Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most power users know enough to get themselves into a lot of trouble and are often the easiest targets to circumvent due to their over confidence.
The house issue is relevant and I will explain why. An access point broadcasting its SSID is merely stating it is there. It is much like having your house number on the side of your house or mailbox. It does not invite someone in, it merely identifies itself as existing. Like the house example, it is merely a home unlocked, not an invitation to come in the unlocked door. Just like an open window or door doesn't tell people they can come in. A radio station is a simplex signal, it is hardly the same as a wireless access point.
This is a common sense issue really, all your doing is rationalizing it away. No offense to you personally, but this sort of rationalized thinking is seen quite often in criminal offenses. They rationalize in all sorts of ways as to how they were justified in committing the crime.
Its simple, if its not your hardware and it isn't publicly inviting you to use it you shouldn't be in it. Anything else is just making excuses to justify the action.
No, it'd be akin to me distributing flyers in a 3 block radius that my house is open and its unlocked. Its a radio signal. It is being publicly broadcast. Broadcast, as in it is taking direct effort to send that signal out in a radius from its location.
Your house having numbers on it, or on the mailbox isn't anywhere near the same because its not being broadcast. And they're there for mail delivery and emergency services. Thats why they're 'there'.
The broadcast feature of any wireless AP is so that you can access it easily.
I'm trying to structure this in a way that isn't so much a "their fault for not securing it", because while a large number of people will take that stance, its my belief that if you are going to be broadcasting a wireless signal, you need to secure it, or its assumed to be for public use.
In part due to the large number of coffee shops, waiting areas, etc that provide free wireless to customers.
and in part due to the nature of the signal. You're not advertising for people to come in and take data from your computers, you're advertising a wireless network. And you're advertising the network INTO the public domain. Thats where the house analogy no longer becomes adequate. There really is NO analogy to deal with wireless networks, except for that of other electronic signals that travel through the air. If they're encrypted or secured in anyway, breaking into them and stealing services through them is theft.
But if they're open, i.e. AM/FM radio, CB channels, etc... then they're for public use.
Now, in regards to ISPs charging per bandwidth used, thats just retarded. Especially considering its the national ones who want to do it, and I can guarantee you that they're paying the least amount for bandwidth from other ISP's networks. Its stupid and its another way for ISPs to use their stranglehold on their customers to squeeze out a few extra dimes per month.
I do think that especially the cable companies should have more tiered options. And use other things than retarded QoS rules and dirty tricks to keep their bandwidth usage levels in check.
i honestly think WIFI should be free. anyway with the WIFIs popularity and evidently the form of internet in the years to come. i am sure they can find a way to secure it automatically.. that will be doomsday for a freebie lover like me.
Our town doesn't have true dsl lines, our high speed service goes through the phone line.
DSL does go through the phone line.
I wouldn't worry about using the PD's free wifi. And as long as you do not hack into their system or do any questionable activity over their connection then you will be fine. First of all, no one owns the internet so the reality is that you are not stealing service like you would if you 'borrowed' their cable tv connection. By paying for the internet all you are doing is paying someone to 'allow' you to access the internet and it does not take a whiz kid to figure out how to connect to the internet for free (legally). Second, wifi is everywhere. Seriously walk (or drive) around with your laptop and see how often (and how many signals at a time) that you receive.
I wouldn't worry about using the PD's free wifi. And as long as you do not hack into their system or do any questionable activity over their connection then you will be fine. First of all, no one owns the internet so the reality is that you are not stealing service like you would if you 'borrowed' their cable tv connection. By paying for the internet all you are doing is paying someone to 'allow' you to access the internet and it does not take a whiz kid to figure out how to connect to the internet for free (legally). Second, wifi is everywhere. Seriously walk (or drive) around with your laptop and see how often (and how many signals at a time) that you receive.
Bandwidth is not free. That is what you are really paying for here, access is only part of the component. Also, war driving isn't something as I would describe as proof that its ok to do it, in fact it is considered the same as port scanning in terms of a passive attack on a network. Edit: Now some people may offer public access points, but they are often identified as so fairly clearly, but thats not the same thing as you are describing.
Again, just because the door is unlocked, doesn't mean its ok to go in. As I said earlier, all those broadcasts you see are nothing more than simply access identifiers (ie a simple address). While some states may not yet have laws for these violations, they will have them eventually.
