November 16, 2007 8:18 AM PST
Wi-Fi piggybackers confess
Fifty-four percent of computer users admit to using someone else's Wi-Fi without permission, according to a new survey by security firm Sophos. And many Internet-enabled homes fail to secure their wireless connection properly with passwords and encryption, allowing others to steal Internet access rather than pay an ISP, said Sophos, which carried out the 560-person survey.
Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos, said borrowing Wi-Fi Internet access may feel like a victimless crime but it deprives ISPs of revenue. Furthermore, if you hop onto your next-door neighbor's wireless broadband connection to download movies and music from the Internet, chances are that you are also slowing down their Internet access and depleting their download limit, Cluley added. In addition, using an electronic communications service with the intent to avoid paying is breaking the law.
Gemma Simpson of Silicon.com reported from London.
See more CNET content tagged:
Sophos Plc., Graham Cluley, Internet access, Wi-Fi, survey
78 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
Most people I know have enough trouble connecting to their OWN wi-fi hardware, much less piggybacking off of somebody elses.
encryption for people like me that need wifi on the go....
anyone that picks up my signal is welcome to use it....
why would anyone consider using an unencrypted wifi signal as
stealing??? this article is ********....
check your license agreement with your ISP I'm positive there is a
section about not being able to share it with others. You are as
guilty by sharing it as someone is for taking it.
swallows and passes along, with utter credulity, the dubious
ethical and technical claims of ISPs and a security specialist. It
needs to be emphasized that CNET may market to consumers, but
it is captive to the companies about which it reports.
what's the difference between someone knowingly sharing and someone unknowingly sharing? are there special agreements for coffee shops and whatnot? is it illegal regardless of the owner's intentions?
when i see a list of available access points, how am i supposed to know which ones are residential and which ones are commercial?
this is why you shouldn't legislate things like this, laws are made by people who don't understand the technology, and can't answer these sorts of questions.
not.
legal P-E-R-I-O-D!
Share your cable and let's see how legal you are.
Either you have it black and white, or you live in the world of grays. The ISPs (RIAA, MPAA, etc) only see their revenue stream in black and white, but they see regulatory requirements in a lot of grays. Funny how that stuff works, don't you think?
Cry me a f***ing river.
This is such a simple moral argument that I am baffled that the only postings here are from the anarchy crowd that see no problem with not paying for a utility.
And of course if it's not locked up it's ok to take it...
Such stupidity makes me weep.
manipulate their connection. Anyone who distributes there
connection through a wireless router can lock it with a password to
prevent others from using it. If they don't, as i don't, they are
allowing anyone to use it. It's kinda like fm radio in that it is freely
in the air for anyone with the right equipment to pick up and use.
Just like any other case involving theft, you have to have a victim
willing to press charges. If you don't want your bandwidth used by
others...Password Protect!
Such stupidity makes me weep as well Mr. Rodgers...
Your analogy is not only way off, it is ignorant.
If someone is too stupid or lazy to secure their access point, then I have no sympathy for them.
They should not be allowed to run a wireless network, plain and simple.
An "owner" of a Wi-fi node should be responsible for protecting access to the node as needed. You would expect a user of complex technology to learn how to use it properly - in this case, how to configure encryption and authorization before enabling Wi-fi in the first place. Especially since it's in the user's interest as they become liable if the connection is used to commit a crime...
Stealing electricity - you pay per kilowatt usage, ergo, if I use my neighbour's electricity, I am costing him money.
Phone - line can be open for one conversation at a time AND once again we pay per use/call. Now I not only cost my neighbour money, but I also deprive him of usage if he wants to make a call while I'm using the phone.
Internet - one monthly fee, multiple users allowed. True, you deprive someone of bandwidth if you are a heavy user - they have a choice to secure or not to. Yes, you deprive the ISP of revenue - user has a choice to secure or not to (fact is, it is the user who would be in breach in this situation BUT I still don't agree that he is because as I said in a previous post, a user has no/limited ability to prevent a wireless signal from leaving their premises - and absolutely NO obligation to encrypt his signal)
Unless WiFi has a flag that says "I'm open, but you don't have permission" you can only assume you have permission.
The other option is to assume the owner of the unsecured WiFi is a moron who is too stupid to actually run WiFi or call someone who does. I prefer to give folks the benefit of the doubt.
That means perission granted on unsecured WiFi. However abusing the privlidge and using it outside of traveling is too much.
take money out right? What makes you think you can just walk up
and take somebody else's wireless connection. Still doesn't belong
to you.
It doesn't deprive ISPs of much revenue as anyone piggybacking off your connection can't likely leech much considering they contend with whomever else might wander by.
My Vonage WiFi phone automatically logs into whatever open access points it finds. (I set the password on mine and I suggest you do too if you have one. Check the forums for instructions.)
