# A Thread About The Legality of Using Others Bandwidth- Renamed From the Original



## Scoobie Newbie

When I try www.army.ca it takes me to http://wsearch.net/?unknown
not sure what the hell that means.  www.milnet.ca works fine as that is how I am sending this.


----------



## armyvern

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> When I try www.army.ca it takes me to http://wsearch.net/?unknown
> not sure what the hell that means.  www.milnet.ca works fine as that is how I am sending this.



Hmmm. It took me to the army.ca homepage.

Are YOU a Rogers customer!!??  :-\


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

well its back now.  Weird gremlins.  Not sure who I am using.  Someone here (Borden) didn't lock their wireless.


----------



## aesop081

Well, i never type in www.army.ca

thats because its just *http://army.ca/*


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Now to add to the weirdness.  I clicked on the email link indicating I had a response which took me to Army.ca no problem.  When I closed the tab, opened a new tab and clicked on my favorites for army.ca I get that same page again.


----------



## dangerboy

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> When I try www.army.ca it takes me to http://wsearch.net/?unknown
> not sure what the hell that means.  www.milnet.ca works fine as that is how I am sending this.


Have you done a virus and spyware scan on your computer.  Sometimes they can play havoc with your browser.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

CDN Aviator clicking on your link worked.  It is weird though because since I can remember I always clicked on my favorites and it worked fine.  I have changed nothing.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I use a Mac.. so no.

I used the link provide and made it a favorite, disregarded the last favorite I had and it is working again.  Weird.  Since its me I guess its a non-issue.


----------



## StirlingDyer

It's most likely a piece of spyware.  Ad-aware should be able to clear it up.

The other possibility is a faulty DNS Server at the ISP. Doesn't happen too often, but I've seen ISP servers get virused and start redirecting customers.


----------



## davidk

Spyware for a mac is pretty rare...I'd be more tempted to go with a faulty DNS server - it's happened to me too in the past (though not with this site.)


----------



## GAP

run a full scan with your antivirus....you have a redirecter....


----------



## aesop081

GAP said:
			
		

> redirecter....



I read that wrong the first time


----------



## Michael OLeary

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I use a *Mac*.. so no.



There's your problem, it's trying to find some tree-hugging artsy alternative to your right wing warmongering choice of websites.   ;D


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

I'm tempted to simply say DNS server.  Army.ca does ... become unresponsive for extended periods and with timeouts it can happen that your browser would bump you to a search page.

Try typing in a url that you know doesn't exist,  see if you get bumped to the same search page. 

(*joke below*)
That failing you might have been infected by the pre election "orange virus" which was sent out after last election.  It is designed to act like the great firewall of china and filter out any website that exposes the reader to controversial "opinions".  (controversial meaning contrary to acceptable doctrine of the ndp   )


----------



## Rodahn

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> That failing you might have been infected by the pre election "orange  NDP virus" which was sent out after last election.  It is designed to act like the great firewall of china and filter out any website that exposes the reader to controversial "opinions".


----------



## DBA

Your ISP (Rogers) is doing that. In this case on the SMC router they gave you. They also do the same on their name servers but to 
	
	




		Code:
	

http://www20.search.rogers.com

 instead. Whenever a DNS look up fails instead of giving a failure notice they return those webpages so they can make money off the ads shown. 

Thread on DSL Reports about this: rogers inserting advertisements into my browser.


----------



## garb811

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> well its back now.  Weird gremlins.  Not sure who I am using.  Someone here (Borden) didn't lock their wireless.


If you don't know whose wireless you're piggybacking on and don't have their permission to do so, stop using it!  You're committing a Criminal Offence if you are doing that.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Piggybacking someones "open" wireless isn't commiting a crime as far as i know, it's called hotspotting. Anyone who owns a wireless a router can choose to run it open or locked. Internet cafe's and many other places are running a wireless hotspot providing people in range free i-net. If someone is running thier router wide open then it's thier own fault.

 Hacking the wireless or the host would be committing the crime, using free i-net open to public access due to owner malfunction and lack of password is called a freebie.  


Cheers.


----------



## muffin

The "Legality" of using unsecured wi-fi is sometimes legislated by the province/state/city etc.

In canada it is part of the criminal code : http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec342.1.html

This is part of the same legislation that governs password protection etc outside of the Information Security Scope of the NDSI's.

Some New York counties have made it illegal ... and there have been some arrests made in the past in the states for "accessing wifi for the purpose of avoiding having to pay for a communication service" and this fellow in Michigan was charged in 2007 ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9722006-7.html ) He was charged for using it outside a coffee shop; had he been inside (a patron) it would have been ok. 

Wikipedia has a site on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking

I think it's crazy to leave your net open for anyone to surf anything on. If they are doing something illegal it will be traced back to you - and although you may be able to prove later that it was someone else's computer on your network I don't know what sort of liability you would have.

I often hear "if I leave my car unlocked it's still illegal for you to take it for a ride" or "if I left a gun unlocked I am resposible for what someone does with it" ...

Some ISP's limit DHCP available to a user so only 1-2 users can log in at a time, keeping "intruders" out - but not all of them.

muffin


----------



## aesop081

Oh Muffin, i love it when you get all techno-geeky.............


----------



## muffin

HAHA.... I know... nothing makes a girl hotter  HAHAHAHA


----------



## armyvern

muffin said:
			
		

> HAHA.... I know... nothing makes a girl hotter  HAHAHAHA



You're awesome anyway!!

Did you know that I've now logged in to DNDLearn 3 times in the past week ... and I haven't gotten "revoked" yet!! 

I'm only keeping a grip on myself this time to save you all that work that I usually create for you!  ;D

(And so that you can spend more time online here ... Mr Bobbitt should buy me a beer for that ...  >)


----------



## garb811

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Piggybacking someones "open" wireless isn't commiting a crime as far as i know, it's called hotspotting. Anyone who owns a wireless a router can choose to run it open or locked. Internet cafe's and many other places are running a wireless hotspot providing people in range free i-net. If someone is running thier router wide open then it's thier own fault.



Justify it however you want, it's still Theft of Telecommunications and a Criminal Offence. If you found a wallet that had a bank card and PIN number in it, would it be ok to use the card to take money out of the owner's account??  After all, it was buddies fault because he not only lost his wallet but he was dumb enough to have his PIN in there too. 



> ...using free i-net open to public access due to owner malfunction and lack of password is called a freebie.


Or it could be someone who knows what they are doing and they're sniffing the freeloader's traffic for interesting stuff like user names, passwords, account numbers, personal info...

I don't know what your background is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't in the legal profession or law enforcement given your shaky understanding of the legality of what is being discussed so it might be wise not to be dispensing erroneous advice.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

garb811 said:
			
		

> Justify it however you want, it's still Theft of Telecommunications and a Criminal Offence. If you found a wallet that had a bank card and PIN number in it, would it be ok to use the card to take money out of the owner's account??  After all, it was buddies fault because he not only lost his wallet but he was dumb enough to have his PIN in there too.
> Or it could be someone who knows what they are doing and they're sniffing the freeloader's traffic for interesting stuff like user names, passwords, account numbers, personal info...
> 
> I don't know what your background is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't in the legal profession or law enforcement given your shaky understanding of the legality of what is being discussed so it might be wise not to be dispensing erroneous advice.




 Justification on making use of ineternet access via free wireless is hardly "criminal". Like i already said HACKING the box or the host(the router or host computer) to gain that access would BE the cime. Making use of the free "access" is just making use of what the owner made availble aware or unaware. Ala "internet cafe hotspotting" 

 I'm not advocating anything nor am i advising anyone. i'm merely pointing out the "grey" area that people still have with regards to gaining free access via wireless wavelengths and lack of passswords and secure router setups that the OWNER is responsible for.

 Cheers.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Justification on making use of ineternet access via free wireless is hardly "criminal". Like i already said HACKING the box or the host(the router or host computer) to gain that access would BE the cime. Making use of the free "access" is just making use of what the owner made availble aware or unaware. *Ala "internet cafe hotspotting" *
> 
> I'm not advocating anything nor am i advising anyone. i'm merely pointing out the "grey" area that people still have with regards to gaining free access via wireless wavelengths and lack of passswords and secure router setups that the OWNER is responsible for.
> 
> Cheers.



An internet cafe establishes a hot spot for the purpose of providing an open network.  Your neighbour hasn't.  Using that signal unauthorized is stealing his bandwidth, which he is paying for for his own use.  Your comparison to a cafe hotspot is not a valid comparison.

Would you wash your car with a random stanger's hose outlet simply because he didn't shut off the water, so it must be free for your use too?


----------



## garb811

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Justification on making use of ineternet access via free wireless is hardly "criminal". Like i already said HACKING the box or the host(the router or host computer) to gain that access would BE the cime. Making use of the free "access" is just making use of what the owner made availble aware or unaware. Ala "internet cafe hotspotting"
> 
> I'm not advocating anything nor am i advising anyone. i'm merely pointing out the "grey" area that people still have with regards to gaining free access via wireless wavelengths and lack of passswords and secure router setups that the OWNER is responsible for.
> 
> Cheers.


A private individual failing to secure his WAP does not give you the legal right to piggyback upon that means for your own purposes without his permission anymore than someone failing to put up a fence around his yard gives you the legal right to use their real property for your own purposes without his permission.  The only reason it is a "grey" area is because there are people like you out there who think they know what they are talking about from a legal standpoint when they don't.

As Michael and others here have stated, there is a world of difference between an individual with an unsecured device and a business setting up a publicly accessible WAP, and advertising it as being a service they are providing for a client.  FYI, sitting outside the premises of a business which has set up a hotspot for the use of its clients and accessing that WAP is Theft of Telecommunications as well.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> An internet cafe establishes a hot spot for the purpose of providing an open network.  Your neighbour hasn't.  Using that signal unauthorized is stealing his bandwidth, which he is paying for for his own use.  Your comparison to a cafe hotspot is not a valid comparison.
> 
> Would you wash your car with a random stanger's hose outlet simply because he didn't shut off the water, so it must be free for your use too?




 Anyone who buys a wireless router has the same options given to them as an Internet cafe, they also have the same protocols and software setups that "enable or disable" freeloaders from gaining access to that bandwidth. They also have the same user manuals and setup instructions mebbe even the same online tech support to hammer home the point. If the owner of that router is unable to setup or acknowledge the implications of having and owning that router then why should the people using that bandwidth be considered the bad party in this? 

If the access is being used as intended without malicious intent to anyone and not breaking any laws then it's pretty much a lottery draw for bandwidth. The routher is NOT being compromised in any way nor is the host or any data on it. Free access does not mean the person making use of it are using it for malicious intent.

 Speculate all you want but the fact is the HOST has something broadcasting "freely to the public" and the public is now able to use this freely. Blame not the public, blame the appropriate party.


 Cheers.


----------



## Michael OLeary

So, if he leaves the keys in his car, you'd just use that too?

What about when his ISP starts charging for bandwidth, as some have, and he has extra charges because of your use of bandwidth?  Now you're stealing something he had no intention of paying for.

Just because his network is unsecure doesn't mean he left it open for you to use.

And you're playing semantic games to excuse the theft.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Oh i suppose fresh air would be considered stolen along with the bandwidth. jeez  


 Good luck with the swim in the paper sea.


----------



## garb811

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Anyone who buys a wireless router has the same options given to them as an Internet cafe, they also have the same protocols and software setups that "enable or disable" freeloaders from gaining access to that bandwidth. They also have the same user manuals and setup instructions mebbe even the same online tech support to hammer home the point. If the owner of that router is unable to setup or acknowledge the implications of having and owning that router then why should the people using that bandwidth be considered the bad party in this?
> 
> If the access is being used as intended without malicious intent to anyone and not breaking any laws then it's pretty much a lottery draw for bandwidth. The routher is NOT being compromised in any way nor is the host or any data on it. Free access does not mean the person making use of it are using it for malicious intent.
> 
> Speculate all you want but the fact is the HOST has something broadcasting "freely to the public" and the public is now able to use this freely. Blame not the public, blame the appropriate party.
> 
> Cheers.



The only person speculating here is you.  You have no idea what you are talking about from a legal standpoint and it is quite obvious you do not want to understand the issues.  At this point I'm starting to think the reason you're so firm in your belief that this isn't Theft of Telecommunications is because you are actively engaged in that act.

I work in law enforcement daily.  It is my job to research and interpret the appropriate legislation in order to determine on reasonable and probable grounds whether or not the elements ofr an offence have been met.  It is also my job to keep abreast of case law which impacts upon said legislation.  If Quag were to become the subject of an investigation, he would be facing charges.  Full stop, end of discussion.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

garb811 said:
			
		

> The only person speculating here is you.  You have no idea what you are talking about from a legal standpoint and it is quite obvious you do not want to understand the issues.  At this point I'm starting to think you're so firm in your belief that this isn't Theft of Telecommunications is because you are actively engaged in that act.
> 
> I work in law enforcement daily.  It is my job to research and interpret the appropriate legislation in order to determine on reasonable and probable grounds whether or not the elements ofr an offence have been met.  It is also my job to keep abreast of case law which impacts upon said legislation.  If Quag were to become the subject of an investigation, he would be facing charges.  Full stop, end of discussion.




 How am i speculating? I am merely pointing out there is still "grey matter" regarding the guilty factor in getting something for free? If someone leaves it open for the public it's no longer theft. Otherwise ban the device and make IT illegal.

 I live on this side of the fence, you on that side, you turn on a radio i get to listen for free.. no difference! no stealing involved no criminial intent. You goto Canada's Wonderland and they have a concert at Molson park, rather than pay an extra fee you simply wander close by and enjoy for free. Guilty? I guess they are next...make everyone deaf and blind too then so we can't steal sights and sounds...

 The speculation I am doing it IS completely wrong, i however had a wireless a router and used it to gain access through my landlords broadband hookup which he allowed me to do. I also learned that other people in my "range" also had networks open and available to connect to.


----------



## garb811

There's no additional cost incurred for anyone if you overhear a public radio broadcast, nor is there any additional cost incurred by anyone for you to take advantage of the fact that Canada's Wonderland has decided it is more beneficial for them to hold concerts where they can be overheard by those in the vicinity who aren't paying customers than it is to hold them in a manner so as to exclude non-paying listeners.  Nor are there any laws in effect (probably) which specifically prohibit those activites.

On the other hand, there is a law which specifically prohibits the Theft of Telecommunications, which you obviously haven't bothered to read and/or understand even though I posted the link for you.  Additionally, there are costs involved in your piggybacking on someones unsecured WAP.  It costs money to provide bandwidth, somebody is paying for it somewhere upstream of that WAP.  Even though the owner of the WAP may not be billed for the amount of traffic if he has an all you can use deal, the ISP IS being billed for theirs.  Additionally by piggybacking on his WAP, you are denying him access to the full bandwidth he has paid for. ie.  If he has paid for a 1 MB/s connection and there are 2 users, 1 of which does not have his permission to use the WAP, a simplistic estimate is he only will have access to 500 KB/s of his 1 MB/s at any given time...you are effectively stealing 500 kb/s of the bandwidth he is buying from his ISP.  So, piggybacking on an unsecured WAP is not a "victimless crime" which causes no harm to anyone like you seem to think.  That is why there is a specific law in place forbidding that activity, understand?

Anyways, it's been tedious, yet somewhat fun, but since you have no wish to really understand the issue, I'm outta here in relation to any further posts from you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Snafu-Bar,......it is illegal and its not a "grey" area.

Bottom line is you are WRONG, yet once again you continue to argue like some sad troll.
You are on your last breathes on this site.

Bruce
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Niteshade

I have looked over this thread with some interest and I am noticing that not one of you guys have thought of the theory:

"Maybe the owner of the router deliberately left it open so others can use it for free".

Food for thought. However:

The requirement is on the router user to obtain permission to use the router.

Not on the owner of the router to DISALLOW permission first.

That is what is most reasonable in this case.

There is no legal precedence that I can find on www.canlii.org that goes one way or the other.

Nites


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Snafu-Bar,......it is illegal and its not a "grey" area.
> ...
> Bruce
> Milnet.ca Staff




There are many provisions in all manner of laws and regulations, including the Criminal Code, that are outdated or ill conceived and unenforceable.

The Radiocommunication Act *regulates* all use of the RF spectrum. It sidesteps _interception_ because some radio signals (the broadcast band, for example) are intended to be intercepted. Others are not, but the Act requires those who do not intend their signals to be intercepted to _encode_ – *not* the same as _encrypt_ - them. _Encoding_, *for the moment*, can be as simple as digitizing – but that may change; my guess is that it will change, sooner rather than later.

The arrival of ‘pay’ broadcast services complicated the issue. The Industry Department reacted by making it illegal to _decode_ signals in Canada that are not authorized in Canada – thus one commits an offence by buying a so called _grey market_ service and decoder box in the USA and then receiving/viewing a US satellite service in Canada.

The problem is getting more complex as technology makes new encoding and interception techniques available. Thus, while (a few years ago) Industry Canada forbade selling scanners that could ‘decode’ digital signals – thus ‘protecting’ some important public safety services and all new generation cellular (PCS) services – they did not make it illegal to build and use a digital scanner. The law, therefore, failed to address the real problem: city, provincial and the national government are too cheap to encrypt their radios, they want the law to ‘protect’ them. It ‘punished’ a _hobby_ community even as it shied away from calling criminals to account for using technology to support their crimes. That regulation will have to be changed – as soon as governments wake up to heir responsibilities.

One of the reasons, I believe that we have seen so few enforcement actions, much less prosecutions, on things like _piggybacking_ on a radio signal or digital scanning, is that very, very few lawyers, including very few Crown Prosecutors are confident that a case can be made, in law.

I think Snafu-Bar is *closer* to the truth than is garb811. The ‘law’ may be there, in the Criminal Code, but it may not be a useful, enforceable law. A law the Crown will not enforce is in a _grey_ area.


----------



## George Wallace

Niteshade said:
			
		

> The requirement is on the router user to obtain permission to use the router.
> 
> Not on the owner of the router to DISALLOW permission first.



 :  Is there a "Shake your head in disbelief" epicon?

The owner of the router should be smart enough to DISALLOW permission to their router when they purchase and activate it (properly).  They should PASSWORD protect their router and/or modem.  If they want, they then give permission to access that router, to whomever they please.

