Solve : Unlocked Internet = Free Internet??

1.	Solve : Unlocked Internet = Free Internet??
Answer» Just wondering if you agree with the title? Post your arguments for or against it. Unlocked = Accessable, not free An unlocked house does not mean its free, an unlocked car does not mean its free. It still belongs to somebody. So, IMHO, if you use somebodies unlocked wireless internet this = stealing. You are not paying for it, it does not belong to you, therefore it's not yours to use. If you want to test this theory, go to a bar, wait till a really big guy goes to the toilet, then take his drink. Theres nobody there, it's not 'locked' and when he comes back, you tell him it was free.I agree with reddevilggg. Leaching unsecured wifi is stealing. The law in many countries recognises this. In Britain, the The Communications Act 2003 says a "person who (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service, is guilty of an offence". There are also suggestions using somebody else's wireless could come under the Computer Misuse Act, usually used to combat hacking and electronic fraud. People have been arrested for it. Quote from: BBC News A man has been arrested in connection with using a wi-fi broadband connection without permission. He was initially detained by two Police Community Support Officers in Chiswick, west London, on Tuesday. They became suspicious when they saw the 39-year-old using his laptop outside a house in Prebend Gardens. When questioned he admitted to using someone else's unsecured wi-fi broadband connection. He has been bailed pending further inquiries. The case is now being handled by the Metropolitan Police's computer crime unit. Det Con Mark Roberts said: "This arrest should act as a warning to anyone who thinks it is acceptable to illegally use other people's broadband connections." Dishonestly obtaining free internet access is an offence under the Communications Act 2003 and a potential breach of the Computer Misuse Act. Note correct (British) spelling of 'offence'. Also in the USA arrests have happened. Why would anyone think that unsecured = free. That's just infantile. Quote from: Quantos on OCTOBER 21, 2010, 02:50:09 PM Why would anyone think that unsecured = free. That's just infantile. In my country, maybe in others, one way of describing a compulsively dishonest person who is an opportunist thief is to say that they "will take anything that is not screwed down". A person who asserts that anything not secured is fair game is morally deficient in my opinion. Quote from: Salmon Trout on October 21, 2010, 03:37:33 PM In my country, maybe in others, one way of describing a compulsively dishonest person who is an opportunist thief is to say that they "will take anything that is not screwed down". A person who asserts that anything not secured is fair game is morally deficient in my opinion. I think you hit the nail on the head. The part that gets me though is that when they are caught, or lose the access they had, they then act as though they are the one who has been wronged.I read a funny story once, I don't know if it was true, about an American guy who noticed that somebody was connecting to his wireless internet, so he secured it and not long afterwards his neighbour (Brit spelling) came hammering on his door demanding to know why he had cut off "his" (the neighbour's) internet! There is fun to be had... here are some fun things you can do to people who steal your internet The bit about redirecting every request to Kittenwar is funny, especially where the Kittenwar guy says he keeps getting complaints that he is hosting a virus stopping people accessing the net. http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/upside-down-ternet.html Quote from: reddevilggg on October 21, 2010, 02:20:11 PM Unlocked = Accessable, not free An unlocked house does not mean its free, an unlocked car does not mean its free. It still belongs to somebody. So, IMHO, if you use somebodies unlocked wireless internet this = stealing. You are not paying for it, it does not belong to you, therefore it's not yours to use. If you want to test this theory, go to a bar, wait till a really big guy goes to the toilet, then take his drink. Theres nobody there, it's not 'locked' and when he comes back, you tell him it was free. I agree. It's kind of like those bait car shows, where they lure in criminals to jack cars. They then proceed to arrest the set up crook. Well I believe I know who one of the two voters are that said yes but I wonder who the other one was and why neither voter wanted to post why they think it is free.The fact that people have been arrested for stealing wireless access kind of answers the question. Also, depending on timing of when the owner and unauthorized user are using wifi, it could be lowering the owners bandwidth. Quote from: rthompson80819 on October 23, 2010, 04:51:38 PM The fact that people have been arrested for stealing wireless access kind of answers the question. But I'd be interested to know how the court cases came out. Quote from: Salmon Trout on October 23, 2010, 05:40:39 PM But I'd be interested to know how the court cases came out. Interesting question. I've read about a number of people that have been arrested for stealing wireless. A lot of states in the US, and I'm SURE other countries, have laws against stealing wireless, and fines for doing it. But I can't seem to find any record of convictions. It would be a hard thing to prove in court unless some kind of sting was set up. And I think most police departments feel like they have more important things to do.It is a radio signal. Anyone would be perfectly just in saying that if you don't want me to receive it, then keep it off my antenna. To say anything less, is to open the door for all kinds of problems, elsewhere in the radio spectrum. How can receiving anything be "illegal", when it is cut loose in the air? How about if your signal comes onto my property? Are you actually going to try to say that I can't listen to it? ... it makes no sense. You are responsible for your signal, not the receiver. The receiver is passive. All the attempts at comparison