Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Stealing your neighbor's NetFollow

#1 Aug 09 2005 at 12:50 PM Rating: Good
****
4,596 posts
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/technology/personaltech/internet_piracy/index.htm?cnn=yes wrote:
The spread of wireless is opening lots of opportunity to log on for free, but experts urge caution.
August 9, 2005: 1:07 PM EDT
By Steve Hargreaves, CNN/Money staff writer


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Forty bucks for high-speed Internet access? Not a bad deal. But how does free sound?

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

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

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

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

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

And as the practice of using someone else's connection without paying for it expands, it raises the question: Is there anything wrong with that?
Will this land you in jail?

The legality of stealing your neighbor's connection is murky at best.

"All of this stuff is so new, it's hard to say what the liability issues are," said Robert Hale, a San Francisco-based attorney who recently published an academic paper on the subject.

Hale points out that there is a federal law on the books that ostensibly prohibits using someone's access point with out their permission. But "without permission" is vaguely defined and the law seems more geared towards computer hacking.

It seems pretty clear that if you hack your neighbor's password then it could be reasonably argued you didn't have authorization.

But securing many older wireless systems with a password is difficult and even newer ones can be a challenge if you're running multiple computers or multiple operating systems. And, while it may be a violation of the user agreements with Internet service providers, some community-minded users deliberately leave their connections open for others to borrow.

"It's a gray area," said Paul Stamp, an analyst at the technology consultants Forester Research. "By not restricting access it could be argued that you're implicitly making that available."

"A broad statement concerning the access of unprotected wireless networks as being always legal or illegal simply can't be made," said Jackie Lesch, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice. "It's just kind of dicey."

On a federal level, according to Lesch, prosecuting decisions are made on a case to case basis, mostly depending on the type of system accessed and what it was accessed for.

On the state level it could be more clear. "It's unlawful access", said John Geraty, an officer with the Internet crimes against children unit of the San Francisco Police Department.

According to Geraty, using your neighbor's wireless is specifically prohibited in the California penal code. "It's not yours and you're taking it," he says.

But Geraty said his department doesn't deal with that type of crime specifically and an officer at the department's fraud desk -- whose jurisdiction it would fall under -- said she couldn't recall anyone ever being arrested for it.

Experts do agree that the likelihood of getting caught and prosecuted for stealing a wireless connection probably depends on how often you do it and how you're using it.

"The damages are really the big issue," said Hale. "Are you just poking around, checking your e-mail, or are you doing it on a regular basis and affecting this person's bandwidth?"

Location also seems to play a part.

"If you're in a Manhattan building with 30 apartments that's one thing," said Julie Ask, research director at the technology consultants Jupiter Research. "But if you're the guy who parks your car in front of a suburban house in the middle of the night and you've got the screen from your laptop glowing, well..." speaking of a man who was arrested earlier this month in Florida for just that.
Exposing yourself

Legal questions aside, reliability is another reason to pay for your own access. If you are a heavy user or need the Internet to work from home, relying on a connection that your neighbor could shut off at any moment is probably not a good idea.

There is also the possibility that someone could have set up the unsecured connection as a trap. Experts say it's possible for the network subscriber to gain at least partial access to your computer, read your e-mails and see the pages you visit if you are using their connection. Any personal information you send online could then be compromised.

So while pirating your neighbor's Wi-Fi it may seem like a good way to siphon a free service, you may end up feeling pretty stupid if you get a summons for sneaking a peak at the latest sports scores or your favorite Web sites are the topic of conversation at the neighborhood Christmas party.


So what do you think? Are networks fair game since technically the radio waves are on your property? Or is it plain old theft to take the bandwidth someone else paid for away from them?

Should the owner of a wireless network be responsible for criminal activity over his cable connection because he didn't secure it?
____________________________
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere

Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
#2 Aug 09 2005 at 12:53 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,961 posts
Smiley: snore It's pirating. You're not paying for it.
#3 Aug 09 2005 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
****
5,135 posts



I saw something on the news a couple weeks ago about a small town actually providing Wi-Fi for free to attract residents.

In answer to your question, I think it's stealing. Personally if it was a decent connection I'd offer to go 50/50 on the bill. Then it's a win/win situation.
#4 Aug 09 2005 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
I know I'd be pissed if someone ran off with my connection, my bandwidth is bad as it is. However, I couldn't care less if someone's stealing my connection for something simple like e-mail.

God help you if you kill my bandwidth downloading torrents and other large files (read: ****) and I catch you. I don't even let my little brother get away with that.
#5 Aug 09 2005 at 1:10 PM Rating: Good
***
3,128 posts
If you have a WiFi network, you can enable encryption very easily, I have done so in my home already.

You set up the 10 digit WEP key (default is 0000000000, try not to use that though) on the Router/hub with wifi or in the computer with wifi broadcasting, and then in your other computers when the available networks pop up just type in same code for your network and you will auto connect from then on. Make sure to call your network a unigue name so its easier for you to see, there are like 5 lynksys networks in range of me.





