:lol:
http://mashable.com/2010/02/22/stolen-wifi-confusion/
:lol:
:lol:
Though he handled that pretty professionally.
Yeah, an extremely patient and non-malicious guy. He would not fit in on Languish. :P
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 03:55:48 AM
Yeah, an extremely patient and non-malicious guy.
Well you have to be to work a helpdesk for longer than a month, I guess. :D
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 03:55:48 AM
Yeah, an extremely patient and non-malicious guy. He would not fit in on Languish. :P
Yes, now lets all imagine what would have happened if she called into CdM's techline. :lol:
Its illegal to use unsecured wifi?
QuoteYeah, an extremely patient and non-malicious guy. He would not fit in on Languish. :P
I dunno, he,s not outright going 'you damn moron' but he's seeming a little bit snarky and talking down to her about it.
Quote from: Tyr on February 27, 2010, 07:39:27 AM
Its illegal to use unsecured wifi?
Why wouldn't it be? I mean obviously you would need to have mens rea (i.e. not think it's some public service wifi) but other than that, hooking up to someone else's private unsecured network is like walking into someone else's home when they leave the door unlocked. It might be not "breaking and entering" but it definitely is "unlawful entry".
Quote from: Tyr on February 27, 2010, 07:39:27 AM
Its illegal to use unsecured wifi?
:lmfao:
Quote
QuoteYeah, an extremely patient and non-malicious guy. He would not fit in on Languish. :P
I dunno, he,s not outright going 'you damn moron' but he's seeming a little bit snarky and talking down to her about it.
Could it be because she is indeed a damn moron, and he's just a nice guy?
Your first clue should have been that she thought buying a wifi extender would fix the problem.
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 07:50:14 AM
Why wouldn't it be? I mean obviously you would need to have mens rea (i.e. not think it's some public service wifi) but other than that, hooking up to someone else's private unsecured network is like walking into someone else's home when they leave the door unlocked. It might be not "breaking and entering" but it definitely is "unlawful entry".
Sure, it makes sense that way but still, its radio waves (or....something. Science fail probally). You're just picking up and transmitting on a unencrypted channel- I know decrypting is illegal but I've never heard anything about accessing open channels being illegal.
Which is odd considering how common accessing other people's wifi is. There should have been some cases if it truly is illegal.
Quote from: Syt on February 27, 2010, 04:07:09 AM
Well you have to be to work a helpdesk for longer than a month, I guess. :D
I have done this and I'm not patient or non-malicious. To be fair I only lasted
three months as the help desk dude though. :P
I did some helpdesk work in the army. :)
Quote from: Tyr on February 27, 2010, 08:17:21 AM
Sure, it makes sense that way but still, its radio waves (or....something. Science fail probally). You're just picking up and transmitting on a unencrypted channel- I know decrypting is illegal but I've never heard anything about accessing open channels being illegal.
Which is odd considering how common accessing other people's wifi is. There should have been some cases if it truly is illegal.
Presumption of privacy. Places offering public WiFi typically leave a sign or somesuch notification. No sign, assume it's private. The thing with home networks is most work on the technique of MAC address cloning to get around a single-unit ISP restriction; if illegal activity takes place on your home network, then it looks for all intents and purposes like the activity originated from your main computer (unless you do some major digging, which somebody doing the investigating might not know to do).
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 12:04:12 PM
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.
The owner of a personal network is able to take steps, but it would be foolhardy in the extreme to penalize private network owners for lacking the knowledge required to secure a personal network; a large number simply have a router because they use a laptop and don't want to have to leave it wired in a single location to the modem.
Here's some relevant statutes that tend toward including WiFi leeching as "hacking:"
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13494
So we can safely conclude that Tyr and grumbler are stealing someone's wi-fi :P
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.
