Recently Arrested.

[patsprou]

Re: Recently Arrested.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/...et_Charges.php

Singapore teenager has been charged with tapping into someone else's wireless Internet connection, a crime that carries a penalty of up to three years in jail, a newspaper reported Saturday.

Garyl Tan Jia Luo, 17, is the first person to be charged with this crime under the Computer Misuse Act, the Straits Times reported.

The report said Tan is accused of using a laptop computer to gain unauthorized access to a home wireless network on May 13.

The newspaper said a neighbor had apparently lodged a complaint against Luo.

For heavens sake, why would you file a complaint towards someone for stealing bandwidth from some sort of wifi access point? Wake up and smell the coffee, it's your fault it isn't secure. TKIP, AES or even WEP would work, but don't send a kid to jail for 3 years.

That's my opinion. If it's not too much to ask I would like to hear other peoples views on this particular situation.

[Dutch]

Re: Recently Arrested.

For heavens sake, why would you file a complaint towards someone for stealing bandwidth from some sort of wifi access point? Wake up and smell the coffee, it's your fault it isn't secure. TKIP, AES or even WEP would work, but don't send a kid to jail for 3 years.

That's my opinion. If it's not too much to ask I would like to hear other peoples views on this particular situation.

Either you're trolling, or you are absofuckingstupid to the umpteenth degree.

If I let my entrance door unlocked, is it then ok for you to enter my home and utilize the property inside ? No, thats still trespassing. Same thing with an unencrypted accesspoint.

What you are saying is that it is the victims own fault, a standard tactic used by the common criminal to justify his acts after getting caught. Ask any LEO, and they can verify that fact. Will you also say it's ok to rape a girl, because she flashed some skin, by wearing a skimpy tanktop ?

To reiterate : As long as you haven't got explicit permission to utilize a network, whether wired or wireless, you are commiting a crime by using the ressources of that network.

Dutch

[BonzoESC]

Re: Recently Arrested.

How do you define explicit permission? If a device is advertising its presence with a radio beacon and telling the public at large how to access it, I'd accept that as permission to use it. If there was even the least attempt made to keep it secure (even something limp-dicked and pathetic like MAC filtering, disabling SSID broadcast, or WEP), I'd have serious problems saying that permission was given, but seriously, an unencrypted network broadcasting beacon frames and granting use to anyone that asks for it isn't protected or private in any technological way, and shouldn't receive legal protection either.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: Recently Arrested.

this topic is one where you're likely to see more responses like those made by Dutch... but there is a minority opinion on the matter here in this community, as well. I, like Bonzo, am somewhat in that minority.

i'll be the first one to admit that my feelings on the matter are partially academic and partially practical... i have on occasion been stranded somewhere (i.e. - on a remote beach in the carolinas where the house in which i was staying had only electricity and no other connection to the outside world) and cruised around the sandy wilderness with my high-gain antenna in the hopes of finding an open Wi-Fi signal that would beacon to me where i might potentially gain a spot of internet access. as it turns out, i was unable to come across a single broadcast (it was a majorly remote area) but i don't deny that some of my opinion on this subject comes from a desire to have that hypothetical convenience without feeling like a criminal.

the comparisons to the front door of a house are awkward and don't typically hold up well... crossing a threshold of someone's physical property and compromising their earthly space, privacy, etc. is simply not the same thing as being on public grounds and interacting with electromagnetic radiation which they are choosing to broadcast.

do i think it's 100% a-OK to do this? no... but in terms of legal fictions and hypothetical examples, i would say that piggy-backing on someone's WiFi is more akin to walking down the street and passing a house where someone washed their car in the driveway last week. they have still left their garden hose uncoiled and laying along the ground... extending all the way out past the curbside... and they left the water on at the faucet. piggybacking on someone's WiFi for a second is akin (in my humble opinion) to taking a sip of water from their hose which is turned on and laying in the street.