above are not even close to what is really happening. Each person that is transmitting a signal can be held responsible for it though. The way to logically regulate wifi then, is to regulate the transmitters... the laptops that also transmit. That can reasonably be regulated. But, it would be a very touchy thing, now. A more interesting discussion would be: If a wifi signal is encrypted with state of the art encryption, and someone hacks it - should that be illegal? With no "locking", then the owner of the transmitted signal should keep his signal off any one's antenna that he does not want to receive it. But, if he is clearly attempting to "lock" it... is it still just a signal out there to be received like all others? or can he claim some ownership of it? That one would be tricky in court. Quote from: WillyW on October 23, 2010, 06:58:51 PM if you don't want me to receive it, then keep it off my antenna. Thats just irresponsible. To find the signal, you would have to look for it, and it not yours to use. You've also contradicted yourself. You state 'You are responsible for your signal, not the reciever'. So therefore, if you are 'tuned' into that signal, then you are recieving a signal THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR. It is not yours. Thousands, probably MILLIONS of text messages and mobile/cell calls are flying around in the air. That does not give you the right to listen in or recieve them. Your antenna picks up everything, its your equipment that deciphers it and you control your equipment, therefore it would be YOU that made your equipment pick up someone elses signal. Is my dog free to bite you because its not on a lead. Just because you can pick up a unlocked signal does not mean you should. Like i've said before, is a unlocked car a free car. No, it is not. Your arguement is ridiculous. Quote from: WillyW on October 23, 2010, 06:58:51 PM It is a radio signal. Anyone would be perfectly just in saying that if you don't want me to receive it, then keep it off my antenna. To say anything less, is to open the door for all kinds of problems, elsewhere in the radio spectrum. How can receiving anything be "illegal", when it is cut loose in the air? \you're not just receiving signals, your interacting with somebody elses piece of property- the access point- possibly purposely with the intent to circumvent and use the service provided by that device. If somebody was able to create a device that was able to use a cellphone network without them paying the company, would it follow that it's somehow the cellphone companies fault for making it "easy". Quote How about if your signal comes onto my property? Are you actually going to try to say that I can't listen to it? ... it makes no sense. You are responsible for your signal, not the receiver. The receiver is passive. The receiver is NOT passive. In order to use said signal, the receiver needs to respond and interact with said signal. As I noted above the only reason somebody might do that would be in order to use the service the device provides for free. It's like saying that you can use somebody's computer for free because their wireless keyboard/mouse just happens to be compatible with yours, and you can sit outside their window and do stuff using your keyboard/mouse. It follows that if the receiver is "passive" then the sender is equally innocent in that case since all they are doing is sending a harmless signal. Quote Each person that is transmitting a signal can be held responsible for it though. The way to logically regulate wifi then, is to regulate the transmitters... the laptops that also transmit. That can reasonably be regulated. But, it would be a very touchy thing, now. Any WiFi device that can connect to a access point transmits. Quote A more interesting discussion would be: If a wifi signal is encrypted with state of the art encryption, and someone hacks it - should that be illegal? With no "locking", then the owner of the transmitted signal should keep his signal off any one's antenna that he does not want to receive it. But, if he is clearly attempting to "lock" it... is it still just a signal out there to be received like all others? or can he claim some ownership of it? That one would be tricky in court. Not really. circumventing any sort of security in place at all on a network, wireless or otherwise, is an electronic crime. I know that Canada's Criminal Code, section 342.1 prohibits accessing a computer without authorisation. That covers the use of both "Open" networks just as much as it covers those that are Encrypted. I imagine the laws of other countries are nlot much different, this sort of thing might even have some sort of coverage by the DMCA in the US. That being said- "listening" to signals as they pass through the air is probably covered by a completely different law, if you purposely don't send any signal in response (and therefore are not truly accessing any system) could possibly fall under wiretapping laws, depending on the circumstances. If a TV station was transmitting a signal that was encrypted and they sold little boxes to decrypt the signal for a fee, would it be "wrong" to reverse engineer the encryption and be able to receive that signal for free? Personally, I don't think so. IMO that signal is not a COMMUNICATION between two people, but rather a large-scale signal sent to the public at large; although even the slightest bit of "reverse ENGINEERING" of even the simplest encryption is clearly prohibited by the DMCA, other countries laws on that subject are not as clearcut; there is only one way communication and the device is merely translating something in the air that is receivable by anybody; legally I don't think there is much difference between receiving that encrypted signal "legally" and decrypting that signal; the decryption is acting on something anybody can have, so it seems stupid to have some sort of restriction on how a encrypted signal can be used when the receiver has not made any agreement with the sender; in this case it's a matter of the encryption itself being too weak and easy to figure out as much as anything.

