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
:cool:

Somebody did get prosecuted in the UK a shortwhile ago for doing this. Not sure how many people would bother to prosecute!

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? ;)

Cheers Guys,

Surely people who really don’t want other people to use their connection would encrypt it? Couldn’t this be your argument if it ever did go as far as court??

S
:cool:

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 ?? :confused:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

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??

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'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.

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.

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. :confused:

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!"

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 :ok: - 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

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 ) :confused:

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 :suspect:

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.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...11/coconut.jpg
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 !

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

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.

But when was the last time you paid to park at pub, or use the loo at a restaurant? It's part of the overhead of running the establishment. BT's 21CN programme will mean that all lines are DSL enabled (not free, just no need to charge for activation), so I expect that basic DSL suitable for a wifi hotspot will come down to about £10/month in the next three years. Many people won't see it as a line on the bill, as it will be bundled.

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:ok:

Please. I think my views have been a little unclear.

I am not criticising the services offered by these establishments. They are great add-ons. I have used them many times. But they are just that, add-ons. Macdonalds (for example) are not in the business of supplying seating and airconditioned comfort (also overheads) for Free WiFi users. They are in the business of selling burgers. If you choose their burger over that of the rivals because they have WiFi access, the service has been a real winner for them.

And you are quite right about the fact that using pub toilets is exactly the same. I agree 100%. But these overheads need paying. All overheads are costed into the prices of the products. If they aren't, again I have to say, bad business protocol.

Also, please dont confuse what I may have done in the past with right from wrong. If I pop into the local pub to have a quick 'Jimmy' with no intention of using the premises for which they were established, does that automatically make it right now? And I would not argue it to be right if you did it.

I also agree on the fact that WiFi will become 'Add-ons' at places on a wider basis. But I think the word Free is getting a little confused by the more appropriate term, 'Complimentary to patrons'.

But lets get back to the original point. If I left my network unsecured (for whatever reason I chose), and Bob next door decided he wanted to download large files, or worse still have My IP address logged on dodgy sites, I would be a little miffed, and I believe I would have every right to be.

Theft ... hmmmm :

Section 1, Subsection 1 of the Theft Act, 1968 states that a person is guilty of theft if they :

dishonestly
appropriate
property
belonging to another
with the intention
of permanently depriving the owner of it.

All points of the above definition must be proved for the offence to have been committed.

So, if I went and sat on the steps outside my local library, where I knew there was "free" wi-fi access, fired up my PDA, turned on the wi-fi feature, ran Internet Explorer and successfully connected, I would not necessarily know to which network I had connected.

It would be quite reasonable for me to assume that I was connected legitimately to the library access point, but could quite as easily be connected, unwittingly, to one owned by the chap living next door.
THIS WOULD NOT BE THEFT !

No dishonesty on my part,
You could argue that I had "appropriated" a wireless connection, but,
a wireless connection is not property - it is a service,
Yes - the wireless connection point does belong to another,
No - I am not intending to permanently deprive the owner of his wireless connection - just use it for a while.

So it definitely is NOT Theft - you have to study the precise definitions of any offence to work out whether that offence has been committed.

The offence that Straszkiewicz was charged with was "Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services" under Section 125 of the ( UK ) Communications Act, 2003, which states that :

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 so much to prove as the offence of Theft, but in my library scenario I would not be guilty as I was not acting dishonestly, and I had no intent of avoiding payment of any fees.

Gregory Straszkiewicz was fined £500 for this offence - he had been caught driving around "hunting for free net connections in a private residential area" after complaints from the residents.

It would be difficult to persuade a Magistrate that such a person was not acting dishonestly, and IMHO should also have been charged with Posession of a difficult to spell and pronounce surname in a public place :oh:

So there you go :ok:

Posted from a secure PC via an Internet connection that I paid for myself :rolleyes:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

OK. I am sorry I used the term theft. I was throwing it in loosely and didn't realise it would get interpreted in its biblical sense.

The original post from Squawk 2650 quite clearly states

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.

Thus his friend is obviously aware the connection is not being paid for out of his hard earned euros. I am apologetic that I did not point this out clearly. At all times I have assumed that the user was well aware that the connection was not theirs to flaunt.

Not being a PDA owner I am not sure of the connection procedure. If as you say:-
[I]So, if I went and sat on the steps outside my local library, where I knew there was "free" wi-fi access, fired up my PDA, turned on the wi-fi feature, ran Internet Explorer and successfully connected, I would not necessarily know to which network I had connected.[Then surely this is a major flaw in the design of PDA's. If you firstly do not know which network you are on, this could mean you may not have power over which network you connect to. Over to other PDA owners to clarify.

What is interesting is that earlier on you say it is alright if the connection was already on:-

If the wireless connection was "on" then presumably it wasn't costing the owner anything extra
to have someone connected wirelessly to their ISP -

Yet recently you state if it occurred accidentally, you could not be accussed of "Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services".

So is it alright/legal or not?

SF - Apology accepted ;)

Now calm down a bit mate - I'm jusy pointing out that the "law" isn;t always as clear as some might think.

I have never condoned any illegal or dishonest act, and never will !

... and Yes my HP Ipaq H5550 PDa does work just like that - I click the Wireless button, get a green light to say its on, then open Pocket Internet Explorer and if the wirelesss system has found a free to access connection - it uses it !

I CAN manually go into the settings and see what is connected and also what is available, but I can make a connection without knowing what that connection is ( Not that I would of course :rolleyes: )

So if I did this - with no dishonest intent on my part - as previously described, I would not be breaking any laws.

In the case of the Mr. unpronouncable that was a completely different case - and each one should be looked at in its individual context.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

Damn it.

We are getting far to close to a similar hymn sheet.

I feel like one of those grumpy old men. The thrill of a little lively opposing banter about the destinction between right and wrong of a fairly benign topic.

Still, less expensive than a crack habit.