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

[muffin]

Well just for fun I called the RCMP ITCU ( http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/on/prog_serv/support_serv/itcu_e.htm ) to  see what thier interpretation was.

The nice gentleman on the phone told me that wardriving and piggybacking are illegal, because of unauthorized access to a computer network and/or telecommunications theft. He suggested there could be issues with  piracy, privacy, theft, tresspass.... but declined to give any specifics.

He suggested I call the local police, for thier interpretation as well.

I asked him directly "Accessing an unsecured network could be illegal?" and he said "Oh it IS illegal"

I might call the local police as well just to see what they have to say, mostly for my own interest's sake - anyone know any cyberlawyers?

... time to go home for me now though

 

[40below]

Ironically - HE'd have to tresspass to do that.

In keeping an open mind... and looking at tresspass versus stealing - is there a "clause" to tresspassing law that says to be enforced you need signage or something else clearly stating "no tresspassing?" (I think I just found my new SSID haha)

Goes more to expectation. A 'No Trespassing' sign on land merely takes away the argument that you didn't know it was private property and allows a charge to be laid, one that in almost 100 per cent of cases results in a restraining order/peace bond. Without the sign, police can only release you with a caution, they'd never get a conviction on that. And bringing this kinda back to the discussion about why telecom theft is not a charge laid very often, if you look at court stories, people are rarely charged with trespass let alone convicted of it when found guilty of more serious crimes where trespass is clearly a factor, such as burglary, arson or home invasion. 

It's an interesting issue that doesn't translate well to the old physical analogies. Bottom line in my mind, if it's not used to commit other crime and it does no harm, (the apocalyptic what-ifs being thrown around here notwithstanding as most Wi-Fi is brief web surfing that would be imperceptible to the performance of a home network and cost the owner nothing), no foul.

My .02

 

[George Wallace]

  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.

Fine.  Do you mind if I change it a little?......Doesn't matter.......I'm going to anyway.

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

1. The Radio Station 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 Radio Broadcasting Equipment 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.

Good so far?

How about you start broadcasting on your Favourite Radio Station's Frequency, using their equipment to amplify your signal ?  In other words, not just recieve, but now start to use/manipulate/broadcast.  Is that legal?  NOT legal at all!

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I asked him directly "Accessing an unsecured network could be illegal?" and he said "Oh it IS illegal"

I might call the local police as well just to see what they have to say, mostly for my own interest's sake - anyone know any cyberlawyers?

I'm sure Whiskey601 will be around here next time he's on.

 

[George Wallace]

Now if he had spliced it himself, ran 100 feet of cable from his house and into your living room and left it with a cable jack on the end next to your TV, you could reasonably argue he was implicitly allowing you to plug it in, which is the same as the wireless analogy.

So now you and him are doing something illegal.  When the Cable Company runs a check and finds that he as split off a line to you, you are now both guilty of fraud.  You have fraudulantly used the Cable Companies Services, and equipment to service more that what the Rental Contract was for.  Theft.

 

[a_majoor]

The RCMP is investigating the CHRC for accessing a private citizen's wirless network in order to masquarade as neo Nazis on the Internet, so there are grave risks to leaving your network open for any length of time (there are even some reports that the wireless network in question was secured by at least a password, so be very sure of what you are doing when you do the setup).

Read more on the Human Rights gone Awrythread.

 

[armyvern]

Untested, unsmested......no Crown wants to waste.......have I mentioned this before?.....the MONEY.

Wait until its Tie Domi or Bernier's girlfriend.

OR, wait until it's some poor innocent girl in Ottawa and it's the CHRC stealing from her by "cracking" her SSID to use her wireless to post racist messages on websites. I think we've got a thread going on the fallout from that.

So? Some would argue that that was illegal because they hacked her password?

Here's my analogy.

I rent an apartment. I secure my door. You enter anyway and help yourself to my stuff --- that's theft.
I rent a wireless router. I secure it with a password. You enter it anyway and help yourself to my bandwidth --- that's theft.

I rent an apartment. I DO NOT secure my door. You enter and help yourself to my stuff --- that's theft.
I rent a wireless router. I DO NOT secure it with a password. You enter and help yourself to my bandwidth --- and somehow THAT isn't theft??

???

Wow. If that's the case, we've got some true idiots making laws.

For the earlier poster who thinks his 15 minutes doesn't affect me:

By the way --- I pay for the bandwidth I use here. If I should unlock it ... and you log on for your 15 minutes a day because it was "unsecure" -- you're costing me 15 minutes per day every month of MY bandwidth, ergo MY money WITHOUT my permission (because I guarantee that you didn't come ask me). Ergo ... you are a thief. Even if the law should not somehow consider you as such ... I wouldn't recommend that you ever come to my residence looking to "borrow" a cup of sugar. Trust me -- it'd be in your own best interest.

 

[40below]

So now you and him are doing something illegal.  When the Cable Company runs a check and finds that he as split off a line to you, you are now both guilty of fraud.  You have fraudulantly used the Cable Companies Services, and equipment to service more that what the Rental Contract was for.  Theft.

