Man Charged With Stealing Wi-Fi Signal

[atari1356]

"Benjamin Smith III, 41, faces a pretrial hearing this month following his April arrest on charges of unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/techbits_wi_fi_theft


What do you think about this? Seems to me that it can't really be "unauthorized" if the person didn't have a password on their network. Not that I think it's totally right either... but getting arrested for it, and having to go to court seems a bit much.

[Calvinatir]

I had the impression that if the signal was on your property, without a WEP or WPA then you could legally use the signal. Man, I've been wardriving before, made a GPS map of my area..heh

[Stampyhead]

"Benjamin Smith III, 41, faces a pretrial hearing this month following his April arrest on charges of unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/techbits_wi_fi_theft


What do you think about this? Seems to me that it can't really be "unauthorized" if the person didn't have a password on their network. Not that I think it's totally right either... but getting arrested for it, and having to go to court seems a bit much.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens with this, as there is no precedence yet for this kind of thing. If he was using the guy's internet to hack into his computer or send spam or child porn or something, then he most likely will be convicted. But if he was just using the signal to get on the internet then it could go either way. Personally I don't see anything wrong with hopping onto an unsecure wireless signal as long as you don't do anything malicious or slow down the person's internet, or anything like that. Is it stealing? I don't know. More like borrowing, in my opinion...

[ham_man]

I know that it isn't exactly ethical, but isn't this kinda like watching a baseball game through a hole in the outfield fence?

[Eevee]

I was suprised to read about this. Is it really illegal to hop on unsecure Wi Fi? Are there any laws saying you can't?

If someone doesn't want others to surf on their Wi-Fi, they should secure it. But like what the news stated, most people don't know how or don't.

I believe he'll be found innocent at the end.

[mactastic]

I dunno... If someone wanted to keep their stuff, should they be forced to lock it all up or have it legally taken?

[stubeeef]

It would seem to me, if they are radiating a signal on a FCC approved frequency, a public one, then I don't see the issue.

[Peterkro]

I deliberately leave my wireless open for people to use, if someone abuses it I'll temp protect it,if everyone did that wireless everywhere and a nightmare for the control freaks **IA etc.

[MacFan782040]

I've logged onto so many people's WIFI connections like on vacations and when I'm out of town. What's the hurt? If they don't want people on it, put a password and secure it.

I'll take my chances with it.

[emw]

I dunno... If someone wanted to keep their stuff, should they be forced to lock it all up or have it legally taken?Hey, if that guy hadn't wanted me to drive off in his car, he should have locked it. :rolleyes:

As for this particular case, the perpetrator was parked in an SUV outside of the owner's house. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to to steal wireless. Probably cost him more in gas to drive around looking for a good signal than to just subscribe to his own damn service.

[solvs]

I dunno... If someone wanted to keep their stuff, should they be forced to lock it all up or have it legally taken?
Difference being that if someone takes something from you, you don't have it anymore. And if you just leave it lying around in the open instead of locked up on your property, you shouldn't be surprised if it is stolen. May not be right, but that's the way it is. But this is more like stealing cable, or like watching someone elses TV while they have the windows open. Maybe they should just call it piracy.

[rickvanr]

I'm going to have to agree with an above poster; if he was using wifi from an unprotected network, I don't see a problem. On the other hand, if he cracked into it to use it then I would have a problem.

[mactastic]

Difference being that if someone takes something from you, you don't have it anymore. And if you just leave it lying around in the open instead of locked up on your property, you shouldn't be surprised if it is stolen. May not be right, but that's the way it is. But this is more like stealing cable, or like watching someone elses TV while they have the windows open. Maybe they should just call it piracy.

I guess I kind of liken it to stealing a lemon off someone's lemon tree. Sure they have plenty of lemons and probably won't miss one, but does that fact alone make it OK to take?

I'm kind of torn on this. On the one hand I'd have no problem with drawing water off a neighbor who let his sprinklers run and run and run causing runoff into the streets. But I'm still not sure that makes it right or legal.

How do you know you're not impinging on the persons bandwidth? If you cause them to have a single slowdown, are you stealing time from them?

Now on the other hand, if I'm broadcasting a radio signal from my house and you pick up said signal are you stealing it? I believe it is legal to listen in on wireless phone calls with a scanner.

I'm not taking one side or the other on this yet. At first glance I'd have to say it's illegal, but there is definetly some legal grey area to be explored.