Question though, as I talked about earlier, what happens when the ISP's begin to charge by bandwidth usage (some already do depending on your service)? Then, by any usage of that bandwidth, you would be costing people money. Is that still acceptable in your eyes? Why is it any different than if they pay by month? Also, if you are using that bandwidth, you are limiting a persons maximum bandwidth that they pay for. So how is that not disrupting or taking away from what someone pays for in their connection?
Question though, as I talked about earlier, what happens when the ISP's begin to charge by bandwidth usage (some already do depending on your service)? Then, by any usage of that bandwidth, you would be costing people money. Is that still acceptable in your eyes? Why is it any different than if they pay by month? Also, if you are using that bandwidth, you are limiting a persons maximum bandwidth that they pay for. So how is that not disrupting or taking away from what someone pays for in their connection?
I personally do not tap into others wifi. By others I mean residents, actual individuals who pay for the service. That is my own moral judgement and to honest it is solely based on the fact the I would be pissed if I found out someone was tapping into my wireless connection that I pay for, so I extend the courtesy of not using others wireless that they pay for. I also don't do it because it is generally slow as heck. However, if someone else wants to do it, then that is their business and it is on their conscious, not mine. I have no desire to play the moral cop. But, if someone (or institution) has a wireless connection that is not password protected, then that is their fault and you better believe that someone is going to use it.
The house analogy: just because you leave your front door unlocked does not mean that you are inviting, or want, strangers to come into your home, but if someone does it is more of a no sh*t Sherlock, what did you expect then anything (I am not trying to place the blame on the victim, but come on - common sense?). Another thing is that by leaving your wireless connection open, you are not inviting someone into your home; but instead they are just parking in your driveway or walking across your lawn or using your garden hose. Or what have you. No one is actually going into your home (computer).
I take back what I said about legally being able to connect to the internet simply because corporations own the phone, cable and satellite lines, so if anything you are trespassing on their property. What I meant to say was that there are ways to connect to the internet without stealing it (since in reality you cannot steal the internet).
I personally do not tap into others wifi. By others I mean residents, actual individuals who pay for the service. That is my own moral judgement and to honest it is solely based on the fact the I would be pissed if I found out someone was tapping into my wireless connection that I pay for, so I extend the courtesy of not using others wireless that they pay for. I also don't do it because it is generally slow as heck. However, if someone else wants to do it, then that is their business and it is on their conscious, not mine. I have no desire to play the moral cop. But, if someone (or institution) has a wireless connection that is not password protected, then that is their fault and you better believe that someone is going to use it.
The house analogy: just because you leave your front door unlocked does not mean that you are inviting, or want, strangers to come into your home, but if someone does it is more of a no sh*t Sherlock, what did you expect then anything (I am not trying to place the blame on the victim, but come on - common sense?). Another thing is that by leaving your wireless connection open, you are not inviting someone into your home; but instead they are just parking in your driveway or walking across your lawn or using your garden hose. Or what have you. No one is actually going into your home (computer).
I take back what I said about legally being able to connect to the internet simply because corporations own the phone, cable and satellite lines, so if anything you are trespassing on their property. What I meant to say was that there are ways to connect to the internet without stealing it (since in reality you cannot steal the internet).
As I mentioned earlier, that is a rationalization for theft and even though you may not be trying to put blame on the victim, you essentially are. Now is it irresponsible to have an unsecured access point? Sure, but someone not taking extra means to keep someone from theft, doesn't justify the theft.
Now you can say that the person got what was coming to them as it is as you say, common sense that someone would eventually attempt to take advantage of the situation, but it by no means gives the person who is taking advantage the right to do so. It really is a matter of common decency. In the end, those people who steal the connections are just common thieves, nothing more. The steps of rationalization are no different than any criminal who rationalizes their crime.
As for the "internet being free", it is still theft of bandwidth. You mentioned at how it can be slow stealing the connection, but keep in mind that people are given limited bandwidth and sharing it with another can reduce its effective speed. Especially when someone who is stealing it is downloading various things as it can eat it up fast. If you pay for a 1.5k/384k connection, sharing it can really slow down things depending on what you are doing. Especially if you need the limited upstream.
Also, those who are using the connection are essentially placing you as legally responsible for the things they do. If they for instance are downloading illegal software, it will be the owner of the access point that is held responsible. Many hackers war drive for this very reason. They look for open access points so they can do things without being traced to them. Not only that, but random people can put your network at risk depending on what they are doing over the internet.
