Connecting to a Wireless network
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
From: UK
Connecting to a Wireless network
Hi Guys and Gals,
I have a friend who has just brought a laptop and can connect to an unsecured wireless network which isn’t his so I take it that it must be someone else in his street that has one.
He was just wondering how legal this was??
Cheers
S
I have a friend who has just brought a laptop and can connect to an unsecured wireless network which isn’t his so I take it that it must be someone else in his street that has one.
He was just wondering how legal this was??
Cheers
S
Hmmmyeah
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
From: Leopardess.
If the network isn't secure then his computer may well end up on it unintentionally anyway. See my thread nearby.
I wouldn't say there's much to worry about, although I would suggest he avoids his computer having a network name which identifies him personally, as a knock at the door from someone wanting to know why he's freeloading from their connection may be somewhat embarrassing.
Best if he doesn't consider it a long term solution but as a stop gap measure, well, who's to say he even knows it's happening?
I wouldn't say there's much to worry about, although I would suggest he avoids his computer having a network name which identifies him personally, as a knock at the door from someone wanting to know why he's freeloading from their connection may be somewhat embarrassing.
Best if he doesn't consider it a long term solution but as a stop gap measure, well, who's to say he even knows it's happening?
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
From: UK
Guern :
If the wireless connection was "on" then presumably it wasn't costing the owner anything extra
to have someone connected wirelessly to their ISP -
It might have slowed their connection speed down a bit depending on useage,
but what specific offence was this "somebody" prosecuted for ??
Coconutty
Somebody did get prosecuted in the UK a shortwhile ago for doing this.
to have someone connected wirelessly to their ISP -
It might have slowed their connection speed down a bit depending on useage,
but what specific offence was this "somebody" prosecuted for ??
Coconutty
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
From: An Island near France
Have found the link now http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm
But do agree if you leave your network open how can you complain??
But do agree if you leave your network open how can you complain??
Hmmmyeah
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
From: Leopardess.
I wonder what they actually prosecuted him for as I don't think 'hijacking a wireless broadband connection' is an offence in its own right.
I'd like to know how you avoid falling foul of the law on this, if indeed it is the law. The moment I turn my laptop on in a built up area it finds any number of wireless connections. Those which are not secure it will use with no intervention or encouragement from myself and with the standard settings as supplied. At what point then does the law come into play? The moment I begin to transfer data? If that's so, what if I open my browser to look at a cached page, unaware of a connection being present and it downloads the page afresh as it does have one?
It all seems rather impossible to enforce to me, not to mention pointless. Surely the answer is simple; if you don't want people on your network, secure it. It's rather like saying it's somehow illegal for someone to see by the light of your outside light should it fall off your premises; unaviodable in many instances.
I'd like to know how you avoid falling foul of the law on this, if indeed it is the law. The moment I turn my laptop on in a built up area it finds any number of wireless connections. Those which are not secure it will use with no intervention or encouragement from myself and with the standard settings as supplied. At what point then does the law come into play? The moment I begin to transfer data? If that's so, what if I open my browser to look at a cached page, unaware of a connection being present and it downloads the page afresh as it does have one?
It all seems rather impossible to enforce to me, not to mention pointless. Surely the answer is simple; if you don't want people on your network, secure it. It's rather like saying it's somehow illegal for someone to see by the light of your outside light should it fall off your premises; unaviodable in many instances.
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,397
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
I'm amazed that this case succeeded.
My view is that if the WiFi access point owner doesn't restrict access to listed wireless clients (such as by MAC address), then that is tantamount to inviting open access.
In my local town, businessmen have set up a free WiFi AP for anyone to use. I haven't tried it yet, but I understand that there is a homepage with some local advertising which appears first, from which users can proceed to the Internet.
My view is that if the WiFi access point owner doesn't restrict access to listed wireless clients (such as by MAC address), then that is tantamount to inviting open access.
In my local town, businessmen have set up a free WiFi AP for anyone to use. I haven't tried it yet, but I understand that there is a homepage with some local advertising which appears first, from which users can proceed to the Internet.