There are already cases of Child Porn that have been laid against people who have left their wireless routers unsecured.  Of course some of those charges were dropped after a proper investigation and their computers were found to be 'clean', but it is an example of what can be done.  Right now, someone could be surfing Kiddie Porn on your UNSECURED router, and all traces will come back to you.  So, YES the owner of a properly secured router does have the rights to control access to their router, and allow or disallow permissions to use it.  They are the ones paying for it financially and legally.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are many provisions in all manner of laws and regulations, including the Criminal Code, that are outdated or ill conceived and unenforceable.
> 
> The Radiocommunication Act *regulates* all use of the RF spectrum. It sidesteps _interception_ because some radio signals (the broadcast band, for example) are intended to be intercepted. Others are not, but the Act requires those who do not intend their signals to be intercepted to _encode_ – *not* the same as _encrypt_ - them. _Encoding_, *for the moment*, can be as simple as digitizing – but that may change; my guess is that it will change, sooner rather than later.
> 
> The arrival of ‘pay’ broadcast services complicated the issue. The Industry Department reacted by making it illegal to _decode_ signals in Canada that are not authorized in Canada – thus one commits an offence by buying a so called _grey market_ service and decoder box in the USA and then receiving/viewing a US satellite service in Canada.
> 
> The problem is getting more complex as technology makes new encoding and interception techniques available. Thus, while (a few years ago) Industry Canada forbade selling scanners that could ‘decode’ digital signals – thus ‘protecting’ some important public safety services and all new generation cellular (PCS) services – they did not make it illegal to build and use a digital scanner. The law, therefore, failed to address the real problem: city, provincial and the national government are too cheap to encrypt their radios, they want the law to ‘protect’ them. It ‘punished’ a _hobby_ community even as it shied away from calling criminals to account for using technology to support their crimes. That regulation will have to be changed – as soon as governments wake up to heir responsibilities.
> 
> One of the reasons, I believe that we have seen so few enforcement actions, much less prosecutions, on things like _piggybacking_ on a radio signal or digital scanning, is that very, very few lawyers, including very few Crown Prosecutors are confident that a case can be made, in law.
> 
> I think Snafu-Bar is *closer* to the truth than is garb811. The ‘law’ may be there, in the Criminal Code, but it may not be a useful, enforceable law. A law the Crown will not enforce is in a _grey_ area.



I disagree,.....a law the Crown will not enforce is not 'grey', its just not worth the effort to try and convict someone whilst we have murderer's, rapists and all sorts of other scum running around free.

Enforcing costs big bucks..........just because the Crown thinks spending *your * tax dollars on a certain law isn't worth it fiscally DOES NOT make it any less legal.
Its theft,...the unauthorized use of someone else's *bandwidth* without their permission.

Edward, next time I visit just leave the liquor cabinet open and we can philosophise about the 'grey' area of leaving the sweet nectar unlocked, so therefore..... 


EDIT: added the yellow highlighted words


----------



## Nfld Sapper

All manufactures of routers recommend the following:



> It is recommended to enable encryption on your wireless router before your wireless network adapters



So we I think we are just  :deadhorse:


----------



## George Wallace

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Edward, next time I visit just leave the liquor cabinet open and we can philosophise about the 'grey' area of leaving the sweet nectar unlocked, so therefore.....



Sort of like them leaving the Beer Store doors unlocked at the end of the day.......How many cases of beer did you want?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...
> Its theft,...the unauthorized use of someone else's *bandwidth* without their permission.
> ...



Not so.

That is why some of my friends are working so hard on IEEE Standard 802.22. They need to find ways to use the 'white spaces' in spectrum that is (in national and international law) allocated on an exclusive basis to e.g. broadcast services, despite the 'wishes' of the 'owner' (licence holder) of the spectrum. Unauthorized use is ongoing, now, (some of it 'approved' (despite written laws) by governments) and it is unprosecutable because a legally sufficient case cannot be made, not because prosecutors are being financially responsible.

The law belongs to the people, through their legislators, judges and lawyers; they, not policemen, decide what is and is not 'lawful.'


----------



## Niteshade

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :  Is there a "Shake your head in disbelief" epicon?
> 
> The owner of the router should be smart enough to DISALLOW permission to their router when they purchase and activate it (properly).  They should PASSWORD protect their router and/or modem.  If they want, they then give permission to access that router, to whomever they please.
> 
> There are already cases of Child Porn that have been laid against people who have left their wireless routers unsecured.  Of course some of those charges were dropped after a proper investigation and their computers were found to be 'clean', but it is an example of what can be done.  Right now, someone could be surfing Kiddie Porn on your UNSECURED router, and all traces will come back to you.  So, YES the owner of a properly secured router does have the rights to control access to their router, and allow or disallow permissions to use it.  They are the ones paying for it financially and legally.



If there was an emoticon I would be using it too.

How far into the outfield do you want to go? Back to the topic: The discussion here is the legality of using someone's broadband without permission. The answer (by many) is that it is illegal/wrong. 

We are all aware of the possibilities of someone highjacking a connection: kiddie porn/illegal acts etc. This does not change the fact that the person hijacking is doing so without permission.

Nites

PS we are beating this to death. It is illegal to hijack. It is also COMMON SENSE to protect yourself by securing your router.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Edward, you pay for a certain amount of bandwidth each month....that is yours, and if you want more you must pay for it.

Now say a new porn box set comes out, "Monk Brucehouse's Greatest Clits", and someone below you downloads the whole thing, leaving your monthly allotment at zero, and now you are left with the option of buying more bandwidth or not using the internet you have paid for. Its theft......

Its not the Radio-frequency thingy that is the problem, its the fact you are stealing something [BANDWIDTH} that is legally paid for, and also finite,in that it must be replenished at a cost to you.

Sorry, but your friends are looking at a bigger picture [ the RECEPTION of said radio frequencies and what that entails] than what this thread has devolved into.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Niteshade said:
			
		

> . It is also COMMON SENSE to protect yourself by securing your router.



Yup, except the last time I spent 2 hours on the phone with the *cough* service personal, the only solution they found to make my system work was to drop ALL the encryption codes.

Just waiting for enough free time to finish connecting the 'hard wire' I did when I renovated earlier.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The law belongs to the people, through their legislators, judges and lawyers; they, not policemen, decide what is and is not 'lawful.'



In that nice little sphere you live and work in maybe......in the real world bean counters do.


----------



## muffin

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now say a new porn box set comes out, "Monk Brucehouse's Greatest Clits",  :blotto:



 :rofl: 

Wow Mr. Monkhouse, I do believe you made my morning.... hahaha


----------



## muffin

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You're awesome anyway!!
> 
> Did you know that I've now logged in to DNDLearn 3 times in the past week ... and I haven't gotten "revoked" yet!!
> 
> I'm only keeping a grip on myself this time to save you all that work that I usually create for you!  ;D
> 
> (And so that you can spend more time online here ... Mr Bobbitt should buy me a beer for that ...  >)



HAHA ... that's true I haven't seen your name fly by my desk this term... yet  he he


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now say a new porn box set comes out, "Monk Brucehouse's Greatest Clits",



You sir owe me a new laptop


----------



## Edward Campbell

Sorry, I hate to keep at this, but ...

Regarding  wireless routers: they use spectrum (at 2.4 and 5 GHz) that is licence exempt – the spectrum, and its use and its users are not protected by any ‘rights’ – no individual (save, perhaps the Queen) has ‘property’ that can be stolen or, even, trespassed upon.

The whole purpose of a growing trend to allocate spectrum on a licence exempt basis is to allow technology (which really means user demand), not government regulation to rule the spectrum - any technology, not just the ones mandated (picked) by bureaucrats.

Thus far the spectrum management debate has paralleled the debate over land rights. Exclusivity (a spectrum allocation term) = a right of use by a group; allotment (another specialized spectrum management term) = a zoning bylaw (this bit is ‘residential,’ that bit is ‘industrial’ and so on) and an assignment (yet another special term) or licence = lease. But “*ownership”* is always and without fail vested in the public at large. Radio users – the CBC, Bell, you with your wireless router – all use *OUR* spectrum – yours and mine. It belongs to us all because, by treaty the RF spectrum is part of each nation’s sovereign patrimony. So, despite lawyers, spectrum management is most closely related to the traditional problem on managing the “commons” and it is fraught with all the same difficulties. Historically we have understood that the best way to manage the “commons” - to avoid the economic, politial and social dilemma described by Hardin in The Tragedy of the Commons - is to reduce, if not eliminate, the role of governments and their agents. The 'people' tend to be best able to manage the commons, the Crown tends to be a poor manager of the 'common good.'

The problem is difficult: see e.g. McFadden n the ‘digital commons,’ but not impossible. One thing about which *I am certain*, however, is that the roles of lawyers and policemen will decline, precipitously as the digital radio ‘commons’ emerges.

IF this was a simple, clear-cut legal issue there would be easy answers, validated in courts; there are no easy, legally sufficient answers because the issue is not simple and clear-cut; I think issues that are neither simple nor clear-cut are called _grey areas_ - at least they were when I went to school.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I guess anyone can steal my car if I park on Parlament Hill then..........

Sorry Edward, I don't but the "licence exempt" theory you use, recieve my signal all you want, just don't intrude into it and steal.

If I set my wallet down on the 'Queens' sidewalk and you take it that is the same as taking it if I set it on "my property" and you took it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

No, again.

Your car is not a useful analogy; it is not even remotely related to the issue of wireless routers.

Your sidewalk, on the other hand, is comparable. It IS your sidewalk because you paid for it through your municipal taxes and (by way of grants and transfers) through your provincial and federal taxes. You own the sidewalks in just about the same way you own the spectrum. I don't need a licence to use 'your' sidewalk, it is part of the "commons." I do not need a licence to use licence exempt spectrum, either - even if it is passing through someone else's router. If that person _encodes_ their signal then I would be breaking a law: no question. But that is not, in any way, related to 'piggybacking' on a 'clear' (not encoded) signal.

You're grasping at straws.


----------



## Michael OLeary

But the issue here is not the fundamental use of the "spectrum".

The issue is that the owner of the internet account and the router has entered into a legal contract to consume a defined quantity of internet access, whether that be measured in bandwidth or gigabytes (usage caps are becoming more common and will likely soon be the norm).  The user establishes this contract based upon their personal use expectations.  He/she agrees to accept extras charges if that contracted usage is exceeded, and most consumers will choose a contract to avoid extras charges.

When someone else acquires their signal, even if that slice of the spectrum is "freely" accessible, they are using it to take/use/acquire/steal part or all of the contracted portion of internet access purchased by the owner of the router.  Their piracy may cause the application of additional charges to the owner of the router, and therefore have not simply used a "free" resource.  They have stolen from the owner.



			
				Niteshade said:
			
		

> "Maybe the owner of the router deliberately left it open so others can use it for free".



Just because I leave my door unlocked doesn't mean you're allowed to come sit in my house, just because "maybe" I left it open for anyone to do so.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> ...
> The issue is that the owner of the internet account and the router has entered into a legal contract to consume a defined quantity of internet access, whether that be measured in bandwidth or gigabytes (usage caps are becoming more common and will likely soon be the norm).  The user establishes this contract based upon their personal use expectations.  He/she agrees to accept extras charges if that contracted usage is exceeded, and most consumers will choose a contract to avoid extras charges.
> ...



And IF that is *the* issue (and I agree it is an issue) then the Internet account holder has recourse, at law, to getting the 'squatter' to pay a share. But squatters have been hard to manage in well established legal areas, like property - how will or can they be managed in the spectrum.

It is *still* a _grey_ area.


----------



## Michael OLeary

The enforcement is a grey area, the legal right to use of the contracted resource is not.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No, again.
> 
> Your car is not a useful analogy; it is not even remotely related to the issue of wireless routers.
> 
> Your sidewalk, on the other hand, is comparable. It IS your sidewalk because you paid for it through your municipal taxes and (by way of grants and transfers) through your provincial and federal taxes. You own the sidewalks in just about the same way you own the spectrum. I don't need a licence to use 'your' sidewalk, it is part of the "commons." I do not need a licence to use licence exempt spectrum, either - even if it is passing through someone else's router. If that person _encodes_ their signal then I would be breaking a law: no question. But that is not, in any way, related to 'piggybacking' on a 'clear' (not encoded) signal.
> 
> You're grasping at straws.



Correct, you don't need a licence to pass on "my" sidewalk, but if you commit a crime while on 'my' sidewalk it is still a crime............

When you "piggyback" on someones router you convert something, again BANDWIDTH, from another person to yourself.
Theft.   Same as if you did it on the sidewalk.        

My argument had NOTHING to do with the radio freqency dilema, it is the entering [if you will] of that freqency and using MY BANDWIDTH that comes from a land line into my house.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

It's a case of taking something invisible, that roams freely through the air and when the situations present themselves one can translate that signal via lawfull and freely available means. I have a usb ethernet card, i can search the area for availble networks, and should i locate any attemt to link up. If a network is "open" for free unpassworded access then i am merely making use of what's freely availble by no malicious means. If you wish to prevent the unmalicious freeloading then PASSWORD IT, or make it a private network. But don't call me a criminal for something that IS avaialble for free by way of buying and using legal hardware.

 Do not put your bandwidth in my living room for the taking.

 Like a radio, don't want anyone to hear what your listening to, plug in your headphones.  Feel like sharing then turn it up and please for gods sake put it on classic rock.

 Cheers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Not even close...............read the last 2 pages and catch up please.


EDIT:...now try recording that "noise" and then start selling it and see what happens.


----------



## George Wallace

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Like listening to a radio, turn it up loud and everyone can hear, are they stealing your radio or the noise coming out of your speakers? NOOOO
> 
> Broadcasting your bandwidth to the public is the same thing, open freely accessable without a



OK.  So I'm listening to your radio.  Did I give you any money to purchase that radio?  Did I give you any money to power that radio (Batteries or Hydro)?  Did I give you any money to maintain that Radio?  Nope.  You paid for everything out of your pocket.  Thanks.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> The enforcement is a grey area, the legal right to use of the contracted resource is not.



And that (like Bruce's comment that follows) is a good point, BUT it is a civil, contractual matter.

Garb811 said it was a *Criminal Offence* and muffin pointed to a section of the Criminal Code which supports that contention.

I disagree - Criminal Code provisions notwithstanding. I agree with Snafu-Bar that it is a _grey_ area. Bruce, signing as staff, chastised Snafu-Bar for that opinion. I think Bruce and others have a defensible position - but not one that is legally settled.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And that (like Bruce's comment that follows) is a good point, BUT it is a civil, contractual matter.



Did someone say straw??      
 Just because I enter a contract with a third party to buy something from them does not make it fair game for others to use.

Wow.

EDIT: and Edward, just because something isn't enforced does NOT make it grey. Have you ever drove past a policeman with a radar gun knowing you were over the speed limit but he/she didn't stop you as he/she was waiting for the "big fish"?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Maybe this should go to Radio Chatter?


----------



## CountDC

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Sorry, I hate to keep at this, but ...
> 
> Regarding  wireless routers: they use spectrum (at 2.4 and 5 GHz) that is licence exempt – the spectrum, and its use and its users are not protected by any ‘rights’ – no individual (save, perhaps the Queen) has ‘property’ that can be stolen or, even, trespassed upon.
> 
> The whole purpose of a growing trend to allocate spectrum on a licence exempt basis is to allow technology (which really means user demand), not government regulation to rule the spectrum - any technology, not just the ones mandated (picked) by bureaucrats.
> 
> Thus far the spectrum management debate has paralleled the debate over land rights. Exclusivity (a spectrum allocation term) = a right of use by a group; allotment (another specialized spectrum management term) = a zoning bylaw (this bit is ‘residential,’ that bit is ‘industrial’ and so on) and an assignment (yet another special term) or licence = lease. But “*ownership”* is always and without fail vested in the public at large. Radio users – the CBC, Bell, you with your wireless router – all use *OUR* spectrum – yours and mine. It belongs to us all because, by treaty the RF spectrum is part of each nation’s sovereign patrimony. So, despite lawyers, spectrum management is most closely related to the traditional problem on managing the “commons” and it is fraught with all the same difficulties. Historically we have understood that the best way to manage the “commons” - to avoid the economic, politial and social dilemma described by Hardin in The Tragedy of the Commons - is to reduce, if not eliminate, the role of governments and their agents. The 'people' tend to be best able to manage the commons, the Crown tends to be a poor manager of the 'common good.'
> 
> The problem is difficult: see e.g. McFadden n the ‘digital commons,’ but not impossible. One thing about which *I am certain*, however, is that the roles of lawyers and policemen will decline, precipitously as the digital radio ‘commons’ emerges.
> 
> IF this was a simple, clear-cut legal issue there would be easy answers, validated in courts; there are no easy, legally sufficient answers because the issue is not simple and clear-cut; I think issues that are neither simple nor clear-cut are called _grey areas_ - at least they were when I went to school.



and ..... if I was not knowledgeable enough to secure it - where does this use of spectrum play into the stealing of bandwidth that is transmitted over a cable to my house for my usage? The fact that I have a wireless network set up inside my house for my family to use does not give you the right to use my bandwidth. The spectrum you can use all you want - there are 3 home networks currently using it in my range - but the bandwidth you cannot as that is mine.

As for court cases - if someone has left their service unsecure what is the chance they have the knowledge to even pickup that someone is piggy backing on them?  Can't get charged if you don't get caught.  Had a neighbour that was running an open one as they had no idea that someone outside the house could pick up the signal and piggy back.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> It's a case of taking something invisible, that roams freely through the air and when the situations present themselves one can translate that signal via lawfull and freely available means. I have a usb ethernet card, i can search the area for availble networks, and should i locate any attemt to link up. If a network is "open" for free unpassworded access then i am merely making use of what's freely availble by no malicious means. If you wish to prevent the unmalicious freeloading then PASSWORD IT, or make it a private network. But don't call me a criminal for something that IS avaialble for free by way of buying and using legal hardware.
> 
> Do not put your bandwidth in my living room for the taking



Try burning DVD's on your "legal" hardware and opening a store......

So I guess if I leave something "for the taking" then I can assume you will take it?.....hmmmm

[and this time I quoted you so when you change it later my post still makes sense]


----------



## NL_engineer

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now say a new porn box set comes out, "Monk Brucehouse's Greatest Clits",



Bruce you owe me a new keyboard  ;D, and a coffee, as half of it inadvertently ended up on said keyboard  8)


----------



## 40below

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Try burning DVD's on your "legal" hardware and opening a store......
> 
> So I guess if I leave something "for the taking" then I can assume you will take it?.....hmmmm
> 
> [and this time I quoted you so when you change it later my post still makes sense]



Different issue entirely, and a strawman argument. Burning DVDs for your own use? Legal. Copyright law allows you to make backups of digital media for your own personal use. It doesn't allow you to sell them as your own. The courts have not ruled that unsecured bandwidth is "stealing" because it's difficult to prove that anything physical was "taken", that you acquired a good through fraudulent means (provided you didn't crack the password on a secure network, which is not what we're talking about here) or that you caused a third party undue hardship. You can't compare bandwidth to a lost wallet or a stolen car, the analogy doesn't hold.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The courts "have not ruled"? So you are saying there has been cases and the defendant[s} were let off?

Links please.



			
				40below said:
			
		

> You can't compare bandwidth to a lost wallet or a stolen car, the analogy doesn't hold.



Why?.....I pay for both from a third party.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

40below said:
			
		

> or that you caused a third party undue hardship.



Using up all my paid for bandwidth so that I have to buy some more isn't what you would call 'hardship'?


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Using up all my paid for bandwidth so that I have to buy some more isn't what you would call 'hardship'?



 Again you own the hardware and have the ability to remove the network from the "public access" area. PLease make use of your documentation to asign a password and change to a private network. 

 Let me put it another way. You Order something on pay-per-view allowing YOU the rights to enjoy what you ordered. You setup your tv in the backyard that has open access on all sides allowing anyone to stand there and watch it behind you. Are they stealing or merely enjoying the show you so graciously provided for free?

 GREY AREA..... little grey men in little grey suits with little grey books writing little grey lines of text.....


Spin cycle is complete...time for a rinse wash and repeat....

Cheers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Again you own the hardware and have the ability to remove the network from the "public access" area. PLease make use of your documentation to asign a password and change to a private network.
> 
> Let me put it another way. You Order something on pay-per-view allowing YOU the rights to enjoy what you ordered. You setup your tv in the backyard that has open access on all sides allowing anyone to stand there and watch it behind you. Are they stealing or merely enjoying the show you so graciously provided for free?
> 
> GREY AREA..... little grey men in little grey suits with little grey books writing little grey lines of text.....
> 
> 
> Spin cycle is complete...time for a rinse wash and repeat....
> 
> Cheers.



