Man arrested for stealing (wifi) broadband

[linickx]

Seen this (http://itn.co.uk/news/1112943368020a45ac5052f568ddbde1.html) on slashdot (http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/22/2218222) ? It's made me think (http://www.linickx.com/blog/archives/308/man-arrested-for-stealing-wifi-broadband/) about what I do when walking down the street with my n800 :eek:

[promethh]

That's a good point... I haven't thought about it too much, but it's certainly on my mind more. If I'm outside or nearby a coffee shop with free WiFi, I make a point to buy a coffee if I'm really only interested in the WiFi access. One nearby shop has a router with great coverage, so it's possible to stay outside or go to the park while still using their connection. I still order a large mocha for their generosity.

With local or residential WiFi, I'm definitely gray on the idea. I know when my own access points were unsecure, I had neighbors using my 30Mb/s fiber. Unsecure access points are definitely an "open invite" for anyone's access.

How polite are others with their N770 or N800's?

[Rebski]

The BBC carries the story too and I am fascinated by peoples comments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6960304.stm

Our collective moral compass is all over the place. For example some people seem to feel that theft is ok if the door is left open. I like the analogy of reading by the light from someone elses window.

We can argue over the morality and ethics of it but the law is clear.

[linickx]

We can argue over the morality and ethics of it but the law is clear.

I guess if he'd knocked on the door of the house and asked he'd have been alright.

[promethh]

Our collective moral compass is all over the place. For example some people seem to feel that theft is ok if the door is left open. I like the analogy of reading by the light from someone elses window.

We can argue over the morality and ethics of it but the law is clear.

The analogy of "reading by your neighbor's light" or "eating apples from your neighbor's tree from branches that overhang yours" are both apropos. In the absence of a common moral compass, I don't think the law (at least, in the US) is too clear. In Florida, Ben Smith (ST. PETERSBURG) was arrested (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/State/Wi_Fi_cloaks_a_new_br.shtml) for WiFi theft from a residence. In the US, the Sparta, Michigan (http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9722006-7.html) case was well publicized because it was a gentleman using a cafe's WiFi without buying anything, and WITHOUT the proprietor pressing charges.

The clearest choice might be not to use any WiFi, unsecure or no, unless given express permission? I just don't think too many of us would live by such a stringent code of ethics.

[Texrat]

I remember we debated this before and some posters here were saying theft of bandwidth was okay.

Given the obvious decline of ethics, I really wonder what business models will look like, say, 20 years from now. Here the US is moving toward a service-based economy and even services can be stolen...

My response to the OP's blog article:

Although the rank-and-file seem not to understand it, ease of access does NOT negate laws governing theft. In some cases, in some areas, it does mitigate the circumstances (a car driver leaving keys in his vehicle can be charged as an accessory to theft) but the law stands clear: steal, regardless of the access situation, and you can rightfully be charged for it.

Your DVD example is very poor and if you think it is relevant you haven’t thought it all the way through. No one has a right to even enter your domicile without permission, period (unless it’s the police with a warrant), door open or otherwise. By the same token, even if a neighbor’s wifi is unsecured, they are still paying for it and unless they’ve given express consent to piggyback on it you just flat do not have the right to do so. Now, it could be argued that naming the access point something like “Free Wifi for Anyone in the Area” could constitute consent, but maybe that goes without saying. ; )

[debudebu]

this is silly. most computers automatically connect to wifi signals when they are turned on. most users don't know what signal they are connected to and don't care as long as it 'works'. if the law is interested in restricting use of open wifi signals it needs to go after either the way software connects or the way users set up their signals (for example, if a signal is carelessly left open a surfer can't be prosecuted for using it). sure, the person who uses the wifi that just 'works' is careless too, and some know what they are doing. but does the fact that the wifi owner pays for the signal give him a free pass to be careless?

[Texrat]

deb, you're also missing the essential point. It all comes down to permission. If it's granted, no problem. If it isn't, the law prevails.

[promethh]

D-Link, Linksys (Cisco), and Netgear have all been very good at updating their firmware as new vulnerabilities are made known. I think every OEM is aware of the free/not-free internet debate, but they don't want to build security as default out-of-the box. While I'd hate to be tech support at any company that did, having a bright orange "WARNING" pamphlet telling users that they're subject to anonymous freeloaders should be a requirement.

In the US, we have "Surgeon General's Warnings" on beer and cigarettes. If we have common sense warnings ("warning: this may kill you") on goods, we might as well have a federally-mandated ("warning: your neighbor might get free internet access") common sense labels on your WiFi AP from Best Buy. :)

If it's on the public airwaves like cellphones, radio, and WiFi, the best way to regulate it is to add security. If the security's broken, then you can prosecute for theft/misuse (no different than DMCA and DVDs).

[Texrat]

I have a feeling the reluctance toward default security will be overcome, for better or worse. Microsoft is a prime example.

No company wants to foist the burden of security management on their customers, but unfortunately it's inevitable. In the meantime, just because someone has made wifi available, wittingly or unwittingly, doesn't automatically mean they're sharing-- regardless of how hotspot seekers work (technological ability or process does not trump law). It's always best to get permission. However, I expect very few prosecutions so jumping on the occasional news release of one here or there is probably exaggerating the situation.

[debudebu]

hi, i understand that the law does not allow people to use open wifi signals unless they are designated for public use (how should one know? is the computer user required to know enough to check what signal his computer is connected to and do research to figure out if it's open to public access and then seek permission if it is not?). i think the law is wrong. i think the law should say that permission is granted when the signal is left unprotected. my computer could breathe dust from my neighbor's dirt road, it's software, by default, could breathe any open signal. does the fact that the wifi signal would benefit me while the dust would cause me problems make one ok and one not ok?

[Texrat]

It doesn't matter if anyone thinks the law is wrong based solely on opinion, sorry. The law is based on reasonable concepts. The main one here is that if a person pays for a service, they alone are entitled to that service unless they give permission for it to be shared. So your default is 180 degrees off of what is reasonable.

Consider this scenario: Joe Blow gets broadband and a wifi router is included. He paid for installation and a service contract and just doesn't want to be bothered with security (or doesn't understand it) and unwittingly leaves his broadband open to the neighborhood. One by one his neighbors start jumping on his connection, paring his usable bandwidth down to the point that he might as well have dial-up. Being technically deficient, he just sees his internet performance decline.