Answer»

Just wondering if you agree with the title? Post your arguments for or against it.
Unlocked = Accessable, not free

An unlocked house does not mean its free, an unlocked car does not mean its free. It still belongs to somebody.

So, IMHO, if you use somebodies unlocked wireless internet this = stealing. You are not paying for it, it does not belong to you, therefore it's not yours to use.

If you want to test this theory, go to a bar, wait till a really big guy goes to the toilet, then take his drink. Theres nobody there, it's not 'locked' and when he comes back, you tell him it was free.I agree with reddevilggg. Leaching unsecured wifi is stealing. The law in many countries recognises this. In Britain, the The Communications Act 2003 says a "person who (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service, is guilty of an offence". There are also suggestions using somebody else's wireless could come under the Computer Misuse Act, usually used to combat hacking and electronic fraud. People have been arrested for it.

Quote from: BBC News

A man has been arrested in connection with using a wi-fi broadband connection without permission.

He was initially detained by two Police Community Support Officers in Chiswick, west London, on Tuesday.

They became suspicious when they saw the 39-year-old using his laptop outside a house in Prebend Gardens.

When questioned he admitted to using someone else's unsecured wi-fi broadband connection. He has been bailed pending further inquiries.

The case is now being handled by the Metropolitan Police's computer crime unit.

Det Con Mark Roberts said: "This arrest should act as a warning to anyone who thinks it is acceptable to illegally use other people's broadband connections."

Dishonestly obtaining free internet access is an offence under the Communications Act 2003 and a potential breach of the Computer Misuse Act.

Note correct (British) spelling of 'offence'.

Also in the USA arrests have happened.

Why would anyone think that unsecured = free. That's just infantile. Quote from: Quantos on OCTOBER 21, 2010, 02:50:09 PM

Why would anyone think that unsecured = free. That's just infantile.