Huh? He might be in trouble for splitting the signal, but I didn't sign a contract with the cable company, committed no fraudulent act or misrepresentation to them that qualify as a crime and didn't so much as touch their equipment at any point. A person cannot be held responsible for breaching a contract they did not sign and a company would be laughed out of court if they tried to claim such damages. Even a cable company.

 

[armyvern]

Huh? He might be in trouble for splitting the signal, but I didn't sign a contract with the cable company, committed no fraudulent act or misrepresentation to them that qualify as a crime and didn't so much as touch their equipment at any point. A person cannot be held responsible for breaching a contract they did not sign and a company would be laughed out of court if they tried to claim such damages. Even a cable company.

You should tell that to all the people who have split themselves into neighbours cable without their neighbours knowledge.

Those guys splicing in didn't sign a contract either ... and they STILL get charged with "theft" of signal. The difference is that the neighbour doesn't get charged with fraud "too" because he didn't know about it.

Ask my uncle. "Theft" IS indeed applicable. I forget the exact term that he was charged (and found guilty of), but it was something akin to "theft of signal by fradulent means" ... there was also a "tampering something something" charge in there too. 

 

[Snafu-Bar]

WHEN they make a law or change or ammend and clearly over-write the empty spaces between the lines with more clearly written grey text clearly defining the aspects of "tresspassing" verus "making free use of" the routers unprotected mode. Perhaps like i said earlier, the manufacturers should be liable for it for providing the option of free range in the first place. Why have a public broadcast for WAN if it's only meant for private use?... they should be pulled from the market and renamed to wireless private area network routers and be done with the headache.

Cheers

 

[armyvern]

WHEN they make a law or change or ammend and clearly over-write the empty spaces between the lines with more clearly written grey text clearly defining the aspects of "tresspassing" verus "making free use of" the routers unprotected mode. Perhaps like i said earlier, the manufacturers should be liable for it for providing the option of free range in the first place. Why have a public broadcast for WAN if it's only meant for private use?... they should be pulled from the market and renamed to wireless private area network routers and be done with the headache.

Cheers

I don't see a "grey" area.

Unless you have come directly to me and asked me DIRECTLY whether I pay for my bandwidth --- YOU are assuming it's "free use". Your "assumption" may cost me money ... and THAT is theft if you did not have my permission to SPEND my money. You're assumption that it wasn't costing me money is not my problem ... it's yours.

You will never convince me that these actions by you are "ethical". And, even if something isn't illegal ... it doesn't necessarily make it ethical, moral, or right.

 

[Shamrock]

WHEN they make a law or change or ammend and clearly over-write the empty spaces between the lines with more clearly written grey text clearly defining the aspects of...

So, an immoral act is acceptable if there is no law surrounding it?  Or are you saying no act becomes immoral until it is illegal?

 

[40below]

You should tell that to all the people who have split themselves into neighbours cable without their neighbours knowledge.

Those guys splicing in didn't sign a contract either ... and they STILL get charged with "theft" of signal. The difference is that the neighbour doesn't get charged with fraud "too" because he didn't know about it.

Ask my uncle. "Theft" IS indeed applicable. 

Like I've said several times in this thread, the old analogies are a bad fit when it comes to a new technology model because there's no physical component in play when it comes to WiFi, like a spliced cable line.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

When you buy a car or a house, don't you make sure there "locked" and the alarm systems are on?

Same instance goes for wireless networks, "Lock it up". We can talk about morality till we're blue in the face, but the fact is many people even law abiding citizens who won't steal your car or rob your House, will piggyback your wireless connection. Does this make them hardened criminals? No. Does this make them morally defunk? Maybe to an extent. Everyone is in some way, morally defunk to some extent and if you say your not, well when was the last time you told a lie, even a small one, we all have our flaws, some people just have bigger flaws than others. After all no ones perfect. Does this make it a crime? Yes, but jaywalking is also a crime, not using your signal lights to show your intent when changing lanes, speeding etc. Everybody breaks some kind of law everyday, does this make everyone who do these things a hardened criminal or totally without morality? "No". After all people like free things, even free bandwidth.

The people who you have to watch out for, are the real ciber criminals who roam the streets looking for unsecured bandwidth in which to per-potrate their criminal activities and these cases are growing. Why? Because people will lock their cars or homes up but won't give a second thought about securing their wireless networks, because either way the criminal will be breaking into your home, whether it be physically or digitally. At least the insurance policy pays for physical damage or loss, but damage done by electronic criminal activity is very rarely compensated for or the per-potraters ever found or caught.

To sum up, treat your wireless network the same as anything else valuable you own or use. "Secure it!" If you don't know how, "ask". Because even the average Joe next door who you see every day could be using it.

 

[Shamrock]

Like I've said several times in this thread, the old analogies are a bad fit when it comes to a new technology model because there's no physical component in play when it comes to WiFi, like a spliced cable line.