Once again...............you can have the "public access" frequency all you want, but when you use the bandwidth, [mine] then its stealing. I don't have to lock things up for it to be stealing.

Someone watching my TV does not deprive me of anything,..using my bandwidth [not frequency] does.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Great discussion... thanks Bruce for getting me onto it. 

I won't add any answers, but I will try to further muddy the water with some additional scenarios:

1. Let's say I have a wireless access point (WAP), and so does my neighbour. We're both on channel 7 because that's the default. He's now cutting in to my wireless bandwidth, and vice-versa. My signal will degrade and I'll get less of my paid service because of his "interference." Based on some of the arguments above, he's "stealing" (or degrading at the very least) my paid service. And yet neither he nor I am doing anything wrong.

2. Now let's say we also have the same SSID, and my laptop is configured to automatically connect to my network. However it can't really distinguish between the 2, being on the same channel with the same SSID, so sometimes it may connect to my neighbours. Neither he nor I are likely to notice. Is this an offence? I know ignorance is no excuse, but there may be no _technical_ way to avoid this situation. Unless the law dictates what my SSID can or can't be, and then where do we stop?

3. Similar to above, if my laptop is configured to automatically associate with my home WAP (which uses all default settings, of course), am I committing a crime when my laptop autmatically connects to another WAP with default configuration if I travel? I may not have even asked it to connect to the Internet, but it's configured to do so automatically whenever it can.

The law needs to accommodate these scenarios in any type of enforcement.

Some additional thoughts to further muddy the waters:


Encryption on WAPs can be difficult to configure. We can't expect everyone to have the required expertise to set it up, verify and maintain it over time. We certainly can't expect the law to require it.
WAPs are a commodity item now. Even my mother has one (see the above item!)
Wireless signals are available almost everywhere in urban areas. Some are private and open, some are private and closed, and some are hotspots meant for free/customer use.
There is no standard way to distinguish a private/open WAP from a hotspot, so you may *think* you're connecting to the Starbucks wireless, but you're actually hitting a private resident's WAP.

Anyone still think this isn't a grey area?


----------



## 40below

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The courts "have not ruled"? So you are saying there has been cases and the defendant[s} were let off?
> 
> Links please.
> 
> Why?.....I pay for both from a third party.



Closest I can find is a guy in Toronto arrested for accessing child porn in his car from an unsecured network. He was charged with the porn, not the access.

CCC Section 342.1:  "Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right" obtains "computer services" from an access point is subject to criminal charges.

What the courts have to rule on is the meaning of the words "fraudulently" and "colour of right" in this context. If no password is required, it isn't fraudulent; if left open to all in a public space with no physical trespass involved, is it implicitly conveying the legal idea of "colour of right?" It will be an interesting argument when it is finally tested, and it will be.

And again, you're falling back on the argument that bandwidth is a physical thing that can be stolen. It's nothing more than an allocation, unless your ISP delivers it in bags that you store in the spare bedroom and use up as you need it. It's a similar argument to saying one is "stealing" bandwidth from web sites by visiting them - well, I wasn't invited, nobody asked me for a password and the site owner is only allocated so much bandwidth before the site is 404'd or he gets hit with a usage charge. You can stop people using your bandwidth by making it private.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> There is no standard way to distinguish a private/open WAP from a hotspot, so you may *think* you're connecting to the Starbucks wireless, but you're actually hitting a private resident's WAP.



I am one of those "challenged' by the internet but I knew exactly when I was getting my nieghbours signal as my machine came up and told me and asked if I wanted to use them since it was a stronger signal than mine. 
I decline of course.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

40below said:
			
		

> You can stop people using your bandwidth by making it private.



I am so sick of this arguement.............................gee, maybe women can stop getting raped by wearing chastity belts??

Please tell me we're not all that morally challenged here.


----------



## CountDC

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I am one of those "challenged' by the internet but I knew exactly when I was getting my nieghbours signal as my machine came up and told me and asked if I wanted to use them since it was a stronger signal than mine.
> I decline of course.



and by the same token you would know that you are connecting to someone else's network vice your own or Starbucks by the name.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I am so sick of this arguement.............................gee, maybe women can stop getting raped by wearing chastity belts??
> 
> Please tell me we're not all that morally challenged here.




 The usage of free interent access vs tearing a womans clothes off and violating her is a bit irrelevant don't you think? Morally i can turn on my computer click a network to use and if it's not passworded use it to navigate the internet, that is not malicious nor hacking nor illegal in general context. The hardware and software on my machine allows me to make use of the free to air access through legal retail options thus providing me an opportunity for access via a hotspot. If i then use the internet in a legal and unmalicious manner am i really breaking any laws, or are you just looking to write a little line of grey text in an ever growing volume of grey?


----------



## 40below

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I am so sick of this arguement.............................gee, maybe women can stop getting raped by wearing chastity belts??
> 
> Please tell me we're not all that morally challenged here.



We're not morally challenged. You're simply pronouncing that something that has not yet been determined is actually a crime is clearly a crime and anyone who disagrees with you based on irrelevant evidence such as case law and the words of the law of the land itself, is not only wrong but morally repugnant. There's still and argument to be made, but simply comparing it to rape is not a very compelling argument.


----------



## CountDC

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I am so sick of this arguement.............................gee, maybe women can stop getting raped by wearing chastity belts??
> 
> Please tell me we're not all that morally challenged here.



nah - lets just blame them - it's your fault for wearing a bikini, dress, crop top, hot pants, etc, etc, If you didn't want me to use them then you shouldn't be showing them off.

how about - she didn't say no - that's because she was passed out - will then it's her fault for getting so drunk while wearing a dress and no underwear. Left open must be free to use.

Sorry but some people are that morally challenged.


----------



## CountDC

40below said:
			
		

> based on irrelevant evidence such as case law and the words of the law of the land itself,



irrelevant??

If you are sitting back using the bandwidth that you know someone else is paying for and may result in additional charges to them then you are morally challenged. Taking advantage of someone because they do not have the skills and knowledge that you do is an immoral act. 

As for assertion of others that it is the persons responsibility when they set up their network - my network was setup by Rogers. The nice man left it in the default settings.  I knew to secure it but my wife didn't.  She, like lots of others out there I would wager, assumed that when he set up the network he secured it.  Not knowing too much beyond push this button to turn it on she would have been left with an unsecure network. Guess it would be her fault for not being a computer person and knowing about secure networks. Read the manual - are you for real?? Most IT have trouble understanding the bloody things. Call and talk to tech support - read this, its what tech support sounds like to my wife:   WKJDE(*(&#$LISDHJER*(&#SDSLDKH*#($HSDJE(R*EHF. 

Don't know about the legal aspects of stealing bandwidth(and yes I will continue to call it stealing because in my books that is what it is) but it sure as hell is not morally right.


----------



## Shamrock

Were my cordless phone, by some miracle of technology and imagination, be compatible with my neighbour's base (and I knew the dial tone to not be mine as my phone was not yet connected), and were I to use this dial tone for local calls, would I be committing an offence?  What if these were chargeless yet embarassing numbers, such as escorts?  What if they incurred charges, such as long distance or the Monk Brucehouse Hotline?

The frequency of our phones falls under Mr. Campbell's excemption clause.  My neighbour's failure to properly secure his phone line against my intrusion falls under various other moral grey areas.  Is there only an offence when there is tangible harm?


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Were my cordless phone, by some miracle of technology and imagination, be compatible with my neighbour's base (and I knew the dial tone to not be mine as my phone was not yet connected), and were I to use this dial tone for local calls, would I be committing an offence?  What if these were chargeless yet embarassing numbers, such as escorts?  What if they incurred charges, such as long distance or the Monk Brucehouse Hotline?
> 
> The frequency of our phones falls under Mr. Campbell's excemption clause.  My neighbour's failure to properly secure his phone line against my intrusion falls under various other moral grey areas.  Is there only an offence when there is tangible harm?




 Then it becomes _*intent*_ of usage. Are you using it to break a law, if yes then so be it, if you are NOT using it to break a law and it's available free to you in your living room without manipulation or hacking of any kind are you then breaking the law? No.

 Obviously the debate about this is tied to costs or any collateral damages incurred by allowing free access to thier networks. If you pay for limited access and someone is using your "free to air" access then I can see the point of having someone eat away at your account, but the problem is still your personal responsibility to look after your own interests. If you are unable to set it up or have someone set it up for you and no one at the routers tech center can help you then should take the network offline so it's not open for public use.

 Cheers


----------



## George Wallace

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Then it becomes _*intent*_ of usage. Are you using it to break a law, if yes then so be it, if you are NOT using it to break a law and it's available free to you in your living room without manipulation or hacking of any kind are you then breaking the law? No.



So I take it that you find the Laws about Electronic Eavesdropping to be morally and ethically wrong?  And that there is nothing wrong with the Police or any other Agency listening to your 'broadcast' signals at any time they wish, without a Warrant to do so?


----------



## muffin

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> The hardware and software on my machine allows me to make use of the free to air access through legal retail options thus providing me an opportunity for access via a hotspot. If i then use the internet in a legal and unmalicious manner am i really breaking any laws, or are you just looking to write a little line of grey text in an ever growing volume of grey?



I am able therefore I am allowed? My 8 year old likes to try that one. 

Your hardware allows you to make use of free access, but was that it's intention? My car "allows me" to run things down. My .410 "allows me" to shoot at whatever I want to. My pen and chequebook "allow me" to write a cheque for millions of dollars... are any of these legal? Nope. 

Ref: Mike Bobbit's points: (my opinion anyway - for what it's worth)

1. Let's say I have a wireless access point (WAP), and so does my neighbour. We're both on channel 7 because that's the default. He's now cutting in to my wireless bandwidth, and vice-versa. My signal will degrade and I'll get less of my paid service because of his "interference." Based on some of the arguments above, he's "stealing" (or degrading at the very least) my paid service. And yet neither he nor I am doing anything wrong.

 You are taking the risk of degrading your service by installing a router anyway. A cordless phone or a baby monitor can affect signal, as well as many other devices. These risks have been outlined in the directions/troubleshooting for every router I have ever installed - and they usually do mention other routers. He isn't stealing your service because he isn't accessing it. He may be degrading it, but that is not the same thing as piggybacking. It's a troubleshooting issue. When I installed a router in my house I had to buy new cordless phones in 2 different frequencies and put them in specific rooms so they wouldn't affec my signal. Most other routers I have installed didn't have any interference what-so-ever... so it's hit and miss.

2. Now let's say we also have the same SSID, and my laptop is configured to automatically connect to my network. However it can't really distinguish between the 2, being on the same channel with the same SSID, so sometimes it may connect to my neighbours. Neither he nor I are likely to notice. Is this an offence? I know ignorance is no excuse, but there may be no technical way to avoid this situation. Unless the law dictates what my SSID can or can't be, and then where do we stop?

I think you hit the hammer on the head with "ignorance is no excuse". If you are going to buy a car you have to learn how to drive it, or get someone to drive you around. If you buy some new-to-you technology - learn how to set it up, or get someone to set it up for you. The CD you get with most routers will walk you through everything, and most automatically set encryption for you. If you are installing it without the CD, then you already know enough to manage the security. Most times I recommend not even broadcasting the SSID. 

3. Similar to above, if my laptop is configured to automatically associate with my home WAP (which uses all default settings, of course), am I committing a crime when my laptop autmatically connects to another WAP with default configuration if I travel? I may not have even asked it to connect to the Internet, but it's configured to do so automatically whenever it can.

This is another case of ignorance as the excuse as far as I am concerned. If you aren't sure you will have legitimatly free access, why are you travelling with your Wifi on? Most Laptops just have a little switch to turn it off. Free internet hotspots are usually labeled - and there are signs. You can look them up before you travel too. As I mentioned before, just because you can connect to anything doesn't mean you should

The law needs to accommodate these scenarios in any type of enforcement.

Some additional thoughts to further muddy the waters:

    * Encryption on WAPs can be difficult to configure. We can't expect everyone to have the required expertise to set it up, verify and maintain it over time. We certainly can't expect the law to require it.
see number 1
    * WAPs are a commodity item now. Even my mother has one (see the above item!) see number 1
    * Wireless signals are available almost everywhere in urban areas. Some are private and open, some are private and closed, and some are hotspots meant for free/customer use. That's true - and if they aren't the public use ones, you shouldn't be on them. You can ask the kid behind the counter at starbucks what the name of the net is - and make sure you get the right one.
    * There is no standard way to distinguish a private/open WAP from a hotspot, so you may *think* you're connecting to the Starbucks wireless, but you're actually hitting a private resident's WAP.  Like I said, ask when you are ordering your coffee - it only takes a second.


----------



## c_canuk

> If you are sitting back using the bandwidth that you know someone else is paying for and may result in additional charges to them then you are morally challenged. Taking advantage of someone because they do not have the skills and knowledge that you do is an immoral act.
> 
> As for assertion of others that it is the persons responsibility when they set up their network - my network was setup by Rogers. The nice man left it in the default settings.  I knew to secure it but my wife didn't.  She, like lots of others out there I would wager, assumed that when he set up the network he secured it.  Not knowing too much beyond push this button to turn it on she would have been left with an unsecure network. Guess it would be her fault for not being a computer person and knowing about secure networks. Read the manual - are you for real?? Most IT have trouble understanding the bloody things. Call and talk to tech support - read this, its what tech support sounds like to my wife:   WKJDE(*(&#$LISDHJER*(&#SDSLDKH*#($HSDJE(R*EHF.



READ YOUR DOCUMENTATION INCLUDED WITH YOUR PRODUCT

by using public radio frequencies you are REQUIRED by the FCC and CRTC to emit no interference and recieve transmissions, your WiFi Access Point (WAP) must by law allow incomming signals. You are not allowed to encrypt, scramble or otherwise obscure your signal in a way that makes it unreadable...

what you can do however is encrypt the network using the signal. 

When you use a public frequency within your home, anyone who recieves it can interact with it legally. Your signal is a beacon saying "Hello! I'm here!" if you choose not to log into your router and shut off the beacon and/or apply data encryption it is your fault if someone connects to it.  Public signals are not subject to property laws any more than the oxygen trees in your yard produce.

You are not legally allowed to claim any signal you broadcast on public frequency's as your property.

the manuals that come with the product have pictures and one line per picture instruction that a 12 year old could follow, the connection information is generally written on the bottom of the router next to the serial number from the factory which brings you to a web page hosted on the router's internal network that has a wizard for setting up the router including wireless security.

if you can log onto army.ca and post a message, you can RTFM and secure your wireless network.



> Don't know about the legal aspects of stealing bandwidth(and yes I will continue to call it stealing because in my books that is what it is) but it sure as hell is not morally right.



and you would be wrong.

an unsecured router by default acts like a beacon, it is your responsibility to be familiar with your device on condition of using it, ignorance of the law is no excuse. and there is a lot of precedent set, most notably by a man who brought a laptop into the court room, and showed how windows automatically will try to connect to the internet and will do so with an unsecure wireless connection if you click one single yes button. 

Imagine your grandmother being labled a criminal just because she accidentally connected to the wrong network that is beaming "I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!! I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!" into her house.

the problem in your case was a neglectful service technition or policy from Rogers.

BTW there are a lot of people who deliberatly leave their wireless internet connections unsecured.

some are altruistic and think the internet and access to informations should always be free and don't mind sharing the wealth

some are looking for suckers to connect so they can steal information

some are large organizations and municipalities looking to draw economic revenue by adding services to the vicinity of their area to draw tourists and other consumers.

So now with this all thrown in the mix, how am I to know which WiFi is left unsecured because they want me to connect to it, and which are users too lazy to read a 5 page pictographic pamphlet on a piece of equipment that is mandated to play nice with me. 

You can call it theft if you want, but it isn't. You are providing public access to your bandwidth by not securing your network and the onus is on you to know the rules and to set your equipment up properly.


----------



## muffin

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So I take it that you find the Laws about Electronic Eavesdropping to be morally and ethically wrong?  And that there is nothing wrong with the Police or any other Agency listening to your 'broadcast' signals at any time they wish, without a Warrant to do so?



The problem isn't the listening... it's what they do once they've heard.


----------



## George Wallace

muffin said:
			
		

> The problem isn't the listening... it's what they do once they've heard.



So going back to





			
				Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Then it becomes _*intent*_ of usage. Are you using it to break a law, if yes then so be it, if you are NOT using it to break a law and it's available free to you in your living room without manipulation or hacking of any kind are you then breaking the law? No.



Then to view it free is OK, but to start to manipulate it (ie. use it) is against the law?


----------



## 40below

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Were my cordless phone, by some miracle of technology and imagination, be compatible with my neighbour's base (and I knew the dial tone to not be mine as my phone was not yet connected), and were I to use this dial tone for local calls, would I be committing an offence?  What if these were chargeless yet embarassing numbers, such as escorts?  What if they incurred charges, such as long distance or the Monk Brucehouse Hotline?
> 
> The frequency of our phones falls under Mr. Campbell's excemption clause.  My neighbour's failure to properly secure his phone line against my intrusion falls under various other moral grey areas.  Is there only an offence when there is tangible harm?



With the proviso that I Am Not A Lawyer, yes. 

This debate is sliding away from what is legal into arguing what is ethical, based on one's own personal system of beliefs. And while you're perfectly entitled to hold and argue them, they're not law. I'm not advocating piggybacking on someone else's WiFi, just pointing out that it is not yet proven to be a crime. And to use a word that's been used a lot already in this debate, that fact is obvious. You can paint a worst-case scenario of someone using another person's entire bandwidth to download gigs of kiddie porn but a) it's unlikely, for reasons I'd be happy to get into, and b) is another crime entirely. You can argue that it's not ethical and you wouldn't do it, which can be applied to any number of things, but you can't argue that it's illegal or prohibited in this country. Well, you *can*, but it isn't.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> irrelevant??
> If you are sitting back using the bandwidth that you know someone else is paying for and may result in additional charges to them then you are morally challenged. Taking advantage of someone because they do not have the skills and knowledge that you do is an immoral act.
> what it is) but it sure as hell is not morally right.



The trouble with sweeping moral statements like that is they're moral and they're sweeping. First off, if I use an unsecured network to check my web mail or surf for 15 minutes to kill time, I'm not going to exhaust their bandwidth. I have better things to do than stand on a sidewalk for eight hours downloading torrents, and people might get suspicious. As to your second point, it's a sweet sentiment but not exactly a bright-line rule. Ever been to a Goodwill or a garage sale, or eBay of Craigslist for that matter, and bought something that you knew was worth a lot more than it cost, because you had skills and knowledge that the seller didn't? Ever went back and gave your profit after you resold it to the person you "took advantage of?" Me either.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So I take it that you find the Laws about Electronic Eavesdropping to be morally and ethically wrong?  There is nothing wrong with the Police or any other Agency listening to your 'broadcast' signals at any time they wish, without a Warrant to do so.




 That's different and you know it.

 Manipulating the data stream or uncoding the data is considered hacking.

 Using the free bandwith WITHOUT any maniplulation meaning- installing the wireless ethernet adapter(available for sale legally in canada) and turning on your computer(also legally for sale in canada) to make use of a free internet access hotspot(made freely available by someone else) via the legally obtained hardware, is not what i would consider a valid argument for someone breaking a law nor should it be fodder for the justice system to create one.