[mkrishnan]

I had the impression that if the signal was on your property, without a WEP or WPA then you could legally use the signal. Man, I've been wardriving before, made a GPS map of my area..heh

This argument makes a lot of sense to me, but I don't think that's the way it works, at least in the US. At least, the "signal was on your property" argument didn't hold for catching satellite signals and descrambling them, long before DMCA made the encryption circumvention aspect illegal. And same for tapping into someone's cordless telephone, in the days when they were analog and did not use any kind of encryption.

But then again, the article also uses the term "innocuous" to describe lifting WiFi but not committing another illegal act in the process. It's clearly illegal to lift someone's WiFi and capture their private information that way. It's clearly illegal to lift someone's WiFi and try to masquerade yourself as them to protect yourself from being caught for doing something like trafficking child porn.

You could easily make the argument, though, even in the case where you do none of this, and the subscription owner does not pay by volume (i.e. the cost is fixed per month and is not per MB), that you are compromising their quality of service, since you are stealing their bandwidth, and they are therefore unable to access their full purchased bandwidth....

The problem is that the practice of "innocuously" using other people's WiFi has become very widespread...lots of people who would never dream of doing something "not innocuous" do it, and many of them don't even conceptually understand that it's wrong. I know some people who do this and don't understand computing tech well enough to understand that they are using a private subscription someone else paid for -- they are just pleasantly surprised to find that their computer works on the internet when they move into a new apartment, and just assume that it's something they're allowed to use....

[katie ta achoo]

I deliberately leave my wireless open for people to use, if someone abuses it I'll temp protect it,if everyone did that wireless everywhere and a nightmare for the control freaks **IA etc.

I leave mine open for the same reason.
I know there are times I need google to answer a question, and there must be people who have the same feeling, when they're out in their car in my neighborhood.

[Xtremehkr]

I can't say that I haven't done it. But I know that whether or not they have taken steps to protect it, it is still someone else's bandwith. Still, I wonder how much he was taking for it to have become an issue.

[rickvanr]

I can't say that I haven't done it. But I know that whether or not they have taken steps to protect it, it is still someone else's bandwith. Still, I wonder how much he was taking for it to have become an issue.


That has to be the reason why it was an issue. He was probably using ridiculous amounts of bandwidth, killing the victim's cap and costing them large amounts of money.

[mkrishnan]

That has to be the reason why it was an issue. He was probably using ridiculous amounts of bandwidth, killing the victim's cap and costing them large amounts of money.

It sounded to me like, in this case, he was a creepy guy hanging around in his truck outside their house all the time, and they wanted to get rid of him, and when the police came, they used it as the most convenient way to press charges.... But I am very curious to know that too.

[CanadaRAM]

If I am being paid to send spam, it makes a lot of sense to base my operation out of a SUV and make sure that all of the manliness pills, unbeatable investment opporunities and adventures with farm animals are traceable back to YOUR IP address, not mine. I'll move down the block when your address is blacklisted. Especially if the law enforcement agencies can subpoena the ISP's subscriber list.

Analogy: If Bank of America has a publicly broadcast Web server address, and you are able to find a backdoor or hack your way in, it's legal, 'cause it was available and they should have had better passwords? No.

[fitinferno]

I had the impression that if the signal was on your property, without a WEP or WPA then you could legally use the signal. Man, I've been wardriving before, made a GPS map of my area..heh

Haha, this is why I think if they leave it unsecured then it's free game. Wardriving is fun...

Now, cracking into if they've protected it...that should be the illegal thing. Of course us Mac users would have a hard time falling into this category with our AP cards ;)

[mkrishnan]

FWIW, C|Net actually did a really good summary FAQ on legal precedents concerning the theft of wifi. It apparently is even more ambiguous than I thought....

Link to C|Net (http://news.com.com/FAQ+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-7351_3-5778822.html?tag=nefd.pop)

I'll submit it to Macbytes, too. :)

[msbsound]

I leave my home wireless network open, and being in NYC, there is the possibility for a lot of theft. Unless I notice slow down, or get a notice about illegal activity, I figure share the wealth.

[dswoodley]

FWIW, C|Net actually did a really good summary FAQ on legal precedents concerning the theft of wifi. It apparently is even more ambiguous than I thought....

Link to C|Net (http://news.com.com/FAQ+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-7351_3-5778822.html?tag=nefd.pop)

I'll submit it to Macbytes, too. :)

From C|Net "The primary law is the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

You can read it for yourself, but the important part (check out paragraph (a)(2)) covers anyone who "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access." Nobody knows exactly what that means in terms of wireless connections. The law was written in 1986 to punish computer hacking--and nobody contemplated 802.1x wireless links back then."