Red On, Green On
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 6,490
Likes: 2
From: Between the woods and the water
Reading the BBC item it becomes clear that the accused was using the connection from his car. My assumption is that he went looking for open connections, by driving around with wireless "sniffer" software actively searching for a link.
Your chum has opened the box, turned it on, and hey presto. Not much of a defence, but a defence of a sort. I'd be surprised if Plod would do more than slap a wrist if he was called in.
FWIW I don't encrypt/restrict my network, on the basis that anyone who has got 600m down the track from a little lane to AA Towers, with a laptop, and wants to use it, is welcome.
Your chum has opened the box, turned it on, and hey presto. Not much of a defence, but a defence of a sort. I'd be surprised if Plod would do more than slap a wrist if he was called in.
FWIW I don't encrypt/restrict my network, on the basis that anyone who has got 600m down the track from a little lane to AA Towers, with a laptop, and wants to use it, is welcome.
Hmmmyeah
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
From: Leopardess.
Very generous of you, AA.
You don't need to 'sniff' I assure you. I've driven through town, any town, with my laptop switched on and wireless active but with nothing being used to deliberately seek out networks, then stopped to use it and had any number of networks present in the 'Available networks' list by the time I've done so.
When scrolling down the sometimes lengthy list, which contains anything the machine's seen even if it's now out of range, around 50% of them don't bring up a WEP encryption key box as you highlight them. They may still be inaccessible due to being restricted only to known MAC addresses, but the fact that they're broadcasting their SSID to be seen in the first place would suggest that they're unlikely to have a fairly high level security of security, such as that, in place. I imagine most people's security measures begin with enabling WEP, then disabling SSID broadcast and then restricting MAC addresses last. So, by that assumption if you can see them and they're not asking for a WEP key, the chances are they're wide open.
If all those networks were running loggers of some sort, they'd all have recorded details of my machince, since if it can se their network, their network can see my machine. That fact could suggest I've tried to 'hijack' their network could it not? At least by the same principle as they guy who got prosecuted.
I'm sure I'm quite within my rights to drive around with my laptop, and its wireless functions, switched on if I chose to though.
You don't need to 'sniff' I assure you. I've driven through town, any town, with my laptop switched on and wireless active but with nothing being used to deliberately seek out networks, then stopped to use it and had any number of networks present in the 'Available networks' list by the time I've done so.
When scrolling down the sometimes lengthy list, which contains anything the machine's seen even if it's now out of range, around 50% of them don't bring up a WEP encryption key box as you highlight them. They may still be inaccessible due to being restricted only to known MAC addresses, but the fact that they're broadcasting their SSID to be seen in the first place would suggest that they're unlikely to have a fairly high level security of security, such as that, in place. I imagine most people's security measures begin with enabling WEP, then disabling SSID broadcast and then restricting MAC addresses last. So, by that assumption if you can see them and they're not asking for a WEP key, the chances are they're wide open.
If all those networks were running loggers of some sort, they'd all have recorded details of my machince, since if it can se their network, their network can see my machine. That fact could suggest I've tried to 'hijack' their network could it not? At least by the same principle as they guy who got prosecuted.
I'm sure I'm quite within my rights to drive around with my laptop, and its wireless functions, switched on if I chose to though.
Administrator
Joined: Mar 2001
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 8,121
Likes: 686
From: Twickenham, home of rugby
Beagle,
"My view is that if the WiFi access point owner doesn't restrict access to listed wireless clients (such as by MAC address), then that is tantamount to inviting open access."
That's a bit like saying that if you don't lock the door to your house then it's OK for anyone to go in!
My understanding is that you can be prosecuted for a clear abuse of someone else's WIFI network. Clear abuse would be, for example, where you had no WAP of your own and were deliberately and knowingly using their connection without their knowledge or consent.
The fact that they have left it open may be foolish of them, but it does not constitute an invitation to all and sundry to use it.
Coconutty -
"If the wireless connection was "on" then presumably it wasn't costing the owner anything extra
to have someone connected wirelessly to their ISP - "
So if someone uses up another person's monthly download quota that's OK then?