In my country, maybe in others, one way of describing a compulsively dishonest person who is an opportunist thief is to say that they "will take anything that is not screwed down". A person who asserts that anything not secured is fair game is morally deficient in my opinion.
Quote from: Salmon Trout on October 21, 2010, 03:37:33 PM

In my country, maybe in others, one way of describing a compulsively dishonest person who is an opportunist thief is to say that they "will take anything that is not screwed down". A person who asserts that anything not secured is fair game is morally deficient in my opinion.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The part that gets me though is that when they are caught, or lose the access they had, they then act as though they are the one who has been wronged.I read a funny story once, I don't know if it was true, about an American guy who noticed that somebody was connecting to his wireless internet, so he secured it and not long afterwards his neighbour (Brit spelling) came hammering on his door demanding to know why he had cut off "his" (the neighbour's) internet! There is fun to be had... here are some fun things you can do to people who steal your internet

The bit about redirecting every request to Kittenwar is funny, especially where the Kittenwar guy says he keeps getting complaints that he is hosting a virus stopping people accessing the net.

http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/upside-down-ternet.html

Quote from: reddevilggg on October 21, 2010, 02:20:11 PM

Unlocked = Accessable, not free

An unlocked house does not mean its free, an unlocked car does not mean its free. It still belongs to somebody.

So, IMHO, if you use somebodies unlocked wireless internet this = stealing. You are not paying for it, it does not belong to you, therefore it's not yours to use.

If you want to test this theory, go to a bar, wait till a really big guy goes to the toilet, then take his drink. Theres nobody there, it's not 'locked' and when he comes back, you tell him it was free.

I agree. It's kind of like those bait car shows, where they lure in criminals to jack cars. They then proceed to arrest the set up crook.

Well I believe I know who one of the two voters are that said yes but I wonder who the other one was and why neither voter wanted to post why they think it is free.The fact that people have been arrested for stealing wireless access kind of answers the question.

Also, depending on timing of when the owner and unauthorized user are using wifi, it could be lowering the owners bandwidth. Quote from: rthompson80819 on October 23, 2010, 04:51:38 PM

The fact that people have been arrested for stealing wireless access kind of answers the question.

But I'd be interested to know how the court cases came out.

Quote from: Salmon Trout on October 23, 2010, 05:40:39 PM

But I'd be interested to know how the court cases came out.

Interesting question. I've read about a number of people that have been arrested for stealing wireless. A lot of states in the US, and I'm SURE other countries, have laws against stealing wireless, and fines for doing it. But I can't seem to find any record of convictions.

It would be a hard thing to prove in court unless some kind of sting was set up. And I think most police departments feel like they have more important things to do.It is a radio signal. Anyone would be perfectly just in saying that if you don't want me to receive it, then keep it off my antenna. To say anything less, is to open the door for all kinds of problems, elsewhere in the radio spectrum. How can receiving anything be "illegal", when it is cut loose in the air?
How about if your signal comes onto my property? Are you actually going to try to say that I can't listen to it? ... it makes no sense.
*You* are responsible for your signal, not the receiver. The receiver is passive.

All the attempts at comparison above are not even close to what is really happening.

Each person that is transmitting a signal can be held responsible for it though. The way to logically regulate wifi then, is to regulate the transmitters... the laptops that also transmit. *That* can reasonably be regulated. But, it would be a very touchy thing, now.

A more interesting discussion would be: If a wifi signal is encrypted with state of the art encryption, and someone hacks it - should *that* be illegal?
With no "locking", then the owner of the transmitted signal should keep his signal off any one's antenna that he does not want to receive it. But, if he is clearly attempting to "lock" it... is it still just a signal out there to be received like all others? or can he claim some ownership of it?
That one would be tricky in court.

Quote from: WillyW on October 23, 2010, 06:58:51 PM

if you don't want me to receive it, then keep it off my antenna.

