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.
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.
the lack of security in WEP is widely recognized within tech circles. Most people don't even know the difference between WEP, WPA and WPA2.
And, my definition of 'properly secure' regarding access to a wireless network is to take ANY step that results in your network being inaccessible to simple point and click connection. Or, depending on the device (I.e. the iPod Touch, automatic connection).
Again, Im not walking around trying doorknobs, windows, etc. A house is a house and not a good analogy for a radio broadcast. The closest thing are radio stations. That pay for the ability to broadcast their signal, and recoup those costs by selling ad space, some are non-profit and sell very little, if no ad space. But, even that, FM and AM bands are regulated and you must have a permit to broadcast beyond a certain radius.
There are a large number of either publicly available resources, ie... the 2.4ghz band is one of them.
Or resources that you share with your neighbors, either the soil that your tree's roots is using on his property, or your street, etc.
The point is, at some point, someone is paying for it. And if you don't want people to use internet that you are paying for, (and then broadcasting off your premises) its your responsibility to secure against that, and not their responsibility to decide if your access point is available for use or not.
And if you don't want people to use internet that you are paying for, (and then broadcasting off your premises) its your responsibility to secure against that, and not their responsibility to decide if your access point is available for use or not.
And this is what it really comes down to. Essentially "blame" goes on to the victim. Its like saying "Hey, if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn the clothing that implicitly stating she was easy and looking for some action."
Its buyer beware. Things like "hey, if you didn't want to be taken for all the money you had, then you should have read the very fine print on the contract that said I could have it all". There is a simple concept in law which states you can not sign away your rights no matter how clever someone words a contract or weasels an excuse it doesn't justify the unethical aspects of the contract.
There is an aspect of law that is based on common sense. It used to be called common law. That the law was merely there as a technicality, but common sense dictated its position. Things like running a red light wasn't always a crime (in some states early on) if the conditions didn't warrant the need for the law (No traffic for miles and it is clearly visible to see along with it being a time of night where there is likely not to be any traffic anyway).
This is much the same issue. While common sense does dictate that we should be aware people will do us harm, it also dictates that no harm should be done as well. That is, just because you can, doesn't mean it is right. Just because someone may not know, or made a mistake in securing their router from your intrusion, doesn't justify the intrusion.
We can go in circles all day long, but the fact is your using what isn't yours and trying to push blame on another as well as rationalizing the action. Most people in the field (especially those who work security or administer networks) would disagree with you. You are following an old anarchist hacker manifesto, nothing more.
And this is what it really comes down to. Essentially "blame" goes on to the victim. Its like saying "Hey, if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn the clothing that implicitly stating she was easy and looking for some action."
Its buyer beware. Things like "hey, if you didn't want to be taken for all the money you had, then you should have read the very fine print on the contract that said I could have it all". There is a simple concept in law which states you can not sign away your rights no matter how clever someone words a contract or weasels an excuse it doesn't justify the unethical aspects of the contract.
There is an aspect of law that is based on common sense. It used to be called common law. That the law was merely there as a technicality, but common sense dictated its position. Things like running a red light wasn't always a crime (in some states early on) if the conditions didn't warrant the need for the law (No traffic for miles and it is clearly visible to see along with it being a time of night where there is likely not to be any traffic anyway).
This is much the same issue. While common sense does dictate that we should be aware people will do us harm, it also dictates that no harm should be done as well. That is, just because you can, doesn't mean it is right. Just because someone may not know, or made a mistake in securing their router from your intrusion, doesn't justify the intrusion.
We can go in circles all day long, but the fact is your using what isn't yours and trying to push blame on another as well as rationalizing the action. Most people in the field (especially those who work security or administer networks) would disagree with you. You are following an old anarchist hacker manifesto, nothing more.
I dont understand where the use automatically implicates harm. Yes, you can be malicious on someone else's connection, but you can be just as malicious and anonymous off your own connection.