Quote from: Tamas on February 27, 2010, 12:54:04 PM
So we can safely conclude that Tyr and grumbler are stealing someone's wi-fi :P
Grumbler uncovered?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F__E1J4nKRFoE%2FSvnSy5TEqEI%2FAAAAAAAAARA%2FiytE13xTlIE%2Fs320%2FThe%2BGuild%2BS3%2BEp9%2B3.jpg&hash=88a13d8e4abb05ed02c379f8989c396f412c7e25)
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)
Quote from: Tyr on February 27, 2010, 12:59:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on February 27, 2010, 12:54:04 PM
So we can safely conclude that Tyr and grumbler are stealing someone's wi-fi :P
I live out in the boonies. No WiFi networks out here except mine.
QuoteWhy 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.
QuoteAnd 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.
:lmfao: 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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 27, 2010, 12:24:53 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 02:06:17 PMIt'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:
Quote from: OCGA § 16-9-93§ 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).
Quote from: ulmont on February 27, 2010, 02:21:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 02:06:17 PMIt'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:
Quote from: OCGA § 16-9-93§ 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."
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 12:04:12 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 27, 2010, 04:30:22 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 02:01:40 PM
:lmfao: 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).
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 03:18:05 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 27, 2010, 02:21:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 02:06:17 PMIt'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:
Quote from: OCGA § 16-9-93§ 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.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 04:37:20 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 27, 2010, 04:30:22 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 05:14:11 PM
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.
Any lawyers have an opinion on what it would take to show intent to do this (even assuming that Marti is correct)?
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 04:58:02 PM
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).
Joining a network simply requires one to follow the recommendations in the network wizard. I am not sure (and more than you are, in the absence of some legal expertise in these kinds of things)m whether the "reasonable person" wouldn't simply follow the recommendations of the wizard.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 05:45:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 05:14:11 PM
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.
Any lawyers have an opinion on what it would take to show intent to do this (even assuming that Marti is correct)?
I think that you would only need to show the intent to leech bandwidth, since the natural consequence of leeching bandwidth is to "obstruct[], interrupt[], or in any way interfer[e] with the use of a computer program or data." Alternately, the intent to leech bandwidth is the intent to "[t]ak[e] or appropriat[e] any property of another" (the bandwidth).
In either case, the only intent needed is the intent to leech bandwidth, assuming that leeching bandwidth can be shown to have the natural consequence of taking my bandwidth or slowing my downloads. You would not need to show an intent to break the law, just an intent to act in a way that would naturally lead to the barred results.
I am by no means certain that a prosecutor could convict of wifi theft without some additional facts, but I do think that such a charge could be brought and make it to the jury.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 05:44:15 PM
Any actual lawyers have any opinions on this?
The definition of theft in Canada:
Quote322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;
(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or
(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.
Several problems in calling the leeching of wifi theft:
"who fraudulently" - by using an unsecured wi fi signal you aren't doing anything dishonestly - there's no password after all.
"to deprive the owner" - unless you're absolutely maxing out the connection, odds are the owner doesn't even realize you're leaching.
There's a separate offense for unauthorized use of a computer:
Quote342.1 (1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,
(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service,
(b) by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system,
(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system, or
(d) uses, possesses, traffics in or permits another person to have access to a computer password that would enable a person to commit an offence under paragraph (a), (b) or (c)
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Again the issue is "fraudulently".
As a prosecutor if the police presented me with such a charge I believe we would decline to prosecute for lack of public interest.
Quote from: ulmont on February 27, 2010, 06:14:01 PM
I think that you would only need to show the intent to leech bandwidth, since the natural consequence of leeching bandwidth is to "obstruct[], interrupt[], or in any way interfer[e] with the use of a computer program or data." Alternately, the intent to leech bandwidth is the intent to "[t]ak[e] or appropriat[e] any property of another" (the bandwidth).
In either case, the only intent needed is the intent to leech bandwidth, assuming that leeching bandwidth can be shown to have the natural consequence of taking my bandwidth or slowing my downloads. You would not need to show an intent to break the law, just an intent to act in a way that would naturally lead to the barred results.
