Stealing your neighbor's Net (Wi-Fi pirating trend, is it legal?)

[truthpusher]

http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Stealing+your+neighbor%27s+Internet%3F+Experts+urge+caution+-+Aug.+9%2C+2005&expire=&urlID=15093491&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2005%2F08%2F08%2Ftechnology%2Fpersonaltech%2Finternet_piracy%2Findex.htm%3Fcnn%3Dyes&partnerID=2200

Stealing your neighbor's Net
------------------
The spread of wireless is opening lots of opportunity to log on for free, but experts urge caution.
------------------
August 9, 2005: 1:07 PM EDT
By Steve Hargreaves, CNN/Money staff writer
------------------
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Forty bucks for high-speed Internet access? Not a bad deal. But how does free sound?

To a growing number of Internet piggy-backers, it's the sweet sound of pirating their neighbor's wireless network.

Most new computers are equipped for wireless Internet access, and more and more people opting for Wi-Fi in their homes. But as the networks become stronger and more prevalent, more of those signals are available outside the home of the subscriber, spilling over into neighbor's apartments, hallways and the street.

Add to this the growing number of cafes and other public "hot spots" that offer Wi-Fi (for wireless fidelity) connections and the ability to buy more powerful antennas that can pick up signals several hundred feet away. The coverage in some places can be pretty near flawless.

One study by Jupiter Research said 14 percent of wireless network owners have accessed their neighbor's connection. Yet anecdotal evidence suggests that more and more people are logging on for free.

"I haven't paid for Internet since I've been in New York City," said one friend of this reporter. "Ditto," chimed in another.

(snip)

complete story: http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Stealing+your+neighbor%27s+Internet%3F+Experts+urge+caution+-+Aug.+9%2C+2005&expire=&urlID=15093491&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2005%2F08%2F08%2Ftechnology%2Fpersonaltech%2Finternet_piracy%2Findex.htm%3Fcnn%3Dyes&partnerID=2200

[Eloriel]

1. Is stealing ANYthing legal?

Oh, yeah, I forgot: elections, especially national ones.

[phantom power]

2. I'd leave mine open on purpose,

if I didn't have to worry about malicious hacking. If wishes were horses...

[liberalcenter]

13. Problem with that

If someone steals your WiFi and sufrs child porn, the FBI will be on your door... Much less a RIAA pirating suit if someone fires up a file sharing application. Even if your not guilty, it would be fun to have the FBI storm your home and take your shit!!!

Use UnSecure wireless at your own peril!!

[phantom power]

15. That sounds like fun. I keep mine locked up tighter than a bug's ass.

[ihaveaquestion]

3. It's very common, but it's not legal.

[AngryAmish]

4. There is a wifi hack out there

I'm told that if you stick a wire through the end of a empty Pringle's can and attach that to your wifi receiver it creates a much more powerful receiver. (I'm not a tech guy, it is just what I am told). A guy I know who did this steals his wifi from a guy half a block down.

The wifi signal at work can be accessed from a tavern accross the street. One guy has a wide open system and we could screw with him if we felt like it.

[don954]

20. its called using an external antenna

its just a 2.4ghz signal. Go to compusa and you will see a big selection of antennas in the wireless networking dept, many much more powerfull than a pringles can. Last time i was there i saw a 8db omni with amp and a 15db panel, that combo could pick up signal from many miles away with line of sight, or half a mile non-line of sight.

[jobycom]

5. I'm doing it.

I've recently separated and live in an apartment. I had planned on not getting internet, since I can use it at work, and since my apartment complex has computers for community use. I didn't cancel the connection at my house, so I still have the same email address.

But the first time I logged on, my computer connected with no problem. I checked out nearby connections, and there are five or six of them, depending on the time of day. Three have no password. So I use them, for now.

Is that illegal? I don't see how.

[slackmaster]

7. Ultimately you are hurting all people who pay for the service

Although the person whose wireless connection you are using isn't getting charged by the volume of data and (let's assume for the sake of discussion) experiences no slowness because of your activity, you are eating up bandwidth up the pipeline.

The cost of that bandwidth gets distributed among all users of that ISP. Wireless bandwidth "borrowers" may do little harm when you look at individual situations, but add up all the activity by all of them, it adds up to something that costs real money - Higher rates for all paying customers.

[jobycom]

11. That doesn't sound quite convincing to me

But I'll think about it. I'm sure there are underutilized connections--like the one at my wife's house--and no resulting discounts are applied. Heck, Time Warner doesn't even apply discounts when they are down the four days a month they are down.

But I'll think about it.

[slackmaster]

19. Connections at the fringes of the 'Net are typically underutilized

When you start talking about, say, Cox Communications' links between Los Angeles and San Francisco, you're looking at some very expensive connections that have to run near saturation in order to pay for themselves. Lots of peoples' traffic goes through those trunks.

[Scout1071]

26. Last time I checked, We The People own the airwaves and

we basically lease them to those companies. Why in the hell do we have to pay so much for something that we technically already own?

And I know there have been cities that have tried to offer free WiFi as a way to attract residents and business, but SBC sued and halted such action. Why shouldn't a city be able to provide public access to information?

[slackmaster]

40. You are free to install your own high speed infrastructure

Why in the hell do we have to pay so much for something that we technically already own?

Setting up a multi-gigabit satellite or fiber link from one point to another costs big bucks.

And I know there have been cities that have tried to offer free WiFi as a way to attract residents and business, but SBC sued and halted such action. Why shouldn't a city be able to provide public access to information?

I never said they shouldn't; in fact I think it's a great idea. But SOMEONE has to pay the bill somehow.

[jayfish]

52. So Does Broadcasting ABC, NBC and CBS Over...

the public airwaves. I haven't been accused of steeling from them yet. As far as I am concerned, if you are broadcasting over the public airwaves and have not taken the time to secure your transmissions, it's on you. Not the receiver.

Jay

[genieroze]

95. Just like police scanners used to be able to pick up cell phones.

Now they made it illegal to own such a scanner. The new ones can't legally pick up cell phone calls. They will just make a law. I don't know if there is anything that can be done with the equipment because it's doing what it's supposed to do, picking up and sending a wireless signal.

[jayfish]

126. Isn't That Just Swell.

A corporation devises a faulty product and everyone else gets punished for it.

Jay

[Realityhack]

118. bit off base there.

Listening in to your neibors cordless phone can be simple... but it is also very illegal reguardless of the waves passing over your property line.

[jayfish]

124. Can You Provide A link To That Statute.

It might be illegal to record the conversation, but I'm not too sure about just listening. I could be wrong though :shrug:

Jay

[jayfish]

129. I Found A Little Something For You

http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/interception.html

<SNIP>
Unauthorized Publications of Communications

The FCC has the authority to interpret Section 705 of the Communications Act – “Unauthorized Publication of Communications.” This section generally does not prohibit the mere interception of radio communications, although merely intercepting radio communications may violate other Federal or State laws. This means that if you happen to overhear your neighbor’s cordless telephone conversation or listen to radio transmissions on your scanner, such as emergency service reports, you do not violate the Communications Act.
</SNIP>

Just something to think about.

Jay

[radwriter0555]

36. Nah, the corporations charge WAAAAY too much for net connections... they

are making massive profits even if some folks are jumping on an open connection...

If someone allows their service to be used by others, why not? There is no harm done. No one is out any money.

[slackmaster]

39. Apples and oranges

Using a service that someone is intentionally allowing you to use is morally and legally different from hijacking bandwidth that someone has naively failed to safeguard.

[BrutalEntropy]

144. well...

I very seldom post on DU, but this subject is something I feel strongly about.