Obviously the next step everyone will immediately jump to is INTENT and that's where the law begins and ends. 

 "did you use it, yes, did you use it to break a law yes, guilty."
" did you use it, yes, did you use it to break a law, no. not guilty."

 No matter how you wanna debate it, there is grey all over it. you can spin it in almost any direction you want but it still comes back to intent. If your intentionally using it to break a law then yes it's illegal, if you are not using it to break a law then it's legal. The question still becomes is it the Router onwers responsibilty to secure it? Or is it John Q Publics responsibilty to not use something freely accessable to them in thier own homes? Once again back to square one.

 Cheers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

C-Canuck,

Nice post but thoseof us who say its theft have already conceded that we don't care about the frequency, we agree that's public domain, its the using of someones bandwidth.  THATS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Money out of someones pocket bandwidth thus converted to someone elses property without permission bandwidth.






...and since when did we start blaming the owner when something gets taken if its not nailed down??


----------



## muffin

c_canuk said:
			
		

> READ YOUR DOCUMENTATION INCLUDED WITH YOUR PRODUCT



I just did. The only mention of the FCC is that the devices complies with the acceptable levels of radiation for a device in it's class.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> You are not legally allowed to claim any signal you broadcast on public frequency's as your property.



That is true - however, I do own the device that transmits it, and it is through that device that a piggybacker is getting an IP and access to the internet that I pay for. I live in a rural area and my highspeed internet service is via the public bandwidth. My monthly service charges are for access to the ISP's towers, the ISP's receivers and their servers. Even thought they don't own the frequency, they own the infrastructure and I pay to access it.


----------



## George Wallace

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> That's different and you know it.



Actually No.

What we are talking about here is "Wireless transmissions".  To the layman; RADIO.

Back to my point, and expanded upon by Muffin; listening is not illegal, but what you do with that information may be.  In other words, viewing/listening/receiving is legal.  You can't stop it.  However, once you, in your words, start to manipulate it, or use it, then you are doing something that could be construed as illegal.  You are now manipulating someone else's paid Service for your own use at no cost to yourself.  Could we call that "Piracy"?

It may be a 'gray area' right now, but should it go to the Courts, these arguments will be used, and the "Gray" may soon become "Black and White".


----------



## Nfld Sapper

muffin said:
			
		

> I live in a rural area and my highspeed internet service is via the public bandwidth.* My monthly service charges are for access to the ISP's towers, the ISP's receivers and their servers.* Even thought they don't own the frequency, *they own the infrastructure and I pay to access it*.



Muffin that is different as noted in my highlighted areas.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Using the free bandwith WITHOUT any maniplulation meaning- installing the wireless ethernet adapter(available for sale legally in canada) and turning on your computer(also legally for sale in canada) to make use of a free internet access hotspot(made freely available by someone else) via the legally obtained hardware, is not what i would consider a valid argument for someone breaking a law nor should it be fodder for the justice system to create one.



Lets say your right here,......oh wait, my BANDWIDTH ISN'T $FREE$,.....oops.




			
				40below said:
			
		

> The trouble with sweeping moral statements like that is they're moral and they're sweeping. First off, if I use an unsecured network to check my web mail or surf for 15 minutes to kill time, I'm not going to exhaust their bandwidth. I have better things to do than stand on a sidewalk for eight hours downloading torrents, and people might get suspicious.



So embezzling a little from a big oil company is OK by those standards cause they got lots of cash....


----------



## 40below

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> C-Canuck,
> 
> Nice post but thoseof us who say its theft have already conceded that we don't care about the frequency, we agree that's public domain, its the using of someones bandwidth.  THATS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN.
> 
> Money out of someones pocket bandwidth thus converted to someone elses property without permission bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and since when did we start blaming the owner when something gets taken if its not nailed down??



When the owner brought it into my house and put it on my kitchen table, or dropped it in the middle of a public street with the electronic version of a large sign saying "USE ME!!!" next to it and left. Honestly, we can feel sorry for the people who choose to treat their valuables in such a manner and express astonishment that their money or TV is inexplicably no longer on the sidewalk where they left it last month for safekeeping, but the fact is, it's not a good method of securing your property.


----------



## George Wallace

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Muffin that is different as noted in my highlighted areas.



No.  If someone is accessing those means through the infrastructure owned by the company and rented by Muffin, then there is 'theft' occuring.  It doesn't matter about the actual frequency being used, it is the equipment that is being accessed and used.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

My bad I interpreted it the other way   :-[


----------



## NL_engineer

Well after watching this thread grow, this just got to me.



			
				Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> If you are unable to set it up or have someone set it up for you and no one at the routers tech center can help you then should take the network offline so it's not open for public use.



So does that go the same for your car??  If you can't put it together your self you shouldn't be on the road?

Get off your high horse, and think about what you are saying.  When my parents set up their wireless, they never new that you had to put in a security feature, no one told them; and then by listing to you they shouldn't have a network or access to the internet??


----------



## Strike

Pardon my ignorance on the whole subject (because I tent to be a goody 2 shoes when it comes to this stuff) but how is using someone elses WiFi different from free satellite tv?  Okay, there's a middleman involved on the WiFi side, but it's essentially the same, isn't it?


----------



## 40below

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Lets say your right here,......oh wait, my BANDWIDTH ISN'T $FREE$,.....oops.
> 
> 
> 
> So embezzling a little from a big oil company is OK by those standards cause they got lots of cash....



Let me see if I can draw a more exact analogy because I hate the comparisons to using bandwidth as the moral equivalent or rape or car theft.

You walk into Chapters, pick up a book, read a page, put it back on the shelf and leave. Maybe you read the whole book, it doesn't matter. You don't buy it. What crime have you just committed?

Well, you took information you did not buy, which is theft and possibly subject to civil prosecution under the copyright act. You deprived Chapters and the publisher of revenue they could have made by selling the book to another customer while it was in your hands. Deprivation of lawful use and enjoyment right there. You may have inadvertently broken the spine or soiled the pages, making the book unsaleable or fit only for the bargain bin. Vandalism. Might as well have thrown a brick through their window while you were at it, criminal. But, you argue, you didn't damage the book; there were 20 other copies someone could have bought at the time so the owner of the book suffered no harm, and you left it in the store just the way you found it. Which is way different than me posting this using an open network ... how exactly?

Might seem like a ludicrous argument, but if books were a cutting-edge new technology, you'd be hearing these arguments. You're trying to treat a Wi-Fi signal like an actual physical good, and it isn't.


----------



## muffin

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Well after watching this thread grow, this just got to me.
> 
> So does that go the same for your car??  If you can't put it together your self you shouldn't be on the road?
> 
> Get off your high horse, and think about what you are saying.  When my parents set up their wireless, they never new that you had to put in a security feature, no one told them; and then by listing to you they shouldn't have a network or access to the internet??



They don't have to know how to put it together, which is why someone else does - however they do need to be lisenced to drive it.


----------



## muffin

40below said:
			
		

> Might seem like a ludicrous argument, but if books were a cutting-edge new technology, you'd be hearing these arguments. You're trying to treat a Wi-Fi signal like an actual physical good, and it isn't.



It isn't the signal that's the problem, its the access to the paid internet service. If you cut a little hole in the wall and spliced your neighbors phone/cable line and ran it to your place would that be different or just messier.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Well after watching this thread grow, this just got to me.
> 
> So does that go the same for your car??  If you can't put it together your self you shouldn't be on the road?
> 
> Get off your high horse, and think about what you are saying.  When my parents set up their wireless, they never new that you had to put in a security feature, no one told them; and then by listing to you they shouldn't have a network or access to the internet??



 I believe documentation that comes with the router describes the inherent risks of running the router "open to the public" . As for my comment to take it offline, if your worried about public useages running up costs or using it illegally then yes it would be in your best interests to remove it from problic access till you can get it setup to prevent such usage.

 There are two glaring points that can be and should be argued by the public here.

1. The router owner making the access point "available for public usage" via open access and no password. - This option allows the owner to provide free access should they wish to choose so.

2 The Router manufactures making the default settings set to allow for immediate public usage upon initial setup. - The companies design and usages upon intial setup determine if the network is already "free to air" making them liable for compromising your newly created network.

 ...the public is not breaking anything, they are only making useage of what freely given away.

 Point the finger anywhere you like, just watch out for the mirrors.


----------



## NL_engineer

muffin said:
			
		

> They don't have to know how to put it together, which is why someone else does - however they do need to be lisenced to drive it.



You missed the quote


----------



## Shamrock

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> ...the public is not breaking anything, they are only making useage of what freely given away.



...they are only making use of that which is improperly secured.

Electronic property is still property.  That an individual erroneously broadcasts in a manner allowing anyone to retreive and use it does not automatically entitle anyone to use it.  Certainly, this may be an action without perceivable harm to anyone as in the case of the 5 minute usage, but that was 5 minutes of trespass on someone else's property.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Interesting Article, from a a Toronto-based technology lawyer;


Wireless hotspots and the law    

Not long ago wireless Internet access was mostly of use to laptop users. Now an increasing number of electronic devices are "Internet-enabled" and capable of utilizing publicly accessible hotspots. For example, many PDAs have web browsers that can be used to access the Internet or built-in e-mail clients that can synchronize over a wireless connection. 

Some Voice-over-IP telephone providers, such as Vonage, are beginning to provide wi-fi-enabled handsets. There are also a number of handheld game consoles with wireless Internet functionality that can be used to play multiplayer games against other people. Even some digital cameras now include wi-fi functionality that can be used to upload photographs to online photo services.
Many of these devices, once configured, may automatically attempt to establish an Internet connection using any open access point. As a person with such device moves from one physical location to another, the device may rescan the environment from time to time and then re-establish a new connection on its own.
An interesting question that arises is when use of publicly accessible wireless access points is lawful and when is it not.
There have been a few isolated examples of individuals being charged with certain offences as a result of accessing private wi-fi access points, although this has typically occurred in conjunction with other activity that was clearly illegal. In other words, the wireless connection was being used as a tool to further a different activity, such as hacking into computer systems or downloading child pornography, as opposed to simply pursuing an otherwise lawful purpose such as downloading some information or a map from the Internet.
Some organizations operate free hotspots as a community service. Libraries, more so in the United States than Canada, are a good example. In addition to providing public access to computers, many American libraries now also operate wireless access points for the convenience of their patrons.
In some cases, municipalities may also operate free wireless "zones" in order to support their downtown commercial areas. For example, in Los Angeles, such zones have been set up in downtown Santa Monica, Culver City, West Hollywood, and Burbank.
Individual businesses may also operate free access points. These currently include select food establishments, certain fitness clubs, and retailers such as Sony and Apple.
In some cases, it is clear whether or not a particular access point is intended for public access. For instance, many hotspots use a redirected web page that can display terms of use.  Such terms may indicate that access is free and unrestricted, or can that access, while free, may be restricted to a certain class of users (such as hotel guests) or for only a specified purpose.
The name of the access point (known as the SSID) may also be used to convey whether or not free access is intended. For example, the Lasik clinic at Toronto's First Canadian Place uses an identifier that includes "Free Access" in its name.  However, in many cases it is simply not possible to tell if the operator of the access point is intending to provide public access or has simply been negligent in not putting in place technical restrictions on access.
Sony and Apple operate "open" access points in their stores but don't actually put up signs advertising that those access points are open for public use.
There are also certain individuals who are likely intentionally not locking up access to their home wireless access points because they believe in sharing, either with the world at large or with other similarly situated individuals. For example, a network called FON has sprung up where individual members can freely access each other's wireless access points.
It should be clear that certain activities are (or should be) illegal. For example, any attempt to obtain unauthorized access to a wireless facility where an owner has put in place any technical restriction (even if weak or easy to break), any attempt to interfere with the legitimate use by other users (for example, by mounting "denial of service" attacks), or any attempt to intercept wireless communications of other users (whether or not encryption is being utilized) should trigger criminal liability. Also, any attempt to use even an "open" wireless to further an illegal purpose should be prosecutable.
However, simply accessing an otherwise open access point with no reasonable notice that such use is prohibited should not result in a prosecutable offence.
Maybe, just as standards have been developed to embed a "broadcast flag" into television programs that are subject to digital rights management, someone should invent a "public access" flag for wireless access points.

Alan Gahtan is a Toronto-based technology lawyer. His web site is www.gahtan.com/alan 



From his Website a lsiting of various laws and discussion on Cyberlaw,

http://www.gahtan.com/cyberlaw/

dileas

tess


----------



## Adamant

Bruce, muffin and others on that side: Is it illegal....no.  Is it immoral...yes

Snafu-bar, 40below and your cohorts: It isn't illegal, but should you do it...NO!  

Why not you ask, it's there to be used, Because you don't / shouldn't need to.  If you want free internet go to library.  If you can't wait the 20 minutes to get home to check your email get a Blackberry.

That all being said, can anyone really stop someone from doing it (other than having a WEP / WAP key or not broadcasting SSID's) no not really....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
_However, simply accessing an otherwise open access point with no reasonable notice that such use is prohibited should not result in a prosecutable offence._

I agree, accessing a public domain frequency is fine.............but if you than start using the PRIVATE bandwidth contained within,etc......


----------



## muffin

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> You missed the quote



I didn't miss the quote - your reply was in reponse to the quote:
"If you are unable to set it up or have someone set it up for you and no one at the routers tech center can help you then should take the network offline so it's not open for public use." 

I am just saying that building a car and setting up a wireless network aren't the same level of difficulty at all. 

I am betting the documentation with the router explained the security features - and how to use them. If the router didn't come with that information, I would say it was irresponsible of the manufacturer. 
You have to learn to drive a car, you have to learn to use a computer (safely), you have to learn to use a router. 

Forcing people to use encryption on thier wireless networks may be an easier fix than catching people using the unsecured nets, but I don't know that it's the "fair" way. 

I think there is more than one issue coming to the surface here.
For me, the question isn't really whether or not I can leave my net unsecured (fully knowing all the risks to me, my system and my network) - but can I access someone else's unsecured net without their permission.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Interesting Article, from a a Toronto-based technology lawyer;
> 
> Wireless hotspots and the law
> 
> An interesting question that arises is when use of publicly accessible wireless access points is lawful and when is it not.
> There have been a few isolated examples of individuals being charged with certain offences as a result of accessing private wi-fi access points, although this has *typically* occurred in conjunction with other activity that was clearly illegal. In other words, the wireless connection was being used as a tool to further a different activity, such as hacking into computer systems or downloading child pornography, as opposed to simply pursuing an otherwise lawful purpose such as downloading some information or a map from the Internet.



I find that veeeeery interesting,.........how could they be charged with a crime that wasn't a crime?
How convenient when there was maybe a good chance for convictions based on the other evidence collected that resulted in those charges that a totally legal pasttime was illegal.  Bean counters, anyone??


----------



## 40below

muffin said:
			
		

> It isn't the signal that's the problem, its the access to the paid internet service. If you cut a little hole in the wall and spliced your neighbors phone/cable line and ran it to your place would that be different or just messier.



That is different. The cable is on his property from the drop, so you committed trespass to access it unless he had given you permission. You also caused physical damage to his lines with the splice and to top it off, the physical presence of your cable on his property is an encumbrance, the same as if one day you decided to build a fence on his land. 

Now if he had spliced it himself, ran 100 feet of cable from his house and into your living room and left it with a cable jack on the end next to your TV, you could reasonably argue he was implicitly allowing you to plug it in, which is the same as the wireless analogy.


----------



## Shamrock

I had edited this into my previous post, but in the length of time it took me to form this, several other posts had buried it.

Since proponents of use of insecure bandwith as legal are here, I have a question.  Were I to maliciously leave my WAP insecure and monitored their usage and publicly display everything they broadcast, including personal information, passwords, banking information, etc. have I committed an offence?  They freely gave it to me.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

..or I can listen to your cordless phone?  Maybe make a few calls to Hong Kong?


----------



## Adamant

Shamrock said:
			
		

> I had edited this into my previous post, but in the length of time it took me to form this, several other posts had buried it.
> 
> Since proponents of use of insecure bandwith as legal are here, I have a question.  Were I to maliciously leave my WAP insecure and monitored their usage and publicly display everything they broadcast, including personal information, passwords, banking information, etc. have I committed an offence?  They freely gave it to me.



I would imagine they would say Yes.   But really thats one reason some people in Urban centres leave their routers open, easy access to peoples personal information, via packets sent or by going through the folders on their computer.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

40below said:
			
		

> The trouble with sweeping moral statements like that is they're moral and they're sweeping. First off, if I use an unsecured network to check my web mail or surf for 15 minutes to kill time, I'm not going to exhaust their bandwidth. I have better things to do than stand on a sidewalk for eight hours downloading torrents, and people might get suspicious. .



Just something I should point out also so that I don't appear to be a "holier-than-thou" internet poster, I would do the same thing however I wouldn't kid myself about what I was doing.........just like when I go over the speed limit.


----------



## 40below

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I find that veeeeery interesting,.........how could they be charged with a crime that wasn't a crime?
> How convenient when there was maybe a good chance for convictions based on the other evidence collected that resulted in those charges that a totally legal pasttime was illegal.  Bean counters, anyone??



You're misunderstanding his point, at least as far as I can understand yours. This may be a law on the books, but it's untested. Parliament may decide tomorrow that, say, wearing red on Fridays is a criminal offence. Police may choose to arrest people for breaking that law the following day, and Crown Attorneys may choose to pursue charges against them – it's all completely legal to this point, a law is on the books and it has been broken – but until that charge works through the court system to determine if it is constitutional and in fact a crime, all the way to the Supremes if necessary, it's not considered tested. In my example above, it's  a crime because Parliament put it in the Criminal Code, but just because it's in the Criminal Code does not necessarily make it a crime.

His point is that the lone charge of stealing WiFi has not yet been tested, and Crowns wouldn't bother laying the charge when they have a guy with kiddie porn, credit card data or other evidence that is clearly a crime and with which they could have obtained a conviction. Why would they bother? A test case *will* come, and it will be someone using unsecured access to download loads of legal data, but with no other crime occurring.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I find that veeeeery interesting,.........how could they be charged with a crime that wasn't a crime?
> How convenient when there was maybe a good chance for convictions based on the other evidence collected that resulted in those charges that a totally legal pasttime was illegal.  Bean counters, anyone??



 I think you missed the important part in that quote.

 They used the free access for illegal activities thus committing a crime. The crime was not reported that they used the free access, it was just a means to further the cause, also looping back to my earlier posts about  INTENT. A criminal is going to use free access for criminal activities, a law abiding citizen will use it freely and appropriately. the difference between the two is their intent. Usage is not the debate the end results of that usage is.

 Either the owners of the routers have to secure their networks, or the manufacturers have to change their hardware and software to accommodate the grey area. The public does not have to change it's behaviour to accommodate either.

 Cheers.


----------



## kratz

Shamrock said:
			
		

> I had edited this into my previous post, but in the length of time it took me to form this, several other posts had buried it.
> 
> Since proponents of use of insecure bandwith as legal are here, I have a question.  Were I to maliciously leave my WAP insecure and monitored their usage and publicly display everything they broadcast, including personal information, passwords, banking information, etc. have I committed an offence?  They freely gave it to me.



Most legitimate hotspots have a warning not to use passwords, credit card or other sensitive information prior to using their access. So if someone was to use other unsecured WAP access, I would assume the same risks and take appropriate action on my part.