So, they are limiting your bandwidth (making you pay for less or costing you if you pay by bandwidth), placing you legally responsible, and posing further security risks which you yourself might have not put yourself in with your daily use. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the person to properly secure their network, but in no way can it ever be reasoned or justified in the abuse of such a situation.
So basically, while once you have a medium to connect to the internet it is free, it is up to first purchase or find a legal way to do so. Then, the internet is free, but that even depends on those who are hosting. That freedom only goes as far as those who allow you to access their networks. If we are to assume all is free, then a person should be able to go into anyones network freely, but this is obviously not the case and attempting to exercise that mis belief can get a person into some very serious trouble.
Bandwidth is not free. That is what you are really paying for here, access is only part of the component. Also, war driving isn't something as I would describe as proof that its ok to do it, in fact it is considered the same as port scanning in terms of a passive attack on a network. Edit: Now some people may offer public access points, but they are often identified as so fairly clearly, but thats not the same thing as you are describing.
Again, just because the door is unlocked, doesn't mean its ok to go in. As I said earlier, all those broadcasts you see are nothing more than simply access identifiers (ie a simple address). While some states may not yet have laws for these violations, they will have them eventually.
Question though, as I talked about earlier, what happens when the ISP's begin to charge by bandwidth usage (some already do depending on your service)? Then, by any usage of that bandwidth, you would be costing people money. Is that still acceptable in your eyes? Why is it any different than if they pay by month? Also, if you are using that bandwidth, you are limiting a persons maximum bandwidth that they pay for. So how is that not disrupting or taking away from what someone pays for in their connection?
Again, you keep going back to the house analogy, which isn't valid because these networks operate in an unlicensed spectrum. Which means anyone can broadcast their signal, for whatever reason at no cost (for the right to broadcast the signal, not the internet access behind the network).
Where as a house, you've paid for the property, the buildings, the numbers, etc. And you continue to pay a property tax after you've paid the mortgage, etc. You own the house.
You don't own the airwaves around your house, and especially the airwaves off your property. Now, if someone parks in your driveway to use your wi-fi, or sets up on your lawn... if nothing else, thats tresspassing. But we're dealing with the basic idea of people living in such proximity that their neighbor's wifi is accessible from their easychair.
And with that idea, if you are not taking steps to protect the radiowaves you are broadcasting out from your premises, I find no fault in those that use those airwaves for access (for legal purposes, aka no child porn, no hacking, etc). If they attempt to infiltrate your computer, thats illegal because you're attempting to gain access to something that you have not been granted access to.
And this differs from a wireless network because it is implicit in the broadcast of the network, and the fact that it is unsecured that it is an 'open network' as a matter of fact, Windows warns you of this fact when you go to connect to an unsecured network.
In regards to per bandwidth, I don't think it legitimately matters because of the implicit invitation that is inherent with an unsecured wireless network.
I've been to coffee shops that have 'linksys' for their network, and its okay to use it. I've been to coffee shops that have it set so you have to get a changing password to get in.
Unless your wireless network is secured, because it is being broadcast in an unregulated spectrum, it is implicit that you can access it publicly.
Now, the reason why bandwidth doesn't matter is because if you're allowing someone access to it, you're allowing them access to it. It'd be stupid to have an unsecured network and be paying per bandwidth used.
What about people with slow connections? IN those cases, again its unwise to publicly share your access. If you were to do that, you can usually set up QoS rules to give your device priority if necessary. Also, the usual user rarely has a need to use their entire bandwidth. If you do have to use your upload extensively, then I'm going to bet you're smart enough to secure your network. Hell, anyone who can plug one in can secure it. Its not like you need a PC tech at $85/hr to do it for you.
Yes there's a certain amount of, "Well, of course someone used it. You're dumb for not securing it." But at the same time, because its so easy to secure it, and because there are often unsecured, open networks that are publicly available and for public use, that its hard to determine what is and isn't 'available' if you look at the information off netstumbler. Its much easier to determine between secured and unsecured networks, and draw the line there.
Again, you keep going back to the house analogy, which isn't valid because these networks operate in an unlicensed spectrum. Which means anyone can broadcast their signal, for whatever reason at no cost (for the right to broadcast the signal, not the internet access behind the network).
