LH2
30th Apr 2006, 16:55
...this is since Part 1 has been locked :confused:
The poster of the second reply on part one asserts that piggybacking on Wifi is illegal. Could he please offer some references to back this up?
I am aware of the discussion on this subject. One side argues that, as the other poster says, it amounts to stealing, while the other considers that permission is being given implicitly by leaving the network unsecured and/or by having its emissions spill out into someone else's property.
Now, whether it is legal or not in a particular jurisdiction is a question that can be answered, in the absence of specific laws, only once legal precedent has been established. As far as I am aware, in the UK there has only been one case so far of someone being prosecuted for unauthorised used of a wireless network, and that was by a lower court since the sentence wasn't appealed, so no mandatory precedent has been set, as far as I know (and I concede that is not much).
Interestingly, the prosecution was under communications law, as opposed to computer crime laws. The implication is that what was judged, and is being discussed here, is not whether someone broke into someone else's computers without authorisation to do so. That is an entirely different question which is pretty much settled. In other words, if you had to log into your neighbour's access point and change its configuration in order to gain access to his network, then few would argue in favour of the legality of your actions, even if he didn't bother changing the device's default password. But that is not what we're talking about, isn't it?
Among the technically savvy community it has become etiquette to leave at least one of one's wireless networks open for other people to take advantage of. I certainly would expect the courts to respect my decision not to protect my network from access by others. Others might argue that, in spite of clear indications both on the hardware documentation and on the software to the effect that not securing one's installation leaves it open to non-authorised access, this in itself does not give someone else the right to use it. Both are valid points of view, and until jurisprudence is established on this new and interesting question, none of these approaches is illegal.
We can, of course, always argue, lobby and campaign one way or the other, but this is going to be a tricky one for the courts to decide on. Personally, I believe it would probably be best for wifi equipment to come preconfigured with a minimum amount of security (say, a WEP key based on the equipment's serial number or MAC address) which you would have to deactivate in order to give others access to it (or conversely, others would have to purposefully defeat to gain access, thus contravening existing computer crime laws).
Now, I should be studying for my licence. Where did I put my books?? :8
The poster of the second reply on part one asserts that piggybacking on Wifi is illegal. Could he please offer some references to back this up?
I am aware of the discussion on this subject. One side argues that, as the other poster says, it amounts to stealing, while the other considers that permission is being given implicitly by leaving the network unsecured and/or by having its emissions spill out into someone else's property.
Now, whether it is legal or not in a particular jurisdiction is a question that can be answered, in the absence of specific laws, only once legal precedent has been established. As far as I am aware, in the UK there has only been one case so far of someone being prosecuted for unauthorised used of a wireless network, and that was by a lower court since the sentence wasn't appealed, so no mandatory precedent has been set, as far as I know (and I concede that is not much).
Interestingly, the prosecution was under communications law, as opposed to computer crime laws. The implication is that what was judged, and is being discussed here, is not whether someone broke into someone else's computers without authorisation to do so. That is an entirely different question which is pretty much settled. In other words, if you had to log into your neighbour's access point and change its configuration in order to gain access to his network, then few would argue in favour of the legality of your actions, even if he didn't bother changing the device's default password. But that is not what we're talking about, isn't it?
Among the technically savvy community it has become etiquette to leave at least one of one's wireless networks open for other people to take advantage of. I certainly would expect the courts to respect my decision not to protect my network from access by others. Others might argue that, in spite of clear indications both on the hardware documentation and on the software to the effect that not securing one's installation leaves it open to non-authorised access, this in itself does not give someone else the right to use it. Both are valid points of view, and until jurisprudence is established on this new and interesting question, none of these approaches is illegal.
We can, of course, always argue, lobby and campaign one way or the other, but this is going to be a tricky one for the courts to decide on. Personally, I believe it would probably be best for wifi equipment to come preconfigured with a minimum amount of security (say, a WEP key based on the equipment's serial number or MAC address) which you would have to deactivate in order to give others access to it (or conversely, others would have to purposefully defeat to gain access, thus contravening existing computer crime laws).
Now, I should be studying for my licence. Where did I put my books?? :8