Of course, Joe can look into the issue, gain an understanding of it, and either choose to accept being the local internet service (sub)provider or implement security that locks out his neighbors. But the point remains that his neighbors who pile on are reducing his service with no compensation to Joe and no civil request to take advantage of his service. THAT is the crux of the situation. Regardless of one's opinion here, the facts are what is paramount, and the facts are no one has the automatic right to do what's taking place in this everyday scenario.

The default behavior, which the law supports (and correctly so), is you do not infringe on anyone else in ANY manner without permission.

The excuses made to usurp bandwidth all fall flat when compared to other situations. Your neighbor also has an open electrical outlet outside his house-- can you just plug in and use it? No. What about his available water tap? His unused driveway space? Hey, he parked his car on the street-- can't my kids play on it?

No, no, no. And the same extends to his wifi service.

I am amazed that this fundamental legal concept (actually encoded in US constitutional law) is so misunderstood. That doesn't bode well for our society.

[debudebu]

hi,
if his wifi signal stayed in his house or on his property your comparisons make sense and i agree. i also agree that the law says that i can't use my neighbor's signal unless it is somehow designated for public use. i'm still not sure how that works. does my neighbor have to own a coffee shop? i disagree that my opinion doesn't matter. it matters because many people agree with me, and laws are made and changed by people. i don't know how many people agree with me. it would be interesting to see a poll. do people think that a wifi signal left open should, by law, be permission to use it? i don't think this would create problems or mass chaos. in fact, i don't think much would change.

[barry99705]

One more time, it doesn't matter if it's copper, glass, or radio, connecting to a network without permission is a felony in all 50 states. If you don't know if it's a free hotspot, then it probably isn't. Using some one's light isn't a good analogy for this. Sure it's still a em field, but light is a one way street. If you stood outside someone's bedroom window and shined a flashlight into it, sure as hell the police would be called and you'd be given a ride with them.

[iball]

What I did was to take one of my old wi-fi routers and reflash the firmware with OpenWRT and set it up on another subnet and route it through a VLAN'd port on my switch in the house. Now, when it goes through my main wi-fi router (also reflashed) the bandwidth it can use up is extremely limited, it's port 80/443 access only, and packets coming in from it have lower priority than the ones from the main secured wi-fi router (QoS enabled). The public router also reboots itself every 60 minutes to ensure that no one just sits there all the time.
That way I can provide the local neighborhood with free wi-fi web browsing while at the same guaranteeing my internal network is secure and all my internal traffic takes priority.

[Liam1]

The issue of free wifi usage indeed is a slippery slope that we can argue for ages and never get a real answer. If the law says its illegal, then the person in question will probably get in trouble for it if caught and prosecuted. But that does not mean that in the court of law, the person will be found guilty. A good lawyer can probably find reasonable doubt with the fictional scenario below:

If my neighbor does not want me to use his open wifi connection, then he needs to restrict his wifi coverage to be within the confines of his property.
If it extends to my property, then it becomes mine.

If he wants to charge or sue me for it, then I will have to sue him for listening to (enjoying) my stereo and tv when I bring them outside in my yard, as I paid for the electricity and the hardware. I may even charge him for breathing the air that my purifier has processed prior to it being blown over to nostrils in his front yard.

I will also charge him for trespassing my property with his Wifi Ghz waves

[Texrat]

hi,
if his wifi signal stayed in his house or on his property your comparisons make sense and i agree. i also agree that the law says that i can't use my neighbor's signal unless it is somehow designated for public use. i'm still not sure how that works. does my neighbor have to own a coffee shop? i disagree that my opinion doesn't matter. it matters because many people agree with me, and laws are made and changed by people. i don't know how many people agree with me. it would be interesting to see a poll. do people think that a wifi signal left open should, by law, be permission to use it? i don't think this would create problems or mass chaos. in fact, i don't think much would change.

The wifi leaving the house is immaterial to the fundamental concept here. If you really want to understand the issue, you need to disabuse yourself of such simplistic notions. See the other examples I provided, all relevant in the current context. Another poster's comment about the provision and access being a TWO-way street is especially important here (Liam1, are you reading? or just intent on spewing more sarcasm?).

Raw opinions do NOT matter, especially in the formation or reformation of law. What matters are fact, precedent and INFORMED opinion. I am not meaning to insult you, but your opinion is apparently arrived at without full understanding of the core legal concepts in consideration. Even a poll is moot-- we shouldn't govern by polls. While the people have a right (and even a duty) to express their raw opinion, business and government have the right and obligation to explain the rationale behind legal decisions and thus hopefully cultivate INFORMED opinions. This is especially important when infringement is concerned.

Just keep this old canard from Justice Holmes in mind and you're 99% safe: "your right to swing your fists stops at the other fellow's nose." If you think about it, you'll see how that maxim applies to not just this wifi argument but almost every civil law (and many criminal ones) in existence.

Oh, and this appears to be overlooked as well by some: wifi blows right through most walls. The majority of existing homes canNOT contain it without extensive and expensive modification... rendering any arguments along those lines pointless.

[promethh]

I will also charge him for trespassing my property with his Wifi Ghz waves

...I'm surprised that's never been done. I'd like to see that. On one hand we have "You can see my SSID on your property or public property, but you do not have permission to use it." and on the other hand "We have my services overflowing on to your property, and there's nothing you can do about it."

Legally, if a tree on my property has an overhanging branch on my neighbor's property, he can rightfully request that I cut it off. My neighbors have already gone to court over such a case. If the law applies to "physical" trespass, wouldn't it apply to "wireless trespass"? (playing Devil's Advocate here :) )

[barry99705]

...I'm surprised that's never been done. I'd like to see that. On one hand we have "You can see my SSID on your property or public property, but you do not have permission to use it." and on the other hand "We have my services overflowing on to your property, and there's nothing you can do about it."

Legally, if a tree on my property has an overhanging branch on my neighbor's property, he can rightfully request that I cut it off. My neighbors have already gone to court over such a case. If the law applies to "physical" trespass, wouldn't it apply to "wireless trespass"? (playing Devil's Advocate here :) )


You ever read that little fcc tag on the bottom of your equipment? There's all kinds of "services" overflowing on your property. Satellite tv, cellular networks, military radio bands... Just because the signal is there, doesn't mean you have the right to use it.


Liam, you are a brave man. First ***** who sends threatening emails to "Dubua" and guess who the Secret Service is going to give the anal probe? Doesn't matter if you have an open access point. It's your internet connection it came from.