Ok, so by analogy, if I walk into a building and some doors are for "Authorized Personnel Only" but they aren't in anyway marked as such and go into one not knowing if I am "Authorized" or "Unauthorized" have I broken the rules? Maybe...but is it really my fault? Doesn't the owner of the property (or in this case the network) have an obligation to mark something that transcends surface property as "by authorization only"?

[Mr. Anderson]

It would be a bit odd if the guy kept showing up near your house in his car just to surf the net - they didn't even mention what he was doing exactly.

I've done it plenty of times accessing a neighbors signal, but I've never driven up to someone's house...that is a little more extreme. This could set a precedent for future cases, though, so it I'm hoping he doesn't get convicted.

D

[ebuc]

Like many others I leave my wireless unprotected. It's just the nice thing to do.

I'd be interested to know what harms (if any) this "Wi-Fi Stealer" has caused. Without knowing that, it's hard to judge the man's innocence or guilt, though it's pretty easy to say that sitting outside someone's house in their driveway is a bit creepy.

[MacNut]

I believe it is legal to listen in on wireless phone calls with a scanner.It is legal to have a scanner to listen to public frequencies such as police and fire but you can't purposely listen to private conversations like cell phones or cordless phones.

[mcarnes]

Like many others I leave my wireless unprotected. It's just the nice thing to do.

I'd be interested to know what harms (if any) this "Wi-Fi Stealer" has caused. Without knowing that, it's hard to judge the man's innocence or guilt, though it's pretty easy to say that sitting outside someone's house in their driveway is a bit creepy.

Sounds like you're a kind soul but many in the world are unkind. What if someone uses your signal to do something illegal? What if someone plays a joke and sends a bomb threat to www.fbi.gov

Password protect your signal my friend. It's easy to do so why take chances?

[AmigoMac]

They should give him at least 10 years!! :mad:

.
.
.

;)


bah! Who cares! Everyone should take care of his own setup! if it's open then just don't complain!!

[CAM]

Warning, simple mind at work here.

For those who find what was done in this case acceptable, I wonder if you'd feel comfortable asking the network owner for permission before you connected. If not, then maybe you should question if this is really OK.

[MongoTheGeek]

Is this a tresspass like cutting through someone's front yard? Or is it walking through their house?

What if the homeowner paid for the megabyte? They do in some places?

Honestly I don't mind sharing my bandwidth but I have it locked down because I worry about liability if someone uses it unauthorized. Adelphia would be right to shut me down if there were a spambot spooging through my router. What if the cops come knocking on my door because my neighbor is scamming my bandwidth to run a kiddie porn website. I would spend 6 months in a federal PMITA prison before it was all straightened out.

[Lau]

In this week's Observer magazine :D :

[CHess]

Many interesting points and opinions here. But I don't think you can say this is an illegal activity. An unlocked door is not a good analogy here, nor is the idea that the accused is taking something away from the wifi owner.

I can put an old sofa out on the edge of the street and everyone understands that they are welcome to take it. Can I then accuse them of stealing? Just because I didn't know enough to put it somewhere more secure? Or, better yet, can I call the police because someone is sitting on it? What if I'm renting the couch? Could I then claim that I'm not able to use it when I want, because someone else keeps sitting on it?

Going back to wifi, it seems simple to me (but maybe I'm too simple). The owner has a transmitter that is broadcasting into the airwaves AND the wifi base station is purposely broadcasting it's existence by broadcasting its name AND it is neither password protected or data encrypted.

Now, if the accused repeatedly shows up after the wifi owner tells the guy to go away, that's a different case. If the accused is actually accessing the wifi owners computers, that's also a different case. If the accused is spamming or doing anything else that is purposely putting the wifi owner at risk, again, that's a different case.

[highres]

i think it is fairly simple:

Who is providing the product or service? The ISP.

The ISP then legally owns that product and can charge what they think is fair market value for that product.

In order to use that product or signal the internet "user" needs to pay or enter into a financial agreement with the "provider" to use his product or services.

If a "user" is sitting outside someones house and is using the signal unbeknownst to the homeowner and the provider, he is using their product without their knowledge and has not paid for that product.

Now some cities like La Jolla in San Diego, CA. have a wireless network in certain areas that anyone is allowed to use free of charge because it attracts poeple and business to the area but it is their choice to provide that as a service and I am sure they paid a lot to provide it.

Bottom Line: Unauthorized use of someones service is not legal, whether it is morally correct and that internet signal should be free to everyone is another issue entirely.

