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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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?!
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...
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...
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...
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: <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>
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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>
I secured my WIFI with password, firewall, WEP and MAC filtering. I encountered persistant interference from a neighbors "N" type router so I had to mount some grounded foils next to the antennas, which not only stopped the problem but also limited the area in which the signal can be picked up. Problem solved.
The two telecom carriers will carry a next-generation iPad running on the fast, next-generation wireless technology, sources tell The Wall Street Journal.
Google creates an animated doodle that features a boy, a girl, Google's search engine, and a jump rope. But might there be darker, more analytical, more troubling interpretations to this tale?
The Silicon Valley online payments startup grew by 1,000 percent last year and is hopeful it can repeat that level of growth this year. To do that, it's had to move away from its early friends-and-family roots and embrace small businesses.
Chamtech's spray-on antenna uses a nano material to provide a low-power boost to antenna range. The wireless-in-a-can product may some day bring an end to unsightly cell towers.
EnerG2 opens a plant to make an engineered carbon that will improve performance of energy storage devices and make storage for start-stop hybrid cars less expensive.
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.