And if a network is used by a miscreant for nefarious purposes - uploading, downloading or attacking - that's OK too?
Yes, anyone who leaves their network open is a fool, but that doesn't exonerate the wrongdoer.
"No, your honour, I didn't break and enter I just entered and helped myself". "Oh, that's OK then, case dismissed!"
"My view is that if the WiFi access point owner doesn't restrict access to listed wireless clients (such as by MAC address), then that is tantamount to inviting open access."
That's a bit like saying that if you don't lock the door to your house then it's OK for anyone to go in!
My understanding is that you can be prosecuted for a clear abuse of someone else's WIFI network. Clear abuse would be, for example, where you had no WAP of your own and were deliberately and knowingly using their connection without their knowledge or consent.
The fact that they have left it open may be foolish of them, but it does not constitute an invitation to all and sundry to use it.
Coconutty -
"If the wireless connection was "on" then presumably it wasn't costing the owner anything extra
to have someone connected wirelessly to their ISP - "
So if someone uses up another person's monthly download quota that's OK then?
And if a network is used by a miscreant for nefarious purposes - uploading, downloading or attacking - that's OK too?
Yes, anyone who leaves their network open is a fool, but that doesn't exonerate the wrongdoer.
"No, your honour, I didn't break and enter I just entered and helped myself". "Oh, that's OK then, case dismissed!"
Wurzel's Brother
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
From: midlands, uk
This is an area I did not worry about until this week when I got a new wireless capable laptop. I can now sit in my front room and - if I wanted to 
- I would be able to leech of off two domestic wireless networks.
I'm getting my own wireless modem this week so it's not a problem but was very interested in the previous posts on this thread.
I'm rather puzzled as to why the prosecution suceeded of the West London chap.
The BBC report says "Gaining unauthorised access to a computer is an offence covered by the Computer Misuse Act. In Straszkiewcz's case, he was prosecuted under the Communications Act and found guilty of dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service.". Surely a router is not a computer and is this a factual error?
Additionally the Communications Act states "Section 125 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services
(1) A person who-
(a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
(b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
is guilty of an offence."
Not to sure how that would apply as the service was paid for by the, presumably, homeowner and so nobody has actually suffered any financial loss (unless it is the physical number of 'stolen' bits that can be calculated?).
Is this the equivalent to putting your rubbish in someone else's bin for the refuse people to take away? The service is paid for, nobody has lost out (and whilst there may be a by-law about doing it) it does not appear to be a criminal act.
Somebody entering your house because the door has been left open would, presumably, be a clearly defined offence of burgulary so I'm not to sure if there is a comparision.
I've probably got the wrong end of the stick - enlightenment would be nice to add to my mental store of pointless knowledge!
Nav
- I would be able to leech of off two domestic wireless networks.I'm getting my own wireless modem this week so it's not a problem but was very interested in the previous posts on this thread.
I'm rather puzzled as to why the prosecution suceeded of the West London chap.
The BBC report says "Gaining unauthorised access to a computer is an offence covered by the Computer Misuse Act. In Straszkiewcz's case, he was prosecuted under the Communications Act and found guilty of dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service.". Surely a router is not a computer and is this a factual error?
Additionally the Communications Act states "Section 125 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services
(1) A person who-
(a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
(b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
is guilty of an offence."
Not to sure how that would apply as the service was paid for by the, presumably, homeowner and so nobody has actually suffered any financial loss (unless it is the physical number of 'stolen' bits that can be calculated?).
Is this the equivalent to putting your rubbish in someone else's bin for the refuse people to take away? The service is paid for, nobody has lost out (and whilst there may be a by-law about doing it) it does not appear to be a criminal act.
Somebody entering your house because the door has been left open would, presumably, be a clearly defined offence of burgulary so I'm not to sure if there is a comparision.
I've probably got the wrong end of the stick - enlightenment would be nice to add to my mental store of pointless knowledge!
Nav
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
From: UK
Saab - Sorry I only just saw your latest post...