There are very few, if any other 'implicit' invitations, rape is definitely not on that list. Not to mention, as soon as someone says something explicit (aka, stop raping me), you can't operate off the 'implicit' invitation anymore.
Aka, if I'm leeching wireless from the police, and the police tell me to stop... at that point I've been explicitly told that its not okay with the owner.
If you want to go back to the property analogy, it'd be akin to a squatter on a piece of abandoned property, and while I disagree with this... but they can end up owning the property because the owner has been inattentive, absent, etc.
Well I'm playing it safe, I told them it was not secured so they secured it promptly.
I've been paying for my high speed and wifi connection all along. It may be considered stealing by many but in my state, people don't seem to be getting prosecuted for it yet.
After all simple trespassing is lawful here and a passenger in a car can still have an open container. And we can still go 70 on most of the state two lane roads. Ahhhh freedom !
We lose freedoms all the time but we seem to always retain the right to kill ourselves and take a few others with us.
I dont understand where the use automatically implicates harm. Yes, you can be malicious on someone else's connection, but you can be just as malicious and anonymous off your own connection.
There are very few, if any other 'implicit' invitations, rape is definitely not on that list. Not to mention, as soon as someone says something explicit (aka, stop raping me), you can't operate off the 'implicit' invitation anymore.
Aka, if I'm leeching wireless from the police, and the police tell me to stop... at that point I've been explicitly told that its not okay with the owner.
If you want to go back to the property analogy, it'd be akin to a squatter on a piece of abandoned property, and while I disagree with this... but they can end up owning the property because the owner has been inattentive, absent, etc.
The harm aspect was merely a byproduct of the example. Its the rationalization of it which is the key point.
You speak of squatting laws of old and the fact is, in almost all cases the law sides with the owner, so I am not sure what you are getting at with that.
No point in really going over this again and again to be honest. You have a sense of entitlement in your thinking on this issue and entitlement in my opinion is an excuse to demand something that wasn't earned.
I know if by sake someone entered my network to use my bandwith purposely (while I was in the middle of securing it, etc...), it would be fair game to me and they would be picking up a new computer shortly after. I have absolutely no tolerance for it and when laws go into effect in more states, I will take an active part in seeing these people punished to the full extent of the law. I view them merely as leeches who siphon off other people.
The harm aspect was merely a byproduct of the example. Its the rationalization of it which is the key point.
You speak of squatting laws of old and the fact is, in almost all cases the law sides with the owner, so I am not sure what you are getting at with that.
No point in really going over this again and again to be honest. You have a sense of entitlement in your thinking on this issue and entitlement in my opinion is an excuse to demand something that wasn't earned.
I know if by sake someone entered my network to use my bandwith purposely (while I was in the middle of securing it, etc...), it would be fair game to me and they would be picking up a new computer shortly after. I have absolutely no tolerance for it and when laws go into effect in more states, I will take an active part in seeing these people punished to the full extent of the law. I view them merely as leeches who siphon off other people.
and you're upset that people access unsecured networks, yet you're totally willing to hack into someone's computer, plant malicious software?
Which is quite explicitly illegal. Just pointing out the double standard here.
Well I'm playing it safe, I told them it was not secured so they secured it promptly.
I've been paying for my high speed and wifi connection all along. It may be considered stealing by many but in my state, people don't seem to be getting prosecuted for it yet.
After all simple trespassing is lawful here and a passenger in a car can still have an open container. And we can still go 70 on most of the state two lane roads. Ahhhh freedom !
We lose freedoms all the time but we seem to always retain the right to kill ourselves and take a few others with us.
Hooray for Montana! (I'm in Bozeman)
And again, good for you, you did the right thing for sure.
and you're upset that people access unsecured networks, yet you're totally willing to hack into someone's computer, plant malicious software?
Which is quite explicitly illegal. Just pointing out the double standard here.
If you connect to my network, you have agreed to operate within my discretion. If I so choose to experiment with various things, I may do so with any machine on my network. My access point is my domain, not yours.
