«

I haven’t successfully googled any recent UK-based threads on this,
but: What is the legal position and current dialogue about broadband
piggybacking and community-based wireless internet?

I ask because I was at a friend’s last night and we stumbled upon the
possibility of piggybacking because somebody’s security code was the
same as their visible pc’s name, and watched iPlayer for half an hour
before thinking about the ethics and whatnot. Then, because we’re not
gits, we googled what we could, but it was mostly American stuff, so
we’re scarcely any wiser, bar our own opinions.

If it is illegal, full stop, I’d like to know; more than that, if the
dialogue is ongoing I’d like to know about it, because the more I’ve
dwelt on it, the more artificial and ideological an illegal status for
piggybacking would seem to be. I know people like a barney online,
which I’m well-rehearsed enough to ignore, and so I’ll say I’m open-
minded and can be persuaded I’m wrong if I am. I’m not an anarchist,
but I’m not an ogre either.

I understand that people have capped contracts with their providers.
I would not want to cause a neighbour to pay an effective fine. But
if I did, I’m thinking that that fine is just a current, unnecessary
arrangement, based on an artificial value – it’s not about a resource,
given that we all sleep and do other things; we’re not going to just
sit in front of the pc just because it got cheaper, so the law as it
may well stand isn’t about rational prevention of congestion. (As a
Vodafone Mobile Broadband customer I know that’s going to happen
anyway.) I would not like to have to share my guitars with the people
in my block, and I wouldn’t expect the bloke opposite to share his
motorbike; but they’re real objects. A 15 gigabyte limit is not about
something real, is it. It looks to me like things are coalesced this
way to see to it that customers each have their own, to maximise the
money made, nothing of real or rational benefit. If that was about
guitars and motorbikes, food, all well and good, I’m not naïve about
how the world works or human nature. But my dad is with Talk Talk, he
has a 40 gigabyte limit per month and uses eBay for an hour twice a
week – he must ‘waste’ about 39.8 gigabytes a month! But what has he
wasted really – nothing, it’s not real. I live in a council block, in
a bedsit. I don’t care about status and all that, and it does us good
here to be patient if need be with the washing lines, to take note of
the terms about pets and music volume; some of the people here would
be at risk of wildness if life didn’t remind them that they were
fortunate to have got the housing and a reasonable neighborhood. I
know community wireless exists, but I imagine it’s more in America and
here if it exists at all it’s sorted out by calm-thinking but
probably often cliquey ultimately isolated Guardian readers and
probably not promoted well. It may only be one little thing, but if a
thing like community wireless internet took off more, that’s one more
non-petty, non-selfish thing that could help bond people. I’m not a
hippy or an old school Socialist, but I would like to know if this is
still being doggedly lobbied in various ways. And yes I know it’s
only one thing, wouldn’t change the world on its own, and its
furtherance would in some households just mean more porn-downloading
and poker gets done. It’d improve a lot of kids’ homework.

There are only so many hours in the day and only so much anyone would
crave to download – we wouldn’t be driving the provider’s to go bust
by limiting how many individual customers they had by sharing a
connection; in all likelihood things would stay about the same
effectively, because more people would be enticed by having broadband
with shared cost. It’d level out – and if not, so what, a bit of
downsizing wouldn’t hurt the directors. They’re only spending it on
escorts, cocaine and developing a carbon footprint, eh.

I hope it's okay that this posting is neither formal, nor peppered
with bittnerness and obvious signs of letting off steam after a cacky
day at work.

In article <a7b1696d-439b-4427-90a8-(E-Mail Removed)>,
poachedeggs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I haven’t successfully googled any recent UK-based threads on this,
>but: What is the legal position and current dialogue about broadband
>piggybacking and community-based wireless internet?
>
>I ask because I was at a friend’s last night and we stumbled upon the
>possibility of piggybacking because somebody’s security code was the
>same as their visible pc’s name, and watched iPlayer for half an hour
>before thinking about the ethics and whatnot. Then, because we’re not
>gits, we googled what we could, but it was mostly American stuff, so
>we’re scarcely any wiser, bar our own opinions.
>
>If it is illegal, full stop, I’d like to know; more than that, if the
>dialogue is ongoing I’d like to know about it, because the more I’ve
>dwelt on it, the more artificial and ideological an illegal status for
>piggybacking would seem to be. I know people like a barney online,
>which I’m well-rehearsed enough to ignore, and so I’ll say I’m open-
>minded and can be persuaded I’m wrong if I am. I’m not an anarchist,
>but I’m not an ogre either.

