digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Bill criminalizing WiFi leeching shot down, and rightly so

arstechnica.com — A bill that would have made using an open wireless access point without permission punishable by up to 10 years in the clink was given an unfavorable reading by a Maryland House committee. Here's an idea: if you don't want people to access your WAP without permission, secure it.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dcharti, on 03/24/2008, -3/+262"Here's an idea: if you don't want people to access your WAP without permission, secure it."

    Seriously. 10 freaking years in prison? Why are people who still seemingly have no clue about technology allowed to so much as submit bills like this?
    • RealmDown, on 03/24/2008, -4/+63We elected them.
      • sharkd, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2[Anthology of Interest] You can't UN-elect them! [/Anthology of Interest]

        Wait... yes, you can.
        • Technopundit, on 03/24/2008, -5/+7It's pretty hard to un-fix a rigged republican election.
        • kd1s, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Actually it's really simple, and if the USSC rules the way I think they will, it'll only reinforce our Constitutional rights, particularly the 2nd Amendment.
          The founders put that in place to counter despotic and tyrannical government. They knew what could happen to their fledgling democracy and republic and knew that provision had to be made for the people to take back their government.
      • Arkaris01, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3Or did not prevent their election...
      • cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1That excuse is getting really old. As true as it maybe, it is not all inclusive of the actions they choose to take once elected....

      • dudettea, on 03/24/2008, -6/+5That's why we should elect the black guy this coming election; he's all for net neutrality.
        • TheMeatball, on 03/25/2008, -3/+3Uh, "Net Neutrality" means more stupid politicians making more stupid laws about the Internet. How about we keep the government away from this? There's no reason for them to be making laws about what we can or cannot do on the web. We made it this far, didn't we?
          • jebudas, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2I disagree. Net Neutrality means the internet will be on a level playing field for everyone.
    • dattaway, on 03/24/2008, -0/+92Rape often doesn't get 10 years. Murder often gets 20. So stealing wifi is half as bad as killing someone?
      • mcse2k3, on 03/24/2008, -7/+1lol... maybe they should make it a felony too....
      • MikeSD34, on 03/24/2008, -3/+7The description is sensationalism, 10 years is the described maximum, not minimum, or recommended sentence. It's actually fairly close to breaking and entering, which according to Wikipedia (so take it with a grain of salt), also carries a 10 year maximum sentence if not committed in a dwelling (which you don't have to be to leach wifi).

        "The maximum penalty for burglary is 14 years imprisonment if committed in a dwelling and 10 years otherwise."

        I'm not saying the bill should have passed, but lets not base our opinions on a sentence devised for the worst possible offender which is probably reserved for identity theft or child pornography.
        • MacEnvy, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6"probably reserved for identity theft or child pornography."

          Those are separate charges, and wouldn't be covered under the simple "stealing WiFi" charge. I think the 10-year max is for people who are, for example, leeching WiFi and then reselling it to others, which will almost always get you a heavier sentence than just personal use.
        • RealmDown, on 03/24/2008, -1/+13Actually, now that I think about it, rape *IS* breaking and entering.......
        • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5"It's actually fairly close to breaking and entering"

          No, it's absolutely nothing like breaking and entering. The security on a WAP is basically the same as the security on a web site. If you don't want the public accessing your web site, you secure it. You don't charge somebody criminally because they accessed a web site you left open to the world.

          It's the same with a WAP. Many people are happy to have people use their wireless--I run an open access point at work anybody is free to use. If you don't want just anybody to access your wireless you secure it using whatever method is most appropriate.
          • dandonia, on 03/24/2008, -5/+2Hold on, that's like saying "if you dont want people to come into your house lock your doors". Which is ridiculas. Don't get me wrong I think 10 years is crazy but somebody using a service I paid for without my permission is out of order. I am limited to 40GB per month, any more than that and I get cut off, if someone uses even 1GB with out me knowing, I could lose the service.

            Wireless networking is not just for tech people it is an easy solution for people who want access to the internet all over their houses. How many people do you know with wireless networks, how many of them havn't got a clue that its unsecure.
          • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3Stop the bad analogies! To make your analogy even remotely relevant there would have to be a big neon sign outside which said open house and somebody standing handing out name badges (and it still wouldn't be very good). The ONLY difference between accessing a web site and accessing a wireless access point without asking for permission is that web servers are hopefully configured by somebody with experience with security, while many WAPs are not.

            This is a problem, but you can't deny the right of knowledgeable people to use their equipment the way it was designed to be used due to the ignorance of others. Seek another solution, such as requiring WAPs to be sold in a secured configuration, or increase education efforts.
          • Fordi, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3@dandonia:
            People don't walk into your house with the doors unlocked because, usually when the doors are locked, someone is there.

            "I am limited to 40GB per month, any more than that and I get cut off, if someone uses even 1GB with out me knowing, I could lose the service."

            That should tell you how secure you need to make your network then, now shouldn't it?

            No, seriously. You count your bandwidth?
          • dandonia, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1@Fordi
            "People don't walk into your house with the doors unlocked because, usually when the doors are locked, someone is there." Do you want to try that again? I think you meant because when the doors are unlocked is there. So now are you saying if nobody is there and the doors are unlocked people have a right to go in and take what they want.

            As for monitoring my bandwidth, 40GB is not a great deal so yeah I have to monitor it. I know my network needs to be secure but then I am a tech person and a know how to do this. Most people on the internet do not know how to secure a network and why should they have to learn to prevent people from abusing them. It is like saying people need to learn self defence to prevent things themselves from getting beat up.

            @EtherGnat I agree with the analogy thing lets abandon it and look at what it boils down to. Somebody is using a service that somebody else paid for without their consent. Broadcasting the name of my network and that it is open is not a way of saying feel free to use it. It is just a way for me to connect to the right network hassel free.
          • EtherGnat, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1@dandonia

            Yes, the protocols are perfectly sufficient for me to indicate that I am willing to allow strangers to connect to my network. Are you implying that there should be no way to automate the process of me granting permission to my network? Am I doomed to have people wandering down the halls at my University looking for somebody to ask permission of, bothering me all day? If you feel that there should be a way to grant permission automatically, how is it you feel the current standards are lacking?

            I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem. I've been configuring wireless networks for years, and I've never had a problem configuring a network so that it allowed exactly the amount of access (and no more) I wanted to exactly WHO I wanted to have access. The tools are there, the only problem is that there are ignorant users, and that should NOT be my problem.
          • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1"It is like saying people need to learn self defense to prevent things themselves from getting beat up. "

            Historically, a public push for self defense training is a much stronger criminal deterrent than, say, putting more cops on the streets.
      • vypergts, on 03/24/2008, -0/+14I guess you could always beat someone to death with their unsecured router...
      • antdude, on 03/24/2008, -3/+6Rape people's wifis?
    • blackinthmiddle, on 03/24/2008, -0/+15This is done simply to make it look as though the person submitting the bill is working hard for the people.

      Never mind that no *real* problems get addressed. In the end, a senator can say, "I introduced 15 bills last year. I'm working hard for my constituents."
    • GibitStylin, on 03/24/2008, -0/+28but make sure you use WEP so i can still crack it!
      • Technopundit, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4Is it really worth your trouble?
        • BRODEL, on 03/24/2008, -0/+15WEP isn't really troublesome anymore. That being said, WEP at least tells me that you don't want me on it, open access points tell me that you don't mind if I use it.
        • dark_helmet, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Yes, most of the people who don't secure their access points don't have fast internet. WEP takes less than 5 minutes to crack with a good signal. Around 10 with a poor signal.
      • lAciDl, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3why waste your time when you can just drive up another block and have a variety of open APs
        • Ravatar, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Cause typically ones running WEP will have less line activity.
    • purplehaze420, on 03/24/2008, -0/+35Yeah whoever's proposed Idea that was should get 10 years for wasting everyone's time.
    • lnxfi, on 03/24/2008, -1/+27I'd probably get less than 10 years if I stole a car while I was high and ran over a crack whore with it.

      Good god they need to rework crimes that don't hurt people. Make it a reasonable fine, not jail time.
    • 5urr3al5am, on 03/24/2008, -9/+2The devices themselves should come locked down. I would think most people don't realize they aren't, and don't know how to configure them.
      On one hand 10 years seems a bit steep, but then again, a completely anonymous web connection can be used for quite a lot of serious mayhem and havoc.
      • logiktrip, on 03/24/2008, -1/+16Everything can be used for mayhem and havoc in the right hands.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 03/24/2008, -6/+2so everything is relative? that's a pretty poor argument
          • thelostemperor, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Pretty poor analysis. The statement has absolutely no relativistic implications whatsoever.
        • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2You are absolutely correct that WAPs should come locked down by default. Then when you come across an open access point you could be sure it was intentional. The way it is now it can be difficult to determine if it's permissible to access a network. A great many networks are intentionally left open, but if the name is something glaringly obvious like "FREE_WAP" how do you know? How do you track down the appropriate person to ask their permission?