If I choose to format your machine, I may do so. If I choose to browse it and take what I like, I may do so. If you do not wish to have your machine subject to such, then you might want to avoid connecting to networks you don't know the policies of.
It really isn't a double standard. I don't go out and attack peoples machines. I don't wander into peoples computers if they are unsecured and use their resources. A person who steals bandwidth does however trespass on to others networks. They consume resources they did not pay for. If they don't want their machine to be in danger, they can very easily avoid it. Just don't use resources that are not yours and you will never have any problems. Do so though and pay the consequences.
I do find it amusing though that a proactive attack (and that really is what you are doing when you access networks you are not authorized to do regardless of it being locked or not) is being defended against someone who only acts when attacked.
Your entire point is contingent on a philosphy that proclaims validity based on nothing more than there being no obstacles to you doing so. I find that a bit disturbing though as it is as I said in the past a criminal rationalization. Your only defense is to keep trying to separate a wireless access point violation as a different concept and that is a mythical misunderstanding or excuse of the core facts of the issue.
My personal wireless network (2 computers Ethernet cabled but an antenna for friends visiting with wireless laptops) here at home is passworded just to eliminate such mischief
If you connect to my network, you have agreed to operate within my discretion. If I so choose to experiment with various things, I may do so with any machine on my network. My access point is my domain, not yours.
If I choose to format your machine, I may do so. If I choose to browse it and take what I like, I may do so. If you do not wish to have your machine subject to such, then you might want to avoid connecting to networks you don't know the policies of.
It really isn't a double standard. I don't go out and attack peoples machines. I don't wander into peoples computers if they are unsecured and use their resources. A person who steals bandwidth does however trespass on to others networks. They consume resources they did not pay for. If they don't want their machine to be in danger, they can very easily avoid it. Just don't use resources that are not yours and you will never have any problems. Do so though and pay the consequences.
I do find it amusing though that a proactive attack (and that really is what you are doing when you access networks you are not authorized to do regardless of it being locked or not) is being defended against someone who only acts when attacked.
Your entire point is contingent on a philosphy that proclaims validity based on nothing more than there being no obstacles to you doing so. I find that a bit disturbing though as it is as I said in the past a criminal rationalization. Your only defense is to keep trying to separate a wireless access point violation as a different concept and that is a mythical misunderstanding or excuse of the core facts of the issue.
So, someone stepping onto your property... for whatever reason gives you grounds to get them sick, attack and/or kill them? No matter their intent, purpose, etc? I agree that if someone directly threatens me that I have the right to defend myself, up to and including lethal force. However, I don't believe that just because someone is there, it gives me the right to attack them.
So, if I understand you correctly... an unsecured wireless network is like an open door to a house. And the owner of that house may use whatever means necessary to deal with people who are on that property?
Yet, the laws are very clear as to what levels of force you can use when someone is on your property.
It is also clear as to what constitutes hacking secure networks and computers, and how it is in all cases illegal unless you are the owner of the property in question. Since you don't own that computer, regardless of whether or not its on your network, you don't have the right to access it. You do have the right to remove it from your network, but just because it is using your resources doesn't give you the right to break into it.
That'd be like saying that because I pay for service through (ISP), that they have the right to go into my computer at any time.
I'm anticipating your counter-argument that my argument eludes that they don't have the right to access your network if you don't have the right to access their PC. And my rebuttal to that is two-fold. 1) Again, radio waves that are being broadcast beyond your property onto either public or private property. and 2) the intent. If they intend to do malicious things to either your systems or from your connection, then it is indeed illegal. However, the intent is usually to provide them access for legal surfing.
And I vehemently disagree that any access of an unsecured network is an 'attack' on that network. An attack is a deliberate action, in all cases. Either its deliberate on the part of the PC's owner, or their PC has been infested with a zombie and is then commandeered by another person and used in an attack. If it is secured, I agree its an attack. And I believe that with your PC, any wired network, any wireless network with any measure of security... you need explicit permission to have access.
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.