----------



## CountDC

c_canuk said:
			
		

> READ YOUR DOCUMENTATION INCLUDED WITH YOUR PRODUCT
> 
> by using public radio frequencies you are REQUIRED by the FCC and CRTC to emit no interference and recieve transmissions, your WiFi Access Point (WAP) must by law allow incomming signals. You are not allowed to encrypt, scramble or otherwise obscure your signal in a way that makes it unreadable...
> 
> what you can do however is encrypt the network using the signal.
> 
> When you use a public frequency within your home, anyone who recieves it can interact with it legally. Your signal is a beacon saying "Hello! I'm here!" if you choose not to log into your router and shut off the beacon and/or apply data encryption it is your fault if someone connects to it.  Public signals are not subject to property laws any more than the oxygen trees in your yard produce.
> 
> You are not legally allowed to claim any signal you broadcast on public frequency's as your property.
> 
> the manuals that come with the product have pictures and one line per picture instruction that a 12 year old could follow, the connection information is generally written on the bottom of the router next to the serial number from the factory which brings you to a web page hosted on the router's internal network that has a wizard for setting up the router including wireless security.
> 
> if you can log onto army.ca and post a message, you can RTFM and secure your wireless network.
> 
> and you would be wrong.
> 
> an unsecured router by default acts like a beacon, it is your responsibility to be familiar with your device on condition of using it, ignorance of the law is no excuse. and there is a lot of precedent set, most notably by a man who brought a laptop into the court room, and showed how windows automatically will try to connect to the internet and will do so with an unsecure wireless connection if you click one single yes button.
> 
> Imagine your grandmother being labled a criminal just because she accidentally connected to the wrong network that is beaming "I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!! I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!" into her house.
> 
> the problem in your case was a neglectful service technition or policy from Rogers.
> 
> BTW there are a lot of people who deliberatly leave their wireless internet connections unsecured.
> 
> some are altruistic and think the internet and access to informations should always be free and don't mind sharing the wealth
> 
> some are looking for suckers to connect so they can steal information
> 
> some are large organizations and municipalities looking to draw economic revenue by adding services to the vicinity of their area to draw tourists and other consumers.
> 
> So now with this all thrown in the mix, how am I to know which WiFi is left unsecured because they want me to connect to it, and which are users too lazy to read a 5 page pictographic pamphlet on a piece of equipment that is mandated to play nice with me.
> 
> You can call it theft if you want, but it isn't. You are providing public access to your bandwidth by not securing your network and the onus is on you to know the rules and to set your equipment up properly.



and your lovely rant still boils down to the same thing - the argument is not over the use of the signal transmitting in the air - it is about piggy backing and using it to access the signal that is transmitted to my house via a cable that I have paid for thus stealing my bandwidth.  How do you know which WIFI is left unsecured because they want you to connect? hmmm a little thing like asking works for me. I like the morally righteous blame the victim attitude - because you didn't know better and were taken advantage of it's your fault. Sorry but I did look through my book (which is not a 5 page pictographic pamphlet) and the only one in my family that could understand it was myself.  Can't fix most of my car so guess I shouldn't be driving, lots of people in rural areas still leave their doors unlocked, guess this means you can walk in and take anything you like. Still all boils down to moral values and respecting other people rather than taking advantage of them. Instead of jumping on to their open frequency and stealing their bandwidth why don't you track them down and educate them, maybe even help secure the network for them.  

As for Granny - never liked her anyway so feel free to haul her off. There is a difference between her accidently clicking onto a network and you intentionally piggy backing on it - she made a mistake while you have performed an immoral act. But then as you say - ignorance is no excuse so she should be labeled a criminal.

Bet you folks that see nothing wrong with this are the same ones that get pulled over for speeding and fume that you would think the cops had better things to do than hassle you like catching real criminals.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Untested, unsmested......no Crown wants to waste.......have I mentioned this before?.....the MONEY.

Wait until its Tie Domi or Bernier's girlfriend.


----------



## muffin

40below said:
			
		

> That is different. The cable is on his property from the drop, so you committed trespass to access it unless he had given you permission. You also caused physical damage to his lines with the splice and to top it off, the physical presence of your cable on his property is an encumbrance, the same as if one day you decided to build a fence on his land.
> 
> Now if he had spliced it himself, ran 100 feet of cable from his house and into your living room and left it with a cable jack on the end next to your TV, you could reasonably argue he was implicitly allowing you to plug it in, which is the same as the wireless analogy.



Ironically - HE'd have to tresspass to do that.

In keeping an open mind... and looking at tresspass versus stealing - is there a "clause" to tresspassing law that says to be enforced you need signage or something else clearly stating "no tresspassing?" (I think I just found my new SSID haha)

I still say just because you can see the net doesn't mean you have to right to access it - because it will connect you to a service that I (not you) am paying for, and your access will undoubtedly affect my net in one way or another. 

We could likely debate this through metaphor and analogy until our fingers are cramped - and I don't think we'd get much further.


----------



## CountDC

40below said:
			
		

> With the proviso that I Am Not A Lawyer, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble with sweeping moral statements like that is they're moral and they're sweeping. First off, if I use an unsecured network to check my web mail or surf for 15 minutes to kill time, I'm not going to exhaust their bandwidth. I have better things to do than stand on a sidewalk for eight hours downloading torrents, and people might get suspicious. As to your second point, it's a sweet sentiment but not exactly a bright-line rule. Ever been to a Goodwill or a garage sale, or eBay of Craigslist for that matter, and bought something that you knew was worth a lot more than it cost, because you had skills and knowledge that the seller didn't? Ever went back and gave your profit after you resold it to the person you "took advantage of?" Me either.



you use 15 minutes today and the next day and the next day while your buddy next door does the same and so on and so on and yes the bandwidth get used up. Use your own bandwidth and leave others alone.

For the second point - No I have never gone to any of those places and bought something worth a lot more nor have I resold anything at a profit.


----------



## Shamrock

Adamant said:
			
		

> I would imagine they would say Yes.   But really thats one reason some people in Urban centres leave their routers open, easy access to peoples personal information, via packets sent or by going through the folders on their computer.



But in using my personal WAP, they have freely given me all that information to do with as I choose.  They beamed it into my home, and possession is nine tenths of the law. If they didn't want me to have it, they wouldn't have used my WAP.



			
				kratz said:
			
		

> Most legitimate hotspots have a warning not to use passwords, credit card or other sensitive information prior to using their access. So if someone was to use other unsecured WAP access, I would assume the same risks and take appropriate action on my part.



So, you're saying that my victims are not the victim of criminal activity but rather their own guilelessness?


----------



## muffin

Well just for fun I called the RCMP ITCU ( http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/on/prog_serv/support_serv/itcu_e.htm ) to  see what thier interpretation was.

The nice gentleman on the phone told me that wardriving and piggybacking are illegal, because of unauthorized access to a computer network and/or telecommunications theft. He suggested there could be issues with  piracy, privacy, theft, tresspass.... but declined to give any specifics.

He suggested I call the local police, for thier interpretation as well.

I asked him directly "Accessing an unsecured network could be illegal?" and he said "Oh it IS illegal" 

I might call the local police as well just to see what they have to say, mostly for my own interest's sake - anyone know any cyberlawyers?

... time to go home for me now though


----------



## 40below

muffin said:
			
		

> Ironically - HE'd have to tresspass to do that.
> 
> In keeping an open mind... and looking at tresspass versus stealing - is there a "clause" to tresspassing law that says to be enforced you need signage or something else clearly stating "no tresspassing?" (I think I just found my new SSID haha)



Goes more to expectation. A 'No Trespassing' sign on land merely takes away the argument that you didn't know it was private property and allows a charge to be laid, one that in almost 100 per cent of cases results in a restraining order/peace bond. Without the sign, police can only release you with a caution, they'd never get a conviction on that. And bringing this kinda back to the discussion about why telecom theft is not a charge laid very often, if you look at court stories, people are rarely charged with trespass let alone convicted of it when found guilty of more serious crimes where trespass is clearly a factor, such as burglary, arson or home invasion.  

It's an interesting issue that doesn't translate well to the old physical analogies. Bottom line in my mind, if it's not used to commit other crime and it does no harm, (the apocalyptic what-ifs being thrown around here notwithstanding as most Wi-Fi is brief web surfing that would be imperceptible to the performance of a home network and cost the owner nothing), no foul. 

My .02


----------



## George Wallace

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> There are two glaring points that can be and should be argued by the public here.
> 
> 1. The router owner making the access point "available for public usage" via open access and no password. - This option allows the owner to provide free access should they wish to choose so.
> 
> 2 The Router manufactures making the default settings set to allow for immediate public usage upon initial setup. - The companies design and usages upon intial setup determine if the network is already "free to air" making them liable for compromising your newly created network.
> 
> ...the public is not breaking anything, they are only making useage of what freely given away.
> 
> Point the finger anywhere you like, just watch out for the mirrors.



Fine.  Do you mind if I change it a little?......Doesn't matter.......I'm going to anyway.




			
				Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> There are two glaring points that can be and should be argued by the public here.
> 
> 1. The Radio Station owner making the access point "available for public usage" via open access and no password. - This option allows the owner to provide free access should they wish to choose so.
> 
> 2 The Radio Broadcasting Equipment manufactures making the default settings set to allow for immediate public usage upon initial setup. - The companies design and usages upon intial setup determine if the network is already "free to air" making them liable for compromising your newly created network.
> 
> ...the public is not breaking anything, they are only making useage of what freely given away.
> 
> Point the finger anywhere you like, just watch out for the mirrors.



Good so far?

How about you start broadcasting on your Favourite Radio Station's Frequency, using their equipment to amplify your signal ?  In other words, not just recieve, but now start to use/manipulate/broadcast.  Is that legal?  NOT legal at all!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

muffin said:
			
		

> I asked him directly "Accessing an unsecured network could be illegal?" and he said "Oh it IS illegal"
> 
> I might call the local police as well just to see what they have to say, mostly for my own interest's sake - anyone know any cyberlawyers?



I'm sure Whiskey601 will be around here next time he's on.


----------



## George Wallace

40below said:
			
		

> Now if he had spliced it himself, ran 100 feet of cable from his house and into your living room and left it with a cable jack on the end next to your TV, you could reasonably argue he was implicitly allowing you to plug it in, which is the same as the wireless analogy.



So now you and him are doing something illegal.  When the Cable Company runs a check and finds that he as split off a line to you, you are now both guilty of fraud.  You have fraudulantly used the Cable Companies Services, and equipment to service more that what the Rental Contract was for.  Theft.


----------



## a_majoor

The RCMP is investigating the CHRC for accessing a private citizen's wirless network in order to masquarade as neo Nazis on the Internet, so there are grave risks to leaving your network open for any length of time (there are even some reports that the wireless network in question was secured by at least a password, so be *very sure* of what you are doing when you do the setup).

Read more on the Human Rights gone Awrythread.


----------



## armyvern

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Untested, unsmested......no Crown wants to waste.......have I mentioned this before?.....the MONEY.
> 
> Wait until its Tie Domi or Bernier's girlfriend.



OR, wait until it's some poor innocent girl in Ottawa and it's the CHRC stealing from her by "cracking" her SSID to use her wireless to post racist messages on websites. I think we've got a thread going on the fallout from that.

So? Some would argue that that was illegal because they hacked her password?

Here's my analogy.

I rent an apartment. I secure my door. You enter anyway and help yourself to my stuff --- that's theft.
I rent a wireless router. I secure it with a password. You enter it anyway and help yourself to my bandwidth --- that's theft.

I rent an apartment. I DO NOT secure my door. You enter and help yourself to my stuff --- that's theft.
I rent a wireless router. I DO NOT secure it with a password. You enter and help yourself to my bandwidth --- and somehow THAT isn't theft??

 ???

Wow. If that's the case, we've got some true idiots making laws.

For the earlier poster who thinks his 15 minutes doesn't affect me:

By the way --- I pay for the bandwidth I use here. If I should unlock it ... and you log on for your 15 minutes a day because it was "unsecure" -- you're costing me 15 minutes per day every month of MY bandwidth, ergo MY money WITHOUT my permission (because I guarantee that you didn't come ask me). Ergo ... you are a thief. Even if the law should not somehow consider you as such ... I wouldn't recommend that you *ever* come to my residence looking to "borrow" a cup of sugar. Trust me -- it'd be in your own best interest.


----------



## 40below

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So now you and him are doing something illegal.  When the Cable Company runs a check and finds that he as split off a line to you, you are now both guilty of fraud.  You have fraudulantly used the Cable Companies Services, and equipment to service more that what the Rental Contract was for.  Theft.



Huh? He might be in trouble for splitting the signal, but I didn't sign a contract with the cable company, committed no fraudulent act or misrepresentation to them that qualify as a crime and didn't so much as touch their equipment at any point. A person cannot be held responsible for breaching a contract they did not sign and a company would be laughed out of court if they tried to claim such damages. Even a cable company.


----------



## armyvern

40below said:
			
		

> Huh? He might be in trouble for splitting the signal, but I didn't sign a contract with the cable company, committed no fraudulent act or misrepresentation to them that qualify as a crime and didn't so much as touch their equipment at any point. A person cannot be held responsible for breaching a contract they did not sign and a company would be laughed out of court if they tried to claim such damages. Even a cable company.



You should tell that to all the people who have split themselves into neighbours cable without their neighbours knowledge.

Those guys splicing in didn't sign a contract either ... and they STILL get charged with "theft" of signal. The difference is that the neighbour doesn't get charged with fraud "too" because he didn't know about it.

Ask my uncle. "Theft" IS indeed applicable. I forget the exact term that he was charged (and found guilty of), but it was something akin to "theft of signal by fradulent means" ... there was also a "tampering _something something_" charge in there too.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

WHEN they make a law or change or ammend and clearly over-write the empty spaces between the lines with more clearly written grey text clearly defining the aspects of "tresspassing" verus "making free use of" the routers unprotected mode. Perhaps like i said earlier, the manufacturers should be liable for it for providing the option of free range in the first place. Why have a public broadcast for WAN if it's only meant for private use?... they should be pulled from the market and renamed to wireless private area network routers and be done with the headache.

 Cheers


----------



## armyvern

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> WHEN they make a law or change or ammend and clearly over-write the empty spaces between the lines with more clearly written grey text clearly defining the aspects of "tresspassing" verus "making free use of" the routers unprotected mode. Perhaps like i said earlier, the manufacturers should be liable for it for providing the option of free range in the first place. Why have a public broadcast for WAN if it's only meant for private use?... they should be pulled from the market and renamed to wireless private area network routers and be done with the headache.
> 
> Cheers



I don't see a "grey" area.

Unless you have come directly to me and asked me DIRECTLY whether I pay for my bandwidth --- YOU are _assuming_ it's "free use". Your "assumption" may cost me money ... and THAT is theft if you did not have my permission to SPEND my money. You're assumption that it wasn't costing me money is not my problem ... it's yours. 

You will never convince me that these actions by you are "ethical". And, even if something isn't illegal ... it doesn't necessarily make it ethical, moral, or right.


----------



## Shamrock

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> WHEN they make a law or change or ammend and clearly over-write the empty spaces between the lines with more clearly written grey text clearly defining the aspects of...



So, an immoral act is acceptable if there is no law surrounding it?  Or are you saying no act becomes immoral until it is illegal?


----------



## 40below

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You should tell that to all the people who have split themselves into neighbours cable without their neighbours knowledge.
> 
> Those guys splicing in didn't sign a contract either ... and they STILL get charged with "theft" of signal. The difference is that the neighbour doesn't get charged with fraud "too" because he didn't know about it.
> 
> Ask my uncle. "Theft" IS indeed applicable.



Like I've said several times in this thread, the old analogies are a bad fit when it comes to a new technology model because there's no physical component in play when it comes to WiFi, like a spliced cable line.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

When you buy a car or a house, don't you make sure there "locked" and the alarm systems are on?

Same instance goes for wireless networks, "Lock it up". We can talk about morality till we're blue in the face, but the fact is many people even law abiding citizens who won't steal your car or rob your House, will piggyback your wireless connection. Does this make them hardened criminals? No. Does this make them morally defunk? Maybe to an extent. Everyone is in some way, morally defunk to some extent and if you say your not, well when was the last time you told a lie, even a small one, we all have our flaws, some people just have bigger flaws than others. After all no ones perfect. Does this make it a crime? Yes, but jaywalking is also a crime, not using your signal lights to show your intent when changing lanes, speeding etc. Everybody breaks some kind of law everyday, does this make everyone who do these things a hardened criminal or totally without morality? "No". After all people like free things, even free bandwidth.

The people who you have to watch out for, are the real ciber criminals who roam the streets looking for unsecured bandwidth in which to per-potrate their criminal activities and these cases are growing. Why? Because people will lock their cars or homes up but won't give a second thought about securing their wireless networks, because either way the criminal will be breaking into your home, whether it be physically or digitally. At least the insurance policy pays for physical damage or loss, but damage done by electronic criminal activity is very rarely compensated for or the per-potraters ever found or caught. 

To sum up, treat your wireless network the same as anything else valuable you own or use. "Secure it!" If you don't know how, "ask". Because even the average Joe next door who you see every day could be using it.


----------



## Shamrock

40below said:
			
		

> Like I've said several times in this thread, the old analogies are a bad fit when it comes to a new technology model because there's no physical component in play when it comes to WiFi, like a spliced cable line.



There is no physical component in intellectual property, either.  Nor is there a physical proponent in harassment, libel, or various other torts.  Is tangibility law?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Holy crap!  9 pages on this!  Sadly, the deaths of our 3 fallen yesterday got less attention than this thread.  That thread is currently 5 pages long.  Just a point...maybe this REALLY isn't that big of a deal and I am surprised at the way this is being debated.  

I've read thru the arguments, and there seems to be no cut and dried, black and white answer here.

1.  I have a wireless router set up in my room.  My room is not the public domain.  I hold a certain expectation of privacy for it as I do my personal belongings.  Whether I secure it or not.  I've gone to the bathroom before and left my door open, I certainly don't exect to come back and find people sitting on my leather couch watching my TV, and if they did, the explanation "well your door was open" probably wouldn't mean much, would it?

2.  If you want to argue the signals are not mine once they leave my antenna, fine, I can agree with that.  I can show you the receipt for the WAP that they go in and out of, which then go to my cable modem, which I can assure you, I am paying for.  So, the signals?  Free.  Devices and physical connections to the media they travel over are NOT free.  Therefore, IMO, my connection via Eastlink is not free nor  "public domain".  Afterall, does not Eastlink give my router its own private IP address that I pay for monthly?

3.  I will liken securing your network to securing your home;  although you don't intend for people to come into your home uninvited or unwanted, due diligence and the reality of our society make door locks and security systems a necessity, which we further back up with home insurance from burglary, theft, etc. Depending on the risk we each assess in our own situation, we have different layers of protection. Because not many of us can wire our homes properly with a security system and monitor that system, we hire people to do this for us and accept that cost as protecting our homes from intruders. Much like our home, we can set up a WAP, and secure it with things like...actually NOT broadcasting our SSID, encryption, MAC filters ( a nice one for those who don't want to encrypt ), and various other technologies out there. If you don't want to leave you WAP unsecure and are finding that a challenge, try using the Setup CD that came with it.  Its really not that hard.  If you can't figure it out still and can't get a friend to help, then you can pay for some IT professional to come to your home and charge you the mandatory 1-hour rate minimum to set it up for you. That's your risk and your decision to make.  Some people leave their doors unlocked, some people don't.  We all expect that a stranger who enters that home uninvited is unwelcome. Ethically, as an IT guy, I expect the same with my router.  

