Until you can provide a quote from the RFC that uses the word "house" you aren't going to win this argument.

The purpose of a wireless access point is to provide wireless access. Period. Full stop. The word "house" has nothing to do with it. Your WAP advertises its presence. My computer says, "hi! May I have an IP address?" and your WAP says, "sure! Here you go!"

If you want to invent some additional feature that involves just your house, then I want you to go find that requirement in the RFC. Until you do that, I'm right and you're wrong. A WAP is *exactly* like a web server. It's a machine. When you buy it, you take responsibility to configure it to do whatever you want it to do. If you configure it to allow public access, then it's rather stupid of you to be angry that the public accesses it. It's *exactly* like a web server in that regard.

no I'm not.

Like what, if I use BAUT to pick up chicks?

Bottom line, if you have a web server, and you configure that web server to listen on port 80 on an IP address on the internet, then it's silly of you to say, "WAIT! I ONLY WANTED PEOPLE IN MY HOUSE TO LOOK AT THIS! MOM!!! HE'S LOOKING AT MY WEB PAGE! MAKE HIM STOP!" The government might come along and say that unless you're a teacher, it is illegal for you to look at any web site on a .edu domain. But if I do it anyway that doesn't make it stealing or hacking.

That's right it is. But using someone's WAP isn't. Also (because you probably don't know this either) downloading the latest britney spears song isn't stealing. It's copyright violation. It isn't stealing. That doesn't mean it's legal or moral. It just means it isn't stealing.

I don't know if it has been tested in court, but I would argue the prinicple of implicit consent. Kind of like placing your 50" tv in a bay window and claiming your privacy was violated by people walking by on the sidewalk and stopping to watch. If you don't want people to use it, then secure it. On a modern router, securing a network is trivial. As far as I am concerned, if you didn't secure your router, it is because you want people to use it.

I have no idea if that argument would hold up in court, but it does mean that I connect to unsecure networks whenever I need to and I don't consider it to be illegal or unethical.

BTW, my wireless router at home is secure.

__________________
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.

No, he can't. He can start using it, too, but the router will still delegate some of that bandwidth to you.

No, he's not "actively giving" you access. Go to the store, buy a WAP, take it home, plug it in, turn it on. Is access restricted? No. That's the default setting. He has just not "actively" disabled it.

And that's not even the point. It is wong to enter another person's property without their explicit permission, and them opening the door and/or leaving it open doesn't qualify.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Look, if we're fumbling around looking for an accurate analogy so that we can have this debate without using any technical terms, here's what we need:

1. an analogy that doesn't involve a physical entity like a car. If I take your car, then I have a car and you don't. That's not what's happening here.

2. an analogy that doesn't make reference to property lines, like saying, "if you come into my house." Nobody is trespassing here. I promise you, any electrons that are used are just jiggled. They're not actually coming from outside and going inside.

The facts are:
1. The person with the WAP is advertising something. That little radio is broadcasting outside their house. The advertisement says, "please connect to me" in computer language.

2. The person connecting is using the device in accordance with the rules that the WAP owner has set.

3. It *may* be illegal. Lots of things are illegal. That doesn't mean it's like stealing a car.

4. It is certainly unneighborly, and probably rude. There are lots of things in life that I don't advise you to do. It's rude to stare. That doesn't mean it's necessarily illegal or immoral. I do advise you to put close on before you go outside. If you ignore that advise, don't be surprised if people stare.

That's what everyone has been talking about. It's not like watching a TV through the open window, it's like getting a remote control and hijacking that TV to change the channel to whatever you want to watch, and even turning it on when you want to, not the owner.


-Richard

Someone can take back his bandwidth by securing his network. Then I'd have to stop using it. Using someone's network is not entering his property. It's requesting information from it.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

good god man, are you posting through a time portal from the year 1986? It's called QOS. Any router from Best Buy will do it.

What if their door is secured by a keypad, and they have a sign on the door saying "access controlled by keycode, please take one", and they have a box full of 3x5 cards below the sign, with a valid keycode printed on each?

I mean, as long as we're arguing by analogy and all.

No, it's not. It's like pointing your web browser at a web page. 1000 people can use it all at the same time. If you put a web server on the internet, and someone that you don't know accesses it, that's not hijacking.

Comparing the ladies here to unsecured access somehow seems inappropriate. "But your honor, it was wearing a very revealing IP address." [/satire]

Anyways, I doubt any of the ladies here would date any member who logs onto BAUT by stealing internet access.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

That is not its purpose, that is what does in pursuance of its purpose. Purpose includes an intent, and the WAP doesn't have one of its own.

