Comments on: Wi-Fi piggybackers confess

More than half of computer users surveyed by security firm Sophos admit to having used another's Wi-Fi without permission.

[ss_Whiplash]

Half???

I always question the accuracy of these types of security "surveys" when the company who publishes it is in the business of selling security.

Most people I know have enough trouble connecting to their OWN wi-fi hardware, much less piggybacking off of somebody elses.

[grangerfx]

Civil Disobedience

We, the consumers, don?t care that sharing our wireless internet connection is against the law. We understand that the only reason this law was passed is that the ISPs lobbied congress. Corporations have far too much power to create and mold laws to benefit themselves. As consumers, our only recourse is to scoff at laws created to limit our rights. We do our best to copy whatever media we can for ourselves and our friends. We try to use as much internet bandwidth as possible downloading this media. By sharing our ISP connection via unsecured wireless we are making it very difficult for the RIAA and MPA to prove who downloaded this media beyond a reasonable doubt. One day an aspiring politician will realize that they can get more votes by making laws more consumer-friendly rather than catering to the corporate lobbyists. Meanwhile we consumers, who are being threatened by FBI warnings and insulted by anti-copying videos on every DVD we buy or rent, are not going to be very sympathetic to corporations whining that we are breaking their laws.

[smokeonit]

stealing????

i have 2 wifi networks @ home. one for me, and one without
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 ********....

[dcase99]

Yes I would

Taking something that doesn't belong to you is STEALING. If you
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.

[nicmart]

Woeful CNET

CNET is mostly al PR conduit for special interests. In this case 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.

[teh_chrizzle]

house? cafe? difference?

what's the difference between a coffee shop that lets anyone use it's internet access and a house? is it illegal to use a hotel or coffee shop's free wifi as well?

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.

[dcase99]

Big difference

Cafe is paying the ISP to share the connection. House is generally
not.

@dcase99 - What supports your statement so far? You are either just being ignorant or you are working for the related industry. Totally nonsense.

[BlissfulGirl]

I hate that just anyone can post an article to cnet these days...

...you have to be a complete wingnut to liken using open wifi connections to stealing. The VAST majority of open connections are open because (as the previous poster stated) the owners WANT to allow people to use them. Wasn't that the whole idea behind having entirely wifi cities??? Joe Q. Public could set up hotspots that eventually connected entire communities with free wifi access? This article should be retitled to "WI-FI PIGGYBACKERS CONFESS TO USING WI-FI EXACTLY AS IT WAS INTENDED".

[dcase99]

still doesn't make it right

Just because the homeowners WANT to share it doesn't make it
legal P-E-R-I-O-D!

Share your cable and let's see how legal you are.

[gerrrg]

the hypocrisy.

Do you speed on the freeway like everyone else going over 10 mph over the posted limit, or are you the chump in the slow lane, getting passed by the big rigs?
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?

[TaintDeli]

OH NOEZ!!!

We are depriving the ISPs of revenue?!?! You mean the legalized monopolies like Comcast and AT&T who are free to charge us as much as they want? Who cap our bandwidth but won't tell us what our limits are? Who filter any traffic they don't agree with? Who willfully turn over our surfing history and email to the feds with no warrant? We are depriving THEM of revenue?!

Cry me a f***ing river.

[dcase99]

Then fix the laws

Don't go breaking one just to prove a point.

[edrodgers]

A bunch of social leeches...

STEALING your neighbor's internet is like stealing your neighbor's cable or phone or electricity. Why not siphon their gas tank while you are at it?

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.

[dlowe402]

Not quite

To steal cable, phone or electricity, you have to physically
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...

[The_Decider]

Speaking of stupidily

A person doesn't have to leave their home to connect to an unsecured wireless access point.

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.

[JadedGamer]

NOT STEALING!

If you run a wi-fi router unprotected you are giving an implicit accept to devices trying to connect that they can do so: You effectively choose to invite any nearby computer looking for a wi-fi node to use your router. This is built into the handshake protocol, with no user intervention necessary. My MacBook may look for that node and connect to it with no action on my part - should you not then call Apple the "social leeches"?

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...

[DrewHew]

Wrong analogies

Yourself and dcase99 have been crusading your morality on a bunch of weak analogies!

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)

[Renegade Knight]

Shared Access

Shared Access isn't stolen.

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.

[dcase99]

Wait a sec

Just because a bank vault is open doesn't mean you can walk in and
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.

[punterjoe]

The best headlines hide the weakest stories

This really is a nuanced issue, but that doesn't draw the numbers a skewed, shallow treatment does. I believe it was Cory Doctorow who mentioned using someone's open wifi was like using their porchlight to read directions. It shouldn't be such a black & white issue. I know plenty of people who will use open wifi to check email or Google maps.. not everyone's sucking down bootlegged movie torrents. I'm quite disappointed that CNet's parroting the self-serving study of a security firm without putting it in perspective. I'd expect this of local TV news or the daily Metro, but not a tech-savvy media outlet like CNet.