If you're going to use technology, *know* how to use it. One of the main faults in this really falls to the manufacturers. Wifi routers are configured to be a "plug and go" technology. Most broadband connections use DHCP, so you can just plug in a router right out of the box and be on the internet. Wirelessly. And your neighbors. And the guy sitting in the car on your curb. All because there is no default security enabled on most wifi routers out of the box (I believe 2wire is an exception to this).

I'm not saying it's right, but I've done it before. When I moved in to my last place, I grabbed some wifi from my neighbor across the street. I used it to check my email, and chat with my girlfriend on IM. That's pretty much all I use the internet for now, except the occasional bittorrent download. The only difference is that I use more bandwidth by downloading bittorrent files, and I pay $50 a month for it. Did I hurt anyone by "stealing" enough of my neighbor's bandwidth to send some text across the internet? The analogy to my usage would be if someone left a book sitting on the sidewalk and I walked by, stopped, and read some of it.

If people don't want their signal to be piggybacked, enable WEP or WPA encryption.

[Realityhack]

104. Wrong

Sure... you are just using un-utilized bandwidth... from the hub to your house. But the companies providing the access have to get larger connections from there up. And they base what they need on average traffic volume. So if everybody maxes out their connection most of the time they suddenly have to pay 20 times what they do now for the larger connections... and prices rise.

Just because someone is gouging does not make it ok to steal from them.

[jbonkowski70]

22. If someone is broadcasting their SSID...

...without any security, it is the equivalent of having a "for sale open house" sign on your front lawn. Broadcasting the name of your wireless node was intended by design to be an invitiation for use, even to complete strangers.

Unfortunately, public opinion seem to be treating the situation like tresspassing. The comparison is made to leaving your front door unlocked and having someone walk in uninvited. This would be the appropriate analogy if you DIDN'T broadcast your name (SSID) and someone still connected. Reading by your neighbor's overpowering porchlight without paying for the electricity is also a fair comparison.

People don't understand that the wireless equipment's default settings are an invitation to use it for free. I think a decent lawyer could argue the case for anyone accused of stealing something or "hacking".

[rman]

34. Which is on by default in MS Windows....

"hello, i'm a wireless access point, if you want to use me, this is my ID..."

[Clovis Sangrail]

44. what does this have to do with MS?

Access points aren't running windows.
By default XP listens to ssid broadcasts.

[rman]

51. Access points are configured from within Windows

Access points ar basically routers-with-build-in-modems exept that it's wireless. It needs drivers and configuration, which are MS Windows specific if one uses Windows, which is the case for a majority of people. SSID broadcast does not *have* to be on, and can be turned on and off from within Windows.

[jayfish]

57. Actually Most Consumer...

level AP/routers are configured via an HTML interface. MS has it's share of things to be bashed on, but this ain't one of them.

Jay

[VegasWolf]

64. The router is independent of Windows. The router has its own

software which maintians the routing tables, etc. My network has both Windows and Unix systems attached to the same router. What
you are referring to is the client side software the OS uses to
attach to the access point.

[Realityhack]

103. Not even remotely correct.

Thats simply not true. Every access point I use is set up through its own internal web-based setup utility. In fact I have never even heard of one being intergrated into windows (not that one never has been). It would not exactly make any sense anyway.

SSID broadcast on IS however usualy the default that the wireless router ships with.

[MADem]

25. If you can get to THEM

...they can get to YOU. They could be fishing for your info, for all you know--they could be recording your every keystroke....

If you end up in one of those Citibank commercials about identity theft, it could be your computer!

[VegasWolf]

Exactly! If you are stealing bandwidth by connecting to an unsecured

router, you had damn well make sure that you are hackproof.
Hackers are tricking people this way.

[henslee]

45. I've heard some fiends create home pages that duplicate hotspot

home pages (t-mobile, hotels, etc.) Unknowing users, some who are even paying for the real use of the legitimate hotspot, are inadverdantly sharing all their keystrokes with an i.d. theft ring, deep in the heart of Russia. That's why I have one isolated debit card I use for online purchases. I have a friend who only banks by check and m.o.'s. No ATM, debit or credit card.

[VegasWolf]

27. Exactly! If you are stealing bandwidth by connecting to an unsecured

router, you had damn well make sure that you are hackproof.
Hackers are tricking people this way.

[VegasWolf]

30. My wifi is locked tight as a drum. nt

[trogdor]

61. Good point.

I can see it now, you double-click Network Neighborhood and find a machine called STRONGBAD that you don't recognize. In it, you find a shitload of hardcore pr0n, bootleg MP3s, and so on and so forth. There is only one house within broadcast range of your WiFi router. What do you do next?

[displacedtexan]

6. This is interesting.

My loft building has free WiFi.
I can sit in the park across the street and work on my laptop.

Also, when I bought my new laptop, there were 3 or 4 different WiFi options available with excellent signal strength.

Is it stealing? Sounds like it is, but...

If a neighbor pays for a floodlight that benefits people walking down the sidewalk, are those people stealing anything?

Of course, I don't know much about WiFi. Is the subscriber charged for other people piggybacking?

[okieinpain]

12. I don't understand why the big companies are (well yes I do) stopping

the cities from offering free wifi access. they can still run around and scream that wired is faster and more secure.

[Clovis Sangrail]

24. not really

What matters is the speed of the connection to the internet on the other side of the wireless.
802.11a and 802.11g (Wifi) are BOTH significantly faster than any cable or DSL connection I've seen (11-54 meg vs. 1-4 meg)

Security... well, wireless is only marginally less secure than being directly connected to the internet.

Think about it.
If you're directly connected to the internet you are open to attack from 25 million users or so.
Being wireless adds what.. a handful more?

In perspective that's not even a blip.

[okieinpain]

32. sorry, don't agree. wireless is a great deal slower then wire.

don't get me wrong wifi is good, and works well but it has come close to the speed of wire. work with the stuff every day, our stuff is setup by the company reps. wire smokes wireless, and having your system open to drive by's is not a good thing either. the average user has no idea about how to set security on a wireless router.

[Omphaloskepsis]

35. I agree..

Wires are faster if I want a Photoshop file sitting in the next cube. If I'm sitting at my house downloading something from versiontracker.com it doesn't make a difference. My cable connection can't saturate my wireless connection.

[Clovis Sangrail]

38. exactly my point

100 megs wired, 54 wireless, or even 10 megs wired ... all are going to bottleneck at the 4 meg cable or 1.5 meg DSL connection if you're talking about internet access.

[Gelliebeans]

37. I agree completely

I had a neighbor that was trying to piggy back my wireless since then I have security enabled my laptop but people can look for wireless connections with programs like net stumbler and hook up wherever they please. There are alot of people that have wireless routers that don't even choose to use the least secure WEP key to protect their connection.

[Clovis Sangrail]

16. I like the floodlight analogy

Are you charged for somebody else using your wireless?
not unless the ISP charges by bytes transfered.

I personally leave my home wireless wide open on purpose... and keep my wired machines behind a firewall.

Wireless access points broadcast packets, often beyond property lines. If I am on the other side of that property line and those packets are in my space/public space... why shouldn't I be allowed to read them?

By the same token (regarding transmission), if the person with the access point is allowed to broadcast packets beyond their space, shouldn't I be allowed to do the same?

[northzax]

41. so as long as I'm not costing you anything

in addition, I'm not stealing? So when you're gone, you won't mind if I stop by your house and watch some cable? swim in your pool? sleep in your bed? none of these things costs you money, unless I do damage, same as wi-fi.

My building shares a connection, four units, one person gets it paid for from work, so she's given us all access. Of course that means the Federal reserve Bank is watching my internet usage...good thing the only naked pictures I download are of Alan Greenspan!

[Clovis Sangrail]

43. throwing packets

If the person with the AP has the right to throw packets through the air, why don't I have that right as well?

On edit:
Using my pool, tv, etc. all require trespassing and are not analogous.