I am by no means certain that a prosecutor could convict of wifi theft without some additional facts, but I do think that such a charge could be brought and make it to the jury.
I understand what you are saying, and am not saying you are wrong, but I am saying I would be surprised if it proved to be the case that just by clicking on the "connect to network" button one was committing a crime, given that the network was there and unprotected to begin with.
Unless you are offering a professional legal opinion, in which case I would defer to your superior expertise, of course.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 06:23:30 PMI understand what you are saying, and am not saying you are wrong, but I am saying I would be surprised if it proved to be the case that just by clicking on the "connect to network" button one was committing a crime, given that the network was there and unprotected to begin with.
I see your point. However, there have been arrests (US and elsewhere) and convictions (elsewhere, as far as I can tell) or plea bargains (US) though:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/05/michigan-man-arrested-for-using-cafes-free-wifi-from-his-car.ars
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/07/tech/main707361.shtml
http://www.pcworld.com/article/122153/the_case_of_the_stolen_wifi.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16299061/
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 06:23:30 PMUnless you are offering a professional legal opinion, in which case I would defer to your superior expertise, of course.
God, no. I am discussing hypotheticals only, without reference to any specific person's situation.
Quote from: ulmont on February 27, 2010, 06:37:13 PM
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/05/michigan-man-arrested-for-using-cafes-free-wifi-from-his-car.ars
The Michigan law cited in this case is much more specific than others I have seen (and I specifically allowed that the language cited earlier implied this might well be the case in at least some jurisdicitons):
QuoteA person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:
(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
I am willing to bet that the internet cafe had the kinds of logon warnings I have seen elsewhere, which stated that the network was for customer use only. That would make the "without authorization" issue clearcut.
The Florida case is more relevant to what we are talking about, and pretty much proves your point (provided a conviction is gotten). I haven't looked to see if the Florida law is as specific on the topic (making use illegal and not just harm) but I don't think that is relevant to your point, which I concede.
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 04:58:02 PM
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).
Not exactly. In fact, the first time I ever leeched internet was after I'd been visiting my aunt and uncle. They didn't know about encryption and so there network was just setup with the default network name (in this case: linksys). As connecting to a network in windows sets it up to automatically connect whenever you are in range, my computer would then connect to any unencrypted linksys networks that it found in range. I did nothing.
Quote from: garbon on February 27, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Not exactly. In fact, the first time I ever leeched internet was after I'd been visiting my aunt and uncle. They didn't know about encryption and so there network was just setup with the default network name (in this case: linksys). As connecting to a network in windows sets it up to automatically connect whenever you are in range, my computer would then connect to any unencrypted linksys networks that it found in range. I did nothing.
:yes: I dare say most people set up (or have set up when they purchase it) their computers to automatically connect to their network, and that few change the defaults.
Still, this is probably not the kind of egregious behavior that would result in anyone noticing anyway. However, it does appear to be illegal, in some if not all US jurisdictions.
Quote from: Barrister on February 27, 2010, 06:20:11 PM
The definition of theft in Canada:
Quote322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;
(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or
(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.
Several problems in calling the leeching of wifi theft:
"who fraudulently" - by using an unsecured wi fi signal you aren't doing anything dishonestly - there's no password after all.
"to deprive the owner" - unless you're absolutely maxing out the connection, odds are the owner doesn't even realize you're leaching.
There's a separate offense for unauthorized use of a computer:
Quote342.1 (1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,
(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service,
(b) by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system,
(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system, or
(d) uses, possesses, traffics in or permits another person to have access to a computer password that would enable a person to commit an offence under paragraph (a), (b) or (c)
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Again the issue is "fraudulently".
As a prosecutor if the police presented me with such a charge I believe we would decline to prosecute for lack of public interest.
