A Thread About The Legality of Using Others Bandwidth- Renamed From the Original

[muffin]

The hardware and software on my machine allows me to make use of the free to air access through legal retail options thus providing me an opportunity for access via a hotspot. If i then use the internet in a legal and unmalicious manner am i really breaking any laws, or are you just looking to write a little line of grey text in an ever growing volume of grey?

I am able therefore I am allowed? My 8 year old likes to try that one.

Your hardware allows you to make use of free access, but was that it's intention? My car "allows me" to run things down. My .410 "allows me" to shoot at whatever I want to. My pen and chequebook "allow me" to write a cheque for millions of dollars... are any of these legal? Nope.

Ref: Mike Bobbit's points: (my opinion anyway - for what it's worth)

1. Let's say I have a wireless access point (WAP), and so does my neighbour. We're both on channel 7 because that's the default. He's now cutting in to my wireless bandwidth, and vice-versa. My signal will degrade and I'll get less of my paid service because of his "interference." Based on some of the arguments above, he's "stealing" (or degrading at the very least) my paid service. And yet neither he nor I am doing anything wrong.

You are taking the risk of degrading your service by installing a router anyway. A cordless phone or a baby monitor can affect signal, as well as many other devices. These risks have been outlined in the directions/troubleshooting for every router I have ever installed - and they usually do mention other routers. He isn't stealing your service because he isn't accessing it. He may be degrading it, but that is not the same thing as piggybacking. It's a troubleshooting issue. When I installed a router in my house I had to buy new cordless phones in 2 different frequencies and put them in specific rooms so they wouldn't affec my signal. Most other routers I have installed didn't have any interference what-so-ever... so it's hit and miss.

2. Now let's say we also have the same SSID, and my laptop is configured to automatically connect to my network. However it can't really distinguish between the 2, being on the same channel with the same SSID, so sometimes it may connect to my neighbours. Neither he nor I are likely to notice. Is this an offence? I know ignorance is no excuse, but there may be no technical way to avoid this situation. Unless the law dictates what my SSID can or can't be, and then where do we stop?

I think you hit the hammer on the head with "ignorance is no excuse". If you are going to buy a car you have to learn how to drive it, or get someone to drive you around. If you buy some new-to-you technology - learn how to set it up, or get someone to set it up for you. The CD you get with most routers will walk you through everything, and most automatically set encryption for you. If you are installing it without the CD, then you already know enough to manage the security. Most times I recommend not even broadcasting the SSID.

3. Similar to above, if my laptop is configured to automatically associate with my home WAP (which uses all default settings, of course), am I committing a crime when my laptop autmatically connects to another WAP with default configuration if I travel? I may not have even asked it to connect to the Internet, but it's configured to do so automatically whenever it can.

This is another case of ignorance as the excuse as far as I am concerned. If you aren't sure you will have legitimatly free access, why are you travelling with your Wifi on? Most Laptops just have a little switch to turn it off. Free internet hotspots are usually labeled - and there are signs. You can look them up before you travel too. As I mentioned before, just because you can connect to anything doesn't mean you should

The law needs to accommodate these scenarios in any type of enforcement.

Some additional thoughts to further muddy the waters:

    * Encryption on WAPs can be difficult to configure. We can't expect everyone to have the required expertise to set it up, verify and maintain it over time. We certainly can't expect the law to require it.
see number 1
    * WAPs are a commodity item now. Even my mother has one (see the above item!) see number 1
    * Wireless signals are available almost everywhere in urban areas. Some are private and open, some are private and closed, and some are hotspots meant for free/customer use. That's true - and if they aren't the public use ones, you shouldn't be on them. You can ask the kid behind the counter at starbucks what the name of the net is - and make sure you get the right one.
    * There is no standard way to distinguish a private/open WAP from a hotspot, so you may *think* you're connecting to the Starbucks wireless, but you're actually hitting a private resident's WAP.  Like I said, ask when you are ordering your coffee - it only takes a second.

 

[c_canuk]

If you are sitting back using the bandwidth that you know someone else is paying for and may result in additional charges to them then you are morally challenged. Taking advantage of someone because they do not have the skills and knowledge that you do is an immoral act.

As for assertion of others that it is the persons responsibility when they set up their network - my network was setup by Rogers. The nice man left it in the default settings.  I knew to secure it but my wife didn't.  She, like lots of others out there I would wager, assumed that when he set up the network he secured it.  Not knowing too much beyond push this button to turn it on she would have been left with an unsecure network. Guess it would be her fault for not being a computer person and knowing about secure networks. Read the manual - are you for real?? Most IT have trouble understanding the bloody things. Call and talk to tech support - read this, its what tech support sounds like to my wife:   WKJDE(*(&#$LISDHJER*(&#SDSLDKH*#($HSDJE(R*EHF.

