User Arrested for Wi-Fi Bandwidth Theft

[epp_b]

I'm not quite sure what to think about this one... http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/07/business/wifi.phpI suppose that, technically, he was "stealing" something that wasn't his, but it's not like it put the owner of the device broadcasting the signal at any disadvantage.Secondly, shouldn't the owner of the Wi-Fi router be given some sort of concequence for neglecting to secure his own wireless network? If you were responsible for locking a bank vault at the end of the day, don't you think you'd get in trouble if you forgot to?

[Ed_P]

I suppose that, technically, he was "stealing" something that wasn't his, but it's not like it put the owner of the device broadcasting the signal at any disadvantage.

There is no "technically" about it, he was taking/using something that wasn't his. How about if while you're out at school/work/play I come over and use your pc. It not like you're using it and I won't take it when I leave so I'm not stealing it. And while I'm using it, and thus your IP address, I'm going to download music and movies while sending out thousands of porn SPAM. What's the harm, you're not doing it? And I'm sure your lawyer will be able to prove that to a jury, so there's no problem, right?

Secondly, shouldn't the owner of the Wi-Fi router be given some sort of concequence for neglecting to secure his own wireless network? 

So it's ok if the government dictates how you use your pc equipment but you balk at Microsoft "forcing you" to install updates that make your system safer? Instead of regulating home owners how about the government regulating the router manufactures that distribute these unsecure products? The government regulates car manufacturers for safety aspects why not pc equipment?

If you were responsible for locking a bank vault at the end of the day, don't you think you'd get in trouble if you forgot to?

If the owner of the router had it installed in an insecure fashion by his son/daughter I'm sure they did indeed get into trouble. If the owner did it himself, I hope he enjoyed kicking himself for a week. Edited July 7, 2005 by EdP

[Jeber]

Theft of Services has been used before to prosecute for stealing phone service, electricity, etc. Of course, the only real "damage" done is to the revenue base of the service provider.

[epp_b]

Wow, Edp, so serious :rolleyes:I didn't say that he didn't do anything wrong, I think he did. Obviously, my random thought caused an invokation...

[genaldar]

Theft of Services has been used before to prosecute for stealing phone service, electricity, etc.  Of course, the only real "damage" done is to the revenue base of the service provider.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those are all services that can incur additional charges. Since there is no additional charge for this guy stealing the bandwidth it shouldn't be considered theft.The best analogy I have is my yard. I don't have a fence around it so if someone cuts across it are they stealing my yard? Edited July 8, 2005 by genaldar

[epp_b]

Thanks, genaldar, that's what I was trying to say with "technically" but just couldn't quite get the right wording. Hmmm...although, they are committing "tresspassing".

...And while I'm using it, and thus your IP address, I'm going to download music and movies while sending out thousands of porn SPAM...

OK, you have a point...sort of. Doing such things is no less "wrong" than doing so through a public computer or through your own Internet connection, unless you consider the separate entity of riding under someone else's IP address, which is essentially identity theft. If this was the case, that's what he should have been charged under (ID theft). But if he's just checking out the latest news and buying a few pairs of socks from K-Mart, well... :rolleyes:Although, your point does stand to reason in that, by using someone else's Internet connection, he is, in a sense, stealing from the provider as he could be buying is one Internet connection from them himself...although, who's to say he might buy from them (the provider)? Is he stealing from all providers then?But if the homeowner said to his neighbor or the guy in the car, "Hey buddy, go ahead and use my Wi-Fi signal.", would it still be theft by the secondary user?I feel like a pancake :"> Edited July 8, 2005 by epp_b

[hkspike]

If somebody walks across your yard, wouldn't that be trespass; not a criminal offence but certainly a civil one? If this guy was using another's bandwidth, he was clearly reducing the owner's potential maximisation of his "property".Why does the Gov't need to legislate? How about the hard/software makers get their heads around the idea that unless they raise the bar of their own standards and how the web functions, it will soon be broken for all. My Linksys WRT54 did not nag to be set up a password; perhaps it should be configured not to connect until, at a minimum, WEP is enabled?MS' Security Center may be the start of the way ahead. Perhaps ISPs should also test for active firewall and anti-virus software before allowing use of the internet.

[epp_b]

MS' Security Center may be the start of the way ahead. Perhaps ISPs should also test for active firewall and anti-virus software before allowing use of the internet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ack!...M$ pushing standards...ISP's requiring software...compatibility issues...*choke* *hack* *cough* ...huge inconvenience...*wheeeeeze*... death of the Internet as we know it ... :icon8:Sorry, but that is the furthest thing from a solution :"> Edited July 8, 2005 by epp_b

[hkspike]

OddWhy would you want Gov't driven rules? Most places big Gov't goes, the market gets warped. The energy bill running through the senate is a nice example; not one iota of sense in it.And your solution would be...?I guess we could let true market forces sort it out but, arguably, that would let MS "drive standards" which you appear to be against. Having ISPs test for adequate safeguards does not cause any compatibilty issues. Personally, I find the constant assault of ad/malware, trojans, etc an inconvenience. But only an inconvenience since this pc is nicely protected (maybe because I listen to you guys, occasionally) but for the majority of users who don't think to drop in here, their internet experince is spoiled. You have an interest perspective on "fair use".