[northzax]

46. you have every right

but, of course, in order to be any use, your data must trespass on his property, where the router is.

so I guess it is analogous, huh?

[Clovis Sangrail]

47. no, it's still not analogous

because his broadcast packets are crossing property lines as well, and as of yet it is not illegal to broadcast in the 2.6ghz spectrum, regardless of property line dilineation.

I have no problem with making it illegal for people to toss packets beyond their property lines, as long as it applies to everybody.

[northzax]

48. Anyone, under the law, can toss a packet anywhere

but you don't have the right to use someone else's receiver without their permission. you are, in essence, using someone else's private property without their express permission. how is that not stealing?

[Clovis Sangrail]

60. by the same token

when the wireless router broadcasts packets designed to be read by any 802.11b/g device it is, in essence, using my private property.

[jayfish]

53. If I Was Putting All Of That Stuff Out On The Street...

while I was gone, I suppose it would be my problem.

Jay

[northzax]

55. it would be stupid, certianly

but still unethical for someone to take, unless it was clear that it was being abandonded. It's stupid to leave your car windows open, but I don't get to sleep in your backseat juat because you did.

by your analogy, even encrypting the signal doesn't protect your network, if I can crack it, you're still putting it on the street, it's still entering my house, so I can use it.

I still argue that you can use a signal emmanating from a residence without permission, that's no different that listening to their radio through your wall, but sending information back is using their private property (their router) without permission.

I know, can't do the first without the second, that's the catch.

[jayfish]

56. After Reading Some...

of the other posts in the thread, I'm partial to the analogy of setting up your cable/sat equipped, big-screen TV in your living room window. Everyone who walks by gets free cable. Interesting point about sending data back though. How about this scenario: You use your neighbors wireless to receive and a POTS line to send?

[northzax]

58. I don't know why you ever would

but I don't think i'd have a problem with that. The only problem, of course, is that you could only receive what someone else wanted you to receive, since you couldn't broadcast anything to the router. But if you can figure out a way to surf the web without sending information to the router, more power to you!

The TV analogy works, the only problem is, you don't get a remote control, you can't pick what you want to watch, only whay he wants to watch. There's no interactivity, which is the whole point of a computer.

[jayfish]

59. Oh, I Don't Know Anyone Who Would Either.

And I think with a bit of playing around it's definitely possible. It would just involve bonding the two connections. Not sure if you can specify what pipe is the sender and which is the receiver.

Jay

[BrutalEntropy]

145. illogical analogy

"I'm not stealing? So when you're gone, you won't mind if I stop by your house and watch some cable?"

This is not even close to the same thing. There is no physical trespass occuring. If your television service were offered by wide band satellite, and your next door neighbor set up a satellite dish to share the signal being sent to yours... if this cost you no extra money... would it be the same as him coming in to your house and watching your cable? Of course not. If your pool went under the fence seperating your property, could you claim he was trespassing when he swam in it? Perhaps if he had climbed the fence and hopped in your side maybe, but otherwise maybe you ought to keep your pool only accessible from your property.

[northzax]

148. so stealing satellite is acceptable?

that's your arguement?

and there is physical trespess occuring, your computer is interacting with my router, which is on my property, without my permission. it may not be analogous to me watching your TV from your couch, but it is certainly analagous to me using a universal remote to change the channel on your TV so I can watch it over the fence.

If you use a service that someone else has paid for, without their permission, you are stealing from that person. deal with it.

[Clovis Sangrail]

150. still no trespass

think of it this way

say I'm standing on the sidewalk in front of your house and your standing on your lawn.
I say "I wish I knew what time it was" loud enough for you to hear.
My broadcast of sound has traveled beyond your property line, but no trespass or any other violation of the law has occured.

Let's say I get more specific and specially craft sounds intended just for you.
I say "northzax, tell me what time it is"
(I know your name because you're wearing a big 'My name is' sticker)

You can tell me what time it is, tell me to buy a watch, tell me to get bent, or ignore me ...
how and if you respond is UP TO YOU.


Broadcasting 802.11b/g packets is similar in that there is nothing illegal about my broadcasting packets that reach beyond your property line, and that how you respond is up to you.

The owners of WAPs, which broadcast into and read from public spectrum that anybody can broadcast into, are responsible for how their WAPs respond to what they hear.
If they don't want that responsibility, they shouldn't buy a WAP.

[northzax]

153. almost, but not quite

asking me the time requires human interaction on my part. I get the opportunity, every time, to either respond or ignore you. A machine does not have that opportunity, it simply responds to the appropriate command. A better time analogy would be if I had a clock in my house that broadcast the time over a frequency, any time I sent it a signal (since I'm now a theoretical physicist, it's a cesium clock) you obtain a device that broadcasts on the same frequency and send it requests for the time from your own house. Since the clock is not designed, by me, to prevent your interference, you have the technical capability to do so, without asking my permission. It's still not your clock, however, and everytime you use it, without my permission, you are committing tresspass on my property, you are using my property without my permission.

back to WAP. if you can use my unsecured WAP signals because of packet broadcasting, then you can also use my secured signal, if you can break it, right? It's still publically broadcast. Your arguement, not mine. The security level is only relevant if it's good enough to keep you out. Right? otherwise, if my securing the network removes your right to use it, not just your ability, then you are in a bind, frankly, because you have to admit one of two things: either the use of an unsecured network without permission is wrong (since the only difference is security, keeping my door unlocked doesn't give you the right to enter my apartment, only the ability) and you are simply looking for an advantage, or b: since your network card also broadcasts across my property line, I have the right to enter your machine for my own personal use. If you leave it unsecured, I get in, otherwise, I can enter if I can break your security.

the presence of security does not change the ethical obligations of another person. I may be stupid to not secure my property, but you don't have the right to use it.

[Clovis Sangrail]

158. an automated (ie computer) response

is still a response, and if it's your equipment you're responsible for that response.
If your car rolls down a hill and causes an accident, it's your responsibility.
If it fell out of park or the brakes failed you may be able to pass some responsiblity on to Ford,
but if you failed to operate your equipment properly it's your responsibility...
and no amount of "but I didn't understand how to set the brake" is going to get you off the hook.

Regarding how I "must now" believe that hacking into your equipment is OK because it's broadcasting in public spectrum... you're wrong.

I don't contact the owner of every website I go to and ask him permission to talk to his machine.
However, when I issue "the appropriate command" to his machine and it gives it to me,
I have been granted permission to use his webserver.

If his machine refuses to aknowledge the "appropriate command", he has denied my request.
At that point my circumventing whatever security he has put in place is the electronic version of b&e.

Without this concept of implied consent the internet would very quickly become less than useful.
Routers send billions and billions of packets to each other all over the internet based on this idea.
If the other router accepts it permission is implied.

Most WAPs these days are combo deals that also act as firewalls, and if you have one of these it's already being sent perfectly legal packets all day long, that have nothing to do with any request you have made, which induce it to act in some way or another.
"is if for me?"
"do I answer it? serve up a page? drop it?"
Take a look at your logs sometime and see how many requests you get from places you have nothing to do with.

As of now, transmissions in the public spectrum are no different.
There is no law preventing me, or you, from broadcasting packets that request a service or response.... from the world or a particular machine.

I think part of the problem is that most people have never dealt with the realities of directly connecting equipment to a public network.
Now that it's cheap enough, lots of people are setting up wireless routers with no inkling that they are now broadcasting into and recieving from public spectrum.... or how to lock down their new wireless network.

While this is lamentable, I don't see that it shifts any responsiblity.

[Indy Lurker]

155. it was until 1998

Then the DCMA (copyright) law was passed, which makes it illegal to decrypt and encryped signal without authorization.

"theft of service" is a myth. That's why the DCMA law was passed.

