and his customer ) and then have the nerve to say "So what? It's legal. Just don't dare open your notebook computer (using the wireless adapter card that's now a standard feature) to access the internet that's streaming through your house/apartment/atmosphere at this very moment. It's meant for your neighbor."

It is not the internet that is streaming through your house. Its the signal of someone's wireless router. A major difference.

A distinction but not a difference; an unauthorized signal is trespassing - never mind they've been given the right to send electromagnetic radiation because they bought a device . And as for "hijacking" anyone's system  (in response to another poster) which implies significant interference with someone's operations, that's not what's happening.

In any case, deliberately avoiding what I think is the real issue "What if any penalties should free riders face?". What jail terms? What fines?

If we say, for the sake of argument, it's some sort of crime, then a crime calls for punishment. What kind of punishment? So how many prisons should we build and how many thousands of inspectors and police officers hired to stop this menace?
How serious is this for you? Or society? Myself, I see it as far below littering and talking too loud on your cellphone.

Good luck preventing unauthorized signals from any source passing through your airspace.  Do they make house-sized Faraday cages?  The right stems from the certification of the device, not the purchase by the owner.  The FCC mandates what devices may and may not do.  Read the back of a garage door opener some time. 

As for interference, if the user is capped or attempting to use their full bandwidth, you are certainly interfering with the payor's operations.  Some crimes do not require the determination of proximate harm. Speeding down an abandoned highway with no other drivers within 100 miles is still illegal and will result in a fine if caught. 

As for the punishment, fines based on level of infraction I believe would be fair.  Determination of usage can certainly be ascertained through logs.

You hit on something key here, that people seem to be ignoring, the thief that is using someone elses internet connection can hamper that persons ability to use the services they are paying for to their fullest extent.   And we all know that most of the thieves who are stealing wireless from others arent using it for 'light' usage, they are using it so they dont have to pay themselves for their own internet.   So this claim that its not affecting anyone is bs.

[JohnathanStrange]

Perhaps posting on gaming forums while you're ostensibly working is a greater crime - certainly our employers might feel that way.

"But, Boss, someone was wrong on the internet!"

Where's CeeKay when I need him?

[Doopri]

Perhaps posting on gaming forums while you're ostensibly working is a greater crime - certainly our employers might feel that way.

technically, youre stealing back the time that your employers rightfully purchased for you in exchange for a service - your labor time. 

fully monitoring all computers at all times, and docking hours from paychecks sounds reasonable here

[Isgrimnur]

Do we dock the time of the monitoring personel if they gain any enjoyment from the content that they observe while performing their paid duties?