READ YOUR DOCUMENTATION INCLUDED WITH YOUR PRODUCT

by using public radio frequencies you are REQUIRED by the FCC and CRTC to emit no interference and recieve transmissions, your WiFi Access Point (WAP) must by law allow incomming signals. You are not allowed to encrypt, scramble or otherwise obscure your signal in a way that makes it unreadable...

what you can do however is encrypt the network using the signal.

When you use a public frequency within your home, anyone who recieves it can interact with it legally. Your signal is a beacon saying "Hello! I'm here!" if you choose not to log into your router and shut off the beacon and/or apply data encryption it is your fault if someone connects to it.  Public signals are not subject to property laws any more than the oxygen trees in your yard produce.

You are not legally allowed to claim any signal you broadcast on public frequency's as your property.

the manuals that come with the product have pictures and one line per picture instruction that a 12 year old could follow, the connection information is generally written on the bottom of the router next to the serial number from the factory which brings you to a web page hosted on the router's internal network that has a wizard for setting up the router including wireless security.

if you can log onto army.ca and post a message, you can RTFM and secure your wireless network.

Don't know about the legal aspects of stealing bandwidth(and yes I will continue to call it stealing because in my books that is what it is) but it sure as hell is not morally right.

and you would be wrong.

an unsecured router by default acts like a beacon, it is your responsibility to be familiar with your device on condition of using it, ignorance of the law is no excuse. and there is a lot of precedent set, most notably by a man who brought a laptop into the court room, and showed how windows automatically will try to connect to the internet and will do so with an unsecure wireless connection if you click one single yes button.

Imagine your grandmother being labled a criminal just because she accidentally connected to the wrong network that is beaming "I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!! I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!" into her house.

the problem in your case was a neglectful service technition or policy from Rogers.

BTW there are a lot of people who deliberatly leave their wireless internet connections unsecured.

some are altruistic and think the internet and access to informations should always be free and don't mind sharing the wealth

some are looking for suckers to connect so they can steal information

some are large organizations and municipalities looking to draw economic revenue by adding services to the vicinity of their area to draw tourists and other consumers.

So now with this all thrown in the mix, how am I to know which WiFi is left unsecured because they want me to connect to it, and which are users too lazy to read a 5 page pictographic pamphlet on a piece of equipment that is mandated to play nice with me.

You can call it theft if you want, but it isn't. You are providing public access to your bandwidth by not securing your network and the onus is on you to know the rules and to set your equipment up properly.

 

[muffin]

So I take it that you find the Laws about Electronic Eavesdropping to be morally and ethically wrong?  And that there is nothing wrong with the Police or any other Agency listening to your 'broadcast' signals at any time they wish, without a Warrant to do so?

The problem isn't the listening... it's what they do once they've heard.

 

[George Wallace]

The problem isn't the listening... it's what they do once they've heard.

So going back to

Then it becomes intent of usage. Are you using it to break a law, if yes then so be it, if you are NOT using it to break a law and it's available free to you in your living room without manipulation or hacking of any kind are you then breaking the law? No.

Then to view it free is OK, but to start to manipulate it (ie. use it) is against the law?

 

[40below]

Were my cordless phone, by some miracle of technology and imagination, be compatible with my neighbour's base (and I knew the dial tone to not be mine as my phone was not yet connected), and were I to use this dial tone for local calls, would I be committing an offence?  What if these were chargeless yet embarassing numbers, such as escorts?  What if they incurred charges, such as long distance or the Monk Brucehouse Hotline?

The frequency of our phones falls under Mr. Campbell's excemption clause.  My neighbour's failure to properly secure his phone line against my intrusion falls under various other moral grey areas.  Is there only an offence when there is tangible harm?

With the proviso that I Am Not A Lawyer, yes.

This debate is sliding away from what is legal into arguing what is ethical, based on one's own personal system of beliefs. And while you're perfectly entitled to hold and argue them, they're not law. I'm not advocating piggybacking on someone else's WiFi, just pointing out that it is not yet proven to be a crime. And to use a word that's been used a lot already in this debate, that fact is obvious. You can paint a worst-case scenario of someone using another person's entire bandwidth to download gigs of kiddie porn but a) it's unlikely, for reasons I'd be happy to get into, and b) is another crime entirely. You can argue that it's not ethical and you wouldn't do it, which can be applied to any number of things, but you can't argue that it's illegal or prohibited in this country. Well, you can, but it isn't.

irrelevant??
If you are sitting back using the bandwidth that you know someone else is paying for and may result in additional charges to them then you are morally challenged. Taking advantage of someone because they do not have the skills and knowledge that you do is an immoral act.
what it is) but it sure as hell is not morally right.