Where as a house, you've paid for the property, the buildings, the numbers, etc. And you continue to pay a property tax after you've paid the mortgage, etc. You own the house.
You don't own the airwaves around your house, and especially the airwaves off your property. Now, if someone parks in your driveway to use your wi-fi, or sets up on your lawn... if nothing else, thats tresspassing. But we're dealing with the basic idea of people living in such proximity that their neighbor's wifi is accessible from their easychair.
And with that idea, if you are not taking steps to protect the radiowaves you are broadcasting out from your premises, I find no fault in those that use those airwaves for access (for legal purposes, aka no child porn, no hacking, etc). If they attempt to infiltrate your computer, thats illegal because you're attempting to gain access to something that you have not been granted access to.
And this differs from a wireless network because it is implicit in the broadcast of the network, and the fact that it is unsecured that it is an 'open network' as a matter of fact, Windows warns you of this fact when you go to connect to an unsecured network.
In regards to per bandwidth, I don't think it legitimately matters because of the implicit invitation that is inherent with an unsecured wireless network.
I've been to coffee shops that have 'linksys' for their network, and its okay to use it. I've been to coffee shops that have it set so you have to get a changing password to get in.
Unless your wireless network is secured, because it is being broadcast in an unregulated spectrum, it is implicit that you can access it publicly.
Now, the reason why bandwidth doesn't matter is because if you're allowing someone access to it, you're allowing them access to it. It'd be stupid to have an unsecured network and be paying per bandwidth used.
What about people with slow connections? IN those cases, again its unwise to publicly share your access. If you were to do that, you can usually set up QoS rules to give your device priority if necessary. Also, the usual user rarely has a need to use their entire bandwidth. If you do have to use your upload extensively, then I'm going to bet you're smart enough to secure your network. Hell, anyone who can plug one in can secure it. Its not like you need a PC tech at $85/hr to do it for you.
Yes there's a certain amount of, "Well, of course someone used it. You're dumb for not securing it." But at the same time, because its so easy to secure it, and because there are often unsecured, open networks that are publicly available and for public use, that its hard to determine what is and isn't 'available' if you look at the information off netstumbler. Its much easier to determine between secured and unsecured networks, and draw the line there.
A broadcast signal is not an invitation. Thats your problem there. Sure, it is free to receive the signal, but you aren't just receiving it, you are initiating a connection, exchanging protocols, accessing a networks resources to get to the internet. You use bandwidth, modem resources, you might pass through a router or workstation in the process, all using resources you do not pay for. Basically, you are using all aspects of the OSI model of the persons machine and devices and you still think its fine to do so and still think the house analogy is invalid when it is exactly the same thing.
Now you might be able to make the case if you were sniffing radio waves for unencrypted traffic snatching them out of the air as those are just radio waves and you make no connection or use of the devices, but you aren't doing that, you are specifically using them.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but I think you need to look at the process of network and wireless operation from the physical to the application layers as you are missing some important aspects of their functions which explain why your reasoning isn't working.
edit:
I just want to comment on something I missed that you said in an earlier post.
Quote:
No, it'd be akin to me distributing flyers in a 3 block radius that my house is open and its unlocked.
Yet, go an enter that house and see if you don't end up in jail doing so. Like I said, the fact that you know a door is unlocked, regardless of how you heard about it, doesn't justify the theft.
A broadcast signal is not an invitation. Thats your problem there. Sure, it is free to receive the signal, but you aren't just receiving it, you are initiating a connection, exchanging protocols, accessing a networks resources to get to the internet. You use bandwidth, modem resources, you might pass through a router or workstation in the process, all using resources you do not pay for. Basically, you are using all aspects of the OSI model of the persons machine and devices and you still think its fine to do so and still think the house analogy is invalid when it is exactly the same thing.
Now you might be able to make the case if you were sniffing radio waves for unencrypted traffic snatching them out of the air as those are just radio waves and you make no connection or use of the devices, but you aren't doing that, you are specifically using them.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but I think you need to look at the process of network and wireless operation from the physical to the application layers as you are missing some important aspects of their functions which explain why your reasoning isn't working.
edit:
I just want to comment on something I missed that you said in an earlier post.
Yet, go an enter that house and see if you don't end up in jail doing so. Like I said, the fact that you know a door is unlocked, regardless of how you heard about it, doesn't justify the theft.