[Rebski]

Personally I think every wifi router should come with Fon capability built in

http://www.fon.com/en/

That way we have almost universal wifi and clear permission to use it.

[iball]

I will also charge him for trespassing my property with his Wifi Ghz waves

I don't know where YOU live, but here in the United States the FCC specifically states in their rules that any consumer-level wireless device MUST accept interference from any other wireless device.
And since most countries allow a device that's been through the FCC ringer to be used in their country (notable exception is Great Britain when it comes to FM iPod transmitters but that ban has been recently overturned) then it means they KNOW wireless signals cannot be stopped easily.

Also, if you went out and bought a Sky box and then proceeded to slap a hacked card in it to unlock all the premium signals coming in "over the air" then you would be immediately arrested and charged if they found out.

You also need to go look at your country's rules an regulations regarding public non-regulated radio frequencies.

When it comes to wi-fi though, it's a little different in the fact that it's much more "proven" since your traffic of course is going over the air but when it hits the actual WIRED connection then you're screwed. So yes, while you might get off the "borrowed wi-fi" charge, you'll never get off the "theft of services" charge since your data packets were travelling through something that was inside someone else's property (the actual router) and out the physical wire itself.
The same theft of service rules that came out when cordless phones started becoming popular apply to 802.11 wi-fi signals as well as any other unregulated wireless signal out there.

[barry99705]

Personally I think every wifi router should come with Fon capability built in

http://www.fon.com/en/

That way we have almost universal wifi and clear permission to use it.


You'd still most likely be breaking your TOS with your service provider. Most of them don't allow sharing your internet connection. I read somewhere a while back one of the bigger providers in the lower 48 was actually going around looking for open wifi and shutting down people's internet connection. I'll look around and see if I can find the article.

Found it.


http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,14759343

[Liam1]

Another poster's comment about the provision and access being a TWO-way street is especially important here (Liam1, are you reading? or just intent on spewing more sarcasm?).

Texrat,

Do you have a personal issue with my posts? A lot of other posts do not agree with your views, but I do not see you taking your precious time for personal attacks on them.

I did not comment on the 2-way argument as it is flawed to begin with, however you seem to conveniently agree with anything that remotely agrees with your views, and disregarding multiple posts by different people that have other ideas on the issue.

A wifi stream can only be two way like the light and flashlight example, if somebody retaliated with another wifi stream into the initial wifi stream owner's house. Then its a two way wifi stream, just like the flashlight example. As you can see, the two way stream is not a valid argument, and so is the flashlight example.

Arguing on analogies for this issue is futile, which as I said is a slippery slope. My only point was (which you conveniently ignored) while the law deems unauthorized wifi usage illegal, reasonable doubt can immediately be established by a competent lawyer.

Thats it. Please continue to make personal remarks as you wish.

And Iball, the quote that you gave below is again different than what I said. I said that the Wifi stream trespasses my property, and I was not referring to wireless device interference. Suing for wireless trespassing is just like suing for excessive noise or an offensive odors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam1
I will also charge him for trespassing my property with his Wifi Ghz waves

I don't know where YOU live, but here in the United States the FCC specifically states in their rules that any consumer-level wireless device MUST accept interference from any other wireless device.

[barry99705]

Texrat,

Do you have a personal issue with my posts? A lot of other posts do not agree with your views, but I do not see you taking your precious time for personal attacks on them.

I did not comment on the 2-way argument as it is flawed to begin with, however you seem to conveniently agree with anything that remotely agrees with your views, and disregarding multiple posts by different people that have other ideas on the issue.

A wifi stream can only be two way like the light and flashlight example, if somebody retaliated with another wifi stream into the initial wifi stream owner's house. Then its a two way wifi stream, just like the flashlight example. As you can see, the two way stream is not a valid argument, and so is the flashlight example.

Arguing on analogies for this issue is futile, which as I said is a slippery slope. My only point was (which you conveniently ignored) while the law deems unauthorized wifi usage illegal, reasonable doubt can immediately be established by a competent lawyer.

Thats it. Please continue to make personal remarks as you wish.

And Iball, the quote that you gave below is again different than what I said. I said that the Wifi stream trespasses my property, and I was not referring to wireless device interference. Suing for wireless trespassing is just like suing for excessive noise or an offensive odors.


As long as it's within fcc limits, there's absolutely nothing you can do. It's within the unregistered public range. The only way I could see you actually being able to sue any one for their wifi intruding into your house is if it was screwing up some kind of medical equipment. Even then you'd have to prove it was doing this. The flashlight analogy I gave was for connecting. To be able to actually use a wifi connection, you have to transmit back to the access point, at which time you are connected to their network.

[Texrat]

Texrat,

Do you have a personal issue with my posts? A lot of other posts do not agree with your views, but I do not see you taking your precious time for personal attacks on them.

No personal issue, just that in 2 threads now you show a tendency to prefer sarcasm and disingenuity over reasonable discourse, and I pointed it out. Your right to use whatever mode of communication you like, of course, but surely you're aware that such tactics will be taken to task.

I am not going to rebut every single post created, either, but rather the most egregious examples of flawed reasoning. I'm also not going to argue with those with whom I mildly disagree, either, or over points of pure opinion.

I did not comment on the 2-way argument as it is flawed to begin with, however you seem to conveniently agree with anything that remotely agrees with your views, and disregarding multiple posts by different people that have other ideas on the issue.

I'm sure if you think about what you just said about agreement there you'll be able to spot the silliness. And the 2-way argument is not flawed at all, but critically relevant to the issue. That should be self-obvious and needing no further explanation than what has been provided.

A wifi stream can only be two way like the light and flashlight example, if somebody retaliated with another wifi stream into the initial wifi stream owner's house. Then its a two way wifi stream, just like the flashlight example. As you can see, the two way stream is not a valid argument, and so is the flashlight example.

No. Completely wrong. It is 2-way because there is advertisement (out) and usage (in).

And you misunderstand the flashlight example. Try again (see Barry's clarification).

Arguing on analogies for this issue is futile, which as I said is a slippery slope. My only point was (which you conveniently ignored) while the law deems unauthorized wifi usage illegal, reasonable doubt can immediately be established by a competent lawyer.

Your last comment is why we have a legal system. Every accused has his/her right to plead their case. Now, if you want to posit that arrest for wifi infringement is over-the-top, I'd be inclined to agree. I think it should be a civil fine.