Start here:

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle2310670.ece

Gordon

In news:a7b1696d-439b-4427-90a8-(E-Mail Removed),
poachedeggs <(E-Mail Removed)> typed, for some strange,
unexplained reason:
: I haven’t successfully googled any recent UK-based threads on this,
: but: What is the legal position and current dialogue about broadband
: piggybacking and community-based wireless internet?
:
: I ask because I was at a friend’s last night and we stumbled upon the
: possibility of piggybacking because somebody’s security code was the
: same as their visible pc’s name, and watched iPlayer for half an hour
: before thinking about the ethics and whatnot. Then, because we’re not
: gits, we googled what we could, but it was mostly American stuff, so
: we’re scarcely any wiser, bar our own opinions.
:
: If it is illegal, full stop, I’d like to know;

[snip]

It's illegal, full stop. Computer Misuse Act. Only exceptions are public
hotspots, most of which you have to pay for anyway, but there are free
ones. But using a private customer's connection is a definite no-no and as
the article Gordon Henderson refers to states, people have been arrested
for it.


Ivor

"Ivor Jones" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In news:a7b1696d-439b-4427-90a8-(E-Mail Removed),
> poachedeggs <(E-Mail Removed)> typed, for some strange,
> unexplained reason:
> : I haven’t successfully googled any recent UK-based threads on this,
> : but: What is the legal position and current dialogue about broadband
> : piggybacking and community-based wireless internet?
> :
> : I ask because I was at a friend’s last night and we stumbled upon the
> : possibility of piggybacking because somebody’s security code was the
> : same as their visible pc’s name, and watched iPlayer for half an hour
> : before thinking about the ethics and whatnot. Then, because we’re not
> : gits, we googled what we could, but it was mostly American stuff, so
> : we’re scarcely any wiser, bar our own opinions.
> :
> : If it is illegal, full stop, I’d like to know;
>
> [snip]
>
> It's illegal, full stop. Computer Misuse Act. Only exceptions are public
> hotspots, most of which you have to pay for anyway, but there are free
> ones. But using a private customer's connection is a definite no-no and as
> the article Gordon Henderson refers to states, people have been arrested
> for it.

If I was foolish enough to change my SSID to "Free public Internet access"
would I fulfil your criteria for being a public hotspot?

Lets take this one stage further. If I park outside a McDonalds, the network
I will find does not have an SSID of "Free public access, or anything like
it, I only assume I am allowed to use it because of something I might
have seen or read, but how do I know for sure I am not breaking the law?


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Graham. wrote:
> "Ivor Jones" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In news:a7b1696d-439b-4427-90a8-(E-Mail Removed),
>> poachedeggs <(E-Mail Removed)> typed, for some strange,
>> unexplained reason:
>> : I haven’t successfully googled any recent UK-based threads on this,
>> : but: What is the legal position and current dialogue about broadband
>> : piggybacking and community-based wireless internet?
>> :
>> : I ask because I was at a friend’s last night and we stumbled upon the
>> : possibility of piggybacking because somebody’s security code was the
>> : same as their visible pc’s name, and watched iPlayer for half an hour
>> : before thinking about the ethics and whatnot. Then, because we’re not
>> : gits, we googled what we could, but it was mostly American stuff, so
>> : we’re scarcely any wiser, bar our own opinions.
>> :
>> : If it is illegal, full stop, I’d like to know;
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> It's illegal, full stop. Computer Misuse Act. Only exceptions are public
>> hotspots, most of which you have to pay for anyway, but there are free
>> ones. But using a private customer's connection is a definite no-no and as
>> the article Gordon Henderson refers to states, people have been arrested
>> for it.
>
> If I was foolish enough to change my SSID to "Free public Internet access"
> would I fulfil your criteria for being a public hotspot?
>
> Lets take this one stage further. If I park outside a McDonalds, the network
> I will find does not have an SSID of "Free public access, or anything like
> it, I only assume I am allowed to use it because of something I might
> have seen or read, but how do I know for sure I am not breaking the law?
>
>
The usual common sense applies. Don't get caught. Have a mobile phone
plugged in 'no ossifer, I am using my 3GL account' and then let him
prove you weren't.

