Free Wireless Internet? I don't get it.

I was at a school today that had wireless access so I fired up my
laptop and used its wireless port for the first time. It was great.

So I get home tonight and turn on the computer -- my laptop was still
set for wireless because I had never turned it off.

Lo and behold, the Internet works on my home PC even though my phone
cord is not plugged in. I checked out the specs -- it's a different
wireless service than the one at the school. I made sure my connection
was firewalled and as safe as I possibly could.

I'm not sure what this is about. I guess there must be someone nearby
with a wireless connection and my computer tapped into it. I went back
to the phone cord.

Anyone ever have this happen? Is this theft of service, if I use it,
or are the airwaves free?

In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) (Emma Winner) wrote:

> I was at a school today that had wireless access so I fired up my
> laptop and used its wireless port for the first time. It was great.
>
> So I get home tonight and turn on the computer -- my laptop was still
> set for wireless because I had never turned it off.

You have a neighbor with a non-secure network. I have one right next
door to me. I use it sometimes just to see if it's still there. Some
people are incredibly stupid.

Mike

"Emma Winner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> I was at a school today that had wireless access so I
fired up my
> laptop and used its wireless port for the first time. It
was great.
>
> So I get home tonight and turn on the computer -- my
laptop was still
> set for wireless because I had never turned it off.
>
> Lo and behold, the Internet works on my home PC even
though my phone
> cord is not plugged in. I checked out the specs -- it's a
different
> wireless service than the one at the school. I made sure
my connection
> was firewalled and as safe as I possibly could.
>
> I'm not sure what this is about. I guess there must be
someone nearby
> with a wireless connection and my computer tapped into it.
I went back
> to the phone cord.
>
> Anyone ever have this happen? Is this theft of service, if
I use it,
> or are the airwaves free?

this has been asked & answered a few times. As I understand
it, if you use the other persons connection without his
knowledge, that is technicaly theft. I believe also, in the
US, he can also be held liable if you use his connection,
albeit unknowingly, for nefarious purposes. As for the
airwaves being free?..nothing in this life is ever free ;-)

P.

"PJB" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Emma Winner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> > I was at a school today that had wireless access so I
> fired up my
> > laptop and used its wireless port for the first time. It
> was great.
> >
> > So I get home tonight and turn on the computer -- my
> laptop was still
> > set for wireless because I had never turned it off.
> >
> > Lo and behold, the Internet works on my home PC even
> though my phone
> > cord is not plugged in. I checked out the specs -- it's a
> different
> > wireless service than the one at the school. I made sure
> my connection
> > was firewalled and as safe as I possibly could.
> >
> > I'm not sure what this is about. I guess there must be
> someone nearby
> > with a wireless connection and my computer tapped into it.
> I went back
> > to the phone cord.
> >
> > Anyone ever have this happen? Is this theft of service, if
> I use it,
> > or are the airwaves free?
>
> this has been asked & answered a few times. As I understand
> it, if you use the other persons connection without his
> knowledge, that is technicaly theft. I believe also, in the
> US, he can also be held liable if you use his connection,
> albeit unknowingly, for nefarious purposes. As for the
> airwaves being free?..nothing in this life is ever free ;-)
>
> P.
You are no doubt right that this is theft. It would make more sense if it
was only theft i I stand on my neighbours property when I use his internet.
It is my neighbours responsibility to prevent acces on my property. After
all, if his dog strays on my property then have I stolen his dog?.
Should I sue my neighbour for sending unwanted radiowaves into my house?
>
>

E.D. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> After
> all, if his dog strays on my property then have I stolen his dog?.

No, but you have no right to shoot it! (Except when you are from Texas).

--
Groeten,

Antonio (Voor email, verwijder X)

On Mon, 31 May 2004 12:52:43 +0200, "E.D." <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>"PJB" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> this has been asked & answered a few times. As I understand
>> it, if you use the other persons connection without his
>> knowledge, that is technicaly theft. I believe also, in the
>> US, he can also be held liable if you use his connection,
>> albeit unknowingly, for nefarious purposes. As for the
>> airwaves being free?..nothing in this life is ever free ;-)
>>
>> P.
>You are no doubt right that this is theft. It would make more sense if it
>was only theft i I stand on my neighbours property when I use his internet.
>It is my neighbours responsibility to prevent acces on my property. After
>all, if his dog strays on my property then have I stolen his dog?.
>Should I sue my neighbour for sending unwanted radiowaves into my house?
>>
>>

You are free to *receive* (ie. passively monitor) your neighbors radio
waves (in the US anyway). The courts have consistently ruled that
anyone broadcasting an unscrambled transmission cannot presume that
the transmission will be kept private.

However, using your neighbor's access point involves an active
exchange with it. The law is very clear that such access requires
permission from your neighbor.