As far as analogies go, arguing valid ones is only futile when people argue to win, or solely to argue, as you appear to do. Get in line though; you have some competition here on those grounds. You'll find such trolling is not very welcome here.

[iball]

And Iball, the quote that you gave below is again different than what I said. I said that the Wifi stream trespasses my property, and I was not referring to wireless device interference. Suing for wireless trespassing is just like suing for excessive noise or an offensive odors.

No, it's not. Why? Because you CANNOT prove in a court of law that there was any damage to you or your property from someone else's 802.11 signals somehow winding up on your property. And it would be VERY hard to prove since - by law - unlicensed 802.11 spectrum MUST accept interference from any other device.
That's why you have no civil - and definately no criminal - case at all. No lawyer is going to even attempt to try that case.
Let's say YOU were running your own 802.11 wi-fi lan and the neighbor's wi-fi router was "jamming" you up somehow, probably because you're both running on the same channel.
Not a damn thing you can do other than jump channels (freqs) since both devices are operating in accordance with the law.
But that's what the "auto" setting on most wi-fi routers is there for.

[Liam1]

No, it's not. Why? Because you CANNOT prove in a court of law that there was any damage to you or your property from someone else's 802.11 signals somehow winding up on your property. And it would be VERY hard to prove since - by law - unlicensed 802.11 spectrum MUST accept interference from any other device.
That's why you have no civil - and definately no criminal - case at all. No lawyer is going to even attempt to try that case.
Let's say YOU were running your own 802.11 wi-fi lan and the neighbor's wi-fi router was "jamming" you up somehow, probably because you're both running on the same channel.
Not a damn thing you can do other than jump channels (freqs) since both devices are operating in accordance with the law.
But that's what the "auto" setting on most wi-fi routers is there for.

Iball, understood. Your example is almost the equivalent of saying in a noise disturbance, as long as no damage is done or there is no one in the house actually listening to the noise, then there is no case. It is only when the noise interferes with the listener (eardrums aching etc) is when there is a case. Good explanation.

The flashlight analogy I gave was for connecting. To be able to actually use a wifi connection, you have to transmit back to the access point, at which time you are connected to their network.

Thank you Barry for the clarification. I understood your initial post, but I just wanted to point out that the flashlight analogy wasn't analogous an actual unauthorized wifi access, thats all.

[barry99705]

Iball, understood. Your example is almost the equivalent of saying in a noise disturbance, as long as no damage is done or there is no one in the house actually listening to the noise, then there is no case. It is only when the noise interferes with the listener (eardrums aching etc) is when there is a case. Good explanation.



Thank you Barry for the clarification. I understood your initial post, but I just wanted to point out that the flashlight analogy wasn't analogous an actual unauthorized wifi access, thats all.


There are noise ordinances though. So the sound noise thing doesn't really apply. I also don't see why the flashlight analogy doesn't work. That's about as close as you can get in layman's terms.

[johsua]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6960304.stm

kind of apropos.

[Texrat]

As I see it the flashlight analogy is employed to demonstrate the differences between accessing a 1-way service versus a 2-way service.

If I willingly receive stray light from my neighbor, and take advantage of it without affecting his own use, there is no harm.

If I tap into his wifi without permission (note that a wilful act is required in initiating and/or accepting the connection, whereas receipt of stray light is passive), which automatically and unavoidably affects his own use, there is harm.

Conversely, if his lights intrude into my house I can file a civil complaint because visible spectrum isn't affected by the FCC interference code the way radio spectrum is.

[penguinbait]

To me, not the law, but to me, it seems like if you do not want people to use your access point you should have to lock it down. If it is open to be connected to and available outside your property thats your fault.

I understand the argument if my door was open in my house or my keys were left in my car, yes nobody still has the right to touch your stuff or trespass on my property. But when you park your car in my driveway and leave the keys in it, do I have the right to move your car? I would think so?

The only real damages I see would be from comcast or SBC who is now providing internet service for multiple homes and only paying for one. I suppose real damages could be done to a consumer providing the bandwidth is constrained, but again it was there choice not to implement security, thus allowing anyone to connect.

What if I am sitting next door and just scanning and recording your network sessions, is this illegal if I do not associate with your network? If it is not encrypted every email you send and every website you visit can be seen, including some passwords.

This has been a problem for several years and there has been no good legal determinations made. If you want to prosecute people for hacking into your system on the internet, you must post a warning message on the system saying authorized use only all others will be prosecuted. Without this message there is no leg to stand on in court for people loggin in and looking around at your files. They could still prosecute you though if you did actual damages to the system, whether intended or not.

The law may be clear on this subject, but it is far from consistent with other similiar scenarios, and until it is seriously challenged it wont change.

[barry99705]

To me, not the law, but to me, it seems like if you do not want people to use your access point you should have to lock it down. If it is open to be connected to and available outside your property thats your fault.

I understand the argument if my door was open in my house or my keys were left in my car, yes nobody still has the right to touch your stuff or trespass on my property. But when you park your car in my driveway and leave the keys in it, do I have the right to move your car? I would think so?

The only real damages I see would be from comcast or SBC who is now providing internet service for multiple homes and only paying for one. I suppose real damages could be done to a consumer providing the bandwidth is constrained, but again it was there choice not to implement security, thus allowing anyone to connect.

What if I am sitting next door and just scanning and recording your network sessions, is this illegal if I do not associate with your network? If it is not encrypted every email you send and every website you visit can be seen, including some passwords.

This has been a problem for several years and there has been no good legal determinations made. If you want to prosecute people for hacking into your system on the internet, you must post a warning message on the system saying authorized use only all others will be prosecuted. Without this message there is no leg to stand on in court for people loggin in and looking around at your files. They could still prosecute you though if you did actual damages to the system, whether intended or not.

The law may be clear on this subject, but it is far from consistent with other similiar scenarios, and until it is seriously challenged it wont change.

Yes, this is called wiretapping. If you use these passwords then it also becomes identity theft.

[Texrat]

I really don't understand this idea of "if you don't protect then it I have a right to invade it". Where does that line of thinking come from? There is no precedent for it in any other legal sense.

It's the same sort of thinking regarding digital media: "If it's digital then I shouldn't have to pay for it".

Theft of soft ware and services is still theft, no matter how one rationalizes it. It's really sad to me that somehow increasing numbers of people believe they have an automatic right to something simply because it's within their grasp.