[jdechko]

I think that there is a fine line here, as it does not say exactly what the person was doing with the Wi-Fi access. If the guy was just browsing the shared files, then he should not be punished by the legal system. On any network, any shared files should be expected to be viewed. Anything that the owner doesnt want shared should be kept private.

However, if the guy were using his access to the network to gain access to the internet, he should be charged and punished as the law states for stealing other utilities (water, power, cable, whatever else). Essentially, that's what he would be doing is stealing the internet utility.

The real gray area comes because information is broadcast over the airwaves. If the guy had a 500' Cat5 cable running from the base station to the SUV, this would be no problem whatsoever.

On a side note, it would be freaking halarious if they had a printer shared over the network and the guy started printing stuff to it.

"I'm watching you..."
"I know what you've been looking at..."
"All your base are belong to us."

HA! :p

[dswoodley]

Warning, simple mind at work here.

For those who find what was done in this case acceptable, I wonder if you'd feel comfortable asking the network owner for permission before you connected. If not, then maybe you should question if this is really OK.

I would and do feel ok with it and if I know the source of the signal I do ask.

[dswoodley]

i think it is fairly simple:

Who is providing the product or service? The ISP.

The ISP then legally owns that product and can charge what they think is fair market value for that product.

In order to use that product or signal the internet "user" needs to pay or enter into a financial agreement with the "provider" to use his product or services.

If a "user" is sitting outside someones house and is using the signal unbeknownst to the homeowner and the provider, he is using their product without their knowledge and has not paid for that product.

Now some cities like La Jolla in San Diego, CA. have a wireless network in certain areas that anyone is allowed to use free of charge because it attracts poeple and business to the area but it is their choice to provide that as a service and I am sure they paid a lot to provide it.

Bottom Line: Unauthorized use of someones service is not legal, whether it is morally correct and that internet signal should be free to everyone is another issue entirely.

You only reguritate what the problem is. Why are some networks that have no indicator of "authorized vs. unauthorized" okay to use and others are not? The issue here is what construes "Authorization"?

[zelmo]

Seems to me the only real loser in a case like this is going to be the service provider, not the consumer who is leaving their network wide open for all to use (assuming I'm paying a monthly fee regardless of usage). I'm broadcasting a signal to my neighbors that they would otherwise have to purchase from a service provider. Am I stealing, or at least denying revenue, from my ISP by broadcasting something for free that they would charge for?

If I don't want to share my access, I can encrypt my network. OTOH, the ISP has no means of preventing me from giving away their service for free. For that matter, what's to prevent me from getting paid $10 from each of my neighbors for providing internet access to them? Cheaper for them,, subsidizes my costs. That sure smells illlegal to me.

[dswoodley]

A twist:
Seems to me the only real loser in a case like this is going to be the service provider, not the consumer who is leaving their network wide open for all to use (assuming I'm paying a monthly fee regardless of usage). I'm broadcasting a signal to my neighbors that they would otherwise have to purchase from a service provider. Am I stealing, or at least denying revenue, from my IP by broadcasting something for free that they would charge for?


i agree with this. Likely the ISP has it in the agreement that the service won't be shared. If anything the ISP could sue for breach of agreement.

Seriously, in this day an age of internet theft and malicious activity you have no business having a wifi network unless you know how to secure it.

[zelmo]

i agree with this. Likely the ISP has it in the agreement that the service won't be shared. If anything the ISP could sue for breach of agreement.

Seriously, in this day an age of internet theft and malicious activity you have no business having a wifi network unless you know how to secure it.

If the agreement we sign with our ISP does not already state it is illegal to share access, for profit or not, it will soon. From the perspective of the service provider, how is this really any different that running my cable, or my landline phone, to my neighbor's house for him to leech?

[highres]

i agree with this. Likely the ISP has it in the agreement that the service won't be shared. If anything the ISP could sue for breach of agreement.

This was my point (not "regurgitating" the original argument) that the ISP provides a service, and that everybody has to pay to use that service. Sharing it or providing it for free to someone is illegal, that why I said it seems fairly straightforward or "simple" to me. If you are using something that you didn't and would normally have to pay for it is illegal.

[MacNut]

So when I go into a coffee shop and use their free WiFi does that mean the ISP can throw me in jail.

[MacNut]

My town had Wi-Fi hot spots that they let the public use for free, so does the ISP have a right not to provide internet to the town or was an agreement reached between ISP and town over how the network can be used?

[leekohler]

I'm going to have to agree with an above poster; if he was using wifi from an unprotected network, I don't see a problem. On the other hand, if he cracked into it to use it then I would have a problem.