There is no physical component in intellectual property, either.  Nor is there a physical proponent in harassment, libel, or various other torts.  Is tangibility law?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Holy crap!  9 pages on this!  Sadly, the deaths of our 3 fallen yesterday got less attention than this thread.  That thread is currently 5 pages long.  Just a point...maybe this REALLY isn't that big of a deal and I am surprised at the way this is being debated.  

I've read thru the arguments, and there seems to be no cut and dried, black and white answer here.

1.  I have a wireless router set up in my room.  My room is not the public domain.  I hold a certain expectation of privacy for it as I do my personal belongings.  Whether I secure it or not.  I've gone to the bathroom before and left my door open, I certainly don't exect to come back and find people sitting on my leather couch watching my TV, and if they did, the explanation "well your door was open" probably wouldn't mean much, would it?

2.  If you want to argue the signals are not mine once they leave my antenna, fine, I can agree with that.  I can show you the receipt for the WAP that they go in and out of, which then go to my cable modem, which I can assure you, I am paying for.  So, the signals?  Free.  Devices and physical connections to the media they travel over are NOT free.  Therefore, IMO, my connection via Eastlink is not free nor  "public domain".  Afterall, does not Eastlink give my router its own private IP address that I pay for monthly?

3.  I will liken securing your network to securing your home;  although you don't intend for people to come into your home uninvited or unwanted, due diligence and the reality of our society make door locks and security systems a necessity, which we further back up with home insurance from burglary, theft, etc. Depending on the risk we each assess in our own situation, we have different layers of protection. Because not many of us can wire our homes properly with a security system and monitor that system, we hire people to do this for us and accept that cost as protecting our homes from intruders. Much like our home, we can set up a WAP, and secure it with things like...actually NOT broadcasting our SSID, encryption, MAC filters ( a nice one for those who don't want to encrypt ), and various other technologies out there. If you don't want to leave you WAP unsecure and are finding that a challenge, try using the Setup CD that came with it.  Its really not that hard.  If you can't figure it out still and can't get a friend to help, then you can pay for some IT professional to come to your home and charge you the mandatory 1-hour rate minimum to set it up for you. That's your risk and your decision to make.  Some people leave their doors unlocked, some people don't.  We all expect that a stranger who enters that home uninvited is unwelcome. Ethically, as an IT guy, I expect the same with my router.  

If you go away and leave your door unlocked, and come home and someone is sitting in your kitchen...did they "break into" your house?? Technically, no, there was no forced entry. Are they there legally?  I don't think so, nor do I think a judge would rule that they were either.  

 

[armyvern]

Like I've said several times in this thread, the old analogies are a bad fit when it comes to a new technology model because there's no physical component in play when it comes to WiFi, like a spliced cable line.

That MODEM is a physical component. When you thieve your way into my modem ... your signal is downloaded through MY cable and MY modem (both physical items btw - costing ME bandwidth) and then transmitted to you wirelessly ... but it had to come through MY physical property to get to you. You have used my physical property fraudulently and WITHOUT my consent for your own financial gain (by avoiding internet bills) and causing ME to pay financially. That's theft.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The people who you have to watch out for, are the real ciber criminals who roam the streets looking for unsecured bandwidth in which to per-potrate their criminal activities and these cases are growing. Why? Because people will lock their cars or homes up but won't give a second thought about securing their wireless networks, because either way the criminal will be breaking into your home, whether it be physically or digitally. At least the insurance policy pays for physical damage or loss, but damage done by electronic criminal activity is very rarely compensated for or the per-potraters ever found or caught.

To sum up, treat your wireless network the same as anything else valuable you own or use. "Secure it!" If you don't know how, "ask". Because even the average Joe next door who you see every day could be using it.

I think this is probably the post with the most 'common sense and dose of reality' in the whole (now 10 pages!) thread.

Mike Bobbit's was good too and I almost bit at it but...I wanted to keep watching the verbal ping-pong games that are ongoing.    op:

 

[40below]

There is no physical component in intellectual property, either.  Nor is there a physical proponent in harassment, libel, or various other torts.  Is tangibility law?

We're getting abstract here, but I'd argue that there are two issues. Mens rea  – I genuinely believed your WiFi was intentionally left open by you, I didn't sneak over to your cable box in the middle of the night with a roll of coax and some cable strippers – and damages. Libel, copyright violations and such all have a quantifiable loss  – which the appellant must prove in Canada  in civil cases – my using a WiFi network, dunno. Now if I started selling your WiFi access to other people or charging them by the minute to use it, that would be entirely different and analogous to pirating DVDs or software, but it's not what we're talking about here. Like I say, there will be a court case to test this at some point.

 

[armyvern]

I think this is probably the post with the most 'common sense and dose of reality' in the whole (now 10 pages!) thread.

Mike Bobbit's was good too and I almost bit at it but...I wanted to keep watching the verbal ping-pong games that are ongoing.    op:

I just got online bud. Been doing drill all day. I'm allowed to get my opinion out too no?