          The issue is further complicated by devices like my phone which automatically connect to an open network. Are you going to throw me in jail because my phone connected me to a network without my knowledge? People that compare accessing wi-fi to theft drive me nuts!
      • thelostemperor, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5So prosecute the "serious mayhem and havoc". That would be appropriate. Sending someone to jail for using an open WiFi is just facist. Also, if you think an anonymous connection is so dangerous, doesn't it make more sense to prosecute the person who provides it? Police could just drive around any neighborhood and arrest dozens of people on the spot because they didn't turn on the so-called security. But why stop there? Since the current standards are all hackable, maybe we should just forbid WiFi altogether. Heck, let's just classify TCP/IP as controlled munitions and be done with it. We all agree that NOTHING is more important than safety, RIGHT?
      • boydrew, on 03/25/2008, -1/+0Yes reading how to configure is so difficult....
    • unreg, on 03/24/2008, -7/+1While the punishment is indeed a bit ridiculous, one can look at the issue as theft of service. Sure we can admonish the owners to secure their network (from my laptop I can see three unsecured access points in my neighborhood) but I think the primary aim is for places like hotels and libraries that have chosen to keep their systems open for their guests convenience. I'd hazard the guess they weren't looking to punish someone that may have inadvertently jumped on but maybe someone that set up shop with a continuous connection.

      Victimless crime, but if you found out your neighbor was pirating your connection, you'd probably be peev'd, right?
      • Arkaris01, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5Not really, I would call my ISP and have them walk me through the steps of banning their MAC address...
      • rambocommando, on 03/24/2008, -0/+6If you can figure out that someone is using your connection then you should be intelligent enough to secure your wireless router.
      • scottc, on 03/24/2008, -1/+7If someone is broadcasting unsecured signals through my house it is NOT theft for me to use them. Furthermore, if I turn my computer on and thanks to Microsoft and/or the computer manufacturer it connects to the first signal it finds, then I should in no way be liable, even if it is technically illegal.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1If you live in a neighborhood where the houses are close together, is it legal to look out your window and into someone else's window and watch them undress? Can you be arrested for doing that? how about standing outside on the edge of your property and looking into their window? pervert!
      • andycr512, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2"Victimless crime, but if you found out your neighbor was pirating your connection, you'd probably be peev'd, right?"

        There exists this little thing called "network security". My network is locked down so tightly I highly doubt even the NSA could get into it if they tried for months (32-character random WPA key), and many ISP's have the user set up nearly as good security when you start with them.

        In other words, if you haven't secured your network, you have no right to complain that someone is using it - especially since there is no way to distinguish between a free-to-use insecure network and a (double air-quotes) ""private"" insecure network.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1that's it? 32bit - WPA? hey friend, don't quite your day job.
          • andycr512, on 03/25/2008, -0/+132-character != 32-bit, but say whatever you wish - I don't see anyone cracking it by anything but pure luck. I'm sure your home network is much more secure?
          • 5urr3al5am, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2you're correct.. 32-char != 32-bit.. its much more secure.. I would use WPA2, hide the ssid broadcast, and use MAC address white listing
          • andycr512, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2"you're correct.. 32-char != 32-bit.. its much more secure.."

            Yeah, I can see where (32/8) 4-character would be a security problem. :)

            "I would use WPA2,"

            I would, but the compatibility hassles aren't worth it in my opinion.

            "hide the ssid broadcast,"

            A bit pointless since people sniffing packets can find your network easily, and casual accidental connections would be stopped by having encryption.

            "and use MAC address white listing"

            MAC's can be spoofed just by sniffing packets, grabbing a MAC that's known from traffic in the network, then using it yourself.
          • 5urr3al5am, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2WPA2 is 'supposed' to have several security fixes in place over WPA.
            And I guess it all comes down to packet sniffing, once that data gets analyzed and eventually cracked (though it may take a long time), you have everything you need.
            Just use a pass phrase of 20 to 30 characters to avoid a brute force attack.
    • aajjcckk, on 03/24/2008, -2/+24HEY, enjoy your freedom in the US. Here in the UK, the Nazis have decreed that anyone using another's (even unsecured) WiFi connection will be prosecuted. This has led to the unbelievable situation of innocent people being prosecuted because their laptop auto logged on and started downloading over an unsecured WiFi connection without their prompting. And no, this is not hypothetical - people have and are going to prison for this.

      Honestly, the UK is run by the biggest collection of Luddites you could hope to find. The UK government jumping into bed with Microsoft for everything at every opportunity (and giving Bill Gates a ***** knighthood!!!) is clear evidence of this.
      • Loonacy, on 03/24/2008, -1/+23My friend bought a wireless router some time back. The guy at the store explained how to change the security settings through the web interface to keep people off the network. My friend got home, opened the box, logged on, changed the security settings, and started surfing the web. It was really easy. Unfortunately, nobody explained to him how to set up Windows to log on to his newly secured router, so his laptop was connected to his neighbor's open wifi. This bill would have made him a criminal.
        • antdude, on 03/24/2008, -0/+14Heh, so he is paying for his Internet that he doesn't even use.
        • andycr512, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4That reminds me of an office I visited. They had a PC set up in the lobby for visitors to use. It had a wireless card, which was presumably connected to a router somewhere in the building. They were having trouble with the signal being poor and constant disconnection, and I offered to see what I could do while I was there. After a little thinking, I pulled out my laptop and watched the SSID of the network as I walked around the building. I noticed the signal getting weaker and weaker the further I went into the building. I decided to walk towards the front door and out near the street; the signal was much, much stronger there. As it turns out they had MAC filtering on the router and were connected to an insecure network from a car repair shop across the street. Because the person who set up the lobby computer couldn't see the correct SSID (because he didn't realize the MAC of the NIC wasn't whitelisted in the router yet) he just connected to the best insecure network he could find, which wasn't a very strong one.
        • spanglegluppet, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Shh, don't say that on the tubes! The Secret Police will come after your friend!!!111!!
      • below413, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1It seems to me that people who are too stupid to secure their WiFi wouldn't have the know-how to figure out that you are using it without their knowledge. How do people get caught for doing this? Do they set up open WiFi on purpose to catch people when they log onto it?
      • Robbothehood, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0If people are too stupid to prevent their computer from automatically connecting to possibly undesired networks if they need to access internet beyond their home network, then they deserve to go to jail.
        Now, what is wrong with this reasoning and by proxy, most of the reasoning garnering so many diggs here?
    • MrCobaltBlue, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2Well the wifi leechers clog our tubes!
  • fkr3, on 03/24/2008, -20/+9610 years for being too dumb to secure a router is too much. The state should just send someone to secure it and invoice them for the serivce.
    • RealmDown, on 03/24/2008, -2/+15"Community service" should be an intro to computer networking class at the local community college.
    • aigulf, on 03/24/2008, -1/+48I thought the 10 yrs was on a user that accesses the network, not on the unwitting host.
      • blackinthmiddle, on 03/24/2008, -2/+13You're right, it is that way.

        This bill is obviously dumb for so many reasons. With Windows XP, it often finds the open network with the strongest signal and auto-connects to it. So imagine the scenario. You go to your friend's house and open up your laptop. It autoconnects to your friend's neighbor's wifi and your IM client starts up. Under this bill, you've just broken the law! That'll protect the citizens all right!
        • fkr3, on 03/24/2008, -3/+4Yup. I don't know how I read it so wrong. I still stand by that approach though.... the council or state or whoever should be paying a handful of guys to drive around sniffing for insecure wifi, fixing it and leaving a bill. They inspect houses and businesses for crap all the time, this is a natural extention of that.
          • DangerMouse9, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6What if I want to leave my wi-fi unsecured? Why should I have to pay for some douche to tell me to secure it? This bill is to help lazy law enforcement. If someone "steals" my wi-fi and breaks the law, the law enforcement wants it to be easier to find who did it. They figure if the router is secured, the owner is guilty, instead of having to put the doughnut down and do what my tax dollars are suppose to pay them to do (and beating/killing the innocent is not one of them).
        • unreg, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3I don't think the intent is to punish those who unwittingly connect to an open network. It's for those that willing seek out and create (semi) permanent connections.

          You might have a secure wireless router, but what if I manage to crack it or somehow hijack it. Then I set up shop and surf kiddie porn. You'd be a bit chuffed, wouldn't you?
          • gudnbluts, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Just FYI, chuffed actually means pleased. You might have meant miffed?
          • csw1342, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1or chafed?
        • sarixe, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1indeed, i do that all the time. it sucks, because all of a sudden all my port forwarding doesn't work, and i have to figure out why...
    • c1per, on 03/24/2008, -1/+0Nice execution
    • PRlME, on 03/24/2008, -2/+8I charge $140 to turn your WPA on In Manhattan,
      $90 for Queens, Brooklyn and the other 2 boroughs that no one cares about.
      • mikephimikephi, on 03/24/2008, -0/+6Someone from the Bronx is gon kick yo ass.