A person who puts a server on the Internet can be construed to be serving the Internet. A person who puts a WAP in their living room can not be construed to be serving the whole neighborhood.

That's exactly like saying if you leave your front door standing open, it's stupid to be angry if the public accesses your house. It may be technically true, but the people entering your house are still going to jail.

A door standing open is not a legal invitation to use, whether that door is physical or digital.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Except of course that a computer is nothing like a house, and the digital "door" isn't really analagous to a physical door at all.

But if you do insist on arguing from analogy, here's one that's closer to the truth of the matter:

A locked door, with a bar code engraved on the front. The bar code may encode access authorization and an access key, or it may encode access prohibition, and no key. Anybody can walk up to the door with a bar code reader, and scan the bar code on the locked door. They will see either a message from the door's owner, granting them access and giving them a key to unlock the door, or they will see a message denying them access. If the bar code grants access, and provides a key, then what?

lol! Shall I compare thee to free internet? Thou art more geeky and awesome.

Seriously though, I wasn't comparing them to unsecured access. Sean said, "what if someone uses the web site for a purpose other than the one I intended." That didn't make any sense to me, so I said, "like picking up chicks"

Purpose. The purpose of a wireless access point is to provide wireless access. The purpose of a web server is to serve web pages. If I buy and install a WAP, it's silly of me to whine when someone uses it for its intended purpose. If I buy and install a web server, it's silly of me to whine when someone connects to i.

Let me guess, because "they just can't!" you'll say while stomping your feet.

Look, it's exactly the same thing. If you have some argument to make that they aren't the same, then let's hear it.

No, it's not. Analogies to the physical world simply don't work. Personal space physically occupied by another person is not the same thing as giggling a few electrons on a wire.

Wrong. If you're going to call this a "digital door" then I'm going back to my totally awesome and debate-winning web server comparison. If I buy a web server and I connect it to the internet, then it has a "door" on port 80. And yes, that door is an invitation for a web browser to connect. And it's just ridiculous to whine when someone connects to it. Even if the government made it illegal, it would still be ridiculous. Similarly, if I buy a WAP, it starts broadcasting a "please connect to me!" signal. It's downright silly of me to complain when someone answers that invitation.

I'm guessing that the courts would be inclined to take the cordless phone example as a relevant precedent since both involve radio communication rather than standing in your backyard talking loudly.

I used to feel the same way about telephone solicitors and would ask them "What gives you the right to use my telephone to try and sell your wares. For that, I can charge a service fee." They usually hang up at that point.

If you've got to go to that unrealistic of an analogy, we've got problems.

But, you're right, arguing from analogy is generally problematic, so let's just deal with the basics.

1) Since WAPs generally come preconfigured, plug-and-play, with secure access disabled, it is not reasonable to presume, in the absence of additional information, that any given WAP operating in that mode is being done so with the intention of being open for use by anybody capable of picking up the signal.

2) If you use something that you know belongs to somebody else without obtaining explicit permission to do so, "I don't see where the actual owner was explicitly denying permission" is not a valid defense - the basic rule of private property is that if it ain't yours, you can't use it.

3) Therefore, using somebody else's WAP without their permission is a violation of their private property rights.

That's my take on it, and - so far, at least - nothing in this thread has given me reason to doubt my conclusion.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

You go with that in court, Chuck. Let me know how it goes.

sabienq, several programs out there allow you to listen, passively, on wireless traffic, without broadcasting a thing. Technically, and legally, it's considered eavesdropping, which came from standing under the eaves while dropping in on a private conversation.

__________________
If I set the budget, we'd have Ares and more. Unfortunately, I don't set the budget, and Ares is just too expensive and too far out for us to accomplish our goals within the budget we were given.

If we halt the ISS, all versions of Ares, and transport Orion and Altair aboard DIRECTv3's Jupiter family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, we just might make it back to the Moon by 2020.

I always like to see people trying to justify things they feel guilty about. They know they are doing something wrong but if they can persuade others it's ok they feel better themselves.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

In the UK if the Police stop and search (reasonable Suspicion or 'Sus' law) and find you have a radio Scanner capable of listening to the Police Bands they can charge you with 'Going Equipped'. Good fun.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Explicit permission is given by your surrogate, the device. It broadcasts a signal specifically for that purpose. This is even more clear-cut than a web server. The web server is just listening. A WAP actually broadcasts itself. It says, "hello! here I am!" A computer asks for an IP. The device gives it one.