are you "stealing" their water? the law would almost certainly say you are, even if it's in such a small amount as to have absolutely zero impact on their utility bill or household water pressure. did they "intend" for you to be able to? this is more of a gray area... while many people wouldn't consider this "explicit" intent for public consumption of a resource, there is a chance that the owners do not want to explicity "forbid" people from using the hose, either. in many communities, mine included, neighbors all know each other and are generally well-disposed to passers-by... most folk i know wouldn't really care if someone (friend or stranger) took a small sip from a hose laying at the curb... we would acknowledge that they meant no harm and didn't impact us in any negative way. (this is different, of course, from hooking up an extension hose and running it to your house across the street where you then obtain all of your water needs without paying one cent back to the other individual)

now, it's wrong to impose that world-view and disposition on others, and it's improper to make the argument "if they left this hose/WiFi laying in public they clearly wanted to allow people access to it" (in 99% of the occasions, someone likely just forgot about it or wasn't aware of what they were doing). but, similarly, i feel it's wrong to treat a casual passer-by as a hardcore criminal who was maliciously impacting the lives of wholly-innocent bystanders.

everyone has responsibilty in this situation. the homeowner has a responsibilty to secure his belongings/resources in at least the most meager of a manner, lest they incorrectly convey the notion of "this is free for you to use"... and the passerby has the responsibilty to treat other people's property with respect.

maybe it comes down to signage... although it is impractical (and unsightly) to put up signs everywhere in the world regarding what is free and what isn't. homeowners shouldn't have to take out magic marker and oaktag when they leave a hose in the driveway and people shouldn't be forced to conform to some arbitrary standards of SSID naming to designate public and non-public access points.

my personal wishes, although they are not shared by people here, would be to have all access points ship from the factory in 100% disabled mode... when you take it home and plug it in you would HAVE TO login to the unit and TURN ON the WiFi, set the password, and choose a level of security before it would start working at all. then, anyone who CHOSE to start operating their access point without any login restrictions would be assumed, in the eyes of the law, to be operating free and public WiFi.

i predict this could become an issue in the future... when bandwidth becomes cheaper and cheaper (to the point that it's almost free) and more consumer devices will function via WiFi... the kid walking down the street with his handheld Nintendo Wii ver. 3 will not know how the device is maintaining an internet connection as he plays Bone Storm against his friends online... the unit will simply keep polling for Access Points and connect to any that allow internet access... in my ideal world, by that time in the future it will simply be recognized that if your AP is broadcasting and open to the public, you are asking for people to connect.

[Dutch]

Re: Recently Arrested.

How do you define explicit permission? If a device is advertising its presence with a radio beacon and telling the public at large how to access it, I'd accept that as permission to use it. If there was even the least attempt made to keep it secure (even something limp-dicked and pathetic like MAC filtering, disabling SSID broadcast, or WEP), I'd have serious problems saying that permission was given, but seriously, an unencrypted network broadcasting beacon frames and granting use to anyone that asks for it isn't protected or private in any technological way, and shouldn't receive legal protection either.

An unencrypted AP which announces its presence through the standard beacon is not radiating an open invitation to use it.

If the ESSID was set as "Public WiFi Hotspot" or similar, you might be correct in taking that as an implicit permission to utilize it. Generally in those cases, the hotspot is setup to serve a specific area or the patrons of a specific establishment, and will be advertised via other means as well.

If it was set up by the sheeple, and radiated an ESSID of "Linksys" or similar, that is still not even close to be an implied permission to utilize it.

So seriously, if there isn't any explicit permission given, either by an announcement in the contents of the ESSID or by other means such as a poster or verbal/written permission by the operator of the AP, it is off-limits legally.
Arguing that if it isn't encrypted, then it must be legal to use, is just trying to justify breaking the law.

Don't like that, then feel free to contact your congressman and ask him to change the laws governing the areas of "Theft of service" and "Computer crimes" just to mention a few of the applicable laws in use in most countries where communication has progressed beyond the tincan+nylonstring level.

Dutch

[Dutch]

Re: Recently Arrested.

the comparisons to the front door of a house are awkward and don't typically hold up well... crossing a threshold of someone's physical property and compromising their earthly space, privacy, etc. is simply not the same thing as being on public grounds and interacting with electromagnetic radiation which they are choosing to broadcast.

Actually it holds up quite well, in the way I explained it.
If I leave my door open, I can't legally stop you from standing outside and look inside the house = The AP is broadcasting a signal and you can receive it and listen to it.