The trouble with sweeping moral statements like that is they're moral and they're sweeping. First off, if I use an unsecured network to check my web mail or surf for 15 minutes to kill time, I'm not going to exhaust their bandwidth. I have better things to do than stand on a sidewalk for eight hours downloading torrents, and people might get suspicious. As to your second point, it's a sweet sentiment but not exactly a bright-line rule. Ever been to a Goodwill or a garage sale, or eBay of Craigslist for that matter, and bought something that you knew was worth a lot more than it cost, because you had skills and knowledge that the seller didn't? Ever went back and gave your profit after you resold it to the person you "took advantage of?" Me either.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

So I take it that you find the Laws about Electronic Eavesdropping to be morally and ethically wrong?  There is nothing wrong with the Police or any other Agency listening to your 'broadcast' signals at any time they wish, without a Warrant to do so.

That's different and you know it.

Manipulating the data stream or uncoding the data is considered hacking.

Using the free bandwith WITHOUT any maniplulation meaning- installing the wireless ethernet adapter(available for sale legally in canada) and turning on your computer(also legally for sale in canada) to make use of a free internet access hotspot(made freely available by someone else) via the legally obtained hardware, is not what i would consider a valid argument for someone breaking a law nor should it be fodder for the justice system to create one.

Obviously the next step everyone will immediately jump to is INTENT and that's where the law begins and ends.

"did you use it, yes, did you use it to break a law yes, guilty."
" did you use it, yes, did you use it to break a law, no. not guilty."

No matter how you wanna debate it, there is grey all over it. you can spin it in almost any direction you want but it still comes back to intent. If your intentionally using it to break a law then yes it's illegal, if you are not using it to break a law then it's legal. The question still becomes is it the Router onwers responsibilty to secure it? Or is it John Q Publics responsibilty to not use something freely accessable to them in thier own homes? Once again back to square one.

Cheers.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

C-Canuck,

Nice post but thoseof us who say its theft have already conceded that we don't care about the frequency, we agree that's public domain, its the using of someones bandwidth.  THATS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Money out of someones pocket bandwidth thus converted to someone elses property without permission bandwidth.






...and since when did we start blaming the owner when something gets taken if its not nailed down??

 

[muffin]

READ YOUR DOCUMENTATION INCLUDED WITH YOUR PRODUCT

I just did. The only mention of the FCC is that the devices complies with the acceptable levels of radiation for a device in it's class.

You are not legally allowed to claim any signal you broadcast on public frequency's as your property.

That is true - however, I do own the device that transmits it, and it is through that device that a piggybacker is getting an IP and access to the internet that I pay for. I live in a rural area and my highspeed internet service is via the public bandwidth. My monthly service charges are for access to the ISP's towers, the ISP's receivers and their servers. Even thought they don't own the frequency, they own the infrastructure and I pay to access it.

 

[George Wallace]

That's different and you know it.

Actually No.

What we are talking about here is "Wireless transmissions".  To the layman; RADIO.

Back to my point, and expanded upon by Muffin; listening is not illegal, but what you do with that information may be.  In other words, viewing/listening/receiving is legal.  You can't stop it.  However, once you, in your words, start to manipulate it, or use it, then you are doing something that could be construed as illegal.  You are now manipulating someone else's paid Service for your own use at no cost to yourself.  Could we call that "Piracy"?

It may be a 'gray area' right now, but should it go to the Courts, these arguments will be used, and the "Gray" may soon become "Black and White".

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I live in a rural area and my highspeed internet service is via the public bandwidth. My monthly service charges are for access to the ISP's towers, the ISP's receivers and their servers. Even thought they don't own the frequency, they own the infrastructure and I pay to access it.

Muffin that is different as noted in my highlighted areas.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Using the free bandwith WITHOUT any maniplulation meaning- installing the wireless ethernet adapter(available for sale legally in canada) and turning on your computer(also legally for sale in canada) to make use of a free internet access hotspot(made freely available by someone else) via the legally obtained hardware, is not what i would consider a valid argument for someone breaking a law nor should it be fodder for the justice system to create one.

Lets say your right here,......oh wait, my BANDWIDTH ISN'T $FREE$,.....oops.

The trouble with sweeping moral statements like that is they're moral and they're sweeping. First off, if I use an unsecured network to check my web mail or surf for 15 minutes to kill time, I'm not going to exhaust their bandwidth. I have better things to do than stand on a sidewalk for eight hours downloading torrents, and people might get suspicious.

So embezzling a little from a big oil company is OK by those standards cause they got lots of cash....

 

[40below]

C-Canuck,

Nice post but thoseof us who say its theft have already conceded that we don't care about the frequency, we agree that's public domain, its the using of someones bandwidth.  THATS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Money out of someones pocket bandwidth thus converted to someone elses property without permission bandwidth.