If you go away and leave your door unlocked, and come home and someone is sitting in your kitchen...did they "break into" your house?? Technically, no, there was no forced entry. Are they there legally?  I don't think so, nor do I think a judge would rule that they were either.


----------



## armyvern

40below said:
			
		

> Like I've said several times in this thread, the old analogies are a bad fit when it comes to a new technology model because there's no physical component in play when it comes to WiFi, like a spliced cable line.



That MODEM is a physical component. When you thieve your way into my modem ... your signal is downloaded through MY cable and MY modem (both physical items btw - costing ME bandwidth) and then transmitted to you wirelessly ... but it had to come through MY physical property to get to you. You have used my physical property fraudulently and WITHOUT my consent for your own financial gain (by avoiding internet bills) and causing ME to pay financially. That's theft.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> The people who you have to watch out for, are the real ciber criminals who roam the streets looking for unsecured bandwidth in which to per-potrate their criminal activities and these cases are growing. Why? Because people will lock their cars or homes up but won't give a second thought about securing their wireless networks, because either way the criminal will be breaking into your home, whether it be physically or digitally. At least the insurance policy pays for physical damage or loss, but damage done by electronic criminal activity is very rarely compensated for or the per-potraters ever found or caught.
> 
> To sum up, treat your wireless network the same as anything else valuable you own or use. "Secure it!" If you don't know how, "ask". Because even the average Joe next door who you see every day could be using it.



I think this is probably the post with the most 'common sense and dose of reality' in the whole (now 10 pages!) thread.

Mike Bobbit's was good too and I almost bit at it but...I wanted to keep watching the verbal ping-pong games that are ongoing.    op:


----------



## 40below

Shamrock said:
			
		

> There is no physical component in intellectual property, either.  Nor is there a physical proponent in harassment, libel, or various other torts.  Is tangibility law?



We're getting abstract here, but I'd argue that there are two issues. Mens rea  – I genuinely believed your WiFi was intentionally left open by you, I didn't sneak over to your cable box in the middle of the night with a roll of coax and some cable strippers – and damages. Libel, copyright violations and such all have a quantifiable loss  – which the appellant must prove in Canada  in civil cases – my using a WiFi network, dunno. Now if I started selling your WiFi access to other people or charging them by the minute to use it, that would be entirely different and analogous to pirating DVDs or software, but it's not what we're talking about here. Like I say, there will be a court case to test this at some point.


----------



## armyvern

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think this is probably the post with the most 'common sense and dose of reality' in the whole (now 10 pages!) thread.
> 
> Mike Bobbit's was good too and I almost bit at it but...I wanted to keep watching the verbal ping-pong games that are ongoing.    op:



I just got online bud. Been doing drill all day. I'm allowed to get my opinion out too no?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That MODEM is a physical component. When you thieve your way into my modem ... your signal *data packets * is are downloaded* transmitted and/or received* through MY cable and MY modem (both physical items btw - costing ME bandwidth) and then transmitted to you wirelessly ... but it had to come through MY physical property to get to you. You have used my physical property fraudulently and WITHOUT my consent for your own financial gain (by avoiding internet bills) and causing ME to pay financially. That's theft.



I just changed a few things (hopefully you will see why).

Taking away the "signal" aspect and speaking with the term *data packets * ( which travel over various medias in various forms ) should get us away from the argument over who 'owns' the wireless signals in the air...now that we are debating the path his/her data packets are taking (regardless of signal type), they do in fact go thru your physcial hardware once the radio/wireless path enters your router.  Hardly arguable IMO, whether the person is "stealing some of your bandwidth" if this is the path their data packets are taking.   8)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I just got online bud. Been doing drill all day. I'm allowed to get my opinion out too no?



Of course!  Who would be fool enough to get in the way!


----------



## armyvern

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Of course!  Who would be fool enough to get in the way!



And, right back at 'ya.  :-*


----------



## George Wallace

40below said:
			
		

> We're getting abstract here, but I'd argue that there are two issues. Mens rea  – I genuinely believed your WiFi was intentionally left open by you, I didn't sneak over to your cable box in the middle of the night with a roll of coax and some cable strippers – and damages. Libel, copyright violations and such all have a quantifiable loss  – which the appellant must prove in Canada  in civil cases – my using a WiFi network, dunno. Now if I started selling your WiFi access to other people or charging them by the minute to use it, that would be entirely different and analogous to pirating DVDs or software, but it's not what we're talking about here. Like I say, there will be a court case to test this at some point.



I know what side of this argument you are on, but couldn't you have thought this out a little better?

How are you going to justify the crime of selling someone's WiFi access to other people if you are getting it for free form the owner?  Don't you think these clients of yours are smart enough to figure out for themselves that the access is free, just as you found out?

Now, once again, we aren't arguing about the signal/data/etc. that you recieve.  We are talking about the theft of using someone's property, their WiFi modem, to transmit your signal/data/etc.

You can listen to "The Goat" on FM all you want.  That is perfectly legal.  You, however, can not start transmitting on their Frequency, using their equipment.  That would be illegal.


----------



## 40below

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I know what side of this argument you are on, but couldn't you have thought this out a little better?
> 
> How are you going to justify the crime of selling someone's WiFi access to other people if you are getting it for free form the owner?  Don't you think these clients of yours are smart enough to figure out for themselves that the access is free, just as you found out?
> 
> Now, once again, we aren't arguing about the signal/data/etc. that you recieve.  We are talking about the theft of using someone's property, their WiFi modem, to transmit your signal/data/etc.



I should have been clearer, but I'm juggling stuff here. To be brief, I was making the point that it wasn't a commercial crime and that there was no criminal intent in the cases we're arguing – that you never intended to cause a monetary loss nor make a profit, that in essence, it amounts to fair personal use with the assumption that the network allowed and in some cases, encouraged, personal access. You can't make that argument if you're reselling for profit, and people do try to resell Internet access in areas with open networks.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Morally i can turn on my computer click a network to use and if it's not passworded use it to navigate the internet, that is not malicious nor hacking nor illegal in general context. The hardware and software on my machine allows me to make use of the free to air access through legal retail options thus providing me an opportunity for access via a hotspot. If i then use the internet in a legal and unmalicious manner am i really breaking any laws, or are you just looking to write a little line of grey text in an ever growing volume of grey?



But you are not simply watching the data stream (i.e., your television over the fence comparison), once you connect to the internet with your computer through your neighbour's wireless router, you are changing the provided service.  As soon as you request any web page, you are affecting the requested content and volume of service provided.  Simply because your hardware and software makes it possible, doesn't make it implicitly legal.  Throwing in the terms "hacking" and "malicious" are red herrings, both are open to definition and neither usage or intent change the choice made to use the bandwidth contracted by the owner of the network without their permission (which is openly provided when you talk about a cafe hotspot, so that comparison  doesn't work either).


----------



## kratz

from CTV Consumer Report

With car companies like Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge soon to start offering WiFi in the vehicles, how would owners secure those signals from being used by those who have no problem using unsecured WAP access?


----------



## Pelorus

kratz said:
			
		

> from CTV Consumer Report
> 
> With car companies like Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge soon to start offering WiFi in the vehicles, how would owners secure those signals from being used by those who have no problem using unsecured WAP access?



The link didn't work for me, but I've read a couple of articles on this idea of WiFi in vehicles.  I don't believe that the WiFi routers being used in cars have the power to transmit the signal very far at all past the outside shell of the car, so signal theft is basically a non-issue in this case.


----------



## 40below

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> But you are not simply watching the data stream (i.e., your television over the fence comparison), once you connect to the internet with your computer through your neighbour's wireless router, you are changing the provided service.  As soon as you request any web page, you are affecting the requested content and volume of service provided.  Simply because your hardware and software makes it possible, doesn't make it implicitly legal.  Throwing in the terms "hacking" and "malicious" are red herrings, both are open to definition and neither usage or intent change the choice made to use the bandwidth contracted by the owner of the network without their permission (which is openly provided when you talk about a cafe hotspot, so that comparison  doesn't work either).



We're not that far apart, although there is still a philosophical divide. Yes, it does cause some degradation to the signal, but so does splitting your cable to run to two TVs in your house. (Incidentally, having worked in cable in the 1990s, the companies consider that theft of telecommunications also. Unless its their splitter, installed by their tech and paid for by you, it's a crime. Don't shop at Radio Shack if you can't do the time, citizen.) Does it deny the legal owner of use? No. In most cases ithe drop in performance is not even noticeable. 

And I go back to my earlier point about implicit consent. The folks on the other side of the fence are are assuming that every open connection is that way due to ignorance on behalf of the owner; from my side I argue that it was left open because the owner either wanted, or at least didn't care, if it was used by other people. Such folks do exist, just in the same way as back in the day, there were anonymous FTP servers. I argue implicit consent. As has been said, an open network is yelling at the world for people to connect to it, and that's why modems are sold with that option. And it's not a violation of your contract with your ISP to use them in that mode.  An explicit denial would be to make the network private. (There are much more malicious ways to express your displeasure with folks you don't want using your network if you find them on it, but I'd immediately violate the TOS by getting into them.)


----------



## George Wallace

:

Ya know Bruce.  This is like arguing with Operation Objection or other Leftie types.  You can put forward all the logic and facts in the world, but they ignore them and continue on going through life with their blinders on and fixed views on things.  Like Jihadists, they won't give up their views until you are assimilated.  I understand that the U of O and several other universities actually offer Masters Degrees in Alternate Law or something like that, for people who are so inclined.


----------



## Shamrock

It's the electronic equivalent to socialism.


----------



## armyvern

40below said:
			
		

> We're getting abstract here, but I'd argue that there are two issues. Mens rea  – I genuinely believed your WiFi was intentionally left open by you, I didn't sneak over to your cable box in the middle of the night with a roll of coax and some cable strippers – and damages.



And, I'd argue that when "genuinely believeing" such (because of course, you'd *never* approach me to ask me to confirm whether your assumpton is correct or not) that your "intent" is to avoid paying for your own godamn internet and let someone else pay for you to surf the internet instead. "Why should _*I * _ pay for it when my next door neighbour already is?" That's what you're arguing.

Whether or not I pay for bandwidth "usage amounts" or not (I do), I am still the one paying for that wifi to be available, and - your "intent" in using my wifi is to avoid paying for your own. Ni-iiice. Seems quite ethical to me. Not.

YOU know that I'm not getting it for free - that I am paying for that modem etc, but you certainly are. When do you plan on stopping by my house to toss in your few dollars towards paying my bill?


----------



## George Wallace

Shamrock said:
			
		

> It's the electronic equivalent to socialism.



Perpetuated by our Institutes of Higher Learning.    >


----------



## Eye In The Sky

40below said:
			
		

> I argue implicit consent. As has been said, *an open network is yelling at the world for people to connect to it*



No, it is broadcasting a SSID packet to say "here I am" not....what you are saying.  That is like saying my address being in the phonebook is "yelling at the world BREAK INTO ME BREAK INTO ME".  



> and that's why modems are sold with that option.



That is not the technical reason they are able to function with/without broadcasting SSID packets.  Do you have a legitimate source from the technical world that would back up this *opinion*?  An article from a industry magazine or authority?

My room door has the option to be locked/not locked.  Regardless of which way I leave it, if you come in and take something of mine, its theft, isn't it?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Holy crap!  9 pages on this!  Sadly, the deaths of our 3 fallen yesterday got less attention than this thread.  That thread is currently 5 pages long.  Just a point...maybe this REALLY isn't that big of a deal and I am surprised at the way this is being debated.



Because on the other thread whats to argue? :'(

I always like to think that those whom make that ultimate sacrifice do so we can disagree like this without having to worry about a knock on the door at 0300.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Because on the other thread whats to argue? :'(



Good point.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Sorry, didn't mean to edit after you quoted me but it took me that long to type how I wanted to convey my feelings.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Sorry, didn't mean to edit after you quoted me but it took me that long to type how I wanted to convey my feelings.



I agree with your point(s)...I just wanted to 'point out my little point' too.   8)


----------



## garb811

OK, if you guys arguing that it ISN'T Theft of Telecommunications are so sure, log onto one of the not advertised for public use, open networks in your neighbourhood, call up the local police and inform them of what you are doing.  Let us know how it goes for ya.   op:


----------



## Greymatters

Unfortunately it is a form of thievery, but enforcement is another matter altogether...


----------



## armyvern

garb811 said:
			
		

> OK, if you guys arguing that it ISN'T Theft of Telecommunications are so sure, log onto one of the not advertised for public use, open networks in your neighbourhood, call up the local police and inform them of what you are doing.  Let us know how it goes for ya.   op:



Better yet, just walk around to your neighbours houses and let them know what you're doing.

Bet you there's no takers. I wonder why that is? If you "genuinely believe" that you are not "stealing" and that they are "inviting you to use their wifi", you shouldn't have any qualms about walking around until you locate owner of wifi that you're jacking to let them know you're doing it; after all you "genuinely believe" they won't have a problem with your use of it.

Double dawg dare you all --- go tell them ... and let us know what happens.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

If my neighbour opens the curtans, turns a light on and flops down and watches tv and then I use the light escaping into my yard to read by... am I stealing?  He is paying for that light, I am using it.  Without his permission, I am using his resources and I am not paying for my own.  

Most wireless networks connect to their ISP with an unlimited bandwidth agreements.  So if someone connects to a unsecured wireless network and uses bandwidth that would otherwise go unused? This could be a 'lack of harm'.

It is common for many OSs to connect automatically to wireless networks.  I've seen many labtops that will seek out and connect to a wireless network without the operators action. All that happens is msn suddenly signs in.  This could be a 'lack of intent'.  There are common law principles to consider,  such as if you don't put up a fence or a sign around your property you can't really be upset if someone walks across your property.  (there are many many cases where open door is treated like an invitation)

Now with new technology, terminology and the such and with the ... "speed" at which our laws keep up, our courts often have to rely on fundamental principles. Harm, intent, socail harmony and the such.  The crown would be VERY hard pressed to persue charges for something that has no meaningfull measure of harm.

Now breaking "password protected" wireless networks is easy to do,  but that is a completely different matter.  Picking the lock to someones house is VERY different than walking through an open door, sitting down and enjoying the sofa.

Now, as an aside.  If you connect to a wireless network - their server gets to see EVERYTHING you send or receive.  Encryption wont help,  they see what you see.  And since you're on their network,  likely they can see if they can poke around on your computer... feel free to do internet banking.


----------



## armyvern

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> If my neighbour opens the curtans, turns a light on and flops down and watches tv and then I use the light escaping into my yard to read by... am I stealing?  He is paying for that light, I am using it.  Without his permission, I am using his resources and I am not paying for my own.



His "stealing" of my light, does not alter any current etc running though my circuits, in your scenario above.



> Most wireless networks connect to their ISP with an unlimited bandwidth agreements.  So if someone connects to a unsecured wireless network and uses bandwidth that would otherwise go unused? This could be a 'lack of harm'.



Some do. Some don't. How very ni-iiiice of him to presume that mine doesn't. Why can't he presume that mine "does"? Because that presumption does NOT benefit him - so he "chooses" to presume that option which "saves" him money instead. Very ethical. He is "presuming" a lack of harm, when he could very well presume that I do pay and therefore he could presuming that there is indeed "harm". Unlimited or not, MY money pays for that modem and bandwidth - not yours.

And, as per para one, his "stealing" of my bandwidth does cause change to my physical assets via the bandwidth increase, changes to my computer "system" (I'm quite sure that Canadian Law considers modems etc part of "the computer system), and possible charges to my account. He is making these changes within my system "without my colour of right" (without my knowledge or consent) ergo is potentially "harming" me.



> It is common for many OSs to connect automatically to wireless networks.  I've seen many labtops that will seek out and connect to a wireless network without the operators action. All that happens is msn suddenly signs in.  This could be a 'lack of intent'.  There are common law principles to consider,  such as if you don't put up a fence or a sign around your property you can't really be upset if someone walks across your property.  (there are many many cases where open door is treated like an invitation)



There are also a great many cases where "No Trespassing" signs haven't been posted and people still found themselves convicted of such. The sign simply takes away the arguement that "you were naive and didn't know you shouldn't cut accross buddy back yard to go to the store". YOUR "naivity"
does not make your crime any less. Ignorance is no excuse --- and I guarantee your claim of such in this case is bogus ... you know the bandwidth isn't yours - that it is someone else's because that is EXACTLY the reason that you are using it; because it's someone else's, so won't cost you a dime.



> Now with new technology, terminology and the such and with the ... "speed" at which our laws keep up, our courts often have to rely on fundamental principles. Harm, intent, socail harmony and the such.  The crown would be VERY hard pressed to persue charges for something that has no meaningfull measure of harm.
> 
> Now breaking "password protected" wireless networks is easy to do,  but that is a completely different matter.  Picking the lock to someones house is VERY different than walking through an open door, sitting down and enjoying the sofa.
> 
> Now, as an aside.  If you connect to a wireless network - their server gets to see EVERYTHING you send or receive.  Encryption wont help,  they see what you see.  And since you're on their network,  likely they can see if they can poke around on your computer... feel free to do internet banking.



Lawyer for the defence??

How nice of you to all "presume" that there is no harm to me. If having wifi is not going to cause any harm ... then go get your own and pay for it yourself. What's the harm?

Oh ... yeah ... if you got your own wifi - YOUR bank account would be harmed, not mine instead.  :

"Why pay for something that I can get for free because you're paying for it instead?" <--- Seems to be an admission that there is INDEED a benefit to you ... and "harm" to me in your making that choice.


----------



## the 48th regulator

It is covered under Section 342.1 and 342.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Unauthorized use of computer

342.1 (1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right, 

(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service,

(b) by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system,

(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system, or

(d) uses, possesses, traffics in or permits another person to have access to a computer password that would enable a person to commit an offence under paragraph (a), (b) or (c)

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Definitions

(2) In this section, 
"computer password" 
«mot de passe » 
"computer password" means any data by which a computer service or computer system is capable of being obtained or used;

"computer program" 
«programme d’ordinateur » 
"computer program" means data representing instructions or statements that, when executed in a computer system, causes the computer system to perform a function;

"computer service" 
«service d’ordinateur » 
"computer service" includes data processing and the storage or retrieval of data;

"computer system" 
«ordinateur » 
"computer system" means a device that, or a group of interconnected or related devices one or more of which,

(a) contains computer programs or other data, and

(b) pursuant to computer programs, 

(i) performs logic and control, and

(ii) may perform any other function;


"data" 
«données » 
"data" means representations of information or of concepts that are being prepared or have been prepared in a form suitable for use in a computer system;

"electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device" 
«dispositif électromagnétique, acoustique, mécanique ou autre » 
"electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device" means any device or apparatus that is used or is capable of being used to intercept any function of a computer system, but does not include a hearing aid used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to not better than normal hearing;

"function" 
«fonction » 
"function" includes logic, control, arithmetic, deletion, storage and retrieval and communication or telecommunication to, from or within a computer system;

"intercept" 
«intercepter » 
"intercept" includes listen to or record a function of a computer system, or acquire the substance, meaning or purport thereof;

"traffic" 
«trafic » 
"traffic" means, in respect of a computer password, to sell, export from or import into Canada, distribute or deal with in any other way.