"Fraudulently" doesn't cover stolen credentials? The WiFi leecher is, from the viewpoint of the ISP that charges its legitimate users for its service, using the leeched DHCP service to gain access to its paid service.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2010, 01:43:49 AM
"Fraudulently" doesn't cover stolen credentials? The WiFi leecher is, from the viewpoint of the ISP that charges its legitimate users for its service, using the leeched DHCP service to gain access to its paid service.
Not if it's an open wi fi connection, with no credentials needed.
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2010, 02:08:12 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2010, 01:43:49 AM
"Fraudulently" doesn't cover stolen credentials? The WiFi leecher is, from the viewpoint of the ISP that charges its legitimate users for its service, using the leeched DHCP service to gain access to its paid service.
Not if it's an open wi fi connection, with no credentials needed.
I meant network access being a de facto credential of a licensed user of the ISP; the "theft" is simply that the connection bandwidth allocated to the customer is being siphoned somewhere else- it's theft from both the network owner and the ISP themselves. You'd probably have a better case going after the ISP's stake, since they're more likely to be able to quantify damages as a result.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2010, 02:11:56 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2010, 02:08:12 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2010, 01:43:49 AM
"Fraudulently" doesn't cover stolen credentials? The WiFi leecher is, from the viewpoint of the ISP that charges its legitimate users for its service, using the leeched DHCP service to gain access to its paid service.
Not if it's an open wi fi connection, with no credentials needed.
I meant network access being a de facto credential of a licensed user of the ISP; the "theft" is simply that the connection bandwidth allocated to the customer is being siphoned somewhere else- it's theft from both the network owner and the ISP themselves. You'd probably have a better case going after the ISP's stake, since they're more likely to be able to quantify damages as a result.
Go back to the word fraudulently. Quantifying damages is something else entirely.
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2010, 02:30:02 AM
Go back to the word fraudulently. Quantifying damages is something else entirely.
OK. Shortening it, the WiFi leecher is fraudulently obtaining access to the ISP's service. Better?
The ISP typically counts on MAC addresses to verify they're providing to the computer they think they are, and routers typically work by extending that MAC address to all the resident's computers via MAC cloning. As far as the ISP's firewall is concerned, that WiFi leecher is using the computer that the techs were sent out to connect. Leecher poses as customer to get Internet service from the ISP. Wouldn't you call that fraudulent?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2010, 02:37:07 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2010, 02:30:02 AM
Go back to the word fraudulently. Quantifying damages is something else entirely.
OK. Shortening it, the WiFi leecher is fraudulently obtaining access to the ISP's service. Better?
The ISP typically counts on MAC addresses to verify they're providing to the computer they think they are, and routers typically work by extending that MAC address to all the resident's computers via MAC cloning. As far as the ISP's firewall is concerned, that WiFi leecher is using the computer that the techs were sent out to connect. Leecher poses as customer to get Internet service from the ISP. Wouldn't you call that fraudulent?
QuoteDefinitions of fraudulent on the Web:
deceitful: intended to deceive; "deceitful advertising"; "fallacious testimony"; "smooth, shining, and deceitful as thin ice" - S.T.Coleridge; "a ...
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraudulent
dishonest; based on fraud or deception; false; phony
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fraudulent
fraudulence - a fraudulent or duplicitous representation
fraudulence - the quality of being fraudulent
fraudulence - fraud: something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
fraudulently - in a dishonest and fraudulent manner; "this money was fraudulently obtained"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Deliberately false or misleading.
www.rpemery.com.au/glossary_of_legal_terms/f.html
fraudulence - Very often the moral norms in a society are defended and maintained by people who are fraudulent and know themselves to be frauds. ...
www.xs4all.nl/~maartens/philosophy/Dictionary/M/Moral%20norms%20-%20features%20of.htm
There needs to be some aspect of dishonesty or disceit. If someone leaves their wi fi open, and I log in without using any false password, how can I be said to be acting fraudulently?