[iball]

Most states in the Untied States have laws similiar to this:

(720 ILCS 5/16F‑3)
Sec. 16F‑3. Theft of wireless service.
(a) A person commits the offense of theft of wireless service if he or she intentionally obtains wireless service by the use of an unlawful wireless device or without the consent of the wireless service provider.
(b) Theft of wireless service is a Class A misdemeanor when the aggregate value of service obtained is less than $300 and a Class 4 felony when the aggregate value of service obtained is $300 or more. For a second or subsequent offense, or if the person convicted of the offense has been previously convicted of any similar crime in this or any other state or federal jurisdiction, theft of wireless service is a Class 2 felony.
(Source: P.A. 89‑497, eff. 6‑27‑96.)

And I'm sure Great Britain and other EU nations aren't far off.

And God help you if you're stealing from a [url=http://www.timewarnercable.com/corporate/customerservice/cablethefttypes.html]Time-Warner[/quote] customer.

WiFi Theft - WiFi theft occurs when someone installs a wireless network in a residence or business location and intentionally enables others to receive broadband service for free over their wireless network.

Wireless networking is a great product, but when using a wireless network subscribers should always secure their home networks from unauthorized users. Unsecured wireless networks allow others to access a subscriber's network and potentially see all of the subscriber's personal files, allow potential criminals and terrorists to send untraceable communications or allow an individual to download illegal materials, such as copyrighted or obscene material that would lead back to the subscribers modem.
I'm laughing at the "terrorist" mention, particularly the word "potential".
They're basically saying you're unsecured wi-fi access point is "enabling" terrorists to gain their full "potential". Laughable at best in these United States.
Most "terrorists" would just use any one a million Starbucks wi-fi access points on a pay-as-you-go basis using a disposable credit card bought by a unknowing third-party using cash in small denominations.

[penguinbait]

There you go again Pot, reading my posts, I thought I was on ignore?

I never said "if you don't protect then it I have a right to invade it"

I said

"If it is open to be connected to and available outside your property thats your fault."

If you leave your keys in your car and someone steals your car, your a dumba**

If you leave you door to your home unlocked while your gone and someone steal your stuff, your a dumba**

Taking reasonable measures to protect your property is just common sense.

PS, I also never said it was ok to steal anything, digital or otherwise

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3602381

I am just saying there are better ways to fix the problem. Maybe we should make it so if you don't lock down your network, your internet provider can charge you a fee, that will wake some people up. Or perhaps its time to look at the industry and legislate some firmware upgrades removing wide open access points.

Again, don't steal kids :)

[barry99705]

There you go again Pot, reading my posts, I thought I was on ignore?

I never said "if you don't protect then it I have a right to invade it"

I said

"If it is open to be connected to and available outside your property thats your fault."

If you leave your keys in your car and someone steals your car, your a dumba**

If you leave you door to your home unlocked while your gone and someone steal your stuff, your a dumba**

Taking reasonable measures to protect your property is just common sense.

PS, I also never said it was ok to steal anything, digital or otherwise

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3602381

I am just saying there are better ways to fix the problem. Maybe we should make it so if you don't lock down your network, your internet provider can charge you a fee, that will wake some people up. Or perhaps its time to look at the industry and legislate some firmware upgrades removing wide open access points.

Again, don't steal kids :)

My doors are always unlocked. So is the two foot by three foot dog door in the living room. If some one was to walk into my house uninvited, if the dogs didn't kill them, I sure as hell would. I do lock the doors of my car when I'm at work, it's no longer on my property.

[Texrat]

Wow, iball, that's some serious stuff! :D

I still think that the typical case should be no more than a small civil fine at worst. Leave it to the ISPs themselves to go overboard. And isn't wantonly invoking the "t" word a form of... um... "t"-ism itself?

(actual word omitted to spoof Echelon sniffers :p)

[penguinbait]

My doors are always unlocked. So is the two foot by three foot dog door in the living room. If some one was to walk into my house uninvited, if the dogs didn't kill them, I sure as hell would. I do lock the doors of my car when I'm at work, it's no longer on my property.

Well, like I said "Taking reasonable measures to protect your property is just common sense."

Big Dog = Reasonable Measure

[barry99705]

Well, like I said "Taking reasonable measures to protect your property is just common sense."

Big Dog = Reasonable Measure

Biiiiiig dog! :D

http://web.mac.com/barrywoods/Site/Grand_Puppies.html#2

[iball]

Well, like I said "Taking reasonable measures to protect your property is just common sense."

Big Dog = Reasonable Measure

In most states you can substitute the "Big Dog" for "handgun".
Especially in Kansas (http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2238). Hooray for expanded mobile Castle doctrine laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine)!

[penguinbait]

In most states you can substitute the "Big Dog" for "handgun".


That big dog will protect your house while your gone.

That gun will be stolen when your gone.

So, if your gonna have a gun, get a big dog to protect it :cool:

[iball]

That big dog will protect your house while your gone.

That gun will be stolen when your gone.

So, if your gonna have a gun, get a big dog to protect it :cool:

Why would I need that? The gun is on my hip with a CCP in my wallet.

[barry99705]

Why would I need that? The gun is on my hip with a CCP in my wallet.

Don't even need a ccp here.

[zvezdec]

How about arresting an owner of the open broadband for incitement to commit a crime? Let's go crazy all the way...

[tabletrat]

I really don't understand this idea of "if you don't protect then it I have a right to invade it". Where does that line of thinking come from? There is no precedent for it in any other legal sense.

it is an odd state of affairs that most people would find completely unreasonable in any other field.

The cable to my neighbours phone passes over the top of the corner of my garden, and they haven't made any attempt to protect it, so I guess I can use it too

Theft of soft ware and services is still theft, no matter how one rationalizes it. It's really sad to me that somehow increasing numbers of people believe they have an automatic right to something simply because it's within their grasp.

Well, in the UK it is not theft*, it is copyright violation, but that still doesn't make it any less wrong.

*Here that means removing and illegally depriving something from its recognised owner, I don't know what the US definition is.

[Texrat]

Thanks for prodding me to clarify, tabletrat. I meant "Theft of Intellectual Property", which in the case of digital media is the same as copyright violation.

[tabletrat]

How about arresting an owner of the open broadband for incitement to commit a crime? Let's go crazy all the way...