...and since when did we start blaming the owner when something gets taken if its not nailed down??

When the owner brought it into my house and put it on my kitchen table, or dropped it in the middle of a public street with the electronic version of a large sign saying "USE ME!!!" next to it and left. Honestly, we can feel sorry for the people who choose to treat their valuables in such a manner and express astonishment that their money or TV is inexplicably no longer on the sidewalk where they left it last month for safekeeping, but the fact is, it's not a good method of securing your property.

 

[George Wallace]

Muffin that is different as noted in my highlighted areas.

No.  If someone is accessing those means through the infrastructure owned by the company and rented by Muffin, then there is 'theft' occuring.  It doesn't matter about the actual frequency being used, it is the equipment that is being accessed and used.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

My bad I interpreted it the other way  :-[

 

[NL_engineer]

Well after watching this thread grow, this just got to me.

If you are unable to set it up or have someone set it up for you and no one at the routers tech center can help you then should take the network offline so it's not open for public use.

So does that go the same for your car??  If you can't put it together your self you shouldn't be on the road?

Get off your high horse, and think about what you are saying.  When my parents set up their wireless, they never new that you had to put in a security feature, no one told them; and then by listing to you they shouldn't have a network or access to the internet??

 

[Strike]

Pardon my ignorance on the whole subject (because I tent to be a goody 2 shoes when it comes to this stuff) but how is using someone elses WiFi different from free satellite tv?  Okay, there's a middleman involved on the WiFi side, but it's essentially the same, isn't it?

 

[40below]

Lets say your right here,......oh wait, my BANDWIDTH ISN'T $FREE$,.....oops.



So embezzling a little from a big oil company is OK by those standards cause they got lots of cash....

Let me see if I can draw a more exact analogy because I hate the comparisons to using bandwidth as the moral equivalent or rape or car theft.

You walk into Chapters, pick up a book, read a page, put it back on the shelf and leave. Maybe you read the whole book, it doesn't matter. You don't buy it. What crime have you just committed?

Well, you took information you did not buy, which is theft and possibly subject to civil prosecution under the copyright act. You deprived Chapters and the publisher of revenue they could have made by selling the book to another customer while it was in your hands. Deprivation of lawful use and enjoyment right there. You may have inadvertently broken the spine or soiled the pages, making the book unsaleable or fit only for the bargain bin. Vandalism. Might as well have thrown a brick through their window while you were at it, criminal. But, you argue, you didn't damage the book; there were 20 other copies someone could have bought at the time so the owner of the book suffered no harm, and you left it in the store just the way you found it. Which is way different than me posting this using an open network ... how exactly?

Might seem like a ludicrous argument, but if books were a cutting-edge new technology, you'd be hearing these arguments. You're trying to treat a Wi-Fi signal like an actual physical good, and it isn't.

 

[muffin]

Well after watching this thread grow, this just got to me.

So does that go the same for your car??  If you can't put it together your self you shouldn't be on the road?

Get off your high horse, and think about what you are saying.  When my parents set up their wireless, they never new that you had to put in a security feature, no one told them; and then by listing to you they shouldn't have a network or access to the internet??

They don't have to know how to put it together, which is why someone else does - however they do need to be lisenced to drive it.

 

[muffin]

Might seem like a ludicrous argument, but if books were a cutting-edge new technology, you'd be hearing these arguments. You're trying to treat a Wi-Fi signal like an actual physical good, and it isn't.

It isn't the signal that's the problem, its the access to the paid internet service. If you cut a little hole in the wall and spliced your neighbors phone/cable line and ran it to your place would that be different or just messier.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Well after watching this thread grow, this just got to me.

So does that go the same for your car??  If you can't put it together your self you shouldn't be on the road?

Get off your high horse, and think about what you are saying.  When my parents set up their wireless, they never new that you had to put in a security feature, no one told them; and then by listing to you they shouldn't have a network or access to the internet??

I believe documentation that comes with the router describes the inherent risks of running the router "open to the public" . As for my comment to take it offline, if your worried about public useages running up costs or using it illegally then yes it would be in your best interests to remove it from problic access till you can get it setup to prevent such usage.

There are two glaring points that can be and should be argued by the public here.

1. The router owner making the access point "available for public usage" via open access and no password. - This option allows the owner to provide free access should they wish to choose so.

2 The Router manufactures making the default settings set to allow for immediate public usage upon initial setup. - The companies design and usages upon intial setup determine if the network is already "free to air" making them liable for compromising your newly created network.

...the public is not breaking anything, they are only making useage of what freely given away.

Point the finger anywhere you like, just watch out for the mirrors.