Theft pertains to property, physical or intellectual.

That doesn't make it right or ethical, but it's not illegal.

[Clovis Sangrail]

159. yep

but we're talking about about WAPs that are NOT secured in any way.
No WEP no WPA

If there is no security it's an open invatation for use.

[BrutalEntropy]

157. odd.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that wireless transmissions = physical trespass.

When I use my cordless phone, the signals are broadcast to your house. Am I trespassing on your property?

[VegasWolf]

67. As long as you don't mind people potentially watching what you

send and receive on the internet. You don't know your neighbor or
your neighbor's neighbors who may be watching that link.

[Kurovski]

8. and what happens if someone using your connection

does something illegal on your service?

Are you not then responsible for the activities engaged in?

[GregW]

21. Yep - I would be REALLY careful about leaving my WiFi connection open ...

All you need is to be listed on some war driving site - next thing a pedophile is parked outside your house at night downloading kiddie porn. The ISP and FBI are monitoring the traffic from the KP site and log your IP address. You are the one that gets the knock on the door from the Fibbies and has all your equipment confiscated to do a forensic analysis of your hard drives (not to mention all removable media).

[BootinUp]

9. Only possible because people aren't setting it up right

Just turn on the encrypted security and they can't connect without your password.

[phusion]

133. True...

But, out of the box most wireless access points are configured to be completely open. Most people just want to plug one of these in to their network and hop on the internet. They don't give a second thought to security.

[Purrfessor]

10. Should Steve Hargraves, the reporter for this article, be jailed

unless he reveals to authorities, should they ask, who his friends are? After all, they did admit to committing a crime, providing that piggybacking is indeed illegal.

[DS1]

14. Eh. I can hop on to 2 sometimes 3 wireless networks from where I sit

I have my own, but it's got 128 bit WEP and Mac address security on.

[Occulus]

17. Technical question here

I don't know a great deal about wireless communications, so please forgive me for asking, but if one has access to three or four overlapping wireless connections, and uses all of them, does or does not that effectively increase their overall bandwidth?

Seems to me that hundreds of small, overlapping wireless connections would result in one huge wireless hotspot, and with so many people contrbuting to it, it could effectively amount to one huge supercomputer if they were all using distributed computing...

I'm just thinking out loud here. From a technogeek standpoint, the idea is actually pretty cool.

[pimpbot]

18. I think its common, but I wouldn't call it legal...

Lets think of other wireless services.... Cell phones, satellites.

If my neigbor pays for directv, and i setup an antenna to receive the same signal (duh it covers the whole US), anda i receive said signal without paying, its illegal (according to the laws of the US).

Some people claim the RF energy of these companies are tresspassing on their property, thus they can do whatever they want with them. I don't think this argument has ever worked in court.

The only difference in some of these cases is that a person will not put a password or encrypt their wireless device. In this case I would make the argument that even if a car is unlocked, it is illegal to get in it if it isnt yours!

Dont get me wrong, I dont see anything wrong with piggybacking, but if you're doing it, don't be surprised at some point someone knocking on your door reading you your rights :)

[Occulus]

63. the trespassing argument wouldn't work

the argument one would need to use is that airwaves themselves are public space and thus, where available, even when paid, are open public property. The company pays for the service, not the actual airwaves.

It would be a bit like someone sitting next to you in a traffic jam who has satellite radio in their car. You can hear it, even though you don't have satellite radio and are thus not an intended recipient (let's take it even further. YOU have the satellite radio hardware but have not yet activated your service; the person next to you has done both), but because you have ears and can hear, you get several songs in a row- an appreciable amount of "service"- for free. All you have to do is roll your window down or, in the case of a computer, start an application.

I have no problem with this. I really think it ought to be legal, and furthermore I think companies who provide internet service shouldn't be able to do anything about it. If they're going to use the public airwaves to transmit data, they must allow the public access, no matter who ultimately pays.

edit: in no way am I saying this should be allowed by the provider of the service.

Some time back on TechTV (I think it was an older episode of The Screensavers) I saw a demo of why you need to secure your wireless connection. The people in the spot drove down a major thoroughfare in a large financial district, and fired up their wireless connection. They were able to pull account numbers and balances, passwords, and interpersonal business communications- some of which could have been sensitive- right out of the air. It was, at the time, perfectly legal in the area in which they did the test (I'm sorry, I don't remember where it was).

If you are using a wireless connection it is your responsibility to ensure the communications are secure. The law cannot protect you; you must take action yourself.

[Don Claybrook]

68. That wouldn't work in the way that you're thinking

You'd have to inverse multiplex your connection over several wireless links, which is just a geek way of saying what you've already said (known in some implementations as MPPP). While technically feasible, wireless access points don't have this sort of functionality built-in.

Generally, you're only authenticated to one AP at a time. In the majority of cases, this AP will "lease" you an IP address so that you can participate in the network (or Internet, in this case). So, regarding the nearby AP's that you're not connected to at any given time, not only are you not authenticated to those other radios (AP's), you're also very likely using different IP address space (although it would not be too surprising to see 2 neighboring AP's using the same IP address scheme for clients, e.g., 192.168.100.X).

A final thought: if you had 2 access points near each other and you could somehow authenticate to both and bond the channels, share the bandwidth, one may be connected to Insight Broadband and head off to Atlanta in order to jump onto the wider internet (purely hypothetical--I don't know where Insight's points of presence are). Meantime, the other AP may be connected via SBC DSL and its next hop is Chicago. In order for this bandwidth-sharing, or inverse-muxing to occur, the far-end of both connections must be in the same place. In other words, if I had 2 connections of whatever type, it would be feasible to bond those together, but only if they met on the other side of the connection in Denver or wherever. This is due to the requirement that these 2 data streams would need to be "reassembled" on the other side, ergo, the other side must be a single location.

I hope that made some sort of sense. It's a good question--I just don't think it's something that is very doable, at least with off-the-shelf equipment.

Thanks.

[TheWraith]

140. What you're describing is a "mesh" network

Many access points working together to create a large area network. The idea is in use in various municipal broadband nets.

The whole issue of borrowed WiFi use being illegal is stupid. If you can't be bothered to take five minutes to turn on encryption, you don't have grounds to complain. I too favor the TV analogy--if somebody sets up their big-screen TV right in the front window, it doesn't constitute stealing if you stand on the sidewalk and watch CNN. Another analogy would be if you posted all your private emails to a bulletin board, then had a fit when someone read them, claiming that they're your private property.

The entire internet is built on the assumption of access. When you connect to a web server, it's never explicitly stated between the machines that you're allowed access. You just see the website. But by doing that, you're accessing someone else's network. Now the reason the internet works is because it's assumed that if you CAN access something, then you have PERMISSION to access it. Anything not for public consumption is supposed to be tucked away. It's the same with WiFi. By leaving an access point open, it implies permission for others to use it.

[neuvocat]

23. As far as cable companies are concerned...

it would essentially by the same thing as splicing a cable line to your neighbor's line to get his or her service without his or her permission.

[uncle ray]

28. no, it's more like your neighbor

setting his big screen HDTV up in his picture window facing the street.

[Occulus]

65. thank you, that's exactly what it analogises to

and, let me add, the curtains would be the encryption, or a firewall.

Is 'analogises' a word?

[northzax]

82. and, when you neighbor isn't home

you use your universal remote to change the channel.

that's the equivalent. wifi is interactive, your computer talks to the router, which transmits the requested information. Your computer says "check my gmail" the router send back the information from gmail. so you aren't just watching TV, you are actively controlling the TV. There is a difference.

[CatholicEdHead]

29. I turned off my WiFi on my router

in my apartment as I do not want anyone nearby stealing my pipe. Wireless is not needed for the short distances here.