- That's not what I said - I posed the thought that it might not be costing them anything extra, as the connection to the ISP was already paid for...
How on earth is anyone supposed to know what the monthly download limit would be anyway ? ( In the case of someone NOT doing anything dishonest - lets assume they believed they were connected quite legally to one of the many free to access wireless hotspots )
If the "owner" of the wi-fi setup has a monthly download limit then all the more reason for them to secure their equipment !
Now who said that ? Don't be so silly 
My question was aimed at identifying what the specific offences are / were -
Thank you Navajo8686 for your comprehensive post.
So whatever happened to common sense ?
If someone goes round "sniffing" and then "dishonestly" uploads, downloads, attacks or does anything else "dishonest" then they deserve all they get.
On the other hand if someone "accidentally" gains access to a wireless network, ( maybe while trying to find a legal free hotspot connection, and is doing nothing "dishonest" then I don't see how they could be prosecuted, ( under the Act quoted by Navajo8686 ), as they would :
a) Not have committed a dishonest act, and
b) Would not have been intending to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service....
BOTH elements of which are required under the Act for the offence to be complete.
Coconutty
Edited to add : If you left the front door of your home wide open and someone wandered in, they would NOT automatically be guilty of burglary - UNLESS they entered "dishonestly" - intending to steal or commit certain other offences, or once inside they stole or damaged anything etc.
Without the extra "dishonesty" there would just be a case of civil trespass to deal with !
So if someone uses up another person's monthly download quota that's OK then?
How on earth is anyone supposed to know what the monthly download limit would be anyway ? ( In the case of someone NOT doing anything dishonest - lets assume they believed they were connected quite legally to one of the many free to access wireless hotspots )
If the "owner" of the wi-fi setup has a monthly download limit then all the more reason for them to secure their equipment !
And if a network is used by a miscreant for nefarious purposes - uploading, downloading or attacking - that's OK too?
My question was aimed at identifying what the specific offences are / were -
Thank you Navajo8686 for your comprehensive post.
So whatever happened to common sense ?
If someone goes round "sniffing" and then "dishonestly" uploads, downloads, attacks or does anything else "dishonest" then they deserve all they get.
On the other hand if someone "accidentally" gains access to a wireless network, ( maybe while trying to find a legal free hotspot connection, and is doing nothing "dishonest" then I don't see how they could be prosecuted, ( under the Act quoted by Navajo8686 ), as they would :
a) Not have committed a dishonest act, and
b) Would not have been intending to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service....
BOTH elements of which are required under the Act for the offence to be complete.
Coconutty
Edited to add : If you left the front door of your home wide open and someone wandered in, they would NOT automatically be guilty of burglary - UNLESS they entered "dishonestly" - intending to steal or commit certain other offences, or once inside they stole or damaged anything etc.
Without the extra "dishonesty" there would just be a case of civil trespass to deal with !
Intelligent Idiot
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
From: Cleethorpes, UK
I think a lot of the reasons people dont encrypt, apart from laziness/ignorance is that depending on the strength of encryption, a proportion of available resources is used up, possibly 20% for strong encryption resulting in an annoyingly slow connection.
I used to encrypt but gave it up for this reason but I do monitor my network now for unauthorised activities.
Nothing has happened in the 18 months I have run unencrypted.
I used to encrypt but gave it up for this reason but I do monitor my network now for unauthorised activities.
Nothing has happened in the 18 months I have run unencrypted.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 175
Likes: 5
From: UK
I am certainly not aware of any free public domain hotspots.
Where might one of these be?
I agree with Saab. If you knowingly connect to a network which is not protected, for which you do not have the administrators permission, you are in the wrong.
Where might one of these be?
I agree with Saab. If you knowingly connect to a network which is not protected, for which you do not have the administrators permission, you are in the wrong.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A couple of informative links...
http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/l...rvice/WiFi.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4578114.stm
Provision of public Wi-fi access seems to be the name of the game and this "The Cloud" outfit seems to be the prime contractor.