So by owning this phone these mental midgets are claiming I'm stealing? No.
AFAIK it's illegal to circumvent security measures. If there are no reasonable security measures to keep you out of a computer system, since there are no borders in computerland I believe the law says you're granted access.
So technically "lowjacking" WiFi access is completely legal and all this recent fuss about it is rediculous.
Prove me wrong, please... (Proof implies links to legal papers.) Yes, I'm putting the burden of proof on those who would disagree. I don't care.
"Some theft statutes also cover unauthorized computer or network access, or use of computer software without paying for it, or usage beyond the contractual service restrictions. These laws have been used to prosecute hackers and spammers."
Man Charged With Wireless Trespassing:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/07/technology/personaltech/wireless_arrest/index.htm" target="_newWindow">http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/07/technology/personaltech/wireless_arrest/index.htm</a>
Stealing wireless (yes STEALING) is no different that STEALING
cable. Both are against the law.
If you want legal documents, check out the 10 commandments,
pretty sure there is one commandment that references taking
something that doesn't belong to you.
Theft is defined by statute, no one religion's nebulous old writings.
BTW: Theft of service is a tricky thing. I recall several online computers systems in the pre-web days, used to throw up a welcome screen and ask for userid and password. The problem was the Welcome on the screen was legally construed as an invitation to use the service. After that many removed the Welcom from the signon screen.
The moron running the unsecured wifi point. Which is of course, different then someone intentionally letting people have access.
I will bet dollars to doughnuts that this moron is also running XP or Vista with all the required third party security tools. And of course have the default log in and password on their router which means it is not only simple to change the router settings and thus own the bandwidth, but is also simple to hack into any machines running on the LAN(wireless or Ethernet).
These types of people have no business running a LAN, much less using a computer.
The idiots who think it is the same thing as breaking into a car, house or bank vault, get a clue. 802.11 is a radio signal running on a (fairly)unregulated, PUBLIC, band. The signal is in MY home and is unencrypted. Not at all different then a radio stations signal.
Want to keep people out? Lock it up! Sure, it is illegal for someone to walk into your house, even if it is unlocked, but everyone is going to call you an idiot for not locking the door.
It is illegal and immoral to steal network access where you are not welcomed.
It's simple.
country. If you think you cannot change them, then perhaps
another country where you are right would be more suited to you.
I routinely use encrypted RealVNC Enterprise to log into my machine at home and surf while I'm on the road, because I don't necessarily want the sites I visit to be public knowledge like they would be if I'm connected through a client's network or a hotel router (and get that arrogant "well-if-you're-not-doing-anything-you'd be-ashamed-of-then-you-don't-have-to-worry" chip off your shoulder: my surfing and personal e-mail is _my_ business and nobody else's).
I'm well within my rights to use my broadband connection that way. Look at the TOS of any ISP and prove me wrong.
Most will.
Instead of lamenting and telling us we're 'depriving you of revenue', you should be thinking 'how do we adapt to this fact?'
You're about to see the entertainment industry leaders tank. Don't follow them with this idiocy.
Basically the result would be "Do whatever you want with your bandwidth, but we'll charge you more the more you use."
The burden of responsibility is on the subscriber providing the wireless access, not the freeloader.
"Most laptops" will do such stupid things if you configure them to do so.
"Most laptops" are configured by DEFAULT not to do so, and for good reason.
It is theft to use the resources of an ISP that does not welcome you. Period. Duh.
Also you claim that people who leech off of open connections are depriving ISP's of revenue? That sounds like something RIAA or MPAA would claim. You know what, those same people leeching off of an open connection have no intention of subscribing to an ISP in the first place. How is it considered lost revenue if there was no intent to subscribe?
So until I see DIRECT references to LAWS set by US COURTS (and the 10 commandments don't count as I am not Christian) or, case precedence set by US COURTS... your arguments are baseless.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.news.com/2100-1039-5112000.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.news.com/2100-1039-5112000.html</a>
Tennessee law:
It is an offense for any person, knowingly and with the intent to defraud a communication service provider of any lawful compensation for providing a communication service, to:
(1) Possess, use, make, develop, assemble, sell, distribute, possess with intent to distribute, lease, license, transfer, import into this state or offer, promote or advertise any unlawful communication device for the unauthorized acquisition or theft of any communication service or to receive, intercept, disrupt, transmit, re-transmit, decrypt, acquire or facilitate the receipt, interception, disruption, transmission, re-transmission, decryption or acquisition of any communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider as stated in a contract or otherwise, or as otherwise expressly authorized by law . . .
"unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony.?
Oh HERE. Read it yourself:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_unauthorized_access_computer_network_crime.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_unauthorized_access_computer_network_crime.htm</a>
The law is catching up, and almost every state has a statute against theft of service.
Where are you? I'll find your rule.