[emc]

31. one more step

Now the person or persons you are piggybacking from are advertising--(fire wireless internet service)---example-----motel---coffee shop-----
Now, I dont take a room, but park across the street or in the next parking lot of the coffee shop----does this constitute stealing---
This is splitting hairs technically---and how many damn prisons can you open if you have to start to arrest people for piggybacking on top of all the other people who are being arrested for a nickle or dime bag----pretty soon there are going to be more people in prison then on the outside---

I go up to my local motel and park in the walmart lot across the street and I dont really think anyone is going to get in my face---maybe my computer but not my face--------

[noladude]

33. Worked until neighboring office moved

We shared an adjacent wall, and my laptop just found the signal. I was set till they moved out a couple months ago.

[UrbScotty]

161. Welcome to DU!

I hope you stop by the Lounge to introduce yourself!

[northzax]

42. I would argue that it is not illegal

but it is unethical. A reasonable person can conclude that the WiFi network is for the use of the customers of that business. If you are not a customer, then you are breaking that covenant and making it more expensive for those who do choose to pay for the system.

[pimpbot]

49. If you have an unsecured wap, you probably are breaking the TOS..

Terms of Service... of your ISP. Most have a clause about "not sharing" your connection. This is to prevent someone from setting up their own mini-isp. I mean, you could setup 10 phone lines into your house and offer people dialup service, thus SHARING the service.

Having an open access point is the same thing, you're sharing the service you paid for. Might not be illegal, but its probably against your ISPs TOS and they have the right to cut you off.

Maybe you have some mom n pop ISP that doesnt have this built into the TOS, but I know Comcast, etc have it.

[northzax]

50. under the deal in question

up to five computers can share the connection, as long as they are all registered and in the same residence. It is an upgrade from the basic plan, so it's legal.

[Realityhack]

111. Um...

When were we discussing computers in the same residence? If its your neibors its a diffrent residence appartment or not.

[northzax]

147. since it's an illegal apartment building

it's technically a single residence. I figure that the Fed's people wouldn't have signed onto the deal, and I was approved by them, if it wasn't kosher.

[Realityhack]

106. Isn't breaking the TOS (contract terms) illigal

in and of itself?

[Occulus]

66. I would argue that it's not even unethical

and is, in fact, gluttonous if it goes unused.

We're talking about signals in the air here, not a wire you have to splice. The airwaves are, in broadczst terms, public, and although the providers supply the bandwidth, they cannot control it once it's sold.

If you don't want people using your bandwidth over their wireless connections- which overlap yours- secure the thing. If you don't, tough; it may get used. That just. The way. It is.

[northzax]

78. satelite TV is a signal in the air

are your free to pirate that as well? seriously, that doesn't even involve interacting with a machine on someone else's property, like hijacking wifi does. A satelite dish is passive, it simply receives and decodes the signal.

speaking of decoding, why does encrypting or protecting your wifi signal eliminate the public access arguement. If I have the right, in your opinion, to take what I can from an unencrypted network, then I obviously have the right to take what I can from a secured network that I can force open. it's only in the air, after all. So as long as my decryption is better than your encryption, I have the right to play on your network? somehow I don't think many people would agree with you on that.

[union_maid]

54. I did it by accident for a while

I got my laptop before we got a wireless router. I opened it up and turned it on and it detected a connection somewhere and I was online and stayed that way. We pay for cable and now I'm suing the securer connection with that. I think the other connection disappeared, too. But I think it's true that you probably can get away with it for a long time. My son travels a lot and he says that they don't go looking for wi-fi connections much. "They're just there - everywhere" he said.

[Canuckistanian]

62. Little known eleventh commandment...

Thou shalt not nab thy neighbor's bandwidth.

[VegasWolf]

69. People really attach to open links, especially ones that say "linksys"??

[Mithras61]

70. There's a lot of argument that this is legal and perfectly acceptable, but

I don't see anyone explaining how using my receiver is perfectly acceptable and not trespass.

There's a lot of "it's like a floodlight" and "it's like a TV facing a window," but could you explain to me how your accessing my receiver (my access point) is not like you making a remote to control my TV facing the window or coming into my house to turn on my flood light, please?

As I see it, using my access point to get you to the Internet is just like you using a cell phone to steal my access codes and make calls on my account. Unless I specifically authorize you to use it, access is prohibited. The fact that an ignorant user has failed to secure the connection to the degree YOU feel is appropriate is no excuse! If I were to put a lock on my door that could be forced by the expedient of putting a little more pressure on the door than would usually be required to open a door, does that mean breaking my lock and entering my house isn't illegal?

Edited for speeling - er, spelling...

[VegasWolf]

71. The reason is no more complex in that some people are too CHEAP

to pay for something that you pay for, and they are taking advantage
of people too technology challenged to lock their doors.

[Mithras61]

72. Exactly my point! n/t

[crikkett]

80. share and share alike! just as my neighbor gives me extra apples...

.. from their tree, I give extra bandwidth to my neighbors.

Our lives are much better this way, when we share what we don't need for ourselves.

It is SO INCREDIBLY EASY to read and follow instructions on how to encrypt a wireless router, or to get phone support for setting up a new router, that it's only fair for people to assume that an open network is windfall (the original meaning of windfall being, fruit knocked off a tree by the wind.)

:hi:

[Mithras61]

83. If you choose to share your bandwidth, then it's fair use, but...

there are a great many technology-challenged people out there purchasing laptop computers with wireless access built in and buying a wireless AP to go along with it. Most of them don't bother to read further than how to plug it in, and when the default settings work, they're satisfied and leave it alone after that (don't fix what ain't broke, y'know?). This is not an open invitation to use their bandwidth. It's a failure of understanding the need to secure it further so others DON'T take what isn't free.

[crikkett]

90. sorry, "consumer beware" .... it's the American Way

... which should also, reflexively mean, "supplier inform" but it doesn't becasue that's not the American Way.

[Realityhack]

119. way off

So if I decide not to lock my car I am inviting you to borrow it?

BS complete BS. Just because its 'easy' to secure doesn't mean not securing it is an open invitation.

And if you think it is that easy for everyone you have clearly never worked doing IT support for average people. There are a lot of people out there who are a lot more ignorant than you seem to imagine.

[crikkett]

91. PS how is someone to know it's allowed or not?

Should I change my SSID to "hop_on"?
What if I just don't encrypt my signal?

[VegasWolf]

96. Err, maybe because the signal will say something like Public Access Point

and proceed to give you instructions on how to join in. If
the SSID says something like "linksys" then you have found an idiot and you know his router will be sitting at http://192.168.1.1 and you might as well jump in and grab his bank stuff and make a few bucks.

[Mithras61]

97. How is someone supposed to know if access is allowed?

Why not just ask? Why are you advocating using someone else's equipment without asking permission?

Just because you (who obviously aren't technology-challenged) understand how to tap into equipment that isn't yours doesn't make it acceptable to do so.

[Clovis Sangrail]

75. how using your router is perfectly acceptable and not trespass

It is not illegal for my adapter to broadcast packets that your router can hear, just as it is not illegal for your router to broadcast packets that my adapter can hear.
These broadcasts are made into public spectrum and are perfectly legal (provided they aren't too loud).

While a argument can be made that my adapter is broadcasting packets specially crafted to elicit a response from your router, the same argument can be made that your router is broadcasting packets specially crafted to elicit a response from my adapter.

[crikkett]

76. good job

I like your logic.

[Mithras61]

77. It isn't illegal, provided...

that the packets aren't crafted to elicit a response from my router? But to connect to my access point, they MUST be specifically so crafted, or my router wouldn't respond. Yes, my AP is broadcasting it's SSID, but announcing that something exists is not the same as inviting you to access it or to use access that you haven't been granted authority to use.