I'm aware of the OSI model. And, as far as I'm aware... you're not using anything above layer 4 through their equipment, as everything else is application and software based, which means that its only read and accessed on either end of the connection.
yes you use bandwidth, yes you use resources. But again, its not a house. There are so many differences to a house, if not the most critical being the fact that while you own a house, and own the property in it... because you do not own the air, or the ability to transmit signals through that air around your house... you cannot consider them to be the same.
And because of that, it is an implicit invitation to use an unsecured network unless explicitly stated otherwise, in any number of ways... most easily being securing or hiding your AP.
Where as there is NO implicit invitation to enter someone's house, ever and at anytime. To enter the premises requires an explicit invitation.
I don't feel that you're being condescending, but I do believe that we just simply have an uncorrectable difference of opinion on the subject.
I understand your points that you're using someone else's bandwidth, usually without their knowledge and that they if you engage in illegal activity, RIAA/MPAA or the police will probably come knocking on their door and you'll be able to get off free (as long as you're not tracked back during your activity).
I still believe that its a matter of personal responsibility, and if you don't want to share (and you're by no means required to share your internet access), that you secure your wireless AP in any form that signals to anyone nearby that your wireless is not for public access. Merely assuming that because you haven't labelled it 'public access' or 'public wifi' to me isn't a strong enough message that its not for use.
Granted, there are some laws already in place (the one I referenced earlier in this thread that its unauthorized network access unless you are given explicit permission to use that network, I don't feel that it holds enough weight when you're dealing with wireless networks. (particularly since the law was written before wireless networks existed)
I'm aware of the OSI model. And, as far as I'm aware... you're not using anything above layer 4 through their equipment, as everything else is application and software based, which means that its only read and accessed on either end of the connection.
yes you use bandwidth, yes you use resources. But again, its not a house. There are so many differences to a house, if not the most critical being the fact that while you own a house, and own the property in it... because you do not own the air, or the ability to transmit signals through that air around your house... you cannot consider them to be the same.
And because of that, it is an implicit invitation to use an unsecured network unless explicitly stated otherwise, in any number of ways... most easily being securing or hiding your AP.
Where as there is NO implicit invitation to enter someone's house, ever and at anytime. To enter the premises requires an explicit invitation.
I don't feel that you're being condescending, but I do believe that we just simply have an uncorrectable difference of opinion on the subject.
I understand your points that you're using someone else's bandwidth, usually without their knowledge and that they if you engage in illegal activity, RIAA/MPAA or the police will probably come knocking on their door and you'll be able to get off free (as long as you're not tracked back during your activity).
I still believe that its a matter of personal responsibility, and if you don't want to share (and you're by no means required to share your internet access), that you secure your wireless AP in any form that signals to anyone nearby that your wireless is not for public access. Merely assuming that because you haven't labelled it 'public access' or 'public wifi' to me isn't a strong enough message that its not for use.
Granted, there are some laws already in place (the one I referenced earlier in this thread that its unauthorized network access unless you are given explicit permission to use that network, I don't feel that it holds enough weight when you're dealing with wireless networks. (particularly since the law was written before wireless networks existed)
I think an important point is that you are using their hardware. Thats something they do own. Also, as I said the SSID is not an invitation and you have to connect (interact with the it) to even know if it is secured or not. Much like walking from door to door checking to see if one is unlocked and then claiming that since you found one, it is perfectly acceptable to walk right in and do as you will.
Also, "properly secure" is pretty subjective in the realms of security. Some methods of security are really not much of a security measure. WEP alone without some form of tunneling or additional encryption measures can be cracked in minutes. Would I be right in saying that since it is common knowledge that its so easy to crack, It is like an open invitation to use it? I mean, it is common knowledge that WEP is a poor encryption scheme.
We seem to disagree on this one thing. The rest is merely irrelevant to be honest. Whether it is common sense or good practice to provide security, it really has no bearing on the act.
Basically, you are free to see an access point (catch a broadcast), you are even free to passively sniff unencrypted communications and you may even be able to justify through the freedom of air waves position that you may even decrypt that information and still be within your right, but the moment you enter the device, you are committing a crime (if you intended to that is).
While the internet's public resources are freely available, the hardware (modem, router, computer, hub, etc.., ISP's paid service) you go through in order to access that is not.
Trust me, laws are coming and this will start having major consequences.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
