NEWS: Half of computer users are Wi-Fi thieves

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/15/stolen_wifi/>

More than half of computer users have illegally stolen Wi-Fi
connections, according to The Times - but only 11 alleged offenders
have been arrested in the UK, as the police seem to think those
deploying Wi-Fi should be more careful about securing their
connections.

The data was collected from a "Have Your Say" survey on the website
of security-specialist Sophos: apparently 54 per cent of the 560
people who responded admitted nicking bandwidth from insecure Wi-Fi
routers.

This might say more about Sophos customers than the general
population, and extrapolating the results to every computer user in
the country is probably a crime against statistics: so that's exactly
what The Times has done.

[MORE]

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

> The data was collected from a "Have Your Say" survey on the website
> of security-specialist Sophos: apparently 54 per cent of the 560
> people who responded admitted nicking bandwidth from insecure Wi-Fi
> routers.

You can only 'steal' what others don't want to let you share. This fails to
consider when someone sets up a wifi access point and deliberately leaves it
open with the intention to allow some freeloaders.

Of course then there's all the iPhone thieves.

Bill Kearney wrote:
>> The data was collected from a "Have Your Say" survey on the website
>> of security-specialist Sophos: apparently 54 per cent of the 560
>> people who responded admitted nicking bandwidth from insecure Wi-Fi
>> routers.
>
> You can only 'steal' what others don't want to let you share. This fails to
> consider when someone sets up a wifi access point and deliberately leaves it
> open with the intention to allow some freeloaders.
>
> Of course then there's all the iPhone thieves.
>

But I bet the great majority of open access points go something like
this. They go to the big box store and ask the experts for a wireless
"thing", bring it home, plug it in and when the laptop works out on the
deck success is declared.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:50:08 -0500, "Bill Kearney"
<wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote in
<UsSdnT5-(E-Mail Removed)>:

>> The data was collected from a "Have Your Say" survey on the website
>> of security-specialist Sophos: apparently 54 per cent of the 560
>> people who responded admitted nicking bandwidth from insecure Wi-Fi
>> routers.
>
>You can only 'steal' what others don't want to let you share.

You actually 'steal' when you have no explicit permission to take it.

>This fails to
>consider when someone sets up a wifi access point and deliberately leaves it
>open with the intention to allow some freeloaders.

No way of knowing that unless (a) that's clearly signaled in the SSID or
(b) you've actually asked.

The more likely case is that it's been left open by ignorance or
accident.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

"George" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
> Bill Kearney wrote:
>>> The data was collected from a "Have Your Say" survey on the website
>>> of security-specialist Sophos: apparently 54 per cent of the 560
>>> people who responded admitted nicking bandwidth from insecure Wi-Fi
>>> routers.
>>
>> You can only 'steal' what others don't want to let you share. This fails
>> to
>> consider when someone sets up a wifi access point and deliberately leaves
>> it
>> open with the intention to allow some freeloaders.
>>
>> Of course then there's all the iPhone thieves.
>>
>
> But I bet the great majority of open access points go something like this.
> They go to the big box store and ask the experts for a wireless "thing",
> bring it home, plug it in and when the laptop works out on the deck
> success is declared.

I believe you are right there George. Most users are ...well...users. That
being said, it means that unless the outside person has specifically asked
to use their wireless device to access the Internet, that outside person
trespasses on private property when they connect to their wireless access
point. The second the outside person accesses the Internet through the
trespassed wireless access point they are stealing service. (The wireless
access point owner is the one that has paid for the Internet connection,
therefore it has value. It may be only pennies but it is still theft.)

I for one use WPA. At least that tells the outside person that they are not
welcome in my network. If I catch someone on my network, I will triangulate
on their location and let them know that they are not welcome on my network.
When I see a network up - unlocked - in my neighborhood, I triangulate on it
and contact that neighbor and let them know the risk they are taking, and
how to solve it. Just a neighborly thing to do.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Richard Johnson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> I believe you are right there George. Most users are ...well...users. That
> being said, it means that unless the outside person has specifically asked
> to use their wireless device to access the Internet, that outside person
> trespasses on private property when they connect to their wireless access
> point. The second the outside person accesses the Internet through the
> trespassed wireless access point they are stealing service. (The wireless
> access point owner is the one that has paid for the Internet connection,
> therefore it has value. It may be only pennies but it is still theft.)

I think this could get interesting. On the one hand, there is a
fairly well established string of cases and laws that says if something
is available from a public right of way or your own property, then it is
fair game. For instance, when I was a newsie, I could take pictures from
the sidewalk into someone's property but not actually enter the property
to go looking for it.
One the other hand, there is also a couple of laws floating around
that specifically states it is illegal to intercept private
conversations (like for instance when you used to be able to get cell or
cordless phone conversations over your police scanner).
Don't know yet of a case or specific law that addresses this, at
least in the US. Until then it is probably a toss up on what the law
really is.
>

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:29:12 -0500, Kurt Ullman <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in
<kurtullman-(E-Mail Removed)>:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "Richard Johnson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>> I believe you are right there George. Most users are ...well...users. That
>> being said, it means that unless the outside person has specifically asked
>> to use their wireless device to access the Internet, that outside person
>> trespasses on private property when they connect to their wireless access
>> point. The second the outside person accesses the Internet through the
>> trespassed wireless access point they are stealing service. (The wireless
>> access point owner is the one that has paid for the Internet connection,
>> therefore it has value. It may be only pennies but it is still theft.)
>
> I think this could get interesting. On the one hand, there is a
>fairly well established string of cases and laws that says if something
>is available from a public right of way or your own property, then it is
>fair game. For instance, when I was a newsie, I could take pictures from
>the sidewalk into someone's property but not actually enter the property
>to go looking for it.