[epp_b]

Why would you want Gov't driven rules? Most places big Gov't goes, the market gets warped. The energy bill running through the senate is a nice example; not one iota of sense in it

Funny thing is, it's not the industry's or the Government's fault. It's ours.

...but for the majority of users who don't think to drop in here, their internet experince is spoiled...

Well, who's fault is that? None other than their own faults of ignorance, laziness, or just plain apathy. They take the time to learn about how to protect their cars against theft by closing the windows, locking the doors, and using The Club; so reason stands that they should take a bit of time to learn how to protect their computer against attack with anti-virus, firewalls, updates, and anti-spyware if necessary. If they allow their computer to be vulnerable, then it's their own fault when it becomes infected.Running Windows 98SE using a ZoneAlarm 4.5 and NAV 2002, I have had only one non-active virus in three years (yes, one too many) and have yet to be infected by spyware of any sort.

[zlim]

protect their cars against theft by closing the windows, locking the doors, and using The Club

bad analogy...I don't have to go out weekly and get an add-on to the club so it does it's work. Some first time computer users who have a computer that comes with a firewall (XP's half firewall), and an antivirus don't understand that they should replace the firewall with an outbound protection firewall and must check for updates to the antivirus at least every other day if they use the internet. They assume, incorrectly, that when they purchase a computer it will work without alot of tinkering.

[Ed_P]

They assume, incorrectly, that when they purchase a computer it will work without alot of tinkering.

They don't assume that zlim. That's what they are TOLD by the kid in the computer sales dept. Everything is include, just plug it in a turn it on. The best selling model we have.

[epp_b]

Why aren't sales people required to be qualified?!

[Ed_P]

Why aren't sales people required to be qualified?!

They are qualified. They are trained to do their job which is to S E L L. And they are trained to say the things people want to hear; easy, little setup, everything is built in, just what your son/daughter needs, etc.

[epp_b]

They are qualified. They are trained to do their job which is to S E L L. And they are trained to say the things people want to hear; easy, little setup, everything is built in, just what your son/daughter needs, etc.

That's a pretty sad business additude. If you know that a customer would be better suited not getting a specific product or getting something else instead, you should say so. Honesty takes priority over making a buck.By definition, wouldn't this be fraud?http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:fraudintentional deception resulting in injury to another personDeceiving them into thinking it's simple (when really, it's a lie: internal deception), which results in spyware, virii, identity theft... ("injury").Hmmm Edited July 9, 2005 by epp_b

[ross549]

At the same time, the store is not going to pay to train each salesman in depth on the various items for sale.

[epp_b]

True, but they should at least know what an item is generally for and especially focused on PCs. For example, if they sell TVs as well, it's not like they have to know all sorts of details for security.

[genaldar]

If somebody walks across your yard, wouldn't that be trespass; not a criminal offence but certainly a civil one? If this guy was using another's bandwidth, he was clearly reducing the owner's potential maximisation of his "property".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trespassing is a criminal offense, but it's not tresspassing unless you avoid impedences placed in your way, like a fence. If I have a fence it's like saying "don't walk on my yard". It's a fair warning. But If I don't have a fence, or signs saying no trespassing then there has been no warning. Unless I told you not to walk on my lawn previously you couldn't be charged with trespassing.So unless the guys SSID was "don't enter" then he gave no warning so it shouldn't be a crime.

[lewmur]

Trespassing is a criminal offense, but it's not tresspassing unless you avoid impedences placed in your way, like a fence.  If I have a fence it's like saying "don't walk on my yard".  It's a fair warning.  But If I don't have a fence, or signs saying no trespassing then there has been no warning.  Unless I told you not to walk on my lawn previously you couldn't be charged with trespassing.So unless the guys SSID was "don't enter" then he gave no warning so it shouldn't be a crime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know the particulars of the case, but I would have to assume that some local passed an ordanance specificly outlawing "theft of bandwidth." You can't even call it "unauthorized use," much less theft, unless an unauthorized breaking of encryption occured. If someone owns a router and BROADCAST the SSID, and fails to enable some form of "authorization." then they have INVITED others to use their service. That's the meaning of "broadcast." In fact, I think they could be held accountable for any illegal use of the connection.And the fact that some salesperson didn't inform them of the proper use is irrelevant. Thats like blaming an car salesman if you don't lock your car. Edited July 10, 2005 by lewmur

[epp_b]

You both bring up very good points, especially the one about the fence. If the owner is sending out an open broadcast signal with no password, SSID, or encryption, it is the same thing as putting no fence, no locked door and no signs on your yard to "Keep Out".

And the fact that some salesperson didn't inform them of the proper use is irrelevant. Thats like blaming an car salesman if you don't lock your car.

But, then again, car sales are basically fraud to begin with :'(

[lewmur]

If the owner is sending out an open broadcast signal with no password, SSID, or encryption, it is the same thing as putting no fence, no locked door and no signs on your yard to "Keep Out".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is more like the owner putting up a sign saying "You are welcome to use my yard."

[epp_b]