Hijacking a broadband connection

I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours hijack
my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.

Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of the
law, then:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm
[quote]
A recent court case, which saw a West London man fined £500 and sentenced to
12 months' conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband
connection, has implications for almost every user of wi-fi networks. It is
believed to be the first case of its kind in the UK, but with an estimated
one million wi-fi users around the country, it is unlikely to be the last.
"There are a lot of implications and this could open the floodgates to many
more such cases," said Phil Cracknell, chief technology officer of security
firm NetSurity. Details in this particular case are sketchy although it is
known that Gregory Straszkiewicz had "piggybacked" on a wireless broadband
network of a local Ealing resident, using a laptop while sitting in his car.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:08:10 +0100, "The Todal" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours hijack
>my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
>inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
>
>Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of the
>law, then

I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.

Paul.

--
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Humour is very subjective. One man's light-hearted comment is another's insult.
.. Is there a moron carrot above? Have you replied to it? Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:08:10 +0100, The Todal in message
<news:(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours hijack
> my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
> inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
>
> Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of the
> law, then:
>

About bloody time!

I have been arguing that this was against the law for years, and always
get met with the response "where is the case law then".

And it isn't a way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of
the law. It has to be done knowingly before it is illegal.

When you are sitting in a car piggybacking on whatever open network you can
find, that is obviously knowingly accessing without authorisation.

But when you accidentally pick up the neighbours' instead of your own, that
is a different kettle of fish entirely.

But it is still a good idea to secure your own network - and change the
SSID. If you don't change the SSID, then any neighbours with the same brand
of router will have the same SSID, and your laptops won't usually know
which one they are accessing.

--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom

"Paul Harper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:08:10 +0100, "The Todal" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours
>>hijack
>>my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
>>inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
>>
>>Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of
>>the
>>law, then
>
> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
> their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.

Agreed. I now use security on my home wireless broadband. It does
unfortunately mean that when my kids are trying to connect, their computers
connect them to the neighbour's service and seemingly I can't prevent that.
Or at least, if there is a way I'd like to know it.

The suggestion is, though, that if you go looking for free wireless
connections you are likely to be breaking the law as soon as you make a
connection to someone's service. Not a lot of people know that, I should
think.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:43:45 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>But it is still a good idea to secure your own network - and change the
>SSID. If you don't change the SSID, then any neighbours with the same brand
>of router will have the same SSID, and your laptops won't usually know
>which one they are accessing.

Agreed. And setting the router to not broadcast the SSID is good too.

Paul.

--
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Humour is very subjective. One man's light-hearted comment is another's insult.
.. Is there a moron carrot above? Have you replied to it? Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:45:21 +0100, The Todal in message
<news:(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Paul Harper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:08:10 +0100, "The Todal" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours
>>>hijack
>>>my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
>>>inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
>>>
>>>Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of
>>>the
>>>law, then
>>
>> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
>> their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.
>
> Agreed. I now use security on my home wireless broadband. It does
> unfortunately mean that when my kids are trying to connect, their computers
> connect them to the neighbour's service and seemingly I can't prevent that.
> Or at least, if there is a way I'd like to know it.
>

Quite easy.

All wireless routers I am aware of have the facility to change the SSID (it
usually defaults to something like "NETGEAR", or "3COM").

If you change it to something unique to you, and then set the kids laptop
to only connect to that network, rather than to "any network in range",
then they should always use yours.

--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
You have to be sharp to be on the cutting edge.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom

On 28 Jul 2005, The Todal wrote
> "Paul Harper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:08:10 +0100, "The Todal"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had
>>> neighbours hijack my connection, and having discovered that my
>>> own kids were sometimes inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's
>>> connection.
>>>
>>> Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in
>>> breach of the law, then
>>
>> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security
>> on their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am
>> concerned.
>
> Agreed. I now use security on my home wireless broadband. It does
> unfortunately mean that when my kids are trying to connect, their
> computers connect them to the neighbour's service and seemingly I
> can't prevent that. Or at least, if there is a way I'd like to
> know it.

Have you mentioned it to your neighbour, in case he's unaware of
people using his unsecured network, or unaware that it should be
secured? (Or is he likely to punch you out rather than thank you?)

FWIW, I set up a laptop for my sister-in-law this past spring which,
out of the box, was set up to search for networks. It picked up 5,
exactly *none* of which were secured. 4 of them were wireless Internet
connections, but one of them was an unsecured wireless LAN for the
local branch of Deloitte & Co -- the accountants/whatever firm.

I wasn't surprised to see the home networks, but an unsecured company
LAN?

--
Cheers,
Harvey

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

> FWIW, I set up a laptop for my sister-in-law this past spring which,
> out of the box, was set up to search for networks. It picked up 5,
> exactly *none* of which were secured. 4 of them were wireless Internet
> connections, but one of them was an unsecured wireless LAN for the
> local branch of Deloitte & Co -- the accountants/whatever firm.
>
> I wasn't surprised to see the home networks, but an unsecured company
> LAN?

Just because they aren't using WEP/WPA or MAC Filterting doesn't mean
there isn't any security. Its possible they are using some other
security (ie. a VPN). The only way to find out is to connect.

--
Chris.

On 28 Jul 2005, Chris S. wrote

> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I set up a laptop for my sister-in-law this past spring
>> which, out of the box, was set up to search for networks. It
>> picked up 5, exactly *none* of which were secured. 4 of them
>> were wireless Internet connections, but one of them was an
>> unsecured wireless LAN for the local branch of Deloitte & Co --
>> the accountants/whatever firm.
>>
>> I wasn't surprised to see the home networks, but an unsecured
>> company LAN?
>
> Just because they aren't using WEP/WPA or MAC Filterting doesn't
> mean there isn't any security. Its possible they are using some
> other security (ie. a VPN). The only way to find out is to
> connect.

True -- and I didn't try it, so I can't say if they were.

I was just surprised to see what looked like a potentially gaping hole,
and would have thought their IT guys should have secured it -- and made
it *look* secure -- from all angles.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

"The Todal" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> The suggestion is, though,

no, its not a suggestion. It has been law for a wee while now.

> that if you go looking for free wireless connections

Yup - ***IF YOU GO LOOKING***

> you are likely to be breaking the law as soon as you make a connection to
> someone's service. Not a lot of people know that, I should think.

I think you think wrong.

I also think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The perp as
reported in The Register 3 days ago was actively driving around the
neighbours looking for open connections. Hardly the same as your kids
linking inadvertently to your neighbours connection is it?

g.