The moment you go inside the house and use anything in the house, you are trespassing = The moment you associate to the broadcasting AP and use the ressources of the network, whether it is to surf the Inturweb, roam the LAN or just check your email, you have commited a felony.

Dutch

[theprez98]

Re: Recently Arrested.

Either you're trolling, or you are absofuckingstupid to the umpteenth degree.

If I let my entrance door unlocked, is it then ok for you to enter my home and utilize the property inside ? No, thats still trespassing. Same thing with an unencrypted accesspoint.

What you are saying is that it is the victims own fault, a standard tactic used by the common criminal to justify his acts after getting caught. Ask any LEO, and they can verify that fact. Will you also say it's ok to rape a girl, because she flashed some skin, by wearing a skimpy tanktop ?

To reiterate : As long as you haven't got explicit permission to utilize a network, whether wired or wireless, you are commiting a crime by using the ressources of that network.

Dutch

An unencrypted AP which announces its presence through the standard beacon is not radiating an open invitation to use it.

If the ESSID was set as "Public WiFi Hotspot" or similar, you might be correct in taking that as an implicit permission to utilize it. Generally in those cases, the hotspot is setup to serve a specific area or the patrons of a specific establishment, and will be advertised via other means as well.

If it was set up by the sheeple, and radiated an ESSID of "Linksys" or similar, that is still not even close to be an implied permission to utilize it.

So seriously, if there isn't any explicit permission given, either by an announcement in the contents of the ESSID or by other means such as a poster or verbal/written permission by the operator of the AP, it is off-limits legally.
Arguing that if it isn't encrypted, then it must be legal to use, is just trying to justify breaking the law.

Don't like that, then feel free to contact your congressman and ask him to change the laws governing the areas of "Theft of service" and "Computer crimes" just to mention a few of the applicable laws in use in most countries where communication has progressed beyond the tincan+nylonstring level.

Dutch

I'm with Dutch on this one.

[Thorn]

Re: Recently Arrested.

Current criminal laws do not define or identify the network medium. If it's illegal to connect to someone else's network via an Ethernet cable, it's just as illegal to do it via a wireless connection. Just because wireless is easier due to the manner in which it functions, does not remove the legal issues.

Besides, from a moral standpoint, stealing a connection from someone who didn't know what they were doing when they set it up is at the same level as stealing the pencils for a blind beggar. Yeah, the guy is only out a few cents, and yeah, you got away with it behind his back. Big deal, you're still a thief, and a pretty low one at that.

[Dutch]

Re: Recently Arrested.

Besides, from a moral standpoint, stealing a connection from someone who didn't know what they were doing when they set it up is at the same level as stealing the pencils for a blind beggar. Yeah, the guy is only out a few cents, and yeah, you got away with it behind his back. Big deal, you're still a thief, and a pretty low one at that.

That jesuit education really pays off.. As usual you say it far more elonquent and to the point in far fewer words than anybody else could. :D

Dutch

[BonzoESC]

Re: Recently Arrested.

i predict this could become an issue in the future... when bandwidth becomes cheaper and cheaper (to the point that it's almost free) and more consumer devices will function via WiFi... the kid walking down the street with his handheld Nintendo Wii ver. 3 will not know how the device is maintaining an internet connection as he plays Bone Storm against his friends online... the unit will simply keep polling for Access Points and connect to any that allow internet access... in my ideal world, by that time in the future it will simply be recognized that if your AP is broadcasting and open to the public, you are asking for people to connect.

I think this is already an issue – Windows and Mac OS X machines can be set to default to open networks in the absence of a preferred one, whether the network name has "Free Wireless" in it or not. Rather than relying on arbitrary English words to describe the permissions of the network, why not use technologically enforceable restrictions as the guideline for legality, instead of an antiquated view of networks that results in some crimes being impossible to prosecute except in cases of extreme idiocy.

It's much simpler in practice – if nothing stops you from using it, it's legal to use. If you don't have credentials to get on, or any knowledge of the network at all, then you can't use it. Sure it doesn't make any sense if you use a house analogy, but wifi isn't a house.

And I agree with the point that APs should ship with the wireless disabled (or set to a randomly-generated WPA key) requiring a control panel login to have wireless. It might be more work for the end user, but it's still much less work than having them deal with the aftermath of their connection being used for illegal means.