Your argument is the same as saying that it's okay to go through a company's unlocked door marked employees only even if you aren't an employee because they didn't lock it!

You KNOW you didn't pay for access that you KNOW is for-fee, so you KNOW it's wrong to use it!

[northzax]

79. hence the sophistry

I haven't seen this much ethical contortionism and justification since the last music stealing thread.

[VegasWolf]

89. Well put! Unfortunately logic doesn't support cheapness!!! nt

[Realityhack]

113. LOL

Very true.

You can make lots of arguments that it is not un-ethical (though I would say their are better arguments on the other side) but I seriously doubt you can make a sound legal argument that would stand up in court that it is not actualy illegal. Even those offered in the artical reffrenced from cirtain lawers were of a rather dubious 'an argument can be made' type and had some serious flaws.

[Clovis Sangrail]

84. not wrong

It isn't illegal, provided that the packets aren't crafted to elicit a response from my router?

That's not what I said.
What I said is that my packets ARE specially crafted to elicit a response, and the packets from the access point are as well.
If you want me to stop broadcasting, you have to be willing to stop broadcasting as well (which would kill the idea of wifi)


You're AP is broadcasting alot more than it's SSID. Every packet it sends out wirelessly is 'broadcast'... not to mention any other IP or mac 'broadcasts'.
I have yet to see a network that doesn't have at least some broadcast chatter. (and if were talking windows there's a lot of chatter)

[Mithras61]

85. I never claimed you don't have a right...

to listen to the chatter, just that you don't have a right to broadcast signals that make my hardware respond to your broadcasts.

If you want to broadcast, go right ahead, provided you abide by the appropriate regulations. If your broadcast is designed to elicit a response from MY hardware, that's a different subject entirely. My AP didn't ask your wireless card to connect, it merely provided the info that an authorized card would need to make the legit connection. Your packets are eliciting a response in that they are pulling data through my AP (and presumably my router) based on your broadcasts.

Your argument is essentially the same as claiming that it's okay that you stole my car because I didn't lock the doors. If you didn't pay for the access point, and you haven't specifically been granted permission (there is no implied permission to use my hardware being granted here), then you don't have the right to influence what my hardware is doing.

You want it to be legal because it's what you want to do, not because what you're doing is some inherent right.

[Clovis Sangrail]

99. not the same thing as stealing a car

-----------
If your broadcast is designed to elicit a response from MY hardware, that's a different subject entirely
-----------

You're missing the point that your router is sending out packets that are designed to elicit a response from MY hardware.
My point is, if you can do it, why can't I?

Your packets (arps etc.) are intentionally designed to influence what MY hardware is doing.
You're WAP isn't just broadcasting its SSID.
Run AirSnort on your wireless network and look at the results.


------------
You want it to be legal because it's what you want to do, not because what you're doing is some inherent right
------------

Not true.
I pay for my own connection and have my own wireless network; I have no need to use anybody else's.
I leave my network open on purpose, and I know a number of other people who do as well.

I'm pointing out that it's not fair to allow 1 group to engage in an activity but prohibit another group from engaging in the same activity.

[Mithras61]

100. Your argument is weak right here...

My router is sending out configuration info. That is not the same thing as eliciting a response. I didn't try to get your NIC to connect, I just made the info necessary for a connection available. You chose to send packets configured to access my AP and pull data through it. Big difference.

I'm not saying you can't do what I'm doing. I'm saying that using your NIC to acces my access point is not the same as broadcasting configuration info from my AP. I'm saying that since I don't know how to lock my network up with titanium plated locks (or their wireless equivalent) that you think it's perfectly fine for your to break in on my signal and use it.

If you want to run your access point in the clear and allow sharing of your bandwidth, go right ahead. If I don't want to share, however, I should have the right to NOT have people use my service if I'm not a computer tech that can lock it up, down and sideways! Just because I don't know how and don't have the time and patience to learn how to lock it down doesn't make it okay for you to use my access point. If you want to go wireless, knock yourself out, but stay off APs that aren't yours or that you don't have EXPLICIT permission to use.

[VegasWolf]

101. Why would you leave your network open? Do you leave your OS

open too?

[Clovis Sangrail]

107. I leave my wireless open

my wired machines are all firewalled.

I leave the wireless open for a few reasons.
1. wireless is insecure anyways
2. so my neigbors can use it if they want
3. because I want free wireless access to become ubiquitous

[VegasWolf]

108. Ok. Explain how a secured and encrypted access point is vulnerable?

Some early versions of NetGear and LinkSys had severe security
problems because default administrator passwords could not be disabled. These have been fixed for awhile.

Leave your router wide
open and someone ( so I have heard, certinly not me!) can go in and
hack your router's routing table and then do backwards probes of
your computer. Since your firewall has already opened its doors
to the access point, then what?

[Clovis Sangrail]

114. I guess you didn't

look up airsnort.

The most common wireless encryption (when people use any) is still WEP.

Using airsort you can gather enough packets and it'll crack 128 wep in a under 2 minutes.
http://airsnort.shmoo.com/

WPA encryption is better, but still has it's problems.
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/004428.html

And as for MAC id requirments, those can be spoofed.
http://www.klcconsulting.net/smac-cl/

still feel secure?

[VegasWolf]

125. Duh, of course WPA is better, every child knows that.! Ever wonder

why every router/access point manufacturer now offers the WPA option.

You did not answer my question. Once your firewall allows
MY access point to handle your inbound and outbound packets,
what'cha gonna do? Or better yet, when your firewall allows
MY access point to play with your open ports?

Only a fool would leave their network open.

[Clovis Sangrail]

134. and...?

WPA is better than WEP, but as of now it's security through obscurity.
It's been cracked and published.
(and is now in the inevitable patch/crack/patch/crack cycle)

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=370636
------------
The Achilles heel of WPA is the calculated MIC value that is used to validate messages 2–4 of the four-way handshake. In particular, coWPAtty targets the final EAPoL message; although any would work.
------------

and to answer your question:
My firewall would treat communications from your WAP the same way it treats communications from anyplace else on the internet.


---------
Only a fool would leave their network open.
---------
You must have missed the post where I pointed out that I leave my wireless network open... not my wired machines.

and finally:
most manufacturers may offer WPA now (though not all) but WEP is still in wider use.
Go wardrive in any big US city.
You'll find most people wide open, followed by a bunch of people using WEP, and a smaller number using WPA.
I'm guessing you could find a corelation between the affluence of an area and the use of WPA (newer hardware).

[VegasWolf]

135. Yes, I'm trying to say that my WAP is malicious! RE your point

on the wireless, then I guess you have no sensitive data there
that could be compromised as opposed to your wired machine.
And I'm not saying that you are a fool. I'm speaking in generalities
about anyone who would leave their possesions laying around because they are too lazy to lock the door.

[Clovis Sangrail]

137. correct

leaving any kind of sensitive data on a wirelessly connected machine is not something I do.
In fact, I don't even leave any machine on a wireless network if I'm not using it.

I consider wireless insecure, and treat it as such... regardless of whose wireless network I'm on.

[VegasWolf]

141. Right, but some people are not that smart. You hear posters talking

about how they go willy nilly connecting up to any access point that
they can find that will let them in. And dollars to donuts they
have data on that machine they DON'T want hackers to see!

[VegasWolf]

136. RE your last point. The hacker rooms are full of talk about how wonderful

life is for THAT very reason. I assume your correlation is completely correct. Rich people buy planes they can't fly either,
call them doctor killers.

[Clovis Sangrail]

117. oh yeah, fyi

-------------
Since your firewall has already opened its doors
to the access point, then what?
-------------

It is possible to have your machines firewalled but your wireless open.

[VegasWolf]

127. Gee, that's brilliant. Of course it is! I'm talking about a malicious

program using an access point to attack your machine.