Frankly it seems an utter and complete waste of police and court time.
If you leave a network open, tough shit. If you close it and someone
hacks in, fair enough.

In article <I3W%k.5873$(E-Mail Removed)2>,
Ato_Zee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The test therefore becomes with knowledge and intent.
>As the OP said

>> we stumbled upon the possibility of piggybacking

>In such instances your PC doesn't flash up a warning
>message to tell you that this is not your home access
>point

Actually, the OP said

>> we stumbled upon the possibility of piggybacking because somebody's
>> security code was the same as their visible pc's name

which puts a rather different complexion on it. How do you find
that out without knowledge and intent?

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:29:24 GMT, "Ato_Zee" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>On 10-Dec-2008, (E-Mail Removed) (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>
>> >In such instances your PC doesn't flash up a warning
>> >message to tell you that this is not your home access
>> >point
>>
>> Actually, the OP said
>>
>> >> we stumbled upon the possibility of piggybacking because somebody's
>> >> security code was the same as their visible pc's name
>>
>> which puts a rather different complexion on it. How do you find
>> that out without knowledge and intent?
>
>In that particular incident, in most cases there is no warning
>that your PC has decided to connect through the nearest
>window to a router across the road, on the same level,
>instead of your router in another room which has a lower
>signal strength because the path is through walls and
>a floor.


I find this rather surprising as I can see 7 networks including 2
unsecured and cannot connect to any unless I click on connect, the
exception is my own which I have set to connect automaticaly.

I live in a semi and sometimes depending where I am with the laptop
get a stronger signal from next door but have never connected to it
and that one is unsecured.

One other thing that peaple should consider is ignorance is no defence
in law

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Walter <Newsgroup> wrote:

>One other thing that peaple should consider is ignorance is no defence
>in law

Ignorance *of the law* is no defence. Ignorance that you're doing
the thing in question is often a complete defence.

-- Richard

--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

"which puts a rather different complexion on it. How do you find
that out without knowledge and intent?"

Yes, we weren't naive as such. But it was curiosity about the
workings, temporarily short-circuiting our ethical interests. It
hasn't been done again, but only out of fear of prison or at least of
embarrassment. Unquestioning deference to the law, as if it wasn't
man-made, is unhealthy, especially in the case of such an ultimately
anti-social law, as perverse as that description might sound at first
in our particular cultural climate.


On Dec 11, 9:40*am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> In article <2al1k4dldjq0ftjpf9hrqarfgp69ajh...@4ax.com>,
>
> Walter *<Newsgroup> wrote:
> >One other thing that peaple should consider is ignorance is no defence
> >in law
>
> Ignorance *of the law* is no defence. *Ignorance that you're doing
> the thing in question is often a complete defence.
>
> -- Richard
>
> --
> Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

In news:(E-Mail Removed),
The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> typed, for some strange, unexplained
reason:
: Graham. wrote:
: > "Ivor Jones" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: > news:(E-Mail Removed)...

[snip]

: >> It's illegal, full stop. Computer Misuse Act. Only exceptions are
: >> public hotspots, most of which you have to pay for anyway, but
: >> there are free ones. But using a private customer's connection is
: >> a definite no-no and as the article Gordon Henderson refers to
: >> states, people have been arrested for it.
: >
: > If I was foolish enough to change my SSID to "Free public Internet
: > access" would I fulfil your criteria for being a public hotspot?

If you're genuinely operating one, yes. If it's simply a private home
connection, no.

: > Lets take this one stage further. If I park outside a McDonalds,
: > the network I will find does not have an SSID of "Free public
: > access, or anything like it, I only assume I am allowed to use it
: > because of something I might
: > have seen or read, but how do I know for sure I am not breaking the
: > law?

I assume there will be literature available inside McDonalds telling you
the terms and conditions of access to their system..? What does it say..?

: The usual common sense applies. Don't get caught. Have a mobile phone
: plugged in 'no ossifer, I am using my 3GL account' and then let him
: prove you weren't.
:
: Frankly it seems an utter and complete waste of police and court time.
: If you leave a network open, tough shit. If you close it and someone
: hacks in, fair enough.

The law doesn't see it that way.

If I leave my front door unlocked, is it ok for you to come in and take
stuff..?


Ivor