1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Be careful when using an open WiFi connection you find

Discussion in 'Bits & Bytes' started by tke711, Jul 6, 2005.

  1. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    Shiny, I think you put it best.

    Just because you know how to and have the ability to use someone else's wifi doesn't mean you should. Just because someone is less knowledgeable about something and is vulnerable because of their ignorance, that doesn't give the rest of us carte blanch to abuse that.
  2. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    I am merely advocating that the system should be used the way it was designed to be used and not how some government tells me it should be used. I believe that the solution to this problem is not prosecuting people using publically accessible wireless connections but going after the manufacturors of the products to insure they create standards and educate the users. I believe that either people need to take responsibility to educate themselves about what they use to insure they aren't using it improperly and its their own fault if someone uses their unsecured connection, or the government needs to start licensing computer users the way it licenses automobile drivers. We can try and scare people by prosecuting them for using a wide open wi-fi connection the way the RIAA prosecutes people for sharing music on the internet hoping people are scared into submission, which they will not be, and millions of peoples personal data will remain at risk, or we can work on fixing the system so that even if the people try, it's not going to be easy for people to do something because of the way the system was designed.

    The guy committed a crime he is going to get his ass slapped in jail with drug users, rapists, and murderors for using his computer the way it was intended to be used. is that justice?

    And finally, regarding the AUP, I am merely stating what the AUP tells me. In no way am i intending that as any sort of endorsement of the AUP.
  3. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    You know, I just looked this up on news.com, and found this FAQ: http://news.com.com/FAQ+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-7351_3-5778822.html

    As I was reading the below, a thought occurred to me:

    A lot of people brought up the fact that maybe the wifi's owner wants to share his connection - however, is it really his connection to share? I mean, some ISPs say no, it's not his to share - I've been argueing that the owner has to give permission. But does subscribing to an ISP give me "owner" status in which to grant that permission? Sure I can grant you permission to use my wifi - but can I grant you permission to use the internet service that's going through it?
  4. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Yup, sure is. This guy didn't inadvertently grab someone else's bandwidth, he was out cruising and looking for fish to bilk. See the difference here? If not, then I guess you see Burglar as an honorable profession and the victim of his crime as being worthy of said victimization. Personally, I hope Bubba the Anaconda checks out this lowlife's tonsils from downtown.

    An ISP holding their subscribers liable for damages to their property, caused by people hitchhiking on their connections in no way legally absolves the interloper. In other words, the ISP is holding the customer liable for civil damages incurred by them allowing misuse of their resources. Criminal law will go after the person actually causing the damages.
  5. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    <li>Catcher's Mask-----Check
    <li>Crescent Wrench---Check
    <li>Blasting Caps-------Check

    Okay, I think I'm ready...how about you Cyd? :haha:
  6. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Well that's not what the tread is about. The thread is about whether somebody can use a "found" WiFi connection and not break the law, not about whether the "dupe/newbie" can be prosecuted if the transgressor breaks the law on the "found" connection.

    And downthread, I agree with Misu as I stated before. You can't prosecute newbie/clueless people when somebody latches onto their WiFi connection. Actually IMHO it would make a great defense/cover for somebody who is downloading, maintain an unsecured WiFi and let the prosecution try to prove it was them and not some wardriver. Sounds like a law that needs tightening up but I don't know how.
    Does anybody else see the parallel if you substituted 'guns' for 'WiFi connection?"

    And Cyd, I hope nothing I've said has offended you. Perhaps you're a newbie but that's nothing to be ashamed about -- we've all been newbies at the beginning. I've seen nothing you said in this thread that you should be embarrased about. :)
  7. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    If in anyway you believe that I think the guy who was using the guys connection is honorable, then you are simply wrong. Furthermore a person cannot be a burglar unless they enter a building which this suspect did not do. Finally the "victim" did not suffer any losses, and except for the fact that the guy sat outside the dude's house with his SUV, never would have even known the connection was being used.

    I didn't say it did.
  8. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Techie, by your same logic if I steal something from you and it has no value then I haven't committed a crime. The issue of losses has nothing to do with it -- it's unauthorized use of a computer system, a crime.

    Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. "This guy" committed a crime and deserves the legal consequences.
  9. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    First, your interpretation of my logic is wrong. Second, why the hell are you arguing with me over a point I agree with you on? There is something to be said for quitting while you are ahead...
  10. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    Techie, I think what he's saying is that just because the victim didn't suffer a tangible loss doesn't mean a crime was not committed or that what the guy did in the SUV wasn't wrong.

    It doesn't matter if he caused damage or not - the fact he used a network without permission is what got him in trouble.
  11. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Yeah, what Misu said. Besides, where's the fun in quitting while you're ahead? ;)

    Jeez Techie, Eastern time zone, 3 a.m.? You need quitting lessons too! ;) ;) ;) I'm done, time for beddy bye for me! :)
  12. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    I know what he's saying, and what I'm saying is that I already stated I agree with that. And Gadget you forgot to factor in DST, it was only 2AM...lol
  13. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    You guys don't have DST? :={}
  14. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    Apparantly different states define "unauthorized access" differently. <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/hacklaw.htm">This site</a> has links to state statues that list what each state defines as unauthorized access.
  15. mrRT

    mrRT Tech Mod


    Sorry you feel that way. I dont see any of those thread replies being pointed your way. I think they were general statements and not made at any one individual.

    I have said many times in the past and will say it again now. No individual will be talked down to, made fun of, or made to feel their questions are any less important than any others in this forum. If that has happened and/or slipped by me, then you need to let myself or any of the other Mods know. That behavior will NOT be tolerated in this forum...period...NO EXCEPTIONS.

    If any thread moderation is required it will be done by a Mod or Admin.
  16. misterduck

    misterduck Registered User

    I agree with Biker, etc. as well. I find the notion that stealing is ok because someone is ignorant, repugnant in the extreme. If I forget to lock the front door to my restaurant does that entitle you to steal all the food? Do you think the officer that arrests you will release you when you say "Officer the front door was unlocked"?

Share This Page