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 45; 1997, c. 18, s. 18.

342.2 (1) Every person who, without lawful justification or excuse, makes, possesses, sells, offers for sale or distributes any instrument or device or any component thereof, the design of which renders it primarily useful for committing an offence under section 342.1, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument, device or component has been used or is or was intended to be used to commit an offence contrary to that section, 

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Forfeiture

(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), any instrument or device, in relation to which the offence was committed or the possession of which constituted the offence, may, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed, be ordered forfeited to Her Majesty, whereupon it may be disposed of as the Attorney General directs. 
Limitation

(3) No order of forfeiture may be made under subsection (2) in respect of any thing that is the property of a person who was not a party to the offence under subsection (1). 
1997, c. 18, s. 19.




As grey as the areas can be, if one is proven to be doing the act of "Piggybacking", then they are guilty of breaking the law.

dileas

tess


----------



## muffin

HOLY SMOKES! This just kept going after I left work yesterday! I'd have checked on it last night, but I was out and I only had my portable internet tablet with me... and I wasn't sure who's net's I was seeing 

I have posed the question to a member of our local police force... I will let you know if/when I receive a "formal response"

muffin


----------



## the 48th regulator

muffin said:
			
		

> HOLY SMOKES! This just kept going after I left work yesterday! I'd have checked on it last night, but I was out and I only had my portable internet tablet with me... and I wasn't sure who's net's I was seeing
> 
> I have posed the question to a member of our local police force... I will let you know if/when I receive a "formal response"
> 
> muffin



Read my post right before yours, it is illegal.

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> If my neighbour opens the curtans, turns a light on and flops down and watches tv and then I use the light escaping into my yard to read by... am I stealing?  He is paying for that light, I am using it.  Without his permission, I am using his resources and I am not paying for my own.



You are missing the part of the argument that we are saying is the illegal part.  You and he have no control over light waves.  You will RECEIVE and that is not the argument.  It is when you go and take control of his light switch or curtains to get that light that is now illegal.   In all, you light analogy is also flawed because it is not a two way motion.  Light is going out, but you are not transmitting anything back.  What would happen say if you created a powerful reflection that would reflect back into your neighbours house?  Would he become upset and perhaps call the police? 




			
				Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Most wireless networks connect to their ISP with an unlimited bandwidth agreements.  So if someone connects to a unsecured wireless network and uses bandwidth that would otherwise go unused? This could be a 'lack of harm'.



Again, receiving is not the illegal part.  Using; as in now transmitting to and using the equipment that belongs to another person, ie. the router rented by a customer of a Internet Provider, is the part we are arguing about.



			
				Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> It is common for many OSs to connect automatically to wireless networks.  I've seen many labtops that will seek out and connect to a wireless network without the operators action. All that happens is msn suddenly signs in.  This could be a 'lack of intent'.  There are common law principles to consider,  such as if you don't put up a fence or a sign around your property you can't really be upset if someone walks across your property.  (there are many many cases where open door is treated like an invitation)



One may argue that you had criminal intent having this knowledge and not setting security protocols on your laptop to prevent it from seeking out and connecting automatically to the first strong, free source.  This would make you a "knowing" participant in a criminal activity.


----------



## RCR Grunt

Even if the law says that this is illegal, there's no way to enforce it.  There is no hard evidence to convict someone, you literally have to have the cops catch them still connected to your network, and even then they can claim "Ooops, I didn't know..."

Its a law that will never convict anyone, thus a useless law.

Its wrong, its immoral, its stealing ... but prove it. 

There's locks on your front door.  There's locks on your car.  You have to lock up your bike.  Why?  Because there's bad people out there.

There's an option to encrypt and password protect your wireless network, use it.  If you don't want to, or don't know how, prepare to have your bike stolen.

I can't believe this thread has gone on for 11 some pages.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> I can't believe this thread has gone on for 11 some pages.



It has because, as you pointed out, even though it is a law, it is one that is almost impossible [now] to enforce. The problem I'm having pulling out of this thread is that we seem to have those who think if you DON'T lock up your bike, car, house then that means your stuff is free game for the taking.  

Now after 19 years in Corrections I might know a thing or two about "bad people" but some of these posters are your present, and future, coworkers whom are thinking like this................


----------



## garb811

Let's try this analogy to get the point home.

You buy a house.  It has a driveway which is 20 m long and 10 m wide.  You do not own a car.  The driveway is easily accessible to the public in that it connects directly to the heavily traveled public street, there are no signs posted saying it is not for public use, there is no gate and you do not have any other indicators to show that you do not want the public using your driveway.

Your neighbour, on the other hand, didn't want to pay for a driveway so he was parking on the street.  The city is a high snowfall area and there have been continual problems with getting people to move their cars off the street to allow snow clearance so the city has followed all of the legal steps required to ban parking on the street between the months of Nov and Mar so that their crews have immediate and ready access to the busy street to keep traffic flowing.  Your neighbour is aware of the no parking ban, checks with a company and finds out it is going to cost him $2500 to have a driveway built (which will also spoil his petunia garden), aware that you do not have a car and notes you have a huge driveway that will easily accommodate his car without inconveniencing you, so he parks his car in your driveway without asking you.  

Does that mean when you call the police that they'll tell you that the parking issue is a grey area and your neighbour has not committed an offence, it is your fault for leaving your driveway easily open for the public to access and use for their own means and you should install a gate at the end of the driveway to keep him out?  Or will they tell you that either a) they will come over and ticket and tow said vehicle or b) you are within your rights to call a tow company on your own and have it removed?


----------



## RCR Grunt

Now imagine your neighbour has an invisible car that leaves no tracks and no evidence that it is actually there... only you know it is, only you can see it.

Put up a gate.


----------



## George Wallace

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Now imagine your neighbour has an invisible car that leaves no tracks and no evidence that it is actually there... only you know it is, only you can see it.



 :

If you walk down your driveway, will this invisible car block your way?  Could you receive a serious injury should you bump into this invisible car?

Does someone piggybacking your Service degrade your use if that Service?  Could their using your Service, cause you injury; ie. Legal liability?


----------



## RCR Grunt

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> If you walk down your driveway, will this invisible car block your way?  Could you receive a serious injury should you bump into this invisible car?
> 
> Does someone piggybacking your Service degrade your use if that Service?  Could their using your Service, cause you injury; ie. Legal liability?



I absolutely agree with you ... but call a tow truck company or the cops and tell them there is an invisible car in your driveway you'd like towed away.

Piggybacking is stealing, but it is difficult to prove its happening to an extent where someone can be held accountable.


----------



## CountDC

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Now imagine your neighbour has an invisible car that leaves no tracks and no evidence that it is actually there... only you know it is, only you can see it.
> 
> Put up a gate.



now imagine that when one piggybacks on your bandwidth it does leave tracks and evidence - my network tells me which computers are connected - thus I have the name of every computer accessing it and if I check the records it will tell me how long they were connected for and amount of data transferred. Tracks and evidence. That is how I know my son was using his PSP to download crap from utube when he was supposed to be asleep and put a stop to it - 26% of my bandwidth used for utube. 

Before you all jump - yes my network is secured and I gave him access on his PSP for playing his online games.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Now imagine your neighbour has an invisible car that leaves no tracks and no evidence that it is actually there... only you know it is, only you can see it.
> 
> Put up a gate.



Now imagine that this person just used your monthly bandwidth allotment downloading my box set so that when you download it it costs you $80 in overage fees.  

Now imagine someone coming in your room and taking 4 twenties out of your wallet.

No gate so I guess your OK with both.............


----------



## RCR Grunt

A simple "Oh, I didn't know..." turns that persons misuse of your bandwidth from malicious to unintentional.

Oh, and there are ways to change your MAC address as well, so throw that out.

If someone wanted to, they could do it and leave you with no real hard evidence.  You would have to have the authorities catch the piggybacker still connected to your network, and conducting malicious activities, and admit to knowingly connecting to a network that he was not authourized to access.  Good luck.

Bruce...

Someone cannot come into my house and take 4 twenties from my wallet because I HAVE THE FRICKIN' DOOR LOCKED!

Pay attention ... I'm on your side.

Piggybacking is stealing.  Its wrong.  Its immoral.  Its bad ju-ju.  Its bad karma.  Its naughty.  Its taboo.  Its a no-no.  You shouldn't do it.  

But you will have a hard time gettng a charge to stick to someone.  Your best bet is to encrypt your network.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Your best bet is to encrypt your network.



Agreed, this sums up everything right here.  
[though I should stop being so stupid and figure out how to do it  :-[  ]


Its killing me that, even though I have said I would probably run a quick check of army.ca and/or my e-mails if I had the chance, I would make no bones about the fact that I was committing an illegal/ immoral act........albeit comparing it being slightly over the speed limit type illegal/immoral. :-\

There are those whom are perfectly down with it..............


----------



## CountDC

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Agreed, this sums up everything right here.
> [though I should stop being so stupid and figure out how to do it  :-[  ]
> 
> 
> Its killing me that, even though I have said I would probably run a quick check of army.ca and/or my e-mails if I had the chance, I would make no bones about the fact that I was committing an illegal/ immoral act........albeit comparing it being slightly over the speed limit type illegal/immoral. :-\
> 
> There are those whom are perfectly down with it..............



at least you realize and admit it is illegal/immoral instead of assuming it is free for your use and nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

CountDC said:
			
		

> at least you realize and admit it is illegal/immoral instead of assuming it is free for your use and nothing wrong with it.



Thats what I was trying to get across, I just sucked at it.

I hate the fact we have those on here that see NOTHING wrong with it. [I'm just a bag of hammers this morning]


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Bruce _I_ think we have really :deadhorse: to a pink stain on the ground now.

I think there is always gonna be two camps on this issue.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I think we pummeled the subject into the ground loooooong ago...................but anyday that semi-trivial topics rule the board instead of the more ominous subjects is a good day.

Besides after all these warnings I'm heading to Future shop to buy another computer and the ends to put on the hard wiring I did in the house so I won't need my wifi.


----------



## CountDC

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Bruce _I_ think we have really :deadhorse: to a pink stain on the ground now.
> 
> I think there is always gonna be two camps on this issue.



yep - those that are right and those that are wrong   >


----------



## c_canuk

ok,

1.

accessing an unsecured network is not always immoral because 

a. some people intentionally leave their network unsecured to help out their fellow man, IE I was in the shacks in Gagetown long term, courses of MCpls were rotating in and out and wanted to keep in touch with their families.

b. some businesses leave their networks unsecured to draw customers, sony, apple, futureshop, starbucks, most small coffee shops, air ports, bus stations, etc all do this.

c. some government entities such as the city of Fredericton have established a city wide unsecured network to draw tourists and provide a valuble service to it's tax payers.

according to the against people connecting to those networks is a crime which is complete poppycock

2. Section 342.1 and 342.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada do not apply to anything made avalible to public frequencies. If only applies to private networks. if you have a private network, and run a copper cable out to a picnic table in the park with a sign that says "This is my Internet connection and it's unsecured" it would be assumed you are providing this for free. this is exactly what you are doing with your router with a wireless signal. 

Your ignorance of how your wireless router works is your problem, you are putting your whole network into the public domain. 

Morally you should not connect to any SSID labled Linksys or Default because the intent is not known. I agree you should always ask first and assume the user may not be aware of what is happening. 

Ignorance is no excuse, you cannot claim I'm accessing your private network when you deliberatly installed a device that makes it avalible to public access. If your house was built on Public Property then you'd have no right to claim tresspass of people in the yard, which is one reason why it is illegal to build a private structure on public land, you would be trying to take from the public which is what you are arguing now, you want to reserve a piece of the public spectrum for your own use. THAT is theft in my opinion.

A case might be made if a user changes settings on your network but it is still a grey area. Just because the police take an interest and may not like something doesn't mean it's illegal. Just ask anyone who's had the police show up at their house just because a neighbor dropped a load in their drawrs seeing a legally transported gun case go from a house to a vehicle. War driving was appearntly called illegal by an officer, that tells me the officer doesn't know what he's talking about as the definition of War Driving is to map out where signals are comming from and document the signals, not connect to them which is certainly not illegal. The police may not like it as now you have vans full of equipment tracking other private citizens traffic but if they can't make it illegal to listen in on cordless phones with a scanner, how can it be illegal to map RF emmination zones?

3. Comparing illegally transmitting on a FM Commercial radio station's PRIVATE frequency to accessing a PUBLIC piece of the spectrum where it is legal for anyone to transmit as long as they don't interupt others intentionally is nonsense, it is illegal to transmit on PRIVATE radio frequencies not because the frequency is the radio companies property, it is the property of the Government of Canada, but because you - an unlicenced  user - are interupting transmissions of a licenced user, on public frequencies no license is required, therefore all devices have to play nice with eachother. Unlicenced users broadcasting on a licenced users leased frequency is akin to vandalism.

4. once you connect your network to the public wireless frequencies you have exposed your entire network to the public the same as you have moved all your equipment to a picnic table in the park. 

connecting to another users cordless phone would interupt their service, no incomming calls would make it in while you were using the phone, and they would not be able to make an outgoing call. You would not however be violating the users telephone agreement because the number of jacks used in the home would be the same. This is both illegal if you DON'T have permission, however legal and moral if you have permission.

5. Laws may change, but there is no law right now that says connecting to any and all publicly unsecured network is illegal as it would also make you a criminal as well by connecting to your own unsecured network as you are not allowed to claim ownership of the wireless signal you transmit. 

I don't believe in intentionalling using ignorant user's bandwidth, I will not connect to an unsecured network with the default SSID, when I can I will ask the user for permission and offer to pay part of their bill. Morally that is the right thing to do. Informing people and helping them secure their networks is also a morally correct thing to do.

However, claiming that a novice user shouldn't have to secure their network because they don't know how their equipment works and make anyone who connects to their unsecured public WAP is a thief, condemns other novice users who connect to said network because they don't know how their equipment works.

it's a catch 22, and I'm not going to advocate charging a novice user with theft for clicking a single yes button, or if their laptop is set to use their own unsecured network with the SSID "Linksys", (which is the default wireless SSID for all linksys WAPs), windows WILL automatically connect to ANY unsecured wireless networks called "Linksys" so you unsecured people may be inadvertantly commiting the same act you claim is a crime.

when you connect your network to public domain, you make your whole network public domain. WiFi is public no matter where the signal emminates from.


----------



## Michael OLeary

c_canuk, at the risk of extending this now idiotic thread further you are bringing in even more extraneous details.

The core argument concerns the use of private networks, not intentionally public ones.  It deals with the knowing use of an unsecured network when the owner is unaware of that use, which may cause further costs to that owner in a controlled bandwidth contract.  Any other cases and hypothesizing only serves to muddy the issue further and detract from the act of piracy/thievery we are trying to nail down as illegal, however hard to identify and prosecute it may be.


----------



## c_canuk

and my point is that once you deliberatly install a device that transmits your network traffic over a PUBLIC frequency you have just made your network PUBLIC the same as running a copper connection to that picnic table in the park and posting a sign saying "Unsecured Public Network"

and trying to make it illegal to connect to unsecured wireless networks because some people are ignorant of that fact makes no sense because it would make remove the rights of those providing unsecured on purpose,  when it should instead be made illegal to install a WiFi componet on a user's network without either securing it or informing them that it is unsecured and how to remedy this problem.

Morally the Cons have a point, legally they have no leg to stand on.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Morally the Cons have a point, legally they have no leg to stand on.



Thats interesting when the RCMP Muffin called says it is.......and Tess has listed the CC's that apply.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

c_canuk said:
			
		

> and trying to make it illegal to connect to unsecured wireless networks because some people are ignorant of that fact makes no sense because it would make remove the rights of those providing unsecured on purpose,  when it should instead be made illegal to install a WiFi componet on a user's network without either securing it or informing them that it is unsecured and how to remedy this problem.



I guess every supermarket should have a sign saying "don't steal the food" since I keep getting confused between those free samples I get and the stuff they want me to buy.

Your arguement makes that much sense to me..........how about a law that states those who wish to give it away have a 'pop-up' stating that?


----------



## Michael OLeary

c_canuk said:
			
		

> and my point is that once you deliberatly install a device that transmits your network traffic over a PUBLIC frequency you have just made your network PUBLIC the same as running a copper connection to that picnic table in the park and posting a sign saying "Unsecured Public Network"
> 
> and trying to make it illegal to connect to unsecured wireless networks because some people are ignorant of that fact makes no sense because it would make remove the rights of those providing unsecured on purpose,  when it should instead be made illegal to install a WiFi componet on a user's network without either securing it or informing them that it is unsecured and how to remedy this problem.
> 
> Morally the Cons have a point, legally they have no leg to stand on.



Why does this keep coming around to it being the legal owner of the network's "fault" for having an open connection?  And therefore he's giving it away as a default assumption?

And why can you not differentiate between an open network which has been made publicly accessible on purpose (like a net cafe or Fredericton) and one that has been left open inadvertently or because the owner didn't understand the security protocols or due to hardware conflicts that prevent it?

Not having a fence is not an excuse to knowing trespass (because we're not talking about accidental connections, that red herring has been dispensed with).


----------



## c_canuk

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Thats interesting when the RCMP Muffin called says it is.......and Tess has listed the CC's that apply.



the RCMP Officer was mistaken, and the Sections Tess listed don't apply to public networks


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I've already posted a link where persons were charged, albeit along with other charges, for doing that.


Where's yours?


----------



## c_canuk

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I guess every supermarket should have a sign saying "don't steal the food" since I keep getting confused between those free samples I get and the stuff they want me to buy.



the supermarket has a sign that says FREE, the rest of the food has a PRICE on it

the unsecured networks have a BROADCAST that says UNSECURED PUBLIC

the secured ones say SECURED PUBLIC

and the supermarket isn't using publicly owned food and realestate, it's private property with private goods



> Your arguement makes that much sense to me..........how about a law that states those who wish to give it away have a 'pop-up' stating that?



how about we hold the providers responsible like we do with everything else, if your phone company put an extention to a picnic table in the park with a sign saying FREE you'd be pissed at them, not so much the people in the park who used it.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

The governemnet should then force the manufacturers to revise thier hardware to make any home wifi routers to be private by default thus eliminating the grey area at it's source.

 Cheers.


----------



## Michael OLeary

c_canuk said:
			
		

> the unsecured networks have a BROADCAST that says UNSECURED PUBLIC
> 
> the secured ones say SECURED PUBLIC



Actually, the unsecured networks available for PUBLIC use have signage at the site (cafes, etc.) or advertisements and online listings (http://www.wi-fihotspotlist.com/browse/ca/2000279/1802038/) to make users aware.

In the absence of such information, the default assumption should be that it is a private network (even if it is unsecure), not that it is open for your use.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> The governemnet should then force the manufacturers to revise thier hardware to make any home wifi routers to be private by default thus eliminating the grey area at it's source.
> 
> Cheers.



Of course, anything except admit that use of a private unsecure network is wrong.


----------



## Franko

Alright troops.....agree to disagree, go to your corners.

This thread is now locked for a 24 hour cooling period.



*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## the 48th regulator

Unlocked folks,

Please let cooler heads prevail, and not allow this to be locked again.

dileas

tess

army.ca staff


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Unlocked folks,
> 
> Please let cooler heads prevail, and not allow this to be locked again.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess
> 
> army.ca staff



Yes, dear.