Well, no but it is a matter of degrees. As previous examples have said, if you leave your car outside the house unlocked and someone nicks it then yes, they have committed a crime, but your insurance company won't pay you the full value of the car as you didn't take reasonable steps to secure it.

If you have a metered service and someone has leeched all your bandwidth which you didn't take steps to protect the you are still going to have to pay for that bandwidth. It doesn't make the other person any more right though.

Really wireless networks should be made so that by default they are protected and to have them unprotected requires more specialist knowledge to setup.

[Liam1]

Apologize if the posts have moved on from the flashlight analogy, as I see people are discussing this issue in more technical terms (Iball, where do you even get those law posts?)

However, I just wanted to give my 2 cents on unauthorized Wifi usage as being an extremely minor offence (i'm just assuming email checking, like what the UK guy was arrested for, and not hacking or torrents/illegal downloads), that you could argue the following:

1. Intensity of the intrusion is low
In the flashlight example (one neighbor turns on this light inside his house, the glow outside akin to Wifi, and another flashes one a flashlight into the Wifi owner's house, akin to accessing the Wifi by sending a Wifi signal from his wifi adapter), this 2 way communication has very similar levels of intensity, and if the flashlight is flashed into someones eyes, or invokes suspicious behavior, I can see how this is not acceptable.
However in actuality, Wifi access (for emails) accesses a very small amount of bandwidth (negligible in some cases if the access line >3Mbps), which we cannot say its hardly causing any trauma. I liken this 2 way communication like an echo of a radio blaring, which the radio sound returns back to the radio owner at a fraction of the original amplitude.

2. Wifi connections extend beyond the owner's property
Analogies of leaving the door open and stealing a TV in an extreme exaggeration compared to an actual wifi access. Again, wifi access is a transfer of Ghz waves that does not cause monetary damage, and does not include actual trespassing. If we really wanted to use an analogy (which does not really illustrate a wifi access, but shows no trespassing), lets say that if you found a penny in the street, would it be okay for you to pocket it?

I think lets get away from using analogies and stick to the actual wifi access, as analogies tend to over simplify, leading to exaggeration of the actual issue.

[tabletrat]

lets say that if you found a penny in the street, would it be okay for you to pocket it?

Depends on whether you mean legally or morally. I don't think that morally anyone would have a problem with you keeping it, but at what point does it become morally unacceptable, £1*, £5, £20, £50, plain brown bag full of notes?

Unfortunately laws have to be written, and they either get written with woolly language like 'acceptable' and 'reasonable', or they get an absolute limit, and in the world of IT, any absolute figure is going to look silly in a few years.
Or you just write 'you can't do this', and although most people will get away with it, if to some policeman that doesn't like the look of you, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time for you to get done.

It is really hard to write a law saying 'you can't intrude into someones network, unless you want to just check your email, and it is only briefly or in passing, and only if they have it open'



* Obviously finding a $1 where I am would be unlikely and also completely unhelpful! ** Luckily with the exchange rate now, just multiply by 2.
** actually thinking about it, not so useless, I am in the states for a 2 week holiday in september!

[Texrat]

The penny example IS a bad analogy, but that doesn't ipso facto discredit certain other analogies made.

There is significant different between picking up a lost/discarded coin on the street and intentionally connecting to another person's paid service. Perhaps not seeing that induces a person to misunderstand the relevant analogies?

Using analogies to shed light on a subject CAN be very helpful, but only so long as the intended audience can grasp them. When people scoff at relevant analogies and/or pose irrelevant analogies of their own, that tends to indicate a fundamental lack of insight into the actual issue. That's very difficult to overcome, especially if sheer argumentive stubbornness is the cause of the impasse.

[Liam1]

The penny on the street had a disclaimer..it was not used to illustrate unauthorized wifi usage..it was used to illustrate proximity of the offence, per the disclaimer on the original posting. Readers are advised to read the whole posting, as the previous sentences provides the context for proximity.

If the penny was inside a house, undoubtedly it would be a serious offence..hence similar analogies of having a open door, open car door with keys etc..

However, the penny, or a wifi connection is usually encountered outside of the owner's (penny or wifi) property...so now the offence has a different context.

Couple proximity with low intensity (I used a penny to illustrate this, versus 1 GBP or 1 million dollars), the offence of checking emails of another person's wifi connection is of an extremely low magnitude.

[Texrat]

There is a larger context in play here, and that is the topic itself... when combined with your oft-mentioned distaste for analogies and subsequent employment thereof it muddies your message. On one hand you want to separate the penny analogy from the wifi usage, and in the next breath you say they're connected. It isn't simply a matter of anyone "not reading" your entire post or ignoring a narrow context... it's about noticing that you often want to have an argument both ways at the same time, Liam1, and when pinned on a point try to squirm out by saying you're not saying what you're saying... then proceed to say it again.

And checking another person's email in ANY context is by no means "low magnitude". As iBall has been saying, see if a position like that makes it past the FBI or similar law enforcement.

But just to be clear: I said the penny analogy falls flat because, regardless of which way you intended to use it, proximity of a penny vis-a-vis one's domicile is just not parallel with proximity of wifi. One hard reason is the fact that, as already stated, it is impractical to expect users to contain their wifi signals (the way a penny can be contained). There are other reasons (some mentioned in this thread), and I'm sure if you actually thought about it, you'd see them. You're a smart guy, just a little misguided it seems.

[Liam1]

I think lets get away from using analogies and stick to the actual wifi access, as analogies tend to over simplify, leading to exaggeration of the actual issue.

I really didn't want to use any analogies, but as some posters really like it, the penny analogy would be a better fit to show proximity and magnitude..but note that it is not perfect

A wifi access for $50 a month, translates to 0.002 cents a second. So if I checked my OWN email on a high speed access line, an email download (text only) would translate to a 2 second download, which is about 0.004 cents. However, lets assume that I take a 500 seconds (or 8 minutes), that will translate to 1 penny of free email for me.

Posted by Texrat: And checking another person's email in ANY context is by no means "low magnitude". As iBall has been saying, see if a position like that makes it past the FBI or similar law enforcement.

Huh, who said anything about checking another person's email?

Posted by Texrat: You're a smart guy, just a little misguided it seems.

Thank you for your guidance..

[euchreprof]

I use aircrack wherever i go, unless there is an open access point.


