wifi loggin on

I got a wifi sniffer on my GPS PDA, I have found while driving to work about
5 hotspots (private address) with no wep encryption,
Is it illegal to log on and surf - check email?

At my works I have wifi with wep encryption, the factory next door has the
same but dose not have any encryption, while using my laptop the other day,
it managed to log onto there wifi connection, after about 5 mins of thinking
my connection is slow today I looked at the network configuration to find I
was logged onto the factory next door at 2Mbps- if it is illegal shouldn't
encryption be the normal not an option?

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 08:53:59 +0000, wps wrote:

> I got a wifi sniffer on my GPS PDA, I have found while driving to work
> about 5 hotspots (private address) with no wep encryption, Is it illegal
> to log on and surf - check email?

Its for you to decide, who's going to coming knocking on your door, would
you be bothered if someone did it to your system ?

Dave
--

Some people use windows, others have a life.

"wps" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:HeSwd.25413$(E-Mail Removed). uk...
>I got a wifi sniffer on my GPS PDA, I have found while driving to work
>about
> 5 hotspots (private address) with no wep encryption,
> Is it illegal to log on and surf - check email?
>
> At my works I have wifi with wep encryption, the factory next door has the
> same but dose not have any encryption, while using my laptop the other
> day,
> it managed to log onto there wifi connection, after about 5 mins of
> thinking
> my connection is slow today I looked at the network configuration to find
> I
> was logged onto the factory next door at 2Mbps- if it is illegal shouldn't
> encryption be the normal not an option?
>
>

dose = does and it's immoral.

It's Xmas, so also go round and tell them.

toy

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 08:53:59 GMT, "wps" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I got a wifi sniffer on my GPS PDA, I have found while driving to work about
>5 hotspots (private address) with no wep encryption,
>Is it illegal to log on and surf - check email?


The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is as follows;

1.(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to
secure access to any program or data held in any computer;

(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and

(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform
the function that that is the case.

(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under
this section need not be directed at—

(a) any particular program or data;

(b) a program or data of any particular kind; or

(c) a program or data held in any particular computer.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx

Once you know you have accidental access to someone else's computer
and then continue to use it there would be an offence. Proving it is
another matter.


>At my works I have wifi with wep encryption, the factory next door has the
>same but dose not have any encryption, while using my laptop the other day,
>it managed to log onto there wifi connection, after about 5 mins of thinking
>my connection is slow today I looked at the network configuration to find I
>was logged onto the factory next door at 2Mbps- if it is illegal shouldn't
>encryption be the normal not an option?

As you have found out it is quite easy for someone else to get access
to WiFi so encryption should be the norm.

Geoff Lane

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:26:28 +0000, Geoff Lane
<(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:

>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 08:53:59 GMT, "wps" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>I got a wifi sniffer on my GPS PDA, I have found while driving to work about
>>5 hotspots (private address) with no wep encryption,
>>Is it illegal to log on and surf - check email?
>
>
>The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is as follows;
>
> 1.(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
>
> (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to
>secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
>
That's what any computer does on a network or with internet access.

> (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
>
That applies again as above.

> (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform
>the function that that is the case.
>
And again.
So that's all of us guilty then.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:34:15 +0000, Lurch
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:26:28 +0000, Geoff Lane

>>
>>The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is as follows;
>>
>> 1.(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
>>
>> (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to
>>secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
>>
>That's what any computer does on a network or with internet access.
>
>> (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
>>
>That applies again as above.
>
>> (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform
>>the function that that is the case.
>>
>And again.
>So that's all of us guilty then.

No, it's the unauthorised bit in section B that 'can' make an offence.

Most of us hide behind routers and firewalls to prevent 'unauthorised'
access but as I mentioned, proving it is another matter.

Geoff Lane

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:42:26 +0000, Geoff Lane
<(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:

>No, it's the unauthorised bit in section B that 'can' make an offence.
>
Ah, another one of those 'read it a different way every time type
things'!
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:57:04 +0000, Lurch
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:42:26 +0000, Geoff Lane
><(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:
>
>>No, it's the unauthorised bit in section B that 'can' make an offence.
>>
>Ah, another one of those 'read it a different way every time type
>things'!

Ah, if the law was easy the poor people in flowing gowns and wigs
wouldn't earn vast sums of money arguing it in court and would then
have to work for a living :-)))

Geoff Lane

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:03:13 +0000, Geoff Lane
<(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:

>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:57:04 +0000, Lurch
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:42:26 +0000, Geoff Lane
>><(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:
>>
>>>No, it's the unauthorised bit in section B that 'can' make an offence.
>>>
>>Ah, another one of those 'read it a different way every time type
>>things'!
>
>Ah, if the law was easy the poor people in flowing gowns and wigs
>wouldn't earn vast sums of money arguing it in court and would then
>have to work for a living :-)))

Thinking about it, how do you know it's 'unauthorised'? If you happen
across an unsecured network perhaps it's intentional, therefore
'authorised'. Without any specific knowledge one way or the other you
can't say it's 'unauthorised'.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:05:37 +0000, Lurch
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>>>No, it's the unauthorised bit in section B that 'can' make an offence.
>>>>
>>>Ah, another one of those 'read it a different way every time type
>>>things'!
>>
>>Ah, if the law was easy the poor people in flowing gowns and wigs
>>wouldn't earn vast sums of money arguing it in court and would then
>>have to work for a living :-)))
>
>Thinking about it, how do you know it's 'unauthorised'? If you happen
>across an unsecured network perhaps it's intentional, therefore
>'authorised'. Without any specific knowledge one way or the other you
>can't say it's 'unauthorised'.

Proving unauthorised may be difficult for something simple like just
sending and receiving email via someone else's computer but if someone
was to use some else's computer to send and receive pornographic
material the assumption could be that the other party would not give
permission.

As mentioned, proving unauthorised would be difficult but technically
there could be a offence.

Geoff Lane