#6 Aug 09 2005 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
honestly.. it's stealing, it's wrong.

bandwidth isn't unlimited...with enough people leeching your connecting you'll begin to feel it.

wireless has exploded but stopping Joe Average isn't hard:

SSID broadcast - turn it off.. that will stop a large amount of them.

setup MAC address filters and turn them on - this will stop all but the hardcore.

slap in WEP encryption - this will even give the hardcore hacker fits...

nothing hard.
#7 Aug 09 2005 at 1:21 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
If you're leaving your network unsecured, then you get what's coming to you. If you secure it, and somebody still gains access, then that person should be held accountable.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#8 Aug 09 2005 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
****
6,760 posts
I did it for 2 months in my old apartment. My neighbor either was too lazy or too inept to secure is network, so I piggybacked off it till I got around to calling the cable company and getting it installed myself.

To me, if they make no attempt at locking it down then they're saying "here ya go!". If you have to hack in however, then that's another thing entirely. It's really not that hard to lock it down. So a person doesn't have the right to complain if they don't even try, imo.

____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#9 Aug 09 2005 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
****
4,596 posts
Quote:
slap in WEP encryption - this will even give the hardcore hacker fits...


Well your hardcore kazaa using windows hacker at any rate Smiley: wink. A 128 bit WEP key can be cracked in about 15 minutes

I think the more pressing issue that will become apparent in the future is the liability issue. Your neighbor uses your connection to download a boatload of kiddy **** and then arranges a meeting with the kid down the road and kills her.

You don't have any security on your access point. Do you bear legal responsibility through your negligence for providing the access to said neighbor?
____________________________
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere

Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
#10 Aug 09 2005 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Just FYI:

http://news.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4&mid=1120773481247761246


#11 Aug 09 2005 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
****
4,596 posts
Quote:
Just FYI:

http://news.allakhazam.com/forum.html...81247761246


Hush you, mine has better formatting Smiley: mad
____________________________
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere

Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
#12 Aug 09 2005 at 3:14 PM Rating: Decent
Lord xythex wrote:


So what do you think? Are networks fair game since technically the radio waves are on your property? Or is it plain old theft to take the bandwidth someone else paid for away from them?

Should the owner of a wireless network be responsible for criminal activity over his cable connection because he didn't secure it?



touchy subjects.

morally it is not very nice, but then you can twist it around and state that once the data is wireless it is fair game as long as you are not looking into others systems without authorization. very little differance then walking into a 'hot spot' cafe or other establishment vs it being your neighbor.

as long as you are not doing illegal actions like stealing your neighbors p/w or putting viruses on their system to turn them into zombie servers, etc... techincally there is nothing against the law with using an unsecured wifi node.

now as for the legality of holding the owner responsible, that again is very murky that most EUs out there do not have a flippin clue what security is, thank you Microsoft for that issue, and thus will open the wifi AP out of the box, plug it in and hope it all works. That is the last time most EUs will touch their wifi AP/router unless it is to power cycle it after their internet connection has dropped.

so tracing it down to the MAC address on a DHCP network, or mandating logs for all traffic be it dynaic or static IPs on that LAN/wLAN for in/outbound traffic to chace down the offending individual, but that could be impossible to trace.

it is not impossible to make your MAC appear different then it is just like it is easy to tell the network you are someone other then you really are.

i personally would think holding the owner of the wifi AP/router liable for all actions on his AP/router is paramount to holding ISPs liable for the actions of ALL of their users and could lead to major infringment of privacy, more so then is already there now.

one thing it would do though is force EUs to be more aware of how to properly secure their networks and their personaly computers. might be a good thing as people might then start to understand just how insecure ALL microsoft OSs are including the new Vista to be released late in 2006.
#13 Aug 09 2005 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I thought this was about stealing butterfly nets. Smiley: frown
#14 Aug 09 2005 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
ISTR a guy was busted in London for the same thing, but rather than trying to trawl our medieval laws to find some way of nailing for stealing bandwidth, they got him for 'breaking and entering' coz the dumbass with the WiFi left his hard drive wide open and the 'thief' crawled around his personal files.

Yeah it's theft, but if you leave your Mercedes with the keys in the ignition in the street, a guy who takes it is a thief, but you're still an total cu[i][/i]nt.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#15 Aug 09 2005 at 4:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,506 posts
Our internet has been down for two days because someone is using our connection. Most likely a college student back for school who can't afford his own.
____________________________
                                     ↓His opinion is ****.↓
#16 Aug 09 2005 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
***
3,908 posts
This coffee shop down my street, offers it's customers free wireless internet. People sit in there all day on their laptops, drinkig coffee. Theres apartments for rent above this coffee shop if I was to rent it and then use the coffee shops internet, occassionally buying coffee from them. Would that be wrong?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 170 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (170)