Just an extension of Internet access in your local public library, if you look at it from the local government point of view.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/l...rvice/WiFi.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4578114.stm
Provision of public Wi-fi access seems to be the name of the game and this "The Cloud" outfit seems to be the prime contractor.
Just an extension of Internet access in your local public library, if you look at it from the local government point of view.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 175
Likes: 5
From: UK
Only difference is 'The Cloud' are a business and, as a consequence, will be charging.
An old saying I always refer back to is, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
I once did get WiFi access at an apartment I stayed at but that was included in the price of the rental.
An old saying I always refer back to is, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
I once did get WiFi access at an apartment I stayed at but that was included in the price of the rental.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
From: UK
Stick Flying :
Doesn't mean there aren't any ....
Take a peek at this : Wi-FI freespot listsing site
... conceded that the word "Free" can be interpreted in different ways, e.g. in a cafe with a "free" wi-fi spot you might need to make a purchase ( of coffee etc ) to get a password allowing you the "free" access.
There were plans a couple of years ago by the government to introduce free wi-fi spots to all Public libraries in the UK.
Coconutty
I am certainly not aware of any free public domain hotspots.
Where might one of these be?
... conceded that the word "Free" can be interpreted in different ways, e.g. in a cafe with a "free" wi-fi spot you might need to make a purchase ( of coffee etc ) to get a password allowing you the "free" access.
There were plans a couple of years ago by the government to introduce free wi-fi spots to all Public libraries in the UK.
Coconutty
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 175
Likes: 5
From: UK
As I infered to before, it is poor business sense to charge zero for your services. I think the lifespan of any company with this slogan would be colourful, but alas, short.
Lets face it. There is 'No free lunch'. Someone is paying for ALL Wifi services. Now if they then offer this as an incentive to attract you as a customer for other services, the cost will be factored in to what you are paying for those other products. Simple economics.
The closest we get to FREE is the local library scenario. But at a closer look we see this is paid for by local councils. Local councils are for the use of local residents. Local residents pay local council tax. It is the payment of this local tax that gives the user authorisation to access the library WiFi. It is not in fact free. Should you take your Laptop/PDA to the local library, you are in fact completely justified. Logging onto an unsecured network 3 doors down is not.
Now back to the original argument. I believe if you log onto a network without authorisation, it is theft of bandwidth. I wouldn't get sucked into the illusion that the owner of the connection is in the wrong. Not securing wireless networks is not, at this stage, a criminal nor civil offence.
Lets face it. There is 'No free lunch'. Someone is paying for ALL Wifi services. Now if they then offer this as an incentive to attract you as a customer for other services, the cost will be factored in to what you are paying for those other products. Simple economics.
The closest we get to FREE is the local library scenario. But at a closer look we see this is paid for by local councils. Local councils are for the use of local residents. Local residents pay local council tax. It is the payment of this local tax that gives the user authorisation to access the library WiFi. It is not in fact free. Should you take your Laptop/PDA to the local library, you are in fact completely justified. Logging onto an unsecured network 3 doors down is not.
Now back to the original argument. I believe if you log onto a network without authorisation, it is theft of bandwidth. I wouldn't get sucked into the illusion that the owner of the connection is in the wrong. Not securing wireless networks is not, at this stage, a criminal nor civil offence.
Red On, Green On
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 6,490
Likes: 2
From: Between the woods and the water
As I infered to before, it is poor business sense to charge zero for your services. I think the lifespan of any company with this slogan would be colourful, but alas, short.
Lets face it. There is 'No free lunch'. Someone is paying for ALL Wifi services. Now if they then offer this as an incentive to attract you as a customer for other services, the cost will be factored in to what you are paying for those other products. Simple economics.
Lets face it. There is 'No free lunch'. Someone is paying for ALL Wifi services. Now if they then offer this as an incentive to attract you as a customer for other services, the cost will be factored in to what you are paying for those other products. Simple economics.
In which case offering free wifi will be a lot cheaper than a free loo, from the owners' point of view. Nothing to clean, no loo paper to buy, and no water bills, and it will be an expected facility, just like the loo and the car park