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2010, 02:46:36 AM
There needs to be some aspect of dishonesty or disceit. If someone leaves their wi fi open, and I log in without using any false password, how can I be said to be acting fraudulently?
You're deceiving the ISP into providing Internet access to your computer.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2010, 02:58:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2010, 02:46:36 AM
There needs to be some aspect of dishonesty or disceit. If someone leaves their wi fi open, and I log in without using any false password, how can I be said to be acting fraudulently?
You're deceiving the ISP into providing Internet access to your computer.
How? What are you, as the leech, doing dishonestly?
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2010, 02:59:03 AM
How? What are you, as the leech, doing dishonestly?
Let's stop using "router" and start using "wireless access point" for this. The customer of the ISP has paid for the right to receive Internet service. The customer uses the router to gain additional mobility within his own home. The leecher has not paid for the right to receive Internet service. The customer does not know the leecher is using his access point to connect to the Internet. Furthermore, the access point masks the leecher's MAC address and instead reports the MAC address of the customer's computer to the ISP, and there's our deception. The leecher is, therefore, using the customer's credentials to fraudulently obtain Internet service from the ISP.
Sounds like you want to charge the leecher for a fraud perpetrated by the access point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2010, 03:20:10 AM
Sounds like you want to charge the leecher for a fraud perpetrated by the access point.
Hardly. Going back to the OP, the woman knew that Internet service costs money. She knew that the network was not hers, but she wanted to connect again. She stated that she did not want to pay an ISP, and she didn't have any contact with the owner of the wireless access point. She wanted to connect to a network that she knew was not hers, without the knowledge of the network's owner, because she didn't want to pay an ISP. That sounds like she wanted to use that network access to defraud the ISP of service, and the network's owner of bandwidth.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2010, 03:18:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2010, 02:59:03 AM
How? What are you, as the leech, doing dishonestly?
Let's stop using "router" and start using "wireless access point" for this. The customer of the ISP has paid for the right to receive Internet service. The customer uses the router to gain additional mobility within his own home. The leecher has not paid for the right to receive Internet service. The customer does not know the leecher is using his access point to connect to the Internet. Furthermore, the access point masks the leecher's MAC address and instead reports the MAC address of the customer's computer to the ISP, and there's our deception. The leecher is, therefore, using the customer's credentials to fraudulently obtain Internet service from the ISP.
Let me try again - at what point did the leacher lie? At what point did they act fraudulently?
It may pain you to know this, but at least in Canada, it is not against the law to open your unlocked door when you are not home, pull a book off your bookshelf, read it, then place it back on the shelf and leave.
I can not see how a Wi-fi leacher is doing anything wrong until and unless you can show they are lying to get access to wi-fi.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 07:20:59 PM
However, it does appear to be illegal, in some if not all US jurisdictions.
Committing crime is so banal these days.
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2010, 03:49:21 AM
It may pain you to know this, but at least in Canada, it is not against the law to open your unlocked door when you are not home, pull a book off your bookshelf, read it, then place it back on the shelf and leave.
What if you are at home?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 28, 2010, 04:09:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2010, 03:49:21 AM
It may pain you to know this, but at least in Canada, it is not against the law to open your unlocked door when you are not home, pull a book off your bookshelf, read it, then place it back on the shelf and leave.
What if you are at home?
Still not a crime.
The charge of break and enter is worded two ways: "break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence, and break and enter and commit an indictable offence".
Merely breaking in to your house is not, by itself, a crime. It is the civil tort of trespass, and you have the right to use force to remove a person from your house, but it is not a crime.
The image of juvenile crooks entering unlocked Canadian houses to sift through their book collections amuses me. :)
Quote from: garbon on February 27, 2010, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 04:58:02 PM
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).