That's a good point... I haven't thought about it too much, but it's certainly on my mind more. If I'm outside or nearby a coffee shop with free WiFi, I make a point to buy a coffee if I'm really only interested in the WiFi access. One nearby shop has a router with great coverage, so it's possible to stay outside or go to the park while still using their connection. I still order a large mocha for their generosity.

With local or residential WiFi, I'm definitely gray on the idea. I know when my own access points were unsecure, I had neighbors using my 30Mb/s fiber. Unsecure access points are definitely an "open invite" for anyone's access.

How polite are others with their N770 or N800's?

[earl00]

who cares! This is a stupid thread. People will always use open spots if one is available and they need to connect to the internet - simple as that. Lock your network if you don't want people on it. Stupid as* people. If I don't lock my network and I find someone on it I can't be mad because I left it open. People will always use open internet - why the hell wouldn't you - its just bandwidth left open to share in the first place. Stupid article. Now if someone were hacking into the computers sniffing info, then thats a different story, but just to check your mail... o my gosh - BIG F**KIN deal. Close your network if you are going to complain about it.

[Texrat]

Huh, who said anything about checking another person's email?

You did, of course, or so it appears:

Couple proximity with low intensity (I used a penny to illustrate this, versus 1 GBP or 1 million dollars), the offence of checking emails of another person's wifi connection is of an extremely low magnitude.

Thank you for your guidance..

And thank you for the sarcasm. ;)

Eh, has it been beaten to death yet? Lord knows I tried :p

[profusion]

I thought about this way back and now to see someone arrested seems that there is a law properly in place for this? or not?

If we cannot see Satan the devil, does it mean he does not exist misleading the mids of many?

If WI Fi signals were large metal beams pushing out through our neighbors homes randomly at any given time would that mean trespassing on another persons property, amongst other potentially harmful effects.
Yes what we need to do is arrest the man for using his neighbors metal beam extending thorough his living room as a coat rack!

The fact is there is free airspace that has no "rules" for wireless devices except unless you have a F16 fighter jet flying around North Korea..then air is no longer free anymore especially when you mysteriously get shot down..

If a 16 year old boy kills his sister due to an accident or failed to take precautions when playing around, does he not still go to jail? or is it because his sisters fault for she should have yelled louder when the pain was to excessive?

So 10 years later I now have cancer because it is now proved that linksys, d-link wireless routers produce a dangerous thing called radio waves that can now be determined to be a factor in contributing to worldwide caner like cell phones. Did my neighbor potentially just slowly kill me like that little 16 year old boy? maybe I didn't yell load enough when the pain was overcoming my body?

Enough of this madness soon to end,

There needs to be new laws in place for this sort of thing to protect the consumer and the producer.
Example: As long as im in my house a frequency freely distributed should give the user a choice before the range is extended to them. (contract service agreement ..we "radio station" will push the green button to send you direct signal of 97.3 EASY ROCK) if not you do not get served and you do not get nice tunes or that future cancer.

Wireless routers:
Should have a feature were its not uncontrolled as they are now. They should go from your router and find your devices directly, not broadcasting (and it does not need to be seen in your" available wireless connections" to know its there "Satan")

So to sum things up technically:

My neighbor had just plugged in his brand spanking new router and is excited and ready for some fun! blah I don't need to read the manual. "16year old boy playing with sister"
Shoots out his wireless signal to the whole neighborhood. "Trespassing neighbors property"
Then 5,10,20 years down the road neighbor(s) now has cancer because of wireless signals. "most likely linksys,d-link and others fault or maybe his own cordless phone who knows"

and.. its the neighbors fault to go to jail for eating his neighbors apples that fall freely over to his lawn because the branches come over to his side of the fence.

Cut your branches, put security on your firewall or don't complain your neighbors are eating your apples that fall on his property! until there is a law in place for it. It is not like there is no way to stop someone from getting your internet access.. its call password and encryption protection! Uproot your tree and plant away from there lawn.. sigh yes you have to read the manual!

New laws need to be address for this but sadly until then these types of things will happen till then..

[Texrat]

who cares! This is a stupid thread. People will always use open spots if one is available and they need to connect to the internet - simple as that. Lock your network if you don't want people on it. Stupid as* people. If I don't lock my network and I find someone on it I can't be mad because I left it open. People will always use open internet - why the hell wouldn't you - its just bandwidth left open to share in the first place. Stupid article. Now if someone were hacking into the computers sniffing info, then thats a different story, but just to check your mail... o my gosh - BIG F**KIN deal. Close your network if you are going to complain about it.

Yup, when posts like that come in at this point, it's obvious that it's a lost cause. :D

There needs to be new laws in place for this sort of thing to protect the consumer and the producer.
Example: As long as im in my house a frequency freely distributed should give the user a choice before the range is extended to them. (contract service agreement ..we "radio station" will push the green button to send you direct signal of 97.3 EASY ROCK) if not you do not get served and you do not get nice tunes or that future cancer.

As much as I think you have a fundamental point, good luck with that. The FCC hath spoken.

[penguinbait]

Oh pot, give it a rest already, your right as usual and we are all not worthy.

[profusion]

Yup, when posts like that come in at this point, it's obvious that it's a lost cause. :D



As much as I think you have a fundamental point, good luck with that. The FCC hath spoken.

Your right, sadly that is the case.:rolleyes:

[Liam1]

Couple proximity with low intensity (I used a penny to illustrate this, versus 1 GBP or 1 million dollars), the offence of checking emails of another person's wifi connection is of an extremely low magnitude.

Hah..I see the issue, no wonder this caught the attention of our senior member. Spelling issue, "of" should be spelled "off"...


Oh pot, give it a rest already, your right as usual and we are all not worthy.


Penguinbait, who's pot? Be careful with your spelling, a senior member might read "your right" not as "you're right", but infer that you are talking about your right hand...

I will also rest my case, as you can never win these discussions..

[Eric S. Smith]

A couple of points are sticking out in my mind and I don't think they've been addressed by others, yet:

The FCC and accepting interference: if I could demonstrate that my neighbour's WiFi spoiled my soufflé, I'd still have grounds under the common law to seek damages. The FCC may be a regulator, but they aren't the only authority. If they were, after all, we could just call unauthorized use of an open access point "interference" and say that you have to live with it.