[edge_bit]

SHARING INTENTIONALLY IS LEGAL ++

Sharing your home network with an unencrypted WiFi access point for whomever may want to use it isn't illegal.

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.

[edrodgers]

Where do you live? I'll find your statute.

Wikipedia: Theft of services:
"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:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/07/technology/personaltech/wireless_arrest/index.htm

[dcase99]

Legal????

Just because no ones says you CAN'T do it, doesn't make it legal.
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.

[PzkwVIb]

US. Law

is what matters. Ten rules liad down in a 2000 year old book of fairy tales doesn't count.
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_Decider]

If someone can't be bothered to secure their wireless

Then who is at fault?

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.

[edrodgers]

You're Right. The Law is Wrong.

You can't take advantage of the weak and ignorant and still maintain your moral superiority.

It is illegal and immoral to steal network access where you are not welcomed.

It's simple.

[akita96th]

What dosent make it right?

Well just because some mega corporations with their high priced lobbyists greased the pockets of politicians to create laws that make them rich on the backs of hard working americans..does that make it right and us wrong...if you agree with corporate greed then you are right and you can sleep well everynight..me I disagree and I also sleep well every night...

[akita96th]

HA HA

Such a small mind you probly wear your corporate suit and tie to bed everynight...You cant change laws that are backed by well paid politicians..I cant remember when a law has been passed that was consumer oriented..nope when you read the fine print you realize the game has been rigged and guess what you have been screwed again lol..I laugh everytime I see someone say well its the law so abide by it lol...We dont make laws elected idiots do and they are up for bid...I say you abide by it leave the rest of us to our beliefs

[dcase99]

Laws

Laws are changed every day, every second of every day in this
country. If you think you cannot change them, then perhaps
another country where you are right would be more suited to you.

[piusg]

You're full of it

There is _nothing_ in my TOS contract with [unnamed ISP] that says anything about sharing my network access beyond my home address.

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.

[dcase99]

Tell me the name of your ISP

I'll prove you wrong

Haha.. both of them are so full of it. Wrong analogies, wrong examples, no point arguing with them. If sharing wifi really is illegal, this site would be shut down by different authorities long ago. http://www.fon.com

[ethana2]

I smell a broken model..

I will redistribute my bandwidth if I please.
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.

[bluemist9999]

Result will be a pay for data model

So, instead of paying a flat monthly fee for all the data we can download, we'll pay a base fee plus some amount extra, say $.05/GB downloaded.

Basically the result would be "Do whatever you want with your bandwidth, but we'll charge you more the more you use."

[Stormspace]

Using a shared WIFI signal isn't theft

The simple matter of it is that the user has no idea what terms of service the wireless provider has or if the access point he's connecting to is a commercial or private one. In fact most laptops and devices will automatically connect to an unencypted WLAN without any intervention from the user.

The burden of responsibility is on the subscriber providing the wireless access, not the freeloader.

[edrodgers]

Most Laptops...

Yeah.. That would be wonderful! I wish my laptop would just automatically join any network within range. Then the owner of the router (or any other machine on the open LAN) can just sniff my passwords all day long.

"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.

[psyop15]

definitely is stealing

If you leave the front door of your house open, does that give me the right to walk in and use your tv, eat your food, and sleep on your couch? Or is the burden of responsibility on you to keep your crap locked up? The "reasonable person" approach applies here, in addition to the fact that everyone knows full well that ISP's forbid sharing (T's & C's), the feds have a law that forbids the use of communications services that you are deliberately attempting to avoid paying for, not to mention that hotspots for public consumption are generally labeled in such a way (via portal pages, SSID names, etc.) as to make it OBVIOUS that they are commercial/public.

[Iamkar33m]

Case precedence?

To all those exclaiming the illegality of sharing WiFi, show me a law stating such. I'll even settle for any case precedence set in a U.S. Court indicting an internet subscriber for sharing his connection or even a leecher for using an open connection. Until then, your claims that internet sharing is illegal go without merit.

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.

[edrodgers]

Hmmmm... Unautherized Network Access.. Sounds Clear!

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/07/technology/personaltech/wireless_arrest/index.htm

http://www.news.com/2100-1039-5112000.html

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:
http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_unauthorized_access_computer_network_crime.htm

[edrodgers]

5 Minutes' Research.. Or...

Spend 5 minutes looking this up, or sound like an ignorant fool. You choose.

The law is catching up, and almost every state has a statute against theft of service.

Where are you? I'll find your rule.