[Realityhack]

116. Wha??

>1. wireless is insecure anyways
Not really. At some point ANYTHING has security issues but an encrypted wi-fi connection is probobly at LEAST as secure as your firewall.

> 2. so my neigbors can use it if they want
which probobly constitutes and intentional violation of your ISP TOS and therefore a breach of contract...

> 3. because I want free wireless access to become ubiquitous
so shareing your PAID connection makes FREE wireless ubiquitous how? oh thats right... if everyone PAYS for access at home they could theoreticaly all share it and have it "free" other places... except that prices would rise quite a bit due to the additonal average bandwith usage on each connection.

[Clovis Sangrail]

122. erm..

-----
1. wireless is insecure anyways
Not really. At some point ANYTHING has security issues but an encrypted wi-fi connection is probobly at LEAST as secure as your firewall.
-----
You're kidding, right?
Comparing wifi encryption to a firewall is like comparing apples and carburators; they don't do the same thing.
WEP or WPA encrypt packets between your adapter and the router.
That's it.

-----
2. so my neigbors can use it if they want
which probobly constitutes and intentional violation of your ISP TOS and therefore a breach of contract...
-----


no violation of TOS.
Nobody uses it on as their main connection.
It's equivalent to allowing a freind who comes over to use the connection.


-----
if everyone PAYS for access at home they could theoreticaly all share it and have it "free" other places... except that prices would rise quite a bit due to the additonal average bandwith usage on each connection.
-----

If you have the same number of people using the net the same amount, how does spreading out the access points increase bandwidth utilization?

[northzax]

81. true, true

but you forgot something. Your packets are deliberatly designed to initiate a response from someone else's router. The router is passive, you are active. you are conciously acting to interact with the router. The packets that the router sends out, prior to your interaction are intended by the owner of that router to be for his/her machine, not yours. the fact that they are general does not change the intention for them to be private, unless specfically stated otherwise. Only once YOUR machine responds can they become specfic to your machine, otherwise the router doesn't even know you are there.

You understand this is the 'she wanted it, officer' defense? Is this really your justification?

[Clovis Sangrail]

105. really?

how is this the 'she wanted it' defense?

I'm not completely up on 802.11g, but it seems the router is going to drop me in it's arp table as soon as it hears the broadcast from my card, regardless of my targeting it.

If nobody is allowed to use an open WAP without permission, what is the affect of this on community wireless projects?

Say I'm wandering around Seattle using the community wireless project nodes... do I have to ask each individual if I can use their WAP?
Or is it enough to get permission from the project?
What happens when the project lists a AP, and somebody not involved in the project sets up an unsecured AP right next to a listed node... do they then get to sue the project for directing freeloaders to their network? or do they sue the guy next door that listed himself with the project?

No.
Not only does the idea of "no access without asking permission" shoot the idea of community wireless in the head (though I'm sure Verizon likes it), it unjustly prohibits some people from engaging in an activity while allowing others to do the same thing. (broadcasting in public spectrum)

If you don't want other people to use your WAP, lock it down.

[northzax]

146. You can't tell the difference

between an unsecured private system and a community open access system? You are free, under whatever terms you negotiate with your ISP, to open your wifi to anyone you want. You are just as free to put a sign on your front door inviting everyone into your house. However, if you don't have the 'open house' sign on your front door, you should still be able to leave your door open in the summer without worrying that someone will wander in. Your analogy implies that people cannot tell the difference between the two.

Portland, Oregon, offers free bicycles. They are painted yellow, and you get on one and ride it until you reach your destination (anywhere downtown) then you leave it, unlocked for someone else to use. They are advertised as free-use bicycles. Bob Jones' use of a non-free bike downtown isn't confusing to people, right? one's public, one's private. you can tell the difference. Even if bob doesn't lock his bike up, you can't ethically take it.

It is practical advice to lock down your WAP, obviously, just as it's practical advice to lock your car, but not locking it doesn't put it into the public domain.

[Clovis Sangrail]

160. how would you tell the difference

between an access point that is open intentionally and one that isn't?

Many community wireless projects are made up of community members (fancy that) who have decided to provide open wireless access in their immediate area using their own equipment... the SSID could be anything.

Are you suggesting that all community wireless project members be required to "paint" their routers a single color?

How about we make them all respond in a certain way...
Like granting or denying permission based on whether they want anybody to use them.

[VegasWolf]

88. Of course it is illegal. It's analogous to running a cable line over

to your neighbors house for Cable TV in the wired world.
Hey, why don't we all do that, let's find one schmuck willing
to pay for cable services and the rest of the city piggy back off him!!!! It is theft of services.

[VegasWolf]

92. Boy that was contorted! Hope those packets aren't to loud!!! Packets

have an IP address and putting a sniffer on the line and picking
up packet contents that don't belong to you is illegal. Banks
and businesses frown on that that sort of thing.

[Clovis Sangrail]

123. I don't think it is illegal

to sniff packets from the 2.4ghz spectrum... provided you're on your own property.
It's public spectrum.

You could very legitimately be sniffing your own wireless network (at home), which happens to be next to somebody else's wireless network. Not only would you get packets from your network, you would get ones from the other as well.


What you do with those packets is another issue.

[VegasWolf]

142. Yes, I agree with sniffing as a passive act, but disagree that

actively using someone's else router to access the internet
is legal. This would be theft of services analogous to stealing
CATV.

There was once a law suit I heard about in Engineering school where
a bright youg guy tapped into an overhead power line and passively
sucked up power by magnetic induction. He lost his plea
on the passive stealing of electricity.

[Clovis Sangrail]

143. using induction to suck energy

isn't really a similar situation.

He very likely had to trespass into the powercompany's space to get close enough to do it... and even if the the line went over his yard, he likely had to get close enough to it to be considered a violation of the power company's space.

In any case, I'd like to read about this if you can find a link.



802.11b/g uses broadcasts into public spectrum.
Anybody can legally broadcast into it, and anyone can legally capture transmissions.
So unless I'm broadcasting from within your property lines, trespass doesn't apply.

WAPs broadcast packets designed to be read by adapters, and adapters broadcast packets designed to be read by routers.

I have no say over what your WAP or your cards are allowed to broadcast.
You can broadcast whatever you like regardless of how your packets affect my hardware (obviously within FCC limits on 802.11b/g)

Whether my machine accepts the packets, logs the packets, drops the packets, or eats the packets... whatever it does with them is my responsibility (though this is usually delegated to some program)

I also have the right to broadcast packets into this same spectrum regardless of how it affects your hardware (again, within FCC limits on 802.11b/g).
And, just as what I do with the broadcast packets I catch is not your responsibility, what you do with the ones I send out is not my responsibility.

[VegasWolf]

152. The way I remember the story, and it has been about 30 years ago,

a high voltage power line passed directly over his
property. He went to a local junk yard and bought a ton of cable
which he buried in his own yard. This being a capitalistic
society and all, the power company forced him to dig up his own cable in his own yard after they discovered the inductive loss.

I think OJ tried the free airwaves argument when he was fined
for stealing DirectTV services. I wouldn't be surprised if
ISPs don't start making similar arguments of theft of service
since the only real reason 99.99999 percent of the people who
"borrow" another's bandwidth is to access the internet.

Anyway, its interesting!

[crikkett]

86. well dude, RTFM and reclaim your privacy

(quoting)
does that mean breaking my lock and entering my house isn't illegal?

You're confusing the issue.

If you stand naked in front of a window I'm not supposed to look? It's too easy to read your wireless router's manual to secure your network, or to call for technical support when installing a new router.