Nope, not explicit. And this, again, is the problem with your server analogy.

Nobody puts a server on the internet without intending to serve the internet.

People put a WAP in their home intending it for their own use all the time.

That they did not change the default settings on that WAP can not be presumed to give you permission to use it.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Ah, that wasn't what you meant? So, intent is important afterall. :-P

I think intent is the heart of the matter. If you cannot determine the intent of the WAP owner, then it may be best to assume their intent is not to allow it. If the network name is something like "John's Network", then you can assume it's meant to be private. If it's "John's Network free to anyone" then it may be safe to assume he knows it's open and is allowing access. If it has a default name then it's safe to assume your dealing with a n00b who doesn't know how to restrict access, and therefore shouldn't assume the owner would allow it. Of course, this isn't about legality so much as logic.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Let's look at what the law actually does about unauthorized access to personal networks:


It's a felony in Florida:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/07\tech...reless_arrest/

The man illegally accessing the network was charged with a felony and had his laptop confiscated. Right on.


And here's one from Michigan:

http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...ifi.html?t51hb

This guy was even fined for using a public Wifi hotspot from a parked car. Yes, the owners provided wifi, *but for their paying customers inside the premises*, not for any passerby. And he got off easy. It's a felony in Michigan, up to a $10K fine.

It's also a felony in Illinois:

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

So, I think the law is clear. If you access a wireless network without the owner's permission, you are committing a felony in most states of the union. From the last article, it seems that even the NY Times has whined about it, saying it ought to be a "public service". Well, the law does not, and should not, agree.

Let me repeat this to the OP. You are most likely committing a felony.

-Richard

I'm not sure the electronic device has legal authority to give permission. After all, permission and authorization can mean two different things.

To use a completely different analogy, this reminds me of contract law. A person may sign a contract that waives a certain legal right, however courts often find these clauses to be null with respect to the law since neither you nor the contract holder have the authority to waive those rights.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

It depends on where I am in the courtroom. If I'm on the jury then that jury won't be convicting.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Not mine.

Not without that computer knowing a few things, it doesn't.

__________________
If I set the budget, we'd have Ares and more. Unfortunately, I don't set the budget, and Ares is just too expensive and too far out for us to accomplish our goals within the budget we were given.

If we halt the ISS, all versions of Ares, and transport Orion and Altair aboard DIRECTv3's Jupiter family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, we just might make it back to the Moon by 2020.

Bandwidth is an object. Not a physical object, but an object nonetheless. What I mean is there is only so much of it. If you take, others can't have. If you take an object that you did not pay for, without permission of the person who paid for it, then it is theft. Now if you ask the neighbor if you can use it, and they say yes, fine. You now have permission. Just like asking for a cup of sugar. To continue the analogy, even if they were careless enough to leave the door unlocked and had rooms full of sugar, more then they could ever use alone, that still doesn't make it right to waltz in and take some. Good gods, why are we even having this discussion, does 'thou shalt not steal' mean nothing these days?

__________________

It's also noteworthy that this is a felony in many states. Look up the "fleeing felon" rules in your state. In some states, deadly force by private citizens is allowable to stop fleeing felons. (there is a standard of reasonableness, so while I'd love to put some buckshot in the hide of somebody leeching my wifi, it probably wouldn't be considered reasonable, unfortunately).

Oh, and were I on a jury about that particular case, I'd rule it reasonable. Heh, heh. Goes both ways.


-Richard

Fair enough, and on this basis I'm inclined to accept a social convention to the effect that using someone else's WAP without permission is bad manners.

The thing is, I can print out my router logs, highlight the relevant entries, and say "I do see where the actual owner was explicitly granting permission." And on this basis I'm inclined to accept a social convention to the effect that using someone else's WAP isn't possible without at least implied permission.

Depends on how you weight the principles implied in 1) and 2) above. Personally, I figure, people being the way they are, it's reasonable to assume that they have no idea what's actually going on inside their WAP, and that they just sort of blithely take it for granted that because the physical device is inside their house it's part of the same privacy paradigm as their house, and that this entirely predictable human bliss-in-ignorance is in fact a sufficient cause for "reasonable expectation to privacy".

Though I certainly hope that future generations will be much better able to consider computers in terms of computers themselves, and will evolve social customs and pass laws that more accurately reflect the realities and implications of the technology they're using.

While not all bad manners are crimes, and damn well shouldn't be, a lot of crimes can also be considered bad manners. Murder is considered, in my family at least, a severely unfriendly act. Good luck getting invited over for tea and scones after that.

__________________