Permission: Do I have permission to view this Web site? I've cavalierly assumed that an open port is an invitation to send requests for pages. Since the intent of the law is not to criminalize Web browsing, it must be the case that sending a request for a connection on port 80 constitutes a request for permission, and an accepted connection implies that permission has been granted. You can argue that accepting the TCP/IP connection is merely an invitation to make a further request at the HTTP level, but it boils down to the same thing. Similarly, then, I think that it's reasonable to suppose that a WiFi access point is fair game if it is accessible by customary means as set out within the standard that defines the protocol, and if no other illegal, immoral, or fattening behaviour is necessary to effect the connection. If the connection is secured, even laughably poorly, the presumption has to be that you're not welcome.

[Texrat]

Yeah, the points have been addressed. One applauded, one soundly debunked. Your mission, should you decide to accept it: figure out which is which!

This thread should self-destruct in 5 seconds. It really should. Hell, 3 even.

[barry99705]

A couple of points are sticking out in my mind and I don't think they've been addressed by others, yet:

The FCC and accepting interference: if I could demonstrate that my neighbour's WiFi spoiled my soufflé, I'd still have grounds under the common law to seek damages. The FCC may be a regulator, but they aren't the only authority. If they were, after all, we could just call unauthorized use of an open access point "interference" and say that you have to live with it.

Permission: Do I have permission to view this Web site? I've cavalierly assumed that an open port is an invitation to send requests for pages. Since the intent of the law is not to criminalize Web browsing, it must be the case that sending a request for a connection on port 80 constitutes a request for permission, and an accepted connection implies that permission has been granted. You can argue that accepting the TCP/IP connection is merely an invitation to make a further request at the HTTP level, but it boils down to the same thing. Similarly, then, I think that it's reasonable to suppose that a WiFi access point is fair game if it is accessible by customary means as set out within the standard that defines the protocol, and if no other illegal, immoral, or fattening behaviour is necessary to effect the connection. If the connection is secured, even laughably poorly, the presumption has to be that you're not welcome.

Everybody is missing the point, you aren't just connecting to "the internet"! You're connecting to someone's private home network. Unless you go up and knock on the door, assuming you even know where the wireless is even coming from, and ask them if it's okay to use, or it's named "free open wifi" you're breaking the law. Just because it's open doesn't mean you can just hop on. They might not know any better, most don't.

[Eric S. Smith]

Everybody is missing the point, you aren't just connecting to "the internet"! You're connecting to someone's private home network.

That's always the case, though. There is no "the Internet" -- it's a bunch of networks, and they all belong to somebody, and they're interconnected under various terms, some commercial, some co-operative. We don't really notice this because, guess what, we just fling packets without phoning each other up first to ask for permission. Either we're all breaking various laws, or permission is given automatically.

Unless you go up and knock on the door,

Well, hang on, if I go up to their door, I'm on their property, am I not? How is knocking on the door better than remotely requesting a WiFi connection and DHCP from an automated system that advertises its availability?

or it's named "free open wifi"

Are you sure? Maybe it got that name by accident. And who gave you permission to intercept transmissions containing the SSID in the first place?

They might not know any better, most don't.

Ignorance is now an excuse? Excellent. I didn't know about the law, then. :confused:

[earl00]

Everybody is missing the point, you aren't just connecting to "the internet"! You're connecting to someone's private home network. Unless you go up and knock on the door, assuming you even know where the wireless is even coming from, and ask them if it's okay to use, or it's named "free open wifi" you're breaking the law. Just because it's open doesn't mean you can just hop on. They might not know any better, most don't.

Boo-hoo-hoo.... ;( cry about it. we're not missing any point - no one cares. Knock on the door - funny. Lock your network or stop complaining - read the manual and if you can't read maybe you shouldn't have the internet or a wireless router in the first place. :) internet should just die anyway, everyone is getting to lazy. when last have you been to the library instead of sitting on your fat as* on wikipedia - more to life than internet convenience. :) read a book instead of an e-book on your $400 IT. HAHA! Losers.

[NokNok770]

If you don't f*ing secure your wireless access points then it's assume you want it open to the public...why else would you do that. So there's no breaking the law here. Just friendly people who wants to share their internet connections.

[barry99705]

Boo-hoo-hoo.... ;( cry about it. we're not missing any point - no one cares. Knock on the door - funny. Lock your network or stop complaining - read the manual and if you can't read maybe you shouldn't have the internet or a wireless router in the first place. :) internet should just die anyway, everyone is getting to lazy. when last have you been to the library instead of sitting on your fat as* on wikipedia - more to life than internet convenience. :) read a book instead of an e-book on your $400 IT. HAHA! Losers.


Where did you ever see that my network is open? Wikipeda is a joke. So are e-books. This thread, just like many others I've seen just puts it back into perspective. The world is full of a bunch of freeloading scum sucking thieves. Maybe if you looked at my profile, you'd see that I probably know more about networking and wireless networking than you do. ****ing *****. Some one close this thread, it's bringing down the IQ of the forum.

[earl00]

Where did you ever see that my network is open? Wikipeda is a joke. So are e-books. This thread, just like many others I've seen just puts it back into perspective. The world is full of a bunch of freeloading scum sucking thieves. Maybe if you looked at my profile, you'd see that I probably know more about networking and wireless networking than you do. ****ing *****. Some one close this thread, it's bringing down the IQ of the forum.

yes all mighty one, king of all networks and wireless routers. we do as you say and bow down. haha - loser (barry99705 - more like barrycock99705) let me guess, you've never downloaded anything in your life that was copyright protected. haha - i bet you are a fat black hat that eats potato chips while watching downloaded episodes of 24 from torrentleech or piratebay. :)

[barry99705]

yes all mighty one, king of all networks and wireless routers. we do as you say and bow down. haha - loser (barry99705 - more like barrycock99705) let me guess, you've never downloaded anything in your life that was copyright protected. haha - i bet you are a fat black hat that eats potato chips while watching downloaded episodes of 24 from torrentleech or piratebay. :)


Whatever. No, I don't steal music/movies. 24 is probably one of the lamest shows on tv now. Not that it matters. I don't watch tv.

[geneven]

And what makes you an expert on ebooks, by the way? Nobel prize in literature, perhaps?

[Texrat]

earl00, you'd do well to read the administrator's warning about your sort of behavior.

And from all appearances, Barry is running intellectual circles around you, so you might want to rethink your approach anyway.

[Texrat]

If you don't f*ing secure your wireless access points then it's assume you want it open to the public...why else would you do that. So there's no breaking the law here. Just friendly people who wants to share their internet connections.

NokNok, read the laws. They ARE being broke, which was the original point.