Cheers
:toast:

[Mithras61]

87. Indeed it is. My point is that the ignorant...

have just as much right to their full bandwidth as those savvy enough to figure out how to lock down their AP. And it isn't confusing the issue to use an analogy that is accurate in it's comparison. A cheap lock is equivalent to the default setup on the access point. Just because the lock is crappy doesn't mean you have the right to bypass it.

[Clovis Sangrail]

110. there is no cheap lock

The default setup on many home WAPs is to grab any packet it gets and route it... that's not even a cheap lock.

I'm not in support of people circumventing even crappy security measures.

[Realityhack]

112. That dosn't make sense

You say you are not in favor of people circumventing even a crappy security measure... but if there isn't one its ok?

So if I don't lock my door (not even with a crappy lock) its ok to break in but if put cheap lock on suddenly it isn't?

[Clovis Sangrail]

115. not the same

If you apply the trespassing analogy to somebody using an open AP you have to apply the same analogy to the broadcasts coming from the AP.

If the AP can broadcast, so can I.
What I do with its broadcast packets is up to me.
What it does with my broadcast packets is up to it.

[VegasWolf]

93. No, but because he is not smart enough to lock his door doesn't

mean that you can waltz in and "borrow" his stuff!

[Realityhack]

109. Totaly wrong

Its also easy to lock your front door... but you are going to have a tough time proving in court that failure to do so is an invitation to anyone to use your home/appartment.

While it is a good idea to secure your stuff I do not belive it is the property owners responsibility to stop you from tresspassing, stealing, whatever.

[Clovis Sangrail]

138. but it's not trespassing

it's broadcasting of data packets into public spectrum, which is completely legal.

The access points are doing it as well.

What somebody's hardware does with my broadcast packet after I've sent it isn't my responsiblity.
This is the same argument that the sattelite TV companies used to justify their sending of bullets that fry equipment of non-subscribers (and it was upheld in court)

[progdonkey]

73. I'm doing it, but I have a good excuse. Honest!

I've been using my neighbor's wireless connection because the one in my sister's house doesn't want to recognize my computer. The wireless setup will only allow one computer to connect at a time, which Sprint says is not a problem with their system, but with the Airport unit.

Whatever the problem is, only my sister's Powerbook is able to connect to the in-house connection, so I connect to the neighbor's. Would that be stealing? We're paying for a wireless connection, but using a different one due to technical glitches.

[Mithras61]

74. Unless you're paying for the bandwidth you use...

you're stealing someone else's.

Sounds to me like you either have a wireless card that uses a different standard than the Airport, or the Airport doesn't use the standard it claims. Either way, access points are cheap (a name-brand 802.11g goes for around $65 and NICs are even cheaper than that).

[VegasWolf]

94. Sounds like your sister's router is not configured correctly. A router

or access point by definition would be useless if only one device
could attach to it. You are still stealing though, it's like
having your own CATV and on top of that running a CATV line over
to your neighbor's house.

[HuckleB]

98. "When Pigs Wi-Fi" -- (Wi-Fi For FREE in Umatilla County, Oregon)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/opinion/07kristof.html

And you gotta like Philly and Portland for jumping on the bandwagon, er creating the bandwagon as far as big cities go.

[VegasWolf]

102. I think that is great!!! It is just so UNAMERICAN. JP Morgan would

be spinning in his grave if there were any afterlife.

[depakid]

128. Of course, CNN would NEVER mention that

and, quite frankly, even citing CNN for this story- such as it is- probably gives DU'rs a misleading impression of what's actually going on.

[Pied Piper]

120. Oh My! Here's my $.02

About a year and a half ago, my apartment was flooded, and I needed to relocate for 2 weeks during the renovations. My apartment complex graciously moved me to another unit within our high-rise building. At the time, I had a landline, a work-owned cell phone, and dial-up access with Earthlink. I use an Apple PowerBook with built-in Airport Extreme, which I had disabled since I didn't have wireless at home. I haven't owned a TV for about 4 years, so I get all my info online. When I relocated, I decided not to transfer my phone line to the temp apartment, since it was only for two weeks. I sent an email to all my contacts and asked them to use my (company-owned) cell phone for that time period (with the blessing of my company - cool place to work, BTW...).

So, I get all moved in to the temp apt, and I set up my laptop, only to realize that since I had no phone at the new place, I had no internet access! What would I do for two weeks, with no TV, no internet, and most of my stuff in storage?!

On a hunch, I re-enabled my Airport Extreme card, and I was immediately connected to someone else's unsecured wireless access point. So I admit that I "borrowed" someone else's bandwith for two weeks. When all is said and done, I paid Earthlink for two weeks worth of dialup which I didn't use, and at the same time, I piggybacked on someone else's service. As far as I'm concerned, it all came out in the wash, as they say. Logically correct, but maybe not ethically correct. And no, I do not feel one whif of guilt.

I was so pleased with the speed of the (unauthorized) wireless speed, that when I moved back into my own apt, I immediately switched to Verizon DSL and ordered Apple's Airport Express wireless router. I have the whole business locked down securely.

I think it is the responsibility of the wireless router's owner to lock down the system. I work in a largely student area, and a few weeks ago, when I was at lunch with a colleague, I took out my Palm, which has built-in wireless, and I was able to connect to 7, yes, count them, 7, unprotected wireless routers, 3 of which were named "linksys"!!!

If I had a "Free Stuff!" sign in my front yard, and I left my front door wide open, I doubt that the insurance company would reimburse me for my soon-to-be-missing household items.

So there, my 2 cent's worth.

[VegasWolf]

130. Right! and since their names were all "linksys" you know the

manufacturer, and since they didn't even bother to change the default SSID, you know the admin password to router, and since they are that clueless, they probably haven't locked themselves down
very tight. Thieves LOVE these people, they are fantastic
for stealing data and surreptitiously using your machines IP address
to hide their wrong doing. Keep it up. Hackers claim that
these are truly the golden years because such sophisticated
technology is available to people that don't have a clue!

[Deja Q]

121. Stealing is defined in the eyes of those who own the system.

And I'll leave it at that.

[VegasWolf]

131. Yeah, but the law also has a say! But, I doubt that they will care too

much. The problem is more that people don't know enough to
prevent valuable data on their computers to be used for
identity theft.

[VegasWolf]

132. Two words, "Identity theft" nt

[Rich Hunt]

156. uh-huh

Like it isn't rampant enough already.

[Placebo]

139. If someone's using my WiFi signal who I don't know...

I want them sent to Guantanamo Bay.

NOW.

[arwalden]

149. What If A Threatening Email Message Was Sent To The White House...

... from someone who had piggybacked on another person's wireless network? Assume that the hotmail account had been created--and the message sent--while stealing bandwidth.

Would the account owner be held responsible? Would he be arrested? Blackballed from every flying on a commercial airliner?

[VegasWolf]

151. Nah! He would just have his computer confiscated for complete analysis

of what they can glean from his machine and he would probably
have to spend 10 grand on lawyers fees to prove it was not him!!

[Indy Lurker]

154. It's NOT illegal, nothing is "Stolen"

There are laws against evesdroppping, but that's not what were talking about.

There are laws against interfering with an FCC registered device, but your not blocking any signals.

There are laws against decrypting an encrypted signal without authorization(such as Satellite TV)but were talking about an unencrypted node.

There may be a violation of contract law. If you are using a WI-FI from a hotel, they sometimes have an agreement you have to click through to get access, but this wouldn't apply to using a home connection.

The person who is most likely in violation is the one with the WI-FI node. They may have sonmething in their cable /DSL contract that says they won't share their connection.

Frankly it's the WI-FI nodes problem. If your not sharing your connection, don't broadcast it outside of your propery unencrypted.

Reduce you output or encrypt the signal.

[U4ikLefty]

162. So say I leave my front window open during a "pay per view" fight

and people crowd & watch from the street without my knowledge. The crowd is stealing?