Not a valid analogy -- in the case of Wi-Fi, it's theft of a commercial
service.

> One the other hand, there is also a couple of laws floating around
>that specifically states it is illegal to intercept private
>conversations (like for instance when you used to be able to get cell or
>cordless phone conversations over your police scanner).
> Don't know yet of a case or specific law that addresses this, at
>least in the US. Until then it is probably a toss up on what the law
>really is.

<http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/technology/personaltech/internet_piracy/>
<http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/State/Wi_Fi_cloaks_a_new_br.shtml>
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276720,00.html>
<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6447.html>

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> > I think this could get interesting. On the one hand, there is a
> >fairly well established string of cases and laws that says if something
> >is available from a public right of way or your own property, then it is
> >fair game. For instance, when I was a newsie, I could take pictures from
> >the sidewalk into someone's property but not actually enter the property
> >to go looking for it.
>
> Not a valid analogy -- in the case of Wi-Fi, it's theft of a commercial
> service.
Actually it is in this context. The theft is not of the WiFi signal
itself but of the service. It isn't between and the dude on the street,
but rather the ISP and dude. The original was wether it was illegal per
se to get on the Wifi (if I understood it).


>
> > One the other hand, there is also a couple of laws floating around
> >that specifically states it is illegal to intercept private
> >conversations (like for instance when you used to be able to get cell or
> >cordless phone conversations over your police scanner).
> > Don't know yet of a case or specific law that addresses this, at
> >least in the US. Until then it is probably a toss up on what the law
> >really is.
>
> <http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/technology/personaltech/internet_piracy/>

Which exactly made my point that the law is murky.

> <http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/State/Wi_Fi_cloaks_a_new_br.shtml>

This is better, although most of it had to do with stealing numbers, or
other things that are illegal no matter how you do it.

> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276720,00.html>
This is the most interesting although it addresses a state law so it's
usefulness in the other 49 is up in the air (so to speak). I think that
this one might have been much more interesting if the dude had had the
bucks to fight it. I find it hard to believe that something that is put
out there specificly for public use all of sudden becomes illegal
because of a few feet. Especially without a complaint from the owner.
This has "someone pissed off a cop" written all over it.

> <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6447.html>

Better article. But again, local. However, it does answer some of my
questions about specific laws, thanks.

What's the difference between a coffee house or other establishment
having an open access point for their customers versus an individual
having an open access point? If they don't want to share it with others
then they need to secure it. If they don't secure it then they are
implicitly sharing it, IMO. Remember, ignorance is no excuse.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>> I think this could get interesting. On the one hand, there is a
>>> fairly well established string of cases and laws that says if something
>>> is available from a public right of way or your own property, then it is
>>> fair game. For instance, when I was a newsie, I could take pictures from
>>> the sidewalk into someone's property but not actually enter the property
>>> to go looking for it.
>> Not a valid analogy -- in the case of Wi-Fi, it's theft of a commercial
>> service.
> Actually it is in this context. The theft is not of the WiFi signal
> itself but of the service. It isn't between and the dude on the street,
> but rather the ISP and dude. The original was wether it was illegal per
> se to get on the Wifi (if I understood it).
>
>
>>> One the other hand, there is also a couple of laws floating around
>>> that specifically states it is illegal to intercept private
>>> conversations (like for instance when you used to be able to get cell or
>>> cordless phone conversations over your police scanner).
>>> Don't know yet of a case or specific law that addresses this, at
>>> least in the US. Until then it is probably a toss up on what the law
>>> really is.
>> <http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/technology/personaltech/internet_piracy/>
>
> Which exactly made my point that the law is murky.
>
>> <http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/State/Wi_Fi_cloaks_a_new_br.shtml>
>
> This is better, although most of it had to do with stealing numbers, or
> other things that are illegal no matter how you do it.
>
>> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276720,00.html>
> This is the most interesting although it addresses a state law so it's
> usefulness in the other 49 is up in the air (so to speak). I think that
> this one might have been much more interesting if the dude had had the
> bucks to fight it. I find it hard to believe that something that is put
> out there specificly for public use all of sudden becomes illegal
> because of a few feet. Especially without a complaint from the owner.
> This has "someone pissed off a cop" written all over it.
>
>> <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6447.html>
>
> Better article. But again, local. However, it does answer some of my
> questions about specific laws, thanks.


--
Gyz

Everyone thinks they know how to drive.
Everyone thinks they are good drivers.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:02:35 -0700, Gyzmologist <ru-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
in <8uv%i.19846$(E-Mail Removed)>:

>What's the difference between a coffee house or other establishment
>having an open access point for their customers versus an individual
>having an open access point? If they don't want to share it with others
>then they need to secure it. If they don't secure it then they are
>implicitly sharing it, IMO.

That like saying it's OK to enter any house with an unlocked door.
Sorry, but that won't pass muster -- it's trespass.
You need actual permission to legitimately use Wi-Fi,
just as you need actual permission to enter the house without trespass.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>