Wardriving = WiFi trespassing

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by kanker, Feb 19, 2004.

  1. kanker macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Location:
    Indy
    #1
    Saw an interesting report on my local news tonight on wardriving (that would be finding open wireless networks and using them without the owner's permission). They interviewed an FBI agent and he said that in fact that was trespassing. Just thought I'd share, see what kind of discussion jumps off from this.
     
  2. SiliconAddict macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #2
    Further proof that the FBI recruits morons.

    Ya and I bet that FBI agent was from the FBI vehicle maintenance department or something. The moron probably wouldn’t know the diff between a WIFI router and a hub if someone smacked him in the *** with the answers. Simple fact. War driving, as long as you don’t pick up an IP address, is not intruding. It’s not crossing over into someone’s house. It’s not peeping on someone’s network. Its picking up the signal sent out from a person’s wireless router or card and logging that information either with standalone stats or with those stats and GPS coordinates. There is NO way in hell something like this would stand up in court. I can, and have, sat in my house and passively sniffed information from my neighbor’s house. Am I intruding? It’s my property his signals are intruding on. The US justice department better get ready for some major issues when it comes to WIFI because questions like this WILL become a major thorn in their side if the DOJ decides to go after this.
    I believe, in the end, the courts will decide the following: Any access point with zero security is fair game for basic web browsing and web surfing. If you don’t want people utilizing your bandwidth you need to take minimum care. (Doesn’t mean I agree with the notion but I think that is what the courts may go with.
    If its determined that the person that connected to that access point or WIFI card caused intentional damage or broke through even minimal security, e.g. MAC filtering, then it would be defined as hacking/cracking and his *** would be in trouble. Then again considering the paranoia this country is in I wouldn’t be surprised if it was termed a terrorist act since virus writers have a plethora of open access points to spread a new and improved virus from.
    At any rate I have this:
    Wardriving Decal
    In the window of my car. I don’t care who knows because it is NOT illegal. Its only illegal for those who don't have a freaking clue what wardriving is and how to actually go about wardriving in a manner that is purely passive.
     
  3. jtown macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #3
    I have a great dislike for port scanners but most "wardriving" is quite different in the way it is done. When someone port scans a wired network, they're actively probing for access ports. When someone wardrives, they're listening for the data that is being broadcast by the wireless access point.

    Now I know there are exceptions to both of those descriptions but I'm going with the general definitions. You can passively sniff a wired network and analyze the traffic without actively probing and some people actively probe for hidden wireless access points but those are the exceptions to the rules as they're generally defined.

    The WAPs picked up in standard wardriving are basically screaming at the top of their lungs "Here's my MAC address!" "My name is Jack!" "I'm on channel 11!" "I was made by Linksys!" "I'm operating as an Access Point!" "I don't have encryption enabled!"

    All of that info is being blasted out to the world for anyone to pick up. Well, it is on most access points. People who take the time to read the manual and learn a little about security turn off that broadcast but they're few and far between.
     
  4. tomf87 macrumors 65816

    tomf87

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    #4
    This type of discussion has been dealt with over and over in the forums. A simple search should yield you a wealth of information.
     
  5. SiliconAddict macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #5
    Just because it's been discussed doesn't mean it can't again. If that was the standard this board would become very sparse very fast.
    This is an interesting topic. Not sure if this is the correct board but *shrugs*
     
  6. kanker thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Location:
    Indy
    #6
    I have to agree with SiliconAddict, and the difference is almost every discussion I've seen says that there is nothing legally wrong with it, but as I said, according to an FBI agent (and I stress, one agent, as SiliconAgent pointed out), it is. Kinda puts a different twist on the discussion.
     

Share This Page