Agreed. The airwaves are free-at least in the US. If he broke into it, that's one thing. If it was being broadcast unsecured, he should walk as there was no loss to the person with the network.

[zelmo]

Agreed. The airwaves are free-at least in the US. If he broke into it, that's one thing. If it was being broadcast unsecured, he should walk as there was no loss to the person with the network.

I agree. The person with the network did nothing illegal, nor did the person leeching, assuming the network was unsecured and his usage was innocent of illegal activity.
The only potential loser here is the ISP. I smell regulatory change in the wind....

[mactastic]

My town had Wi-Fi hot spots that they let the public use for free, so does the ISP have a right not to provide internet to the town or was an agreement reached between ISP and town over how the network can be used?

It's all in the wording of the license agreement between the city and the ISP. Somehow I doubt the language is the same. I also doubt the city pays $29.95 a month for the service.

[yg17]

Seems to me the only real loser in a case like this is going to be the service provider, not the consumer who is leaving their network wide open for all to use (assuming I'm paying a monthly fee regardless of usage). I'm broadcasting a signal to my neighbors that they would otherwise have to purchase from a service provider. Am I stealing, or at least denying revenue, from my ISP by broadcasting something for free that they would charge for?


Lets say my neighbor doesnt have cable TV or satellite. If I invite him over to watch something on cable TV, can the cable company then sue me for denying revenue to them? No, they can't. If I rent a movie at Blockbuster and me and 5 of my buddies watch it, Blockbuster is making less than if all 6 of us rented our own copy, but they can't claim that we're denying revenue to them.


Or take Sirius satellite radio which I have in my car for example. If I'm sitting at a stoplight with the windows open and music blasting, and the guy in the car next to me hears it, I'm not breaking the law by letting someone who isn't subscribed listen to it, and they're not breaking the law by listening. And in turn, I shouldn't be pissed because I'm paying 13 bucks a month for the service and some stranger who isn't paying anything is listening. If I don't want anyone else to listen, I roll up my window. The guy's Wifi signal is no different. He's paying for a service that in turn is out in the open for anyone nearby to use. If he doesn't want anyone else to use it, then enable WEP.

[leekohler]

I agree. The person with the network did nothing illegal, nor did the person leeching, assuming the network was unsecured and his usage was innocent of illegal activity.
The only potential loser here is the ISP. I smell regulatory change in the wind....

How in the world do you regulate the airwaves? Will it be like England where they drive around in little vans to make sure you're not watching TV? (they still do that, right?)

[highres]

So when I go into a coffee shop and use their free WiFi does that mean the ISP can throw me in jail.

No because Starbucks has paid for the connection and service and I am sure that the ISP is aware of Starbucks intent to share the service. A coffee business is not a heavy computing environment like say a design firm, so when Starbucks applys for an internet license the ISP must be aware that they are going to share the service and provide it to attract customers. They may even have a separate financial agreement in place to account for it. Everybody knows that Starbucks supplys wireless internet to customers the ISP included.

[zelmo]

How in the world do you regulate the airwaves? Will it be like England where they drive around in little vans to make sure you're not watching TV? (they still do that, right?)

Personally, I don't think this should be regulated, but you know how communications companies get when they think someone is costing them revenue.
Is there a way for a cable or DSL provider to look at your network to determine if it secured or not? I mean by acccessing your IP remotely, not by van (although....:rolleyes: ). If an ISP can require your network to be secured, or somehow limit the number of users able to log onto it, we might get there.

[Applespider]

I think part of the problem at the moment is you have no idea whether people intend to share their connection or not. There are so many people who set up a wifi router and don't do anything to secure it because they're not aware of it or because they can't make it work. I set up a Belkin router last week and there's no mention of security in the Quick Start Guide - you have to drill to page 43 of the manual before it mentions it might be a good idea! :eek:

As people become more wifi-savvy, hopefully they'll learn to hide SSIDs and password networks they don't want to share. Those who are happy to share can change their network name to something that has 'Welcome to use' in the title or something and things will be clearer.

At the moment, if I'm out and about, open up my PB and find an open network, I'll probably check my mail and a couple of sites - nothing illegal, nothing taking up huge amounts of bandwidth. I wouldn't dream of poking around in shared files or printing (although I know someone prints a polite message to the printer warning the person that their network is open) :p And I wouldn't try to break into a network that was broadcasting its SSID. I also wouldn't think of it as a long-term arrangement!

[dswoodley]

So when I go into a coffee shop and use their free WiFi does that mean the ISP can throw me in jail.

yes...yes...that is exactly what it means. Didn't you know that ISP-managed correctional facilities will be all the rage! ;)