        ...and people from staten will probably just nod politely
    • sporg, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5It all comes down to the people in charge hating anything that they cant control. Also they cant stand to see anyone get anything for free. This country has been turned into a police state ***** hole by this type of mentality.



      • bingobongony, on 03/24/2008, -10/+2You are a complete idiot. You are not getting it "for free" any more than you are getting a new stereo for free if you walk out of hte store with it.

        You are stealing their bandwidth. They may WNT to have the full download speed capability. And if you are taking it, they don't get what they paid for.

        All because you, psorg, are a sorry sack of *****.
        • ThreeDee912, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6It's "sporg", not "psorg".

          Oh, and bingobongony is a well known Digg troll:
          http://www.trollhunters.org/content/bingobongony-t ...
        • sporg, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Several of my neighbors leave their wifi networks open on purpose so that others may use it. Only a jerk would use someone else's connection for downloading large files without permission. Clearly people should use common sense when surfing on a borrowed connection but more unenforceable laws accomplish nothing.
    • Fordi, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4As mentioned a number of times here, this is how existing law *should* be enforced:
      1) If someone hacks your WiFi (you have reasonable security and they still got in), falls under breaking and entering, and the violator can get sued for theft of service.
      2) If you find someone using your internet on your open connection, and you press charges, the violator gets sued for theft of service (probably not a lot of cash), and you get fined for wasting the court's time, and you are ordered by a judge to get Tech to your house to secure your damned WiFi. You cannot sue for service theft with an open router without being hit with the fine/order.
      3) If you use someone's connection, and they don't press charges, it is considered 'allowed' until they do.
  • grumpyrain, on 03/24/2008, -14/+106If failing to secure a router is such a terrible offense as to warrant prison time, then surely they should force hardware vendors to enable WPA with a random key printed on a sticker on the device.
    • grumpyrain, on 03/24/2008, -6/+10Hell, removing unsecured as an option altogether would be trivial.
      • chedabob, on 03/24/2008, -0/+26What about people that want to run open networks though?
        • simg, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3how would you even know if the network you are accessing is intentionally or accidentally left open ?
          • TRENT310, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5Well, if the user changed the SSID, they're probably aware of the administration web UI and then chose not to enable security. It's not a definite way of knowing, but it's quite probable.
          • Technopundit, on 03/24/2008, -0/+6Why don't these dumb politicians just stay out of it?
        • grumpyrain, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Either download some (probably unofficial) firmware or put the passphrase in the SSD. Most people who have unsecured networks are not just being nice but don't realise the default configuration is let in anyone close enough. If you want to open yours, power to you, but I don't believe that should be forced upon those unsuspecting.
      • subxero37, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3What about when we'd really not want to have security?
      • wellyuk, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3RTFA! The story doesn't say that people are getting 10 years for not securing their wifi connection!
    • darny, on 03/24/2008, -5/+47Why doesn't anyone seem to get it? You don't get 10 years for having a public wifi, you get 10 years for using someone's wifi without their permission.
      • rhyss, on 03/24/2008, -4/+4I think you are misunderstanding everyone's reaction.

        The punishment is unfairly being applied to relatively benign behavior by users who may often times not even be aware that they are leeching.

        No one here is even talking about sending someone to jail for 10 years for having open wi-fi (red herring).

        What we are talking about is the misapplication of legislature to criminalize what would otherwise be normal and benign behavior by users who through the design of the product or lack of experience are behaving as intended.

        Let the punishment fit the crime. It is hard to argue that justice was served by prosecuting the guy sitting in his car surfing the web or checking his e-mail via a coffee shop's open wi-fi.

        This is not to say that nefarious behavior shouldn't be prosecuted aggressively, the legislation, however, seems to extend the penalties to normal and benign behavior.

        If passed, then the product manufacturers should be share some of the liability to some degree as has been established in many product liability cases.

        In the end, I agree with the others in saying that this is some sort of ploy by the legislature to make it appear as if they are doing something to combat some problem for later re-election propaganda.

        Eternal vigilance my friends, eternal vigilance.

        • darny, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4"No one here is even talking about sending someone to jail for 10 years for having open wi-fi ..."

          Dude...as one commenter put it:
          "If failing to secure a router is such a terrible offense as to warrant prison time..."

          ???
          • rhyss, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5You're right, I shouldn't have generalized about everyone's reaction here. I was trying to clarify the article's intent and what the majority of people are responding to.

            I appreciate you posting that one response, but that commenter prob. needs to read the article a little closer. The article clearly doesn't address the issue of owner liability by failing to secure their router.
          • grumpyrain, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2True, I should have read it closer, but it is equally stupid the other way. Some Wifi software automatically connects to the strongest unsecured signal by default. My brother was using his neighbours connection without realising (they had the same cable provider). It was not until I went to investigate why he couldn't print to their printer upstairs that the pieces fall together. There are blogs of people not realising they are leeching until they accidentally switched off their router one day and still had Internet.

            To argue that someone who doesn't realise they are connected to the wrong router is criminal is just stupid. Likewise, to argue that someone with an unsecured router is inviting you to connect is stupid. It may be true on a technical level, their router sent out a public invitation to which you accepted. A few people may be fine with that, most simply don't understand the implications.

            Your comment of punishment fitting the crime is an excellent point. I mean you would not get 10 years imprisonment for physically breaking into the house and stealing the computer. You are possibly guilty of unauthorised access to a network (keeping in mind the tendency of most software to autoconnect you), at worst you are causing the leeching victim bandwidth cost. The worst punishment I could justify would be to order the leecher to pay back any incurred bandwidth charges related to the leeching.
    • purplehaze420, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5That's actually a really good idea... But yeah nobody is getting the message of this article correctly.
      • Chassit, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2It is a TERRIBLE idea. What a waste of our collective resources
    • roosterjm2k2, on 03/24/2008, -4/+5Because I don't want to have to undo what the manufacturer did. The responsibility is on the person who owns the router.

      I leave mine wide open, and since I have repeaters at opposite ends of my house (i can be connected in my whole yard), I have a pretty good spread.

      Im not worried about the network being open.

      Secure your computer, not your network. The bill is/was gay.
      • mickstephenson, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6The danger of open wifi is that people can sniff your packets and see data being sent to/from your computer, and this could contain personal information. So while you can secure the files on your networked PC's. Web browsing with a laptop will never be secure without encryption.
        • roosterjm2k2, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3Well, I dont send anything sensitive over the web that isnt on a verified SSL connection...and I dont use FTP (on SFTP) so I dont send anything to be captures, really...
      • wellyuk, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Secure your computer, not your network? That's terrible, TERRIBLE advice! It's FAR easier to turn on WPA on your wireless router than to secure your computer. While WPA isn't 100% secure, it's something almost anyone can do and much more so than securing your computer.
    • vypergts, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2I remember reading recently that California passed legislation to require manufacturers to put big stickers on new routers telling people to read about securing them. It would seem that they can't be held entirely responsible for how consumers choose use them.
    • Piipe, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1FON does that, i remember mine still it was a huge number.
  • snap326, on 03/24/2008, -53/+3Yeah these types of things get major attention, glad to see that another dumb law/act did not get passed.
    I mean how will all the young war drivers/war walkers get to learn. StarBucks is no way to learn or up at college, using your sniffer and seeing the IM passwords, silly kids..lol

    oh yeah and by the way please digg
    http://digg.com/security/Lockpicking_Keybumping_So ...
    Thanks *cough* shameless plug
  • shovel24, on 03/24/2008, -37/+4I'm not even sure they'd have to pass a law for this. According to what I've read that's NOT wikipedia, this as well as wardriving is considered theft of services, which before I even googled it was a no-brainer. It's not some kind of special la-la land simply because it's on a computer. Would you expect someone to tell you, if they smashed your window and broke into your house, and stole your stuff, that your windows were simply too weak? IRL, it doens't work that way. It makes about as much sense as saying, "your skin was too weak when I stabbed you! Wear more armor!"
    • usrlocalbin, on 03/24/2008, -2/+9Um...You should educate yourself on the topic being discussed before trying to talk like you know what you're talking about...Much like these idiots who are trying to make these silly laws.
      • unreg, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Please expound on your post. Doesn't seem to add to much to the conversation.

        The OP's comparative is a bit extreme, but snagging and using an open connection could be considered theft of service. Probably a better comparative would be my running an extension cord from one of your outdoor outlets over to my house. The difference is that with an internet connection you're probably paying a set monthly amount where as electricity is a per kwh charge.

        • scottc, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1The difference is that in your extension cord example someone is trespassing and stealing (assuming they don't have permission to do so) while in the wireless router situation someone is freely broadcasting their signal onto their neighbor's property, and the question becomes whether it is right or not to use that signal.

          Is it illegal to read a newspaper that your neighbor tossed into your yard? Is it legal to watch your neighbor's tv through their open window? From where I'm sitting I can look up at a mirror which happens to reflect my neighbor's window. If that window were open and a tv was in view would I be a criminal for watching? If so, am I stealing from my neighbor or from his cable company? Where do we draw the line?

          Some of those situations may be illegal in certain municipalities, but IMO none of them are morally wrong (except for the example you gave with the extension cord.)
          • unreg, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Watching a TV, while a close analogy, is not quite the same. You're watching the same picture the owner is. In the case of a internet connection, your using his allotment of bandwidth. While it may not have an impact on the owner, your still using something you don't own or have a right to use.

            The stupidity of the situation is that the person snagging the free/stolen connection is to ***** cheap to just get there own. We're defending assclowns.
    • scy1192, on 03/24/2008, -2/+10on the internets, you can duplicate data, but not actually "take" it.
      • unreg, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Oh good, I was wondering when the faux intellectual crowd was going to pipe up. What is the current justification on downloading music?
    • Syphon8, on 03/24/2008, -3/+5Try reading Wikipedia.
    • Monarch818, on 03/24/2008, -1/+19Hold on, if your wifi is not secured, you are sending my computer an invitation to be part of your network. Why, because it just offered me an IP address. That, in my opinion is permission to use it. You sent out an invitation saying open network, my computer got the invitation and said thanks, send me an IP address, your WAP sends my computer an IP address, my computer sends a thank you back acknowedging the IP address, and now I'm on the internet.
      Your analogies of theft would have to include a broadcast or sign saying please feel free to enter the car and use it for it to even be closely resembling the same thing.
      A better analogy would be having a sign in the front yard of your house saying "Open House" when you are selling your house. You are inviting people to come in and look at the house, but it is implied you will not steal any of the possessions while you are doing so. So it would be like going into someone's network but then hacking into their computers and taking information. You invited someone in, but implying that anything inside that is secured is not for the taking.
      • unreg, on 03/24/2008, -5/+2That's a stretch. What if I've labeled my access point as "Not for Public Connections" or haven't enabled DHCP services?
        • Chassit, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1What if you just went in and enabled a WEP key?
        • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1If you've made some attempt to show me you don't want me on your network I would always respect that. It still shouldn't be legally binding, because many devices auto-connect to an open wi-fi spot. Requiring people to secure their WAPs if they desire a private connection is a better alternative than creating ambiguous situations and making inadvertent criminals out of people.
        • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1"That's a stretch. What if I ... haven't enabled DHCP services?"
          I would submit that, in that case, you are either a techno-luddite, or one of those idiots who think that disabling DHCP is more security than potential attack vector.
    • nylrym, on 03/24/2008, -0/+9The owner of a Wireless Access point is BROADCASTING data. You are not stealing it, you are simply receiving what they chose to send into public airspace, If you want to be that stupidly literal about it. Learn about a subject before you mouth off.
    • TRENT310, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Thing is, your wifi network diesn't experience blood loss if you connect to it without authorization.

      • gudnbluts, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1No, it experiences speed loss, and for those with capped connections (like everyone in New Zealand), it can cost you extra money.
    • schroeder, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3Many computers are set to automatically connect to the strongest open access point. Lots of times i have been connected to one access point and my laptop would automatically connect to a stronger one. Is that worthy of 10 years of imprisonment? All anyone has to do is set a password, even a weak WEP password would stop casual leeching. Breaking a password to a network you don't own, even if it is weak, would be illegal.
    • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+21) A WiFi network broadcasts its presence and its openness to the world. It is an invitation.
      2) An open network does not place any obstacles in the way of connection; as a result, just having almost any laptop or PDA *turned on* in the presence of your open network will connect them to it.
      3) Closing a network is a trivial task, almost always documented with the router it was purchased with. By the time someone has wandered into the range of your network, you should have closed it if you didn't want randoms surfing on your dime.
      4) Wardriving can not be theft of services: When you wardrive, by definition, you do not connect to any networks. You simply log the presence, status, and geolocation thereof. You're basically saying that it's "theft of services" to walk around with a notepad and write down everything you hear as you pass.
      5) "Would you expect someone to tell you, if they smashed your window and broke into your house, and stole your stuff, that your windows were simply too weak?" No. and if someone hacked my WPA2 connection, I'd be suing for theft of services. But that's a straw man. There are no windows to break here. There are no *walls*. Basically, think of an open network as a public fountain you've installed outside your house. Anyone can walk up and take a drink - and 0.02 cents of YOUR water - without even acknowledging that a proprietor exists. Hardening your router is about the same as placing a key on the fountain (except while the plumbing involved in modifying a fountain's plumbing could be a 20 minute job, I'd seriously be surprised if locking down a router would take more than three minutes.)

      It all comes down to this: Do we litigate to protect people who can't even be bothered to spend a few minutes reading the ***** manual?

      No. No we don't. In fact, in other sectors, we actively pursue those who DON'T either read the manual or hire a technician to read it for them (re: cars, maintenance, and inspection).
  • yellowcakewalk, on 03/24/2008, -4/+42Can you sniff the Verizon $$$ in the pocket of Delegate LeRoy E. Myers, Jr, the pinhead that sponsored this idiotic legislation?
    • Ph34rb0t, on 03/24/2008, -2/+14The Bill was wiped because he shouted LEEEEROYYYY, ran around punching people in the face and drew too much agro.
      • sarixe, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1i didn't know you could punch people in the face in WoW...
    • unreg, on 03/24/2008, -3/+1Explain the Version connection.
    • scottc, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2In this case the bill was introduced because LeRoy was ***** at his neighbor. But you are right, in most cases these laws are the result of telecom lobbying.
  • jeremyduffy, on 03/24/2008, -3/+13I think the idea behind the bill is that criminals are able to use unsecured wireless to do bad things. Or someone who does bad things can use the "they surfed my net" as a defense. Still stupid, but not unexpected coming from Maryland. It seems like I can't go a month without being raped by some weird law or fee for this or that.
    • mcse2k3, on 03/24/2008, -4/+3Yea, that's probably the reason they came up with this garbage... to scare the little h4ck3r kiddies! The little turds think they can just hop on granny's internet next door and it will be untraceable!
    • cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1
      That makes a lot of sense...let's not enforce current laws...let's make up new laws so that we can explain they are needed to enforce current laws that we choose not to enforce. (immigration anyone?) Or, let's do this so we can add up twenty-six counts against a single person for a single criminal act so that they never get out of prison furthering the demise of the current prison system and further the ruin of the economy. Sounds great!

      For that matter, let's start locking people up for cable theft when they either visit a friends house to watch TV, or when they happen to be walking down the street seeing someone else's TV broadcast because that person decided to leave their blinds / window open. Yeah, let's start doing that, serious....pfft...
    • roflbrothel, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Too bad even script kiddies can crack or brute force any WiFi out there. They need to make it mandatory for any representative who is on any sort of technological committee to get IT training. This ***** is ridiculous.
  • dyranios2, on 03/24/2008, -32/+5It's theft, I know it might seem harmless but at the end of the day you are using someone else's service without paying for it. Why don't they secure it? They shouldn't have to. I shouldn't have to lock my car door, if someone steals something out of it, it is still theft.

    I agree that it's as close to a victimless crime as you can get but the stance that the fault lies with the wi-fi owner because of their failure to secure it is retarded.
    • RealmDown, on 03/24/2008, -1/+12If someone wants onto your network, it's not much of a problem.

      Locks are to keep honest people out.

      • IphtashuFitz, on 03/24/2008, -2/+9What if I willingly want to let people use my wifi for free? What if I live in an area where I feel that doing so is providing a valuable service and I have no problems with doing it? Is it still theft of service?

        What if I want to play tricks on people who decide to hop onto my free connection? http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.h ...
        With a law like this on the books I couldn't create an upside-down-ternet or a blurnet!
      • unreg, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2That Locks are for honest people comment is such *****.
    • vanguardanon, on 03/24/2008, -1/+27It's kind of like saying somebody stole from me because the read by my porch light. It's really not stealing to me.
      • bigdoof, on 03/24/2008, -5/+3Except that bandwidth is a time limited resource and there's liability involved with internet access. If someone is camping out on an unwitting person's AP and saturating their up and downstream pipes with warez so that the owner can't access anything, that sounds like stealing to me.
        • rhyss, on 03/24/2008, -0/+6That would be nefarious behavior and could be handled as such without the need to punish other people who are simply using the products as design or are simply unaware of their behavior.
      • unreg, on 03/24/2008, -7/+3What if I plugged an extension cord into the outlet on your porch and ran my refrigerator off it?
        • nylrym, on 03/24/2008, -1/+9These analogies are pointless and useless. If I broadcast electricity around the neighborhood, and you run your fridge off of it, then I don't see where I have a right to complain. That's not theft - that's radio reception.
          • gudnbluts, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2You are reducing the speed, and in many cases reducing the amount they can download for the price they've paid, so it's not the same as radio reception at all. Just because it's a broadcast signal doesn't make it free.
          • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Correction: The broadcast signal is free; the bandwidth outside the private network that you're basically inviting people to join is not.
        • Kratos76, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1leeching of someones' wifi doesn't make their internet cost go up. (as long at net neutrality doesn't change)
      • Kratos76, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1That is the Greatest analogy Ever!!! Thanks
    • waydee, on 03/24/2008, -1/+12By not securing your network you are saying it is open and available to use, whether you mean to share it or not is irrelevant. It is not theft, it's not a case of stealing anything, it's making use of a provided service. If you lock your network, the message I get is that you don't want to provide a service or share with anonymous users - thats fine, thats responsible, thats perfectly within your rights and recommended but don't suggest that hopping on an open network is tantamount to theft when it simply isn't, even if the only reason you can do so is lack of knowledge or laziness on the owners part.
      • blackinthmiddle, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5And that's the whole point. There's no way to differentiate between the person who wants to share their wifi and someone who just never took the time to secure his network. Again, another one of those proposals that makes the lawmaker look busy.
        • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Since the 'time to secure your network' is on such short order that even the highest-paid humans in the world could probably do it for chump change, 'never took the time' seems hardly a valid excuse.
      • unreg, on 03/24/2008, -7/+3That's stupid. If I left my bike leaning against the street lamp while I dashed in the store for a snack am I saying it's free for the taking?

        What the ***** is wrong with people, thinking that just becasue somebody didn't secure something it's their god given right to make use of it. Jesus H ***** Christ, is this what our society has devolved to? What happened to decency and respect. We ***** and moan about Bush & Co, but then turn right around and show our true colors by saying it's our right to steal bandwidth, music, video, etc, etc.

        • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4Did you ask somebody for permission to access this web site? Have you asked for permission to access any other web site? My guess is no. Your web browser asks for you. The web server accepting your request and sending the page to you is tacit permission to access the content. If a system administrator wants to make a site private he must secure the site. This is the way it should work.

          Open access points work in the same way, only go even further to actively broadcast their availability. In plain english an open WAP says "Hey, over here, unsecured Internet connection!". If a device wants to connect, it asks permission. If the WAP is so configured it then gives out the necessary information to access the network.

          To claim anything else is to actively pervert the way the system is supposed to work.
          • unreg, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Wow. That's a stretch.
          • EtherGnat, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2It's not a stretch at all. The concepts are identical.
        • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Your type, and your inability to comprehend abstract ideas (hence the rampant, badly aligned metaphors), are what's wrong with the world.

          That's really the last I have to say on the matter.
          • unreg, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Abstract ideals, is that the latest justification for stealing intellectual property?

            You're a fool
          • EtherGnat, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2It's not about people's right to steal, it's about people's right to share. Many people, including myself, have networks that they intend to share. We authorize our routers to accept incoming connections using the protocols designed for that purpose. The fact that some people are ignorant and share their connections unwittingly should not be our problem.
          • Fordi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Wait, what? What the hell does a router have to do with Intellectual Property?

            You're grasping. Just shut the hell up before you embarrass yourself more.

            Oh, and it's 'ideas', not 'ideals'. Abstract ideas are what you can't seem to comprehend, and what would make you a useful human if you could.
    • LanceHardenburg, on 03/24/2008, -1/+10Hooray for the battle of analogies.
    • Monarch818, on 03/24/2008, -0/+9Hold on, if your wifi is not secured, you are sending my computer an invitation to be part of your network. Why, because it just offered me an IP address. That, in my opinion is permission to use it. You sent out an invitation saying open network, my computer got the invitation and said thanks, send me an IP address, your WAP sends my computer an IP address, my computer sends a thank you back acknowedging the IP address, and now I'm on the internet.

      Your analogies of theft would have to include a broadcast or sign saying please feel free to enter the car and use it for it to even be closely resembling the same thing.
      A better analogy would be having a sign in the front yard of your house saying "Open House" when you are selling your house. You are inviting people to come in and look at the house, but it is implied you will not steal any of the possessions while you are doing so. So it would be like going into someone's network but then hacking into their computers and taking information. You invited someone in, but implying that anything inside that is secured is not for the taking.
    • com2, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6Except I don't have to break into your house to use your internet. You are broadcasting the signals right to me.
    • Red1000, on 03/24/2008, -9/+3Judging by the way you're getting dugg down, it looks like we have a lot of bandwidth thieves on Digg.
      • nylrym, on 03/24/2008, -0/+8No - I only use my own network, and I secure it. Don't make assumptions about motive with such flimsy support.
    • nylrym, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6No. It's not theft. It may be a TOS violation, it may violate various hacking laws, but one thing it is not is theft. Why should they have to secure their network? Because they are broadcasting their network out into the world. Your car-door analogy is useless. Your car isn't broadcasting your stuff into public space on a public frequency.
    • Kratos76, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1The person being leeched does not suffer a loss, or have something missing.
      • gudnbluts, on 03/24/2008, -0/+0Loss of speed, and if they're on a capped plan, they can download less.
  • shadowspawn, on 03/24/2008, -16/+4This is more for businesses than non-commercial "run of the mill" individuals who like to help out. And this is to stop people from doing really, really, and I mean really *bad ***** things* on the internet. Like child porn. Like harassment. Like ruining people's lives. The intent is there... the wording was lacking.
    • ubuwalker31, on 03/24/2008, -0/+10If preventing people from committing illegal activities on unsecured wi-fi is the problem, then this proposed solution is too overbroad. "Bad Things" are already illegal...why do we need to create another crime?
      • Defuser, on 03/24/2008, -3/+0Assuming that you're asking a real question, I can give you a real answer. Over the past several decades, our laws have become so pussified that Lawmakers have had to resort to creating multiple offenses for the same crime in order to assure that criminals actually end up serving jail time. Take the Kiddie Porn example from the original post. In any sane world, creating/possessing that sort of material would be a serious offense, and yet in reality, these scumbags hardly get any jail time at all. So, lawmakers come up with NEW laws to pile on the old ones, so that they can aim for a cumulative punishment, or better yet, an instant Three Strikes. Is it a good system? No. But then, neither is the system wherein sex offenders get off with Time Served, and end up killing pre-schoolers.
        • nylrym, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Then why not make it a compound offense? Make commission of a crime prerequisite for enforcement of the wifi leeching clause? Bad behavior should be proven before punishment is decided.
        • Chassit, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3Defuser is wrong. The real reason to do this is to inflate the government and to take away personal responsibility(freedom).
        • ubuwalker31, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1I think Defuser got half of the answer right. The other half of the equation is that society's morals have changed since the 1950s. It is disingenuous to suggest that people were more "sane" back then. It used to be legal to have sex minors until the 70s and 80s, when there was a liberal movement to raise the age of consent to 14, and then to 16, and then to 18. It was also perfectly acceptable to beat your wife in some jurisdictions.
          So, how does this relate to Wi-fi? There is nothing morally wrong with using someones open Wi-fi access, IMHO. So, it shouldn't be a crime. Committing a crime over an open wi-fi network is also wrong, but I question why it is necessary to punish the action...it seems like it is a lesser included offense that should be merged into the real crime committed.
    • rhyss, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4Laws need to be specific to prevent punishing the innocent. If it can't meet that test, it needs to be rewritten or struck down. IMHO.
  • IphtashuFitz, on 03/24/2008, -5/+13Let's fill up our overcrowded prisons with internet neophytes who got a free wifi router when they signed up for DSL or cable internet service and didn't know any better.

    Stupid congresscritters. They should be thrown in jail for proposing such stupid legislation.
    • rhyss, on 03/24/2008, -3/+3Actually, I think we should do the opposite. Put in the internet Luddites who don't take the time to read the 1 page section in their 5 page manual on how to secure your router so others can't get free access to them.

      The law was trying to punish people on the consumption (surfers) side rather than on the supply side (access point owners).

      But either situation shouldn't be punishable unless bad behavior occurs.
      • Chassit, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Or you could just let them suffer the consequences of their (in) action.
  • afallucco, on 03/24/2008, -8/+20My thought is, if you get wireless in your house and don't do the very small amount of research about making it secure, you deserve to have others connect to it.
    • bigdoof, on 03/24/2008, -14/+3I agree. Also, if you ever buy a car and forget to lock it, you deserve to have others drive around in it until you're back.
      • dext3r, on 03/24/2008, -3/+12You need the key to start it. Hotwiring would be destroying it. Failed analogy.
        • moonguidex, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3All of this is a fail.
        • christianhgross, on 03/24/2008, -5/+4How about, if I leave my bike unlocked in front of my house does it give you the right to ride it around the block? Answer NO! How about if I leave my house door unlocked and open, does it give the right to start tromping around?

          How about if I am a farmer and I grow crops, does it give you the right to start picking crops because one or two might be to the side of the field? Answer NO! BTW the farmer and crop is a real problem as my wife's father has to constantly content with people who think its OK to pick crops.
          • dext3r, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2But stolen crops taste the best.

          • Monarch818, on 03/24/2008, -1/+7Hold on, if your wifi is not secured, you are sending my computer an invitation to be part of your network. Why, because it just offered me an IP address. That, in my opinion is permission to use it. You sent out an invitation saying open network, my computer got the invitation and said thanks, send me an IP address, your WAP sends my computer an IP address, my computer sends a thank you back acknowedging the IP address, and now I'm on the internet.

            Your analogies of theft would have to include a broadcast or sign saying please feel free to enter the car and use it for it to even be closely resembling the same thing.

            A better analogy would be having a sign in the front yard of your house saying "Open House" when you are selling your house. You are inviting people to come in and look at the house, but it is implied you will not steal any of the possessions while you are doing so. So it would be like going into someone's network but then hacking into their computers and taking information. You invited someone in, but implying that anything inside that is secured is not for the taking.
          • Loonacy, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4Your analogy is flawed. With open wifi, I'm not touching your property at all. I'm broadcasting on PUBLICLY OWNED frequencies, and I'm monitoring for replies. If you don't want your router talking to me then secure it.
          • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2"How about if I leave my house door unlocked and open, does it give the right to start tromping around?"

            If there's a big sign out front that says "Visitors Welcome" then yes, it gives me the right. Broadcasting open wi-fi is the equivalent to that sign.
          • dandonia, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1No your stealing my bandwidth which I paid for. If everyone was unlimited in bandwidth and speed was unlimited it wouldnt matter but, your taking my bandwidth and sapping my speed. I paid for something and your using it without my permission plain and simple.
          • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2It's impossible for something to be stolen when it is explicitly offered to you. While it might be unfortunate that most routers are configured by default to allow open access, it doesn't change the fact that that is EXACTLY what those settings are designed to do.
          • dandonia, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Shops are open, but as soon as you start taking things from them without their permission your a theif. Networks are open but as soon as you start taking bandwidth without their permission your a theif.

            Im guessing EtherGnat that your quite tech minded, thats great for you but what about the other billion people on the net that have no clue how to set up security on their network. What makes you think it is ok to leech off of a service that somebody else is paying for. What about those people that have fup applied to them? Or those with limited bandwidth? They could be following the rules but by you leeching off them they end up paying more money or losing their service. It is wrong and you know it so why argue for it.
          • P1nkF70yd, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1@Dandonia - If you buy a router and have no technical experience chances are you'll read the instructions to set it up in the first place. Laziness is not an excuse, you should be responsible for your own security to some degree; any amount of security would stop casual users trying to find a connection.
        • fallenrayne, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5@christianhgross: Lets take all of your failed analogies and change it around. How about I get the right to charge someone who broadcasts their wireless signal into my house with trespassing. I didn't agree to have them broadcast a signal into my house and I think it is wrong for them to do so. Now if I do agree to them broadcasting their signal into my house and they decide (either knowingly or not) to allow me to have access to their now public broadcast, I guess it is now my right to use it. Also seeing that I asked their wireless router (you know that little thingy that acts like a doorman) and the router allowed me to enter, I am within my rights to be there.
          • dandonia, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1There are laws that allow people to broadcast for a reason or you could get onto the TV networks/Radio stations/Truck Drivers/Taxi Drivers/Anybody with a CB in range/etc. It is nothing to do with tresspassing so stop making it about something it isn't and start relising what it is.

            You are using a limited service that somebody else paid for. If their internet package is 16mbp's with a bandwidth limit of 40GB per month then they expect to have 40GB per month. They are free to use that as and when they see fit. If on the first day of the month you go on Usenet and download 40GB of material they will be over the limit the next time they use the net which will result in punishment to them no you.

            As for your "I asked the doorman" analogy. If you havn't locked your door am I to assume I can walk in and take what I want. After all the lock is your houses doorman.
        • PRlME, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2ok Morons! Wifi flows over to public areas as for having your bike on privite property you cant walk in and take it.
          Ya know what ***** all of you Just ***** you all!
        • Phearce, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3@fallenrayne: analogy war aside, you make a good point on the trespass. Consider this analogy: my porch light is bright enough that it illuminates to a nearby public sidewalk. If a passerby uses the light from my porch to read a newspaper, did they just steal my transmitted photons? Conversely, if my neighbor has a bright light that shines in my window isn't it some form of harassment/trespass?
      • skidooer, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1If I forget to lock my car, I'd be okay with others "stealing" the signal emitting from it's paint. If I'm in a really good mood I'd even let them send a signal back if they have a flashlight handy. It's my responsiblity to put a cover over my car if I really don't want anyone transmitting signals back and forth.
    • nylrym, on 03/24/2008, -0/+7Car analogy is stupid. Why won't this pointless, useless, ridiculous analogy die?
      • Robbothehood, on 03/25/2008, -1/+0Then your neighbour runs your hose to his own home and runs it 24/7 to supply his home with water, and then you have to pay for it. The costs are different, but the principle is the same.
        • Robbothehood, on 03/25/2008, -1/+0Aww, did I invalidate your opinion? Don't steal, why can't you figure that out? Don't think though, just digg me down. There you go, that heals the wrong. Wake up Digg!
    • arjie, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2My wireless network has WEP. That's easy to break, but it's also a sign that I don't want you using it. I've had at least one person break into it once, but it was used for very little before the person went away. That's okay, I don't mind sharing Internet when you suddenly realise you need it (like if you're driving past my house and need to check directions), just show some damn civic sense please. I only have a 256kbps connection and sustained use will make life hard for me.

      FTA: "if you live in a Maryland neighbourhood with broadband usage caps, it would be illegal to deliberately cause someone to overuse their bandwidth allotment." This sounds fair. It's just being a bad person to do stuff like that. Respect other people.

      Really, it's pathetic that you need laws for stuff like this that just requires decency.
    • Robbothehood, on 03/25/2008, -1/+0afallucco, that is the kind of mentality that will help you fit in perfectly here at Digg.com. He was too stupid to do anything about it, so I therefore may steal it. What? Yeah, obviously the punishment doesn't suit the crime, (I couldn't find a good way to increase the "magnitude" as it were for that particular phrase, but the punishment suffice to say is >>>>>>>>>>than the crime) but not protecting yourself is by no means an invitation to steal from you. This is similar to rapist logic: She was askin' for it, wearing those clothes! This is ridiculous, articles like this make me hate the arrogant (so arrogant, I can't think of another entity, including George Bush's government, more self absorbed and misguided than the one here) mob mentality of digg. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, especially those who mentioned "Police State" in your comments. Not everyone reads the manual, not everyone knows as much as we do about internet related topics, does this somehow grant us some right to lord over them? Digg speaks down to every person not from digg or that disagrees with the mob. What a preachy mess.
      • P1nkF70yd, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1"Not everyone reads the manual"

        I think that is the flaw in your argument, it is the owners responsibility to understand how their equipment is used, and security takes about 5 minutes to implement. Why should I be punished because someone doesn't know how to use their own stuff correctly? In many lines of work it would be illegal to plead ignorant of instruction manual procedures/ safety precautions.
  • killdashnine, on 03/24/2008, -7/+8I have to agree with most on this ... using unused bandwidth is not theft. It's not even borrowing really, just access pure and simple unless a hack is involved. Don't want your bandwidth used, secure your router! An ideal world would REQUIRE all routers to give up a free portion of bandwidth to allow travelers and others who need access a little free WiFi so they can keep Digging on vacation.
    • bigdoof, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1lol, a bandwidth tax should be enacted? I love the doubletalk of some people on here.
    • GeePrime, on 03/24/2008, -6/+1Let's relate your theory to your house/apartment.
      1 - Is it legal for me to take things from your house if you leave the door unlocked?
      2 - Should we be required to leave the door unlocked such that travellers can come sleep on your couch cause they need a little sleep?

      Where do you live? next time I travel there, I'll be sure to save money and sleep on your couch. I am, after all, using an unused couch. It's not stealing, or borrowing, really, since it never leaves your house.

      Or, how about a slashdot car analogy?
      We should all leave our keys in our car, unlocked, and let people use it. You aren't using it anyway, right? The gas they burn is similar to the data transferred over the line - since some of us do in fact have limits on how much bandwidth we can transfer, and pay extra when we go over.
      • TRENT310, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3Then for the some of you with low bandwidth limits, then secure your wireless network if you have one. I take a secured network as a message that they do not want external users connecting to it and I will respect it. Exceptions are, perhaps, if I needed it to save someone's life, in which case I will have enough motivation to crack it.

        However my point is that 'bandwidth' is a non-tangible thing. It uses electricity, which is a form of energy, but the argument here is not mainly power draw but 'bandwidth draw' - which people will argue that it isn't stealing because it really isn't using up some finite supply of 'bandwidth' in the world. And I don't mean the electromagnetic spectrum bandwidth here.

        The fact is that if you leave something unlocked, someone is going to take advantage of it. For example, if you leave your garbage can (I am talking about the large, commercial rent ones) unlocked - someone is going to come by to throw trash into it.

        But all of these analogies suck because it is difficult to compare real life and virtual things. OK - So your 'public use vehicle' uses gasoline. It undergoes combustion and then the engine turns it into other forms of energy. It is true that there is a limited supply of gasoline in the world. However, with computer networks, there is no physical limit of the amount of frames that can be sent over a network. There is no way to 'run out' of network frames. Therefore, the only valid argument here is that it uses energy in electricity form, which the user does have to pay on demand. And that's another argument.
        • Robbothehood, on 03/25/2008, -1/+0I'll try my hand at an analogy: Tom's neighbour John, routinely uses Tom's pool without permission. Tom paid for the pool installation, and continues to pay for it's upkeep. This doesn't really cost Tom any money, but is that an excuse? Even if there is no inconvenience to the owner of the network, it is still wrong to take advantage of them. If you want internet you should pay for it. Why not split it with the neighbour if you're using it? It's only the right thing to do.
  • laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -2/+18Broadcasting unsecured WiFi constitutes an Attractive Nuisance (Google it). Using unsecured WiFi is a victimless crime. Whoever suggested ten years imprisonment should be fired forthwith.
    • rikwakefield, on 03/24/2008, -6/+5Connecting to someone's WiFi to perform illegal activity is not a victimless crime.
      • TRENT310, on 03/24/2008, -0/+8Correct. Performing illegal activity is a crime. The using of wifi to do such is not.
        Buying a weapon is not a crime; using it to do criminal activity is. It is only a weapon if you use it as one.
      • senae, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1I'm going to say it should be, if only to ensure that the person that the criminal that connected to isn't sent to jail for downloading Child porn. It'd only stop sloppy pedophiles, but if someone registers their brand new Intel Laptop it'd be trivial to find them by their MAC address.

        And yes, that should be the case now, but Law Enforcement isn't always on the ball when it comes to technology.
      • Robbothehood, on 03/25/2008, -1/+0Hopping on once because you are away from your own internet is fine. If you habitually use someone else's internet because they don't secure it, then that is wrong. Yes, there is no victim, but why shouldn't you pay for internet, when they have to? If a neighbour doesn't secure his pool, it doesn't mean you have the right to jump in. Of course, there's no denying that this bill should be struck down, and the sensationalist fool who proposed it should be investigated or educated, but stealing is wrong.
  • mcse2k3, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2It's a stupid scare tactic.....
  • JerodSlay, on 03/24/2008, -1/+7Unfortunately it's been illegal in Texas for a long time:
    Section 33.02. Breach of Computer Security
    a. A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the owner.

    I guess one could argue that leaving it open or unencrypted is "effective consent," but who knows?
    • depro9, on 03/24/2008, -5/+10***** Texass, run by a bunch of ***** retarded good ol boys.
    • vertinox, on 03/24/2008, -2/+27If you take that law literally, then you must ask every webmaster for permission to access their server on port 80.
      • depro9, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4PWNT them rednecks!
      • ucbluman, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3this is not an example of an application of the law, because a webmaster puts his website up with implicit consent for public use of the materials contained therein.
        • insomniac8400, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2But the same argument applies to unencrypted wifi. Windows will connect to these APs automatically if they are the strongest signal.
        • Robbothehood, on 03/25/2008, -1/+0If your home internet access is paid for by somebody else, and they haven't said you can use it, then why are you?
    • staeiou, on 03/24/2008, -0/+17I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your computer sends out a request for an IP address to a specific router. That router assigns your computer an IP address with which you can access the network (and usually, the Internet). That is effective consent. Here is an analogy: you walk up to an apartment that has one of those new electronic door systems. You ask the computer for access, and give it some information when requested (say, your name). It prints up a nametag for you to wear and unlocks the door. You put the nametag on, and walk in. Is this trespassing? The owner of the building never actually directly authorized you to come in, but there is a reasonable expectation that such a system was 1) installed with the owner's consent and 2) used to control access to the building on behalf of the owner. That's effective consent in my book. (but not a lawyer not not giving legal advice)

      Now, I strongly believe that anyone who gains access to another person's network without their permission by cracking encryption or spoofing MAC addresses is a criminal and should be held responsible for that. But not open access networks - that is just absurd.
      • yunus, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1What if the SSID is "NOTrespassing"?
        • insomniac8400, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2No dice, if the AP grants you access, you are no longer trespassing.
      • Robbothehood, on 03/25/2008, -1/+0No statement of consent does not equal consent. Another analogy would be a neighbour's backyard pool. It isn't secured, but are you allowed to come use it? Walking into a building is far from "using" it, which is required of this situation. If someone leaves the key under the mat, can you enter and sleep there?
      • JerodSlay, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1I would disagree. Most people, and keep in mind here that's who we are talking about... non digg users, would say they bought a wireless router for themselves and no one else. Just because they don't know how to encrypt it doesn't mean they gave consent. An open gate or open front door is not consent to enter a house/property.

        A router giving and IP is not at all the same as a person giving another permission to user their internets.
        *Props to the first lawyer to user "internets" in court.
  • bigdoof, on 03/24/2008, -12/+2Even if the access point is left unsecured, it still seems like stealing to me, If that's not the case, maybe I'll buy the same cordless phone as my neighbor, select the same frequency, and not worry about the phone bill for a while.
    • phybere, on 03/24/2008, -0/+9Modern phones use encryption (trunking, actually) so that you can't use/listen in on someones phone, very similar to how modern WAP's use encryption...
      • TRENT310, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1Unless they're fully digital, FHSS operates on a set pattern that can be decoded. Obviously it needs to be a pattern so that the handset and base can switch in a synchronized manner. It's not really encryption though. Plenty of phones in use still only switch channels every time they are keyed up. I mean...used. That works in a way similar to 2-way trunked radio systems (although without the control channel). It is difficult to accidentally use someone else's phone though.
    • Chassit, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5Also, wouldn't you want people to call you?

      ***** poor analogy.
  • PRlME, on 03/24/2008, -2/+11I got a Hotbrick load balancing router, 2 incomming cable lines (soon to be 1 Verizon Fioz and 1 Cable), 1 AP on top my house broadcasting SSID "FreeNET Use me for free". If you happen to live on my block your hooked up! ever since AOL I thought the internet should be free. But then again some ones got to pay for the lines to your house -=/

    PS Hotbrick routers are good and cheap
    • xsquirrel378x, on 03/24/2008, -4/+3i would keep my router open if it wasnt for the fact i have like 3 registered sex offenders in my neighborhood. no way im risking getting v& for someone elses CP
    • stepy835, on 03/24/2008, -0/+7You're a good man Charlie Brown.
    • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2I applaud your intentions but you're almost certainly violating your terms of service with your providers. Be careful and good luck!
      • PRlME, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2no if i was charging for it then i would be violating there TOS. How do you know I just dont want a stronger signal for lets say walking with my laptop around the block while trying to play Gears of War? Huh?
        • EtherGnat, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Read your TOC. I almost guarantee you there are prohibitions about sharing your access. For example, Comcast's TOS state (in part):

          "Network and usage restrictions:
          ...
          resell the Service or otherwise make available to anyone outside the Premises the ability to use the Service (for example, though wi-fi or other methods of networking), in whole or in part, directly or indirectly. The Service is for personal and non-commercial residential use only and you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider or for any business enterprise or purpose (whether or not for profit);"

          Whether they can prove it or not is a different story, but watch your back.
    • insomniac8400, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Too bad hotbrick routers suck. Had one for 3 years and it was nothing but trouble. Only the latest firmware in January finally fixed it enough to be acceptable to use. If you want a good router get a draytek dual wan router. It does way more, is a little cheaper, and works perfectly.
    • palmer, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1"If you happen to live on my block your hooked up!"

      YOU'RE hooked up.
  • macdaddy357, on 03/24/2008, -2/+25Here's what the law should be: leaving an access point unsecured constitutes giving permission to the public to use it.
    • reed311, on 03/24/2008, -10/+4I disagree with that. Some people leave their router open because they have no idea how to secure it. So, essentially, they leave it open by accident. In comparison, no reasonable person would say that you are giving the public permission to use your vehicle if you accidentally leave your keys in the car door. If someone wants to leech my Internet, they are going to have to help pay for it.
      • Loonacy, on 03/24/2008, -1/+11Greeting reed311. It has recently come to our attention that you have accessed digg.com on port 80 over the internet. Just because it allowed you to connect, replied when you requested a web page, and didn't give any indication you weren't allowed on, you still didn't get permission before connecting. Stealing our bandwidth is a very serious offense. You'll be hearing from our lawyers. Have a nice day.
      • Chassit, on 03/24/2008, -3/+1Those people should get off of their lazy asses and read the ***** manual. It is not the governments responsibility to legislate common sense. Personally, I think that if you leave your WAP open and someone downloads child porn on it, that makes you an accessory. Take some responsibility people.
        • tba2287, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2I agreed with what you said up until the child porn scenario.
      • cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3Sorry bud...ignorance in the eye of the law is no excuse. This has been long standing.
    • Robbothehood, on 03/25/2008, -1/+0This doesn't address people who don't know how to secure a network, or won't regularly check those connected to ensure nobody's hopping on it. That law is skewed to protect the offenders (too strong a word but...) as opposed to the victims. John pays for internet, it should be assumed that only he and those he gives permission, not assumed permission from lack of preventative measures, should be allowed to use it. I can see what you mean, especially since his bill tries to punish the "violator" so strongly it brings to mind the idea of using a nuclear bomb to kill a noisome housefly. I would say that it's really only wrong to rely on someone else's WiFi for your home internet. Using it once or twice because you're away from home is fine.
      • P1nkF70yd, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1If you own a wireless router you also own instructions for securing a network, ignorance is not an excuse. In your example Jon gives permission by way of his router telling whoever is trying to use his network that they can.
  • fani, on 03/24/2008, -2/+20a) Its my ***** router. I will open it or secure it however I please.
    b) 10 years ? Who're the dumb idiots who come up with this ?

    If they want security to be so important, force the HW vendors to have a default encryption turned on with a paper distributing the first random key instead of leaving the WiFi's open. My neighborhood still shows a few "Linksys", "Netgears"....
    • Robbothehood, on 03/25/2008, -1/+0Thank you, how did you get diggs in this sea of "If you don't secure your router then you deserve to have your internet stolen" comments? I hope most diggers are just railing against the ridiculousness of this bill and the (probably ignorant) fool who proposed it.
  • ArchieAndrews, on 03/24/2008, -9/+4If my neighbor buys cable TV and doesn't physically block the wires on the outside of his house from me, can I splice in and get cable too? How far does this rationale extend?
    • metaliq, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2Sounds wonderfully brilliant to me.


      But you're paying for bandwidth when you purchase internet, not contracted userability.
      So the comparison is fairly irrelevent.
      • ArchieAndrews, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1I think I should state that I agree that we should be able to access unsecured wifi points. I am just not comfortable with the rationale offered in this article. I am not so sure, even with your heartfelt declaration, that this is so irrelevant.
    • Monarch818, on 03/24/2008, -2/+5Hold on, if your wifi is not secured, you are sending my computer an invitation to be part of your network. Why, because it just offered me an IP address. That, in my opinion is permission to use it. You sent out an invitation saying open network, my computer got the invitation and said thanks, send me an IP address, your WAP sends my computer an IP address, my computer sends a thank you back acknowedging the IP address, and now I'm on the internet.



      Your analogies of theft would have to include a broadcast or sign saying please feel free to enter the car and use it for it to even be closely resembling the same thing.

      A better analogy would be having a sign in the front yard of your house saying "Open House" when you are selling your house. You are inviting people to come in and look at the house, but it is implied you will not steal any of the possessions while you are doing so. So it would be like going into someone's network but then hacking into their computers and taking information. You invited someone in, but implying that anything inside that is secured is not for the taking.
      • ArchieAndrews, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2It's not offering you an ip unless you request one. You explicitly start the dhcp chain of events, not the router.
        • thebigbradwolf, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4You mean by receiving the SSID Broadcast...?
          • ArchieAndrews, on 03/24/2008, -4/+1Now we are splitting hairs. The SSID values in the beacon are akin, in my example, the the fact that your neighbors house is self-evidently there, next door to you. The cable wires on the outside of the house show anyone who cares to look that he has cable. You run software to discover wireless networks, the beacon allows you to see the network exists. Period.

            The DHCP protocol and routine beacons are not invitations to join the network.
          • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1"The SSID values in the beacon are akin, in my example, the the fact that your neighbors house is self-evidently there, next door to you."

            Another ***** poor analogy. Imagine the house has three buttons. One that makes the house invisible to anybody who doesn't already know it's there. Another button allows the house to be seen, but activates a large neon NO TRESPASSING SIGN. A third button allows the house to be seen and activates a large neon VISITORS WELCOME sign.

            If the visitors welcome sign is lit, it's OK to go knock on the door. There is a doorman that may either have a list of allowed visitors, or instructions to allow anybody to enter the premises. If your doorman allows me in based on the rules you have given him, you can't suddenly decide to be mad at me for being in your house.
          • ArchieAndrews, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Speaking of ***** poor analogies, you don't think it a bit disingenuous to compare setting up wep for the average user to pushing a button on the side of the house? The problem is that wep is challenging for the average user so they don't do it. Does that mean they are inviting you into their network? Ultimately, that is my question.Your example has the flaw that many people don't know that the doorman even exists, let alone how to instruct him. Does their ignorance mean that they get a diminished experience because they are not the sole consumer of the commodity they pay for?

            I still think some kind of explicit opt-in is required. Do you have an issue if people are required to opt-in to allow users to access but the default is locked?
          • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1"Do you have an issue if people are required to opt-in to allow users to access but the default is locked?"

            No, if you read my other comments you'd see I'm a proponent of making routers locked by default. Regardless, however, their ignorance should not prevent me from using my equipment in the way it was designed to be used. Between work and home I'm responsible for 8 different wireless routers and gateways. Some are configured for open access, some are secured, and permutations in between. All are set up to meet my needs.

            Yes, ignorance of security options are a problem, but why is it *my* problem? My equipment works exactly the way I need it to. If you have a problem with how routers are shipped by default take it up with them.

        • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2"It's not offering you an ip unless you request one."

          So now I have to have permission before I ask for something? Do I have to ask somebody to make sure it's OK to ask also?
          • ArchieAndrews, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1We were speaking specifically about the dhcp protocol. I was pointing out to the poster that the router does not invite his machine to participate in the network as he indicated. It doesn't spontaneously offer to give ip addesses to any machine in range. If the network is open, the dhcp server will give him an ip in response to his request for one. That's all. I am not sure what point you are making.
          • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1You're implying that it's somehow wrong for somebody's computer to *ask* a router for an IP address. It can't *demand* an IP address--it asks nicely. The router either acknowledges or refuses that request based on very specific rules, as it is programmed to respond by its owner. I don't see where you find any ambiguity in this process.
          • ArchieAndrews, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Once again, I am not implying anything. I am stating exactly what I meant. The person I was responding to didn't seem to understand the technology he was quoting so I corrected him. A DHCP session starts with a request, not a broadcast. He was stating that the router was somehow inviting him to get an ip. I disagree and so does the DHCP protocol.
    • schroeder, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2If his cable setup had a wireless transmitter and was sending data unencrypted to your house and you were picking it up on a standard TV antenna, why would it be illegal to passively scan that data? It is very simple to lock it down. It's not even an issue.
      • ArchieAndrews, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Answer my question first: Would you feel comfortable splicing into your neighbors cable TV feed? I mean, at this point , all we are discussing is the medium of transmission here, you would be achieving the same end as your example. The feed over the cable wire is unencrypted and broadcast and could be passively scanned/viewed.

        Are the differing viewpoints due to the fact we can connect to neighbor's wifi from the comfort of our computers rather than actually manipulating solid things that actually belong to someone else that we feel it is somehow different than going out and splicing wires?

        I don't care how simple it is to lockdown wifi points. Is the simple fact that they aren't really an invitation to connect? Again, I feel that open wifi should be used, I am just not sold on this rationalization for why.
        • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1"I am just not sold on this rationalization for why."

          One of the wonderful things about computers is that we can automate processes to eliminate human involvement. This is exactly what we have done in creating protocols and security that allow computers to ask for and receive permission to access a network. If you require people to actually seek out and ask permission you're screwing up the entire process. It'd be no different than requiring people to call on the phone and ask permission before trying to access a web site.

          • ArchieAndrews, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Straw man. I am not suggesting any alternative system, let alone some method of speaking to people directly for access to wireless points. I am simply not sold on the one being presented in this article.

            The question still stands and you have paraphrased what I already said in the message you reply to: Is it really just the medium of delivery that makes this ok? Accessing someone else's wifi point and internet connection is ok but splicing into the neighbors cable TV setup isn't? If something becomes easy to do, does that automatically make it right?
          • EtherGnat, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1It's not a straw man. Your cable analogy is horribly, tragically flawed. There is a precise, well thought out proces