1st criminal Wi-Fi access case?
p2pnet.net News:- A Florida war driver has been nabbed in one of the first criminal cases centering on “unauthorized” Wi-Fi access.
Police say Benjamin Smith III, 41, “admitted using the Wi-Fi signal from the home of Richard Dinon, who had noticed Smith sitting in an SUV outside Dinon’s house using a laptop computer,” says the Associated Press.
Now Smith faces a pretrial hearing this month for unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony in America.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Associated Press – Man Charged With Stealing Wi-Fi Signal , July 6, 2005
July 7th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
I think it should be the owner of the WiFi that should be arrested. He was broadcasting his connection to the world allowing anyone to use it, which breaks the ToS of most ISPs.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
I think it should be you that should be arrested, since you’re too stupid to differentiate between a service contract and criminal law. STFUKTHXBYE
July 7th, 2005 at 11:53 pm
I think also that the owner may be arrested (should) since he was too stupid to control his ip and his network. How can you call it unauthorized access when it is out in the open? Those dumb a** people these days.
July 8th, 2005 at 12:02 am
i think you should shut up, stop insulting people who have an opinion, and at the same time you’ll not show your own arrogance and ignoramous mentality to the world. it’s not wanted here, nor is it appreciated.
go find your crayons and coloring books and try to stay in the lines.
STFUKTHXBYEDUHDUHDUHDUHDUHDUDUH
July 8th, 2005 at 12:32 am
Say what you will, the man accessed the network unauthorized.
If you leave your front door open and someone walks in and takes stuff, you may be stupid, but the thief is still going to go to jail. It is against the law to walk into someone’s home uninvited, whether the door is locked or not.
It should be the same with our networks.
July 8th, 2005 at 6:22 am
If I was sitting in my vehicle on a laptop and someone tried to accuse me of unauthorized access to their network, I wouldn’t know what they are talking about. Not to mention I’d demand solid proof of the access. I doubt someone stupid enough to leave a wireless access point without encryption in an area that it could be accessible will have packet capture logs that show a rogue system.
July 8th, 2005 at 6:28 am
Well, when you post an opinion as moronic as the one that you did, be prepared for some flak. Don’t like it, don’t post.
July 8th, 2005 at 6:32 am
I have to agree with this. But remember, the person who was arrested admitted to access the network, which makes him guilty by self-incrimination.
July 8th, 2005 at 6:38 am
How can this be unauthorized? If you leave your Wi-Fi open, then you are inviting someone to use it, reguardless of what the law says. Now, if the Wi-Fi was encrypted and he hacked into it, then they might have a case.
Personally, if Mr. Dinon says it was unauthorized, then why didn’t he encrypt the link or use some other type of protection? I think that Mr. Smith will be aquitted due to the stupidity of Mr. Dinon, at least he should be. I know I would return a not guilty verdict on this one.
July 8th, 2005 at 7:07 am
a better analogy (taken from a slashdot folowup post):
- SSID was advertising the availability of the access point.
- Absense of encryption re-enforces the fact that this was not a private network.
- DHCP giving an IP address is as good as saying “have a seat, enjoy the connection”.
A good analogy would be to have a big sign in front of your house saying “Cookies inside!” (SSID). You leave the door propped open (lack of encryption). You have someone inside pull up a chair and invite the person to sit down and enjoy said cookies (DHCP).
July 8th, 2005 at 7:14 am
Why is it that so many computer users have no clue about security or even the need for security?
By the logic of invading a wireless network, why the heck should spyware not be hounded out of business. It isn’t like you invite them either. You have to admit that spyware is a lot more intrusive and a lot more prevalent than someone stealing bandwidth from a wi-fi. The spyware steals it also and in a very underhanded way. Hidden in the EULA will be the “you permit” but in reality, just how many do see the end of the EULA, much less read through it. EULA is another thing that should be looked at for legality. The way it is presented is what I mean. There should be a plain text language, here it is, right out in front of you, permit to install such. It is rare that in the EULA they are going to tell you the spyware could cause your system to slow down, that it will take your bandwidth to do its thing, or that it is going to be intrusive to your privacy.
Personally I think a better case could be made for the spyware as a thieving intruder than the bandwidth hacker. The spyware is simply so wide spread that you can not surf the net without running into it. A bandwidth thief on the street is a luck of the draw and the lack of a clue of security.
July 8th, 2005 at 9:40 am
It was only a matter of time. Especially Florida. One of the most conservative states in the union. Remember “Two-Live Crew” and “Elvis”. Anyways I war drive for a reason I’ll get to in a second.
First here are a few facts. Wi-Fi is a F.C.C. part 15 device operating on the ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) Radio Band.
The F.C.C. does not require the operator to have a license. Part 15 states mostly that the operator of the device agrees to accept any undesirable interference caused by another Part 15 device. Baby Monitor, Cordless Phone etc. This is radio interference preventing the device from operating. So really Part 15 doesn’t really protect the war driver from accessing a network as many people claim.