[patsprou]

Re: Recently Arrested.

Either you're trolling, or you are absofuckingstupid to the umpteenth degree.

If I let my entrance door unlocked, is it then ok for you to enter my home and utilize the property inside ? No, thats still trespassing. Same thing with an unencrypted accesspoint.

What you are saying is that it is the victims own fault, a standard tactic used by the common criminal to justify his acts after getting caught. Ask any LEO, and they can verify that fact. Will you also say it's ok to rape a girl, because she flashed some skin, by wearing a skimpy tanktop ?

To reiterate : As long as you haven't got explicit permission to utilize a network, whether wired or wireless, you are commiting a crime by using the ressources of that network.

Dutch

My sincerest apologies if I happened to offend you, but that's my opinion and I don't believe a teenager should be put away for years just for using someones internet. I respect your opinion and I understand your viewpoint therefor I expect others to do the same for me rather than just insulting me.

[Dutch]

Re: Recently Arrested.

I think this is already an issue – Windows and Mac OS X machines can be set to default to open networks in the absence of a preferred one, whether the network name has "Free Wireless" in it or not. Rather than relying on arbitrary English words to describe the permissions of the network, why not use technologically enforceable restrictions as the guideline for legality, instead of an antiquated view of networks that results in some crimes being impossible to prosecute except in cases of extreme idiocy.

It's much simpler in practice – if nothing stops you from using it, it's legal to use. If you don't have credentials to get on, or any knowledge of the network at all, then you can't use it. Sure it doesn't make any sense if you use a house analogy, but wifi isn't a house.

And I agree with the point that APs should ship with the wireless disabled (or set to a randomly-generated WPA key) requiring a control panel login to have wireless. It might be more work for the end user, but it's still much less work than having them deal with the aftermath of their connection being used for illegal means.

Let me tell you this : You are wrong. Let me repeat it : You are wrong.

If nothing stops you from using it, it is still NOT legal to do so, unless you have explicit permission to do so.

There has been several cases successfully prosecuted in the US, including the one from your neck of the woods that you cite yourself. Another similar case happened in Rockford, IL.

There has been similar cases prosecuted successfully over here in Europe as well, so having one case more in the far east is great IMHO.

You might find the punishment there more severe than what has been dished out in the US or in Europe, but hey, each country has the right to punish similar crimes according to their laws.
Imagine what would happen to you if you stole network access in a Shariah-law governed country.

But all in all, it goes to show what I've said all the time : If you don't have explicit permission to connect and utilize the network ressources associated with an un-encrypted AP, then you should not connect to it.

It really is as simple as that.

Dutch

[Dutch]

Re: Recently Arrested.

My sincerest apologies if I happened to offend you, but that's my opinion and I don't believe a teenager should be put away for years just for using someones internet. I respect your opinion and I understand your viewpoint therefor I expect others to do the same for me rather than just insulting me.

If you felt insulted by that post, you really need to grow some thicker skin.
As for your feelings regarding the teenager and his sentence, see the points regarding punishments in different countries, made in my post preceding this one.
Remember, in Singapore you can go to jail for spitting used chewing gum, or plain old littering on the street.
It works for them, their city is among the cleanest in the world. I'll bet the harsh sentence on illegal network access also will work in their favour.

Dutch

[patsprou]

Re: Recently Arrested.

If you felt insulted by that post, you really need to grow some thicker skin.
As for your feelings regarding the teenager and his sentence, see the points regarding punishments in different countries, made in my post preceding this one.
Remember, in Singapore you can go to jail for spitting used chewing gum, or plain old littering on the street.
It works for them, their city is among the cleanest in the world. I'll bet the harsh sentence on illegal network access also will work in their favour.

Dutch

You have a good point when it comes to punishments in different countries. Perhapse I should've thought that through more thoroughly. Thank you for your opinion.

[theprez98]

Re: Recently Arrested.

It's much simpler in practice – if nothing stops you from using it, it's legal to use. If you don't have credentials to get on, or any knowledge of the network at all, then you can't use it. Sure it doesn't make any sense if you use a house analogy, but wifi isn't a house.

So, laws against theft of service are not enough to stop you from using it?