George
--
Send real email to GNEUNER2 at COMCAST o NET

"George Neuner"
| >> this has been asked & answered a few times. As I understand
| >> it, if you use the other persons connection without his
| >> knowledge, that is technically theft. I believe also, in the
| >> US, he can also be held liable if you use his connection,
| >> albeit unknowingly, for nefarious purposes. As for the
| >> airwaves being free?..nothing in this life is ever free ;-)
| >>
| >> P.
| >You are no doubt right that this is theft. It would make more sense if it
| >was only theft i I stand on my neighbours property when I use his
internet.
| >It is my neighbours responsibility to prevent acces on my property. After
| >all, if his dog strays on my property then have I stolen his dog?.
| >Should I sue my neighbour for sending unwanted radiowaves into my house?
| >>
| >>
|
| You are free to *receive* (ie. passively monitor) your neighbors radio
| waves (in the US anyway). The courts have consistently ruled that
| anyone broadcasting an unscrambled transmission cannot presume that
| the transmission will be kept private.

Not necessarily true. Wireless intercept laws and case law are complicated.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:43:21 -0400, "Not Me" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"George Neuner"

>| You are free to *receive* (ie. passively monitor) your neighbors radio
>| waves (in the US anyway). The courts have consistently ruled that
>| anyone broadcasting an unscrambled transmission cannot presume that
>| the transmission will be kept private.
>
>Not necessarily true. Wireless intercept laws and case law are complicated.
>

*** DISCLAIMER ***

I am not an attorney, but several members of my family are attorneys
in intellectual propery, real estate and general practice.

*** DISCLAIMER ***

AFAIK, The law is pretty clear that receiving radio signals is not a
crime. It is a crime to transmit in certain frequency ranges without
a license, but those same frequencies can be received without one. A
crime is only committed when a listener takes steps to decode a
deliberately scrambled signal without permission or when information
gleaned from listening is used in the further commission of a crime.

Civil actions, OTOH, are all over the map. It's difficult to predict
outcomes because anyone can sue for any perceived wrong and the facts
are inconsistent from case to case. However, the largest civil case
I am aware of involved competing traffic information companies - one
of which was monitoring the other's, supposedly private, helicoptor
reports and reporting the information as their own. The judge in that
case ruled ( rightly I think ) that because the transmissions were
made in the clear, there could no expectation of privacy.

George
--
Send real email to GNEUNER2 at COMCAST o NET

Taking a moment's reflection, Not Me mused:
|
| Not necessarily true. Wireless intercept laws and case law are
| complicated.

While they may be complicated, that doesn't mean they are not clear.
Establishing two-way traffic on someone else's network constitutes
connecting and using that network. In the case of consumer network, the
owner and the connector are probably both in violation. The owner with the
ISP's TOS and the connector with the legality of an unauthorized connection.
Though, in the States, just because you do something that is technically
illegal, it doesn't mean you will necessarily be charged with a crime, or
convicted if charged.

We do have this conversation periodically. I am certainly not a lawyer, and
the one person in my family who is a lawyer doesn't specialize in this.

Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that anyone can claim to know for
certain that the law is perfectly clear in the U.S. about intercepted
transmissions. In the first place, much of the applicable law is privacy
law, and the bulk of this law is state, not federal, law. Federal law does
*not* prevent state law from being more restrictive.

California and New York have strict laws forbidding the monitoring of
unencrypted cordless phone signals transmitted in the unlicensed radio
bands, in spite of "reasonable expectation of privacy". New Mexico has a law
forbidding monitoring of communications including "wireless" - it places no
restrictions on whether the wireless communication is encrypted or not, or
in an unlicensed band. Fourteen states have specific laws forbidding
monitoring of cell phones, even though these transmissions are also
unencrypted. Actually, federal law also forbids cell phone monitoring, and
the production and sale of devices that allow it.

I think that very few of these laws have been tested against wifi. Even if
you assume they do not apply, there may be other privacy laws that do - for
example, if you record the intercepted information, or if you post it to the
internet or otherwise spread it around.

"George Neuner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:43:21 -0400, "Not Me" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >
> >"George Neuner"
>
> >| You are free to *receive* (ie. passively monitor) your neighbors radio
> >| waves (in the US anyway). The courts have consistently ruled that
> >| anyone broadcasting an unscrambled transmission cannot presume that
> >| the transmission will be kept private.
> >
> >Not necessarily true. Wireless intercept laws and case law are
complicated.
> >
>
> *** DISCLAIMER ***
>
> I am not an attorney, but several members of my family are attorneys
> in intellectual propery, real estate and general practice.
>
> *** DISCLAIMER ***
>
> AFAIK, The law is pretty clear that receiving radio signals is not a
> crime. It is a crime to transmit in certain frequency ranges without
> a license, but those same frequencies can be received without one. A
> crime is only committed when a listener takes steps to decode a
> deliberately scrambled signal without permission or when information
> gleaned from listening is used in the further commission of a crime.
>
> Civil actions, OTOH, are all over the map. It's difficult to predict
> outcomes because anyone can sue for any perceived wrong and the facts
> are inconsistent from case to case. However, the largest civil case
> I am aware of involved competing traffic information companies - one
> of which was monitoring the other's, supposedly private, helicoptor
> reports and reporting the information as their own. The judge in that
> case ruled ( rightly I think ) that because the transmissions were
> made in the clear, there could no expectation of privacy.
>
> George
> --
> Send real email to GNEUNER2 at COMCAST o NET