If I picked up my neighbors talking on their cordless phone with my police scanner this is considered invasion of privacy and illegal wiretap without their knowledge.
I war drive but I never access a network without permission. I log access points and frequencies to plot out a usage map so the wireless internet company I work for can operate on unused channels for better results.
Using someone’s wifi internet connection without permission should be illegal just like if I used their phone line to make a call with a cordless phone on the same channel.
I have an access point connected to my DSL, I allow my neighbor to use my internet connection. My access point is locked down by MAC address so its not just wide open. I tried having it wide open but people were using all the bandwidth I was paying for.
Just my two cents!
CMS in Yakima,WA
July 9th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
[quote]If I picked up my neighbors talking on their cordless phone with my police scanner this is considered invasion of privacy and illegal wiretap without their knowledge. [/quote]
No it isn’t. Federal law allows you to listen to any conversation so long as you don’t repeat to a third party what you heard. This is why the pepole who picked dup Newt Gingrich in Florida a decade ago were in trouble, because they repeated what they picked up.
July 10th, 2005 at 5:42 am
“Using someone’s wifi internet connection without permission should be illegal just like if I used their phone line to make a call with a cordless phone on the same channel.”
If the connection is wide open and unsecured and throwing DHCP everywhere, it cannot be easily distinguished from “HA! I found a free Wi-Fi access point!” unless the user is technically capable enough to determine that the network is a privately owned network. If you don’t want birds to fly into your home, don’t leave the doors and windows wide open. They don’t know better. The thieves, however, do know better, but you can’t apply a law based solely on how much someone knows. In the interests of preserving personal freedom over restricting it, unencrypted access points with DHCP enabled and no MAC filtering should be considered no different from the free wireless offerings at various restaurants and other businesses.
July 10th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
So basically what you are saying is that I can listen just don’t tell anyone. Like it’s okay to steal just don’t get caught! This is what you are saying. What if I tap into your power meter and use $1000 worth of your electricity and you don’t know it. Well his power meter is next to mine he should have built a fence around it.
CMS
July 10th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
It is still theft of service. Wired/Wireless/Encrypted or otherwise. You are getting something for nothing. There is no such thing as a free lunch. It’s okay to go up to the door and knock (associate to an access point). Just don’t walk in uninvited or kick the door down.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:36 am
The airwaves are a public medium. You can’t expect to broadcast on them and control who recieves the signal. If you don’t like that then don’t broadcast your phone conversations for a 1/4 mile radius of your home!
It’s kinda like being at a tennis match, with complete silence, and screaming something to someone on the opposite side of the stadium… can one really be so naive as to believe no one else wil hear it? No, of course not. Now, you could always make you’re own language so that no one else *understands* what you’re saying but should a third party figure out your language then it’s time for you to come up with a new language.
Now digital communications, in the US, fall under the DMCA which created new (and illegal) rules that benefit the corporate monopolies. Think about it, what is digital communication but regular data encoded with 1s and 0s… well what the hell do you think morse code is?!? It’s sequences of 1s and 0s… so why isn’t decoded morse code now illegal? Well, in all likelyhood, a prosecutor could probably prosecute on the letter of the law, someone decrypting morse code.
Until the DMCA is repealed the citizenry of the US will continue to be deprivved of the airwaves which they own.
For there to be “trespassing” there must be a private property which can be trespassed. Since airwaves do not and cannot belong to anyone other than the public, there is nothing to trespass on!
July 13th, 2005 at 5:53 am
The airwaves are NOT public! That is why there is an FCC to regulate the frequencies. It’s illegal to intercept cellular phone conversations for example. That is why police scanners have those ranges blocked. Now we are talking about part 15 devices like Wi-Fi,CB, Cordess phones etc. Those frequencies are ok to monitor and operate on. However even though it is legal to connect to another part 15 device like a Wireless Access Point it is illegal to steal service. Service as in internet access without permission. Wireless really has nothing to with it. Using someone else’s internet connection without their permission is theft of service. No if I connected to an access point and there was nothing connected to it then no problem.
July 13th, 2005 at 11:56 am
The airwaves DO belong to the people, read the law.
As former FCC Commissioner Michael J Copps put it in June 2003:
“We should begin by examining the law. What does the law tell us? The Communications Act tells us to use our rules to promote localism, diversity and competition. It reminds us that the airwaves belong to the American people, and that no broadcast station, no company, no single individual owns an airwave in America. The airwaves belong to all the people. And the Supreme Court has upheld media protections, stating that “it is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee.”"
Now the FCC is a bureaucracy and cannont make laws, it exists to protect the public interest (hah) and allocate frequency ranges. It has grabbed far more power than was supposed to have been granted to them.
New cellular phones have digital encryption and therefor fall under the DMCA thus making them illegal to intercept, also the DMCA bans the technology from being sold to decrypt such transmissions. Early in the 90s, before digitally encrypted cellular phones were in use, it became illegal for new radio scanners in the US to pick up the allocated cellular ranges (This was easily defeated however with a down-converter).
I contend that no theft of service takes place on a publicly available and wide open wireless access point.