Not exactly. In fact, the first time I ever leeched internet was after I'd been visiting my aunt and uncle. They didn't know about encryption and so there network was just setup with the default network name (in this case: linksys). As connecting to a network in windows sets it up to automatically connect whenever you are in range, my computer would then connect to any unencrypted linksys networks that it found in range. I did nothing.
Well you could argue that by doing so you are being negligent and this could be qualified as a criminal negligence - thus making you capable of committing a crime. Of course one would have to determine what the standard of diligence in such cases should be.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2010, 02:58:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2010, 02:46:36 AM
There needs to be some aspect of dishonesty or disceit. If someone leaves their wi fi open, and I log in without using any false password, how can I be said to be acting fraudulently?
You're deceiving the ISP into providing Internet access to your computer.
That's a bad argument. I agree that if the Canadian law requires the access to be "fraudulent", then you would have a trouble construing a criminal behaviour from simply joining an unprotected network.
However, the US statute someone else quote does not have that element, and as I said, intent does not need to be direct - it can be indirect as well (carelessness or negligence).
Edit: However, I am talking about a higher standard of intent here (i.e. excluding carelessness or negligence). A situation of the woman in the clip, joining a network while fully realising she is not authorized to do so, would count as fraudulent imo.
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2010, 03:49:21 AM
It may pain you to know this, but at least in Canada, it is not against the law to open your unlocked door when you are not home, pull a book off your bookshelf, read it, then place it back on the shelf and leave.
Really? That's strange. In Poland we have a crime which is called something like "invasion of home's peace" (hard to translate as it is an old Polish word). This is obviously a smaller crime than breaking and entering, but essentially, entering someone's home without permission would be a crime.
Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2010, 04:51:14 AM
Well you could argue that by doing so you are being negligent and this could be qualified as a criminal negligence - thus making you capable of committing a crime. Of course one would have to determine what the standard of diligence in such cases should be.
Would it really be negligent to have left on a default setting?
Probably not but as I said you would need to establish the reasonable standard of care.
A more interesting case would be this: imagine you set your computer to connect on default, and if prompted for a password, feed in your own network password. Now imagine you come across a network by chance that uses the same password as your own password - would accessing such a network in a situation I described count as a criminal network trespass in your view?
Also, an unauthorized access to network notwithstanding, wouldn't the woman's behavior have all elements of "service appropriation" (like riding on a bus without a ticket for example), assuming of course it was deliberate?
Quote from: Barrister on February 27, 2010, 06:20:11 PM
As a prosecutor if the police presented me with such a charge I believe we would decline to prosecute for lack of public interest.
Well that's a public policy decision and in Poland such behaviour wouldn't be prosecuted for the same reason but that does not change the fact whether it has all the elements of a criminalized behaviour or not. So your answer is really a cop out.
Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2010, 04:56:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2010, 03:49:21 AM
It may pain you to know this, but at least in Canada, it is not against the law to open your unlocked door when you are not home, pull a book off your bookshelf, read it, then place it back on the shelf and leave.
Really? That's strange. In Poland we have a crime which is called something like "invasion of home's peace" (hard to translate as it is an old Polish word). This is obviously a smaller crime than breaking and entering, but essentially, entering someone's home without permission would be a crime.
We have an offence of forcible entry:
QuoteA person commits forcible entry when that person enters real property that is in the actual and peaceable possession of another in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of a breach of the peace.
but note the element of "in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace". So barging in, yelling, would probably be a s. 72 offense, but not calmly walking in.
Many jurisdictions have a regulatory offence of trespass to property, but that is not a crime.
Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2010, 05:42:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 27, 2010, 06:20:11 PM
As a prosecutor if the police presented me with such a charge I believe we would decline to prosecute for lack of public interest.
Well that's a public policy decision and in Poland such behaviour wouldn't be prosecuted for the same reason but that does not change the fact whether it has all the elements of a criminalized behaviour or not. So your answer is really a cop out.
Not every legal theoretical needs to be answered.
Besides, does Polish law not have an equivalent to
de minimus non curat lex?