Thats just irresponsible. To find the signal, you would have to look for it, and it not yours to use. You've also contradicted yourself. You state '*You* are responsible for your signal, not the reciever'. So therefore, if you are 'tuned' into that signal, then you are recieving a signal THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR. It is not yours. Thousands, probably MILLIONS of text messages and mobile/cell calls are flying around in the air. That does not give you the right to listen in or recieve them. Your antenna picks up everything, its your equipment that deciphers it and you control your equipment, therefore it would be YOU that made your equipment pick up someone elses signal. Is my dog free to bite you because its not on a lead. Just because you can pick up a unlocked signal does not mean you should. Like i've said before, is a unlocked car a free car. No, it is not. Your arguement is ridiculous. Quote from: WillyW on October 23, 2010, 06:58:51 PM

It is a radio signal. Anyone would be perfectly just in saying that if you don't want me to receive it, then keep it off my antenna. To say anything less, is to open the door for all kinds of problems, elsewhere in the radio spectrum. How can receiving anything be "illegal", when it is cut loose in the air?

\you're not just receiving signals, your interacting with somebody elses piece of property- the access point- possibly purposely with the intent to circumvent and use the service provided by that device. If somebody was able to create a device that was able to use a cellphone network without them paying the company, would it follow that it's somehow the cellphone companies fault for making it "easy".

Quote

How about if your signal comes onto my property? Are you actually going to try to say that I can't listen to it? ... it makes no sense.
*You* are responsible for your signal, not the receiver. The receiver is passive.

The receiver is NOT passive. In order to use said signal, the receiver needs to respond and interact with said signal. As I noted above the only reason somebody might do that would be in order to use the service the device provides for free. It's like saying that you can use somebody's computer for free because their wireless keyboard/mouse just happens to be compatible with yours, and you can sit outside their window and do stuff using your keyboard/mouse. It follows that if the receiver is "passive" then the sender is equally innocent in that case since all they are doing is sending a harmless signal.

Quote

Each person that is transmitting a signal can be held responsible for it though. The way to logically regulate wifi then, is to regulate the transmitters... the laptops that also transmit. *That* can reasonably be regulated. But, it would be a very touchy thing, now.

Any WiFi device that can connect to a access point transmits.

Quote

A more interesting discussion would be: If a wifi signal is encrypted with state of the art encryption, and someone hacks it - should *that* be illegal?
With no "locking", then the owner of the transmitted signal should keep his signal off any one's antenna that he does not want to receive it. But, if he is clearly attempting to "lock" it... is it still just a signal out there to be received like all others? or can he claim some ownership of it?
That one would be tricky in court.

Not really. circumventing any sort of security in place at all on a network, wireless or otherwise, is an electronic crime. I know that Canada's Criminal Code, section 342.1 prohibits accessing a computer without authorisation. That covers the use of both "Open" networks just as much as it covers those that are Encrypted. I imagine the laws of other countries are nlot much different, this sort of thing might even have some sort of coverage by the DMCA in the US.

That being said- "listening" to signals as they pass through the air is probably covered by a completely different law, if you purposely don't send any signal in response (and therefore are not truly accessing any system) could possibly fall under wiretapping laws, depending on the circumstances.

If a TV station was transmitting a signal that was encrypted and they sold little boxes to decrypt the signal for a fee, would it be "wrong" to reverse engineer the encryption and be able to receive that signal for free? Personally, I don't think so. IMO that signal is not a COMMUNICATION between two people, but rather a large-scale signal sent to the public at large; although even the slightest bit of "reverse ENGINEERING" of even the simplest encryption is clearly prohibited by the DMCA, other countries laws on that subject are not as clearcut; there is only one way communication and the device is merely translating something in the air that is receivable by anybody; legally I don't think there is much difference between receiving that encrypted signal "legally" and decrypting that signal; the decryption is acting on something anybody can have, so it seems stupid to have some sort of restriction on how a encrypted signal can be used when the receiver has not made any agreement with the sender; in this case it's a matter of the encryption itself being too weak and easy to figure out as much as anything.

Solve : Unlocked Internet = Free Internet??

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment