Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears

[Tamas]

So we can safely conclude that Tyr and grumbler are stealing someone's wi-fi

Why on earth would that be legal? Does that person pay for his internet connection? Yes. Did he permitted you to use it? No. So you are stealing.

And don't come with "he did not encrypt it so he let me use it". By that logic, if you forget your car keys in your car, everyone is free to take your car.

[Syt]

So we can safely conclude that Tyr and grumbler are stealing someone's wi-fi

Grumbler uncovered?

[Josquius]

Nah, I'm on my own fully encrypted one.

Of course stealing wi-fi is wrong and bad and you can easily make an analogy and saying its just the same as stealing anything else but I'm not aware of any law which actually does make it officially illegal.

Also- some people do leave their wifi open not out of stupidity but so other people can use it. If you're doing naughty things on the internet having a open wifi makes it impossible to prove it was you and not your neighbour without searching your computer (or so people believe, unsure how it works out)

[DontSayBanana]

Nah, I'm on my own fully encrypted one.

Of course stealing wi-fi is wrong and bad and you can easily make an analogy and saying its just the same as stealing anything else but I'm not aware of any law which actually does make it officially illegal.

Also- some people do leave their wifi open not out of stupidity but so other people can use it. If you're doing naughty things on the internet having a open wifi makes it impossible to prove it was you and not your neighbour without searching your computer (or so people believe, unsure how it works out)

See my link on the last page- it provides a list of citations in what looks like the statutes of all 50 states, making unauthorized access of a private network illegal.

To give a slightly better analogy, you can be prosecuted for trespassing even if there's no fence on a property; no physical barrier doesn't mean the owner forfeits a reasonable expectation of privacy, and it doesn't open the property to the public.

[grumbler]

So we can safely conclude that Tyr and grumbler are stealing someone's wi-fi

I live out in the boonies.  No WiFi networks out here except mine.

Why on earth would that be legal? Does that person pay for his internet connection? Yes. Did he permitted you to use it? No. So you are stealing.

Did that person pay for his music CD that he is broadcasting from his stereo?  yes.  Did he permit you to listen?  No.  So, you are stealing if you listen to someone else's music if they are playing it loud enough for you to hear.

And don't come with "he did not encrypt it so he let me use it". By that logic, if you forget your car keys in your car, everyone is free to take your car.

  Are you competing with Marti for bad analogies?  The two cases are in no way comparable.  This is more (though not completely) like listening to someone talk to their lawyer on a speakerphone on a topic you are interested in:  they are paying for the lawyer's time, and you are getting it for free.

[grumbler]

Here's some relevant statutes that tend toward including WiFi leeching as "hacking:"
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13494

It's not hacking and not intellectual property theft, so i don't see these statutes as specifically applying, but you are correct that the language in these would tend to make one think there could easily be statutes very like this making leeching illegal.

[ulmont]

It's not hacking and not intellectual property theft, so i don't see these statutes as specifically applying

I think "unauthorized access" is broad enough to cover leeching wifi.

Just looking at the Georgia one for a moment:

§ 16-9-93.  Computer crimes defined; exclusivity of article; civil remedies; criminal penalties

   (a)  Computer theft. Any person who uses a computer or computer network with knowledge that such use is without authority and with the intention of:

   (1) Taking or appropriating any property of another, whether or not with the intention of depriving the owner of possession;

   (2) Obtaining property by any deceitful means or artful practice; or

   (3) Converting property to such person's use in violation of an agreement or other known legal obligation to make a specified application or disposition of such property    shall be guilty of the crime of computer theft.

(b)  Computer Trespass. Any person who uses a computer or computer network with knowledge that such use is without authority and with the intention of:

   (1) Deleting or in any way removing, either temporarily or permanently, any computer program or data from a computer or computer network;

   (2) Obstructing, interrupting, or in any way interfering with the use of a computer program or data; or

   (3) Altering, damaging, or in any way causing the malfunction of a computer, computer network, or computer program, regardless of how long the alteration, damage, or malfunction persists    shall be guilty of the crime of computer trespass.

Leeching my wifi is definitely using a computer network without authority (although clueless users may not know that, as per the woman in the original post).

The intent of siphoning my wifi might qualify as either the intent to take my property or to interfere with my use of the bandwidth, so might fall under (a)(1), (a)(2), or (b)(2).

[grumbler]

It's not hacking and not intellectual property theft, so i don't see these statutes as specifically applying

I think "unauthorized access" is broad enough to cover leeching wifi.

Just looking at the Georgia one for a moment:

§ 16-9-93.  Computer crimes defined; exclusivity of article; civil remedies; criminal penalties

   (a)  Computer theft. Any person who uses a computer or computer network with knowledge that such use is without authority and with the intention of:

   (1) Taking or appropriating any property of another, whether or not with the intention of depriving the owner of possession;

   (2) Obtaining property by any deceitful means or artful practice; or

   (3) Converting property to such person's use in violation of an agreement or other known legal obligation to make a specified application or disposition of such property    shall be guilty of the crime of computer theft.

(b)  Computer Trespass. Any person who uses a computer or computer network with knowledge that such use is without authority and with the intention of:

   (1) Deleting or in any way removing, either temporarily or permanently, any computer program or data from a computer or computer network;

   (2) Obstructing, interrupting, or in any way interfering with the use of a computer program or data; or

   (3) Altering, damaging, or in any way causing the malfunction of a computer, computer network, or computer program, regardless of how long the alteration, damage, or malfunction persists    shall be guilty of the crime of computer trespass.

Leeching my wifi is definitely using a computer network without authority (although clueless users may not know that, as per the woman in the original post).

The intent of siphoning my wifi might qualify as either the intent to take my property or to interfere with my use of the bandwidth, so might fall under (a)(1), (a)(2), or (b)(2).

It is the "and with the intention of" bits that give me pause.  Proving intent isn't easy in cases like this, I would think.  I don't think merely using the network would suffice (though, unlike others here, I don't claim to be a lawyer, even a Polish one).

Clearly, though, mere use isn't illegal.  It must be use "with the intention of."

[MadImmortalMan]

I'd be surprised if it were illegal to use someone else's unencrypted signal.  That's like saying it is illegal to listen to the music coming from someone else's stereo.  If one wants to prevent another person from using one's wifi signal, then one can take steps to make sure that doesn't happen.  The onus, though, by rights should be on the owner of the signal to keep others from using it, if that is desired.

I have a hose attached to the outside of my house that has no locks or encryption on it. Yet I don't expect random strangers who want a drink of water to come and use it.

[grumbler]

I have a hose attached to the outside of my house that has no locks or encryption on it. Yet I don't expect random strangers who want a drink of water to come and use it.

Bad analogy.  They'd have to come on your property to use it.

If you had a hose draped into their yard and the water running, you'd have to expect the neighbors to use water from it on their garden.

[Martinus]

  Are you competing with Marti for bad analogies?  The two cases are in no way comparable.  This is more (though not completely) like listening to someone talk to their lawyer on a speakerphone on a topic you are interested in:  they are paying for the lawyer's time, and you are getting it for free.

It's hilarious how you slam him for making bad analogies and then make this one. Joining a network, encrypted or not, requires a positive action - it doesn't just happen involuntarily (unlike overhearing a conversation or music playing from someone else's speakers). The action may be trivial (just clicking "Confirm") but your computer wouldn't just join a free network without prompting you somehow (unless you configure it to do so, but then it is a positive action as well).

[Martinus]

It's not hacking and not intellectual property theft, so i don't see these statutes as specifically applying

I think "unauthorized access" is broad enough to cover leeching wifi.

Just looking at the Georgia one for a moment:

§ 16-9-93.  Computer crimes defined; exclusivity of article; civil remedies; criminal penalties

   (a)  Computer theft. Any person who uses a computer or computer network with knowledge that such use is without authority and with the intention of:

   (1) Taking or appropriating any property of another, whether or not with the intention of depriving the owner of possession;

   (2) Obtaining property by any deceitful means or artful practice; or

   (3) Converting property to such person's use in violation of an agreement or other known legal obligation to make a specified application or disposition of such property    shall be guilty of the crime of computer theft.

(b)  Computer Trespass. Any person who uses a computer or computer network with knowledge that such use is without authority and with the intention of:

   (1) Deleting or in any way removing, either temporarily or permanently, any computer program or data from a computer or computer network;

   (2) Obstructing, interrupting, or in any way interfering with the use of a computer program or data; or

   (3) Altering, damaging, or in any way causing the malfunction of a computer, computer network, or computer program, regardless of how long the alteration, damage, or malfunction persists    shall be guilty of the crime of computer trespass.

Leeching my wifi is definitely using a computer network without authority (although clueless users may not know that, as per the woman in the original post).

The intent of siphoning my wifi might qualify as either the intent to take my property or to interfere with my use of the bandwidth, so might fall under (a)(1), (a)(2), or (b)(2).

It is the "and with the intention of" bits that give me pause.  Proving intent isn't easy in cases like this, I would think.  I don't think merely using the network would suffice (though, unlike others here, I don't claim to be a lawyer, even a Polish one).

Clearly, though, mere use isn't illegal.  It must be use "with the intention of."

Uhm. Most crimes require an element of intent - it is so obvious, it is not normally being mentioned (e.g. when someone says "it is a crime to kill a person", you still need some form of intent to be criminally liable). So your argument is a strawman - noone was claiming here you can be guilty of a crime by stealing wifi access in the absence of intent to access a non-public network.

But then, criminal intent can also be based in negligence or carelessness - so as others already pointed out, if you have no reason to believe the wifi access you are using is meant to be public (e.g. it is marked in a way which implies it is neither a public service nor a free wifi from some facility) then using it would normally meet the "intent" criteria.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, leeching bandwidth would imo count as "obstructing or interfering with the use of a computer programme", since for example it causes the effective download speed of the authorized user to decrease.

[Martinus]

I have a hose attached to the outside of my house that has no locks or encryption on it. Yet I don't expect random strangers who want a drink of water to come and use it.

Bad analogy.  They'd have to come on your property to use it.

If you had a hose draped into their yard and the water running, you'd have to expect the neighbors to use water from it on their garden.

your wifi address/node IS your property (or more specifically is the property of the ISP that you are leasing/using). your argument is idiotic - you are essentially arguing that because it is possible to "listen" to some information by using technological equipment, it is no longer confidential or protected.

In fact, from a purely formal perspective, there is no difference between breaking into a protected network by hacking the password and accessing an unprotected network without authorization - in both cases you are using some equipment to access data and service you are not authorized to use (which is another difference compared to your "analogy" about listening to music or overhearing a conversation - since both can happen without a use of a special equipment; a better comparison would be a surveillance device allowing you to listen to conversations taking place inside a building by targeting the building from the street, without actually planting a bug inside the building). The only difference is that in the latter case (i.e. accessing an unprotected network without an authorization) there is a greater room to claim you had no knowledge - nor should have been reasonably expected to have knowledge - that you are not authorized to use the network.

[grumbler]

Any actual lawyers have any opinions on this?

Marti, the argument that intent is necessary isn't a strawman.  It is actually written into the law.  See the sections of the laws quoted by ulmont that you apparently skipped.  You have to have intent to do certain specific things.