----------



## Edward Campbell

We’re exploring some difficult terrain.

There is a fairly bitter battle underway, right now, between:

1. On one side, the big telecomm carriers (Bell, TELUS and Rogers, etc, here in Canada) and monopolistic _proprietors_ (like Microsoft): and

2. On the other side, a rather loose collection of _open source_ providers (like Sun Microsystems and the *emerging* _collectives_ (the mergers are going hot and heavy) of Linux implementers) and the ‘digital commons’ community.

Two important subsets of both sides are the mobile community and the hardware people. The hardware vendors are neutral: they win no matter who comes out on top in the jurisdictional battles.

The battle is especially bitter regarding the ‘_*mobile* digital commons_’ because the profits from (overpriced) mobile (cellular/PCS) services is all that stand between profits and bankruptcy for some _integrated_ telecomm carriers.

Digression, but an on topic digression: fixed (wired) telecomm is a HUGELY regulated service, especially at the ‘price point’ level. Regulators in Canada and the USA demand that home/consumer services are provide at ridiculously low prices, well below costs. The regulators *require* the carriers to overcharge for consumer/home long distance, business services, generally, and especially business long distance and internet service in order to subsidize POTS – plain old telephone service – for residential subscribers. (That’s one of the reasons telecomm carriers, like Bell, are required to charge more for a second, business, line to a residence. You may get away with just getting a second telephone line – like the one some folks get for heir children - and using it for your home based business but the carriers are obliged to check up on you and charge you more if they determine that you are in breach of your contract.)

The ‘digital commons’ is especially popular in the MUSH (municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals) community but it is also spreading to other sectors – notably big business and residential or community ‘cooperatives.’ The mobile digital commons is a logical extension.

Canadian companies are at the forefront of he mobile digital commons _movement_.

The big telecomm carriers have few problems with the ‘digital commons,’ _per se_ – at least not with the fixed (wired – immobile) commons. They can and do make money there. (You can, for example, negotiate ridiculously low ‘bulk’ long distance rates if you are a big enough customer: like the University of Toronto, for example. There is a reason that bulk long distance resellers (e.g. SmartReach) can operate and make a profit: the CRTC requires the big carriers to give the resellers, amongst others, low cost access – thus obviating the ‘barrier to (market) entry’ that _building out_ a network might entail.) Once the copper wires and, increasingly, fibre optic links are laid (a very costly proposition) is in place it (the established, fixed network) can provide many, many profitable services at very low costs.

But, the fixed network is inflexible. If you want to extend it you must either install more wire/cable or build a radio system. Radio systems are inherently flexible but they are also very vulnerable, *naturally* vulnerable to interception and _piggybacking_.* If When users want highly flexible access then wireless is the only option and wireless technology and spectrum management issues – mainly how to avoid causing or suffering harmful interference – dominate the whole issue, including the law.  

The digital commons is related to something called the ‘campus area network’ that may be equal to or, more likely, is a subset of another _something_ called a ‘metropolitan area network.’ The big work on these sorts of networks is being done in Asia, especially in India and China (but, in many cases, by Canadian companies) – because they both need to MASSIVELY expand their telecomm infrastructure and these networks are (almost?) all radio based or radio intensive because no one in Asia is dumb enough wants to waste time and money laying too much copper or cable, especially not for the all important _last mile_: the link between the nearest substation/local exchange/access point/etc and the user.

A ‘campus’ need not be tied to a university. A collection of big manufacturing plants may be a ‘campus.’ Many cities build ‘industrial parks’ in which many independent  businesses operate. Each industrial park is a campus.

This is the biggest threat to the big carriers. They want a _universe_ in which each and every one of us *pays* to have his/her own, private landline link and his own private wireless link. The ‘open source’ and ‘digital commons’ folks want to pay for their share of the fixed infrastructure but they want ‘free’ access – including wireless access - to that big, global fixed and mobile network. It is possible, indeed simple, cheap and easy, to provide free (and electromagnetic interference free) wireless access to a campus area network. It is a bit more complex but nothing like impossible, to extend that ‘free’ access to a wide area or metropolitan area network. It is also easy to make dual mode and multi-mode phones that can work ‘free’ on campus area networks and, automatically, switch to a _pay for use_ mode whenever a campus area network is not available.

Technology makes a ‘free,’ mobile digital commons possible. Free things are attractive and popular. A free, mobile digital commons threatens the telecomm carriers’ business model and, perhaps, their very existence; it also threatens the portfolios of many investors including pension funds and ‘widows and orphans.’ Big legal battles are looming but they do not involve _piggybacking_ on your neighbour’s wireless router because there are much, much bigger fish to fry and no one wants to muddy the waters (those metaphors aren’t to badly mixed, are they?) by bringing into court a case that will likely be tossed out because the existing law fails to _match_ the circumstances of the alleged offence.

We will need a whole new set of ‘digital’ laws, including maybe a ‘digital trespass’ law, that deal with some important technological questions. Consider, please:

•	You _capture_ an image that may be someone’s (or some agency’s) _private_ property;

•	If you simply _store_ it, as a bunch of _bits_ (0s and 1s), in a digital device, have you committed any offence? Should you have committed an offence? Ought here to be a law?

•	If you _transform_ the bits into some other _useful_ form – an image, for example – and look at, yourself, in the privacy of your mother’s basement, have you committed an offence? Ought here to be a law?

•	If you transmit the bits, the 0s and 1s, to someone else, have you committed a crime? What *IS* that bit-stream while it is in transit? Is it the private property of the original owner or is it just a bitstream with neither form nor value?

•	Suppose, while the bits are in transit, some third party intercepts (_captures_) it and transforms it into something useful that is not the same as the image ‘owned’ by the person from whom you _captured_ it? Has that third person committed an offence? Ought there to be a law?

Those are just some of the problems in the digital domain. Consider this (don’t worry about the fact that it is on You-Tube with all that implies). The words, the poem _per se_, is in the public domain but what about McKenna’s _interpretation_, her _transformation_ of it? Is it still the same thing? What about the music? Tennyson did not write the music. Is the poem any different because it is now a song?

The issue is further complicated by the _*notion*_ that, in 21st century Canada, access to the whole telecomm system, including the Internet, is a right – akin to the ‘fundamental right’ to food and shelter. Now, of course, there are those, me included, who say that there is *no* ‘right’ – fundamental or not - to food and shelter and that suggesting there is weakens the real fundamental rights to life, liberty, security of the person and property. Food shelter may be at the base (most important level) of Maslows hierarchy of needs but a *need* isn’t a right and ought not, necessarily to be one, either. But that perceived need and right to telecomm is one of the reasons we (through our regulatory agencies) insist that business subsidize residential telecomm service.

So, new laws are needed – to deal with complex situations and with a ‘dispute’ that may involve the very nature of private property, or of property itself. The ‘owners’ of a multi-trillion dollar global industry – telecomm, broadly – are fighting what I think is a rearguard action against a ‘digital commons’ _movement_ that wants to fundamentally alter how we communicate and to reconsider the notions of intellectual property and of privacy.

Sorry, folks, I’m more than halfway to the character limit for a post. So: All this to say that the technological, business, regulatory and legal models or systems that, currently, corral the telecomm, including wireless, domain are changing quickly and may change very radically, indeed. The law, especially, has not kept up and, for the near to mid term, most likely cannot keep up with the changes. The law, including the criminal law, might in other words, be useless when it involves radio and telecomm services.

Morality and honesty and the like are important subjects but it is a mistake to mix them up with law – especially with laws related to business and property. Morality may be, *should* be clear, at least insofar as it concerns property, including telecomm type property, but the current laws (not just the enforcement of them) are in a *grey area* – and they are likely to stay there. And that’s why they will not, perhaps cannot be enforced.



--------------------
* Another (off topic) digression: During the Viet Nam war a company called E-Systems was contracted to provide most of the US _backbone_ telecomm system in Viet Nam, proper. They built large COMCENs on hill tops, interconnected by microwave and tropospheric scatter radio links. The US military _accessed_ these COMCENs and the network through _shared_ microwave links (a military terminal at the US military site talked to an (identical) civilian terminal at the _top of the hill_ or landline. The sites were managed by teams of E-Systems people – mostly Americans, but they were run, at he lower levels, by locally hired civilians. After a while some people began to wonder why the E-System sites were not being attacked with anything like the frequency or ferocity of the attacks on almost all other American installations. The answer soon became apparent. The E-Systems network was *also* the backbone of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese communications system! The local workers (technicians) used common techniques to allow two differently _configured_ signals to _share_ the same channels – piggybacking of a type still common today: two differently _configured_ signals ‘share’ the same link (landline or radio, sub-multiplexed or single channel, all same-same, no never mind) without one or the other being able to detect the presence of the other. Technology makes possible many unforeseen consequences.



Edits: several many typos and a few additional words/phrases here and there for clarity
Further edit: reformatted the first paragraph to make it clear(er)


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yes, dear.









dileas

tess


----------



## c_canuk

E.R. that was a good read.

Personally I don't really think there should be a grey area when it comes to public frequencies however.

before I begin, I want to ensure all I DO NOT condone taking advantage of an unknowing persons unsecured router, and will not use an unsecured WiFi connection if I'm not 100% sure it's free on purpose.

my concern is that Internet routers are johnny come latelys when it comes to the public spectrum and people who don't quite understand how they were used for decades want to push for legislation that will fundamentally cripple public spectrum.

Public spectum is like a community bulletin board, you post whatever you want, and people are free to read whatever is there, and respond to what ever they want.  In the case of an internet router, it posts information on how to connect to it. a fellow user can then respond with a request to join the network, the router can respond by assigning the requester an IP Address, and the requester at that point can request the router connect to web servers and return to it the results. This is not hacking this is announcing your presence to provide service, someone requesting service, agreeing to provide the service and accepting the new node as a member. that is an invitation, while spoofing a mac address, cracking encryption or sniffing the SSID of an unannounced WiFi network is most definitely intrusion.

If you child is standing on your doorstep calling out "free cookies", and I come over and say, "may I have one?", and the child says "sure" and gives me one... is it theft of your cookies because you didn't know your child was doing that?

on the other hand if I see your child eating cookies in your yard quietly and pretend to be you, try to Con my way into getting a cookie, or wait till the child's back is turned to get a cookie, that is most definitely theft.

Now this is where we get arguments, I submit that the router being an automatic device is responding to transmissions as a proxy for it's owner, and that the owner should be aware of what it's doing... other people consider this intrusion, yet it is still all on the public spectum. It's 2 devices talking in a public place.

Some people say that this is theft but for every other device and user on the spectum it is up to the node what it will respond to. The only rule enforced is that no one is allowed to jam the frequencies. By attaching a router that automatically responds to requests to your broad band, you have inadvertently provided a node to the public that will give access to your private broadband connection and possibly your other nodes on your network to a public spectrum via a proxy you haven't configured.

Basically the router is acting as your power of attorney for the network.

now this opens a can of worms... at this point technically your service provider could come down on you for making your private connection public and fining or press charges - yet in Canada you generally pay for access at a predetermined transmission speed and sometimes a max throughput, not number of people accessing it. 

However if you leave a DVD in your drive and someone requests a copy of it... are you now inadvertently guilty of providing copyrighted material by automatic proxy... have you accidentally done the exact same thing as uploading it to a website? the basic structure is the same.

I think on this angle that the service providers could be held liable for not securing or informing the client that it should be secured

now some people might say, well if you make it illegal to connect to an unsecured wireless network you solve these problems... well no you don't, the router's owner is still liable and now you have made an even larger grey area.

No one actually "Connects" to another node on a particular frequency, with copper there is a standing wave maintained by both ends, but with WiFi you are simply yelling out and hoping someone replies. if you want to say that is indeed a connection and I'm going into semantics, consider this

with any device that uses the spectrum and automatically replies, cordless phones for example, all the nodes are listening and all the nodes are talking...

My Base station sends out a signal meaning there is an incoming call, all the cordless handsets in range (500m or more) receive it, they all process it to see if it is for that particular node, my handset starts ringing, I press talk, the handset sends a pick up the line message to all nodes on that frequency, and 2 separate datastreams are started, one from the base station, one from the handset. All Nodes are privy to this. This forces the other base stations and handsets to modify their behavior... they will all shift to a different "channel" on the frequency.

I understand the outrage of people who don't understand how the public spectrum works, but I don't agree with limiting who you can talk to since no matter which target node you want to "connect" to ALL Nodes will receive your traffic and ignore any not for them. 

The onus has always been on the nodes to decide what they would release, now some people want to make it so that no one is responsible for what they release to the public domain.

I submit that the onus is on the providers and/or hardware manufactures to set the routers to discriminate by default as other devices work (IE cordless phones) rather than set to promiscuous mode to avoid this problem.  To limit transmissions by legislation is unenforceable as well as physically impractical, and will cripple all existing users of the spectum to please a statistically small number of users that have only been around for a very small amount of time compared to how long public spectum has existed.

Either way I will agree that yes, something has to be done. Most likely legislation, but I don't want the rules of public spectum changed for the ignorant at the expense of everyone else.

You also at this point cause interesting problems, the clients that have unsecured routers would be quilty of connecting to their own unsecured router, and this would make public wifi netorks that are intended for free access illegal to connect to.

I'm not trying to be inflamitory here, I'm just trying to explain my hesitation to making unsecured wifi's illegal to connect to. Not to mention how ham handed this sort of legislation tends to be.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

c_canuk said:
			
		

> If you child is standing on your doorstep calling out "free cookies", and I come over and say, "may I have one?", and the child says "sure" and gives me one... is it theft of your cookies because you didn't know your child was doing that?
> 
> on the other hand if I see your child eating cookies in your yard quietly and pretend to be you, try to Con my way into getting a cookie, or wait till the child's back is turned to get a cookie, that is most definitely theft.



Your example actually proves my case.......since a child cannot offer consent its theft both times.


----------



## c_canuk

a child cannot offer an adult a cookie?

OK, your legal aged room mate who you have delegated power of attorney over your cookie stash to without setting your terms of service and expectations then. 

you still are advocating legislating thought control and mind reading into the judiciary process.


----------



## Edward Campbell

With the exception of a very few very small bands - the Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) bands - there is no “public” spectrum. All spectrum, save the ISM bands, are _allocated_ (a technical term with a precise legal meaning) to a _service_ (a type of use: Broadcasting, for example, or the Radiolocation (mainly radar) service). Spectrum may then be either _assigned_ (another precise legal term) to one user in one place – usually through a licence, or may be ‘opened’ for general use, usually on a _licence exempt_ (yet another legal term) basis.

The channels you use on your cellular/PCS phone are _assigned_ to Bell or Rogers or one of the other companies. The carrier pays licence fees for the ‘right’ to use that spectrum (specifically to allow it and its paid subscribers to use that spectrum) and it *may* have had to buy those rights at auction.

Although the _licence exempt_ (LE) spectrum is more ‘open’ it is carefully bound by both technical and procedural rules. Those procedural rules are designed to permit certain types of service under certain conditions. It is difficult, maybe impossible, to:

•	Define, in a procedure and with sufficient legal exactness, who may use e.g. a wireless router and for exactly what purpose; and

•	Craft technical regulations that make up for the lack of procedural precision.

The _intent_ of the regulations is clear, however: these devices (wireless routers and even higher powered wireless access points) are intended for use in a very confined area: one residence, one coffee shop, etc. It is legal and proper to add a high gain antenna and a range extender to increase the ‘service area’ to include e.g. a very large house or even outbuildings on a property. The government (most governments, as far as I know) have, however, stayed far away from saying that your wireless router is or must be for your exclusive, personal use. The ‘digital commons’ movement has made an effective case that LE spectrum must be _flexible_ to accommodate innovative use.

Let me give you an example: a group of residents (probably Linux/open source folks) in a high-rise decide that it is not sensible for each of them to pay for high-speed Internet access so they form a sort of _’cooperative’_ (a _collective_ or even _commune_, if you like). One member signs up for the best available highest speed service and buys an 802.11n wireless router with a couple of high gain antennas. All members of the commune share the up front capital costs and the monthly service fees. Some members may have to buy a wireless adapter and even a range booster but, eventually, all have quite legal access to the Internet using one ‘wired’ connection and a wireless router.

In (technical) theory the _commune_ could leave its router ‘open’ and, create a ‘campus area network’ of sorts because the high gain antennas extend the signal (at workable levels) both up and down two floors within the building and to one or two other high-rises across the street. Fortunately, for the members of the _commune_, a lawyer told them that they *might* have some legal liabilities for some uses of their network and that it would be impractical to limit their liabilities in the way that a commercial organization (Starbucks, for example) can by either limiting coverage to a very confined space and posting public notices (including ‘notices’ on an automatic LAN portal).

They have to adopt another strategy and make ‘free’ access available only to members. In other words they must secure the network and then issue the password only to paying members – which is what universities, for example, do. (The members of the university digital commons do not pay directly – membership is a ‘benefit’ of being on staff or a student, etc.)

They have created a ‘campus area digital commons’ without the normal definition of membership in some defined group – instead they have adopted an “all guns within range” approach. But, in order to avoid the rocks and shoals created by a mishmash of national and international laws and regulations, it is absolutely necessary that the ‘open’ spectrum be used in a *PRIVATE* manner.

The law is unclear, despite being written with a relatively few, unambiguous words in e.g. the Criminal Code; it is, indeed, a very *grey area*. But, the *intent* of the law is clear enough – the owner of the wireless device can be called to answer for its use.* The owner(s) need(s) to adopt some self defence mechanisms aimed at limiting liability. Public notices will do *IF* they can be seen by everyone within the radio signal’s coverage area. Encryption is the better choice.

_”Theft”_, I suggest, is not the real issue.



--------------------
* Another _caveat_: the regulations that allow radio owners to be called to account (maybe in a court) were, originally, designed to control RF interference, but some lawyers suggest that they can be used to fix responsibility for other issues like child pornography, identity theft, etc. Judges will decide that, maybe.


----------



## George Wallace

c_canuk said:
			
		

> you still are advocating legislating thought control and mind reading into the judiciary process.



No we are not.  You are grasping at straws.  It is really quite simple to prove in the courts should some one seriously want to do so.  If you were to be arrested, and you laptop confiscated, it is a simple matter of retrieving the data from it to prove whose IP address you have been using.  It is not a shade of grey, it is black and white and recorded in the memory of you laptop.  The very nature of how the memory of your computer is designed, makes the erasing of all data on it next to impossible without totally destroying the device.

No thought control or mind reading involved.  You sit within the range of my WiFi, which is what 25 to 50 meters, with a laptop and it is very suspicious.  You step onto my property to get better reception, and that suspicion intensifies.  The police come and arrest you and confiscate your laptop, and check your most recent IP address and find it to be mine, and guess what?......................You are a thief.  My router is on Private Property, serving my home.  You knowingly abused my trust.

No Thought Control.  No Mind Reading.  No Straws.  Simple deduction of observed events.


----------



## CountDC

wow - good arguments and info folks.  Real interesting reading.  Have to admit the arguments presented have made me take another look at this subject and realize it is not so cut and dry as I thought. Still feel it is wrong to piggyback without the owners permission and that it should be illegal but maybe what seemed a clear law is not so clear after all. Would really like to see this one go to court to test it and clear up the case some.

Thank you all for making such informative posts.


----------



## Edward Campbell

CountDC said:
			
		

> ... it is wrong to piggyback without the owners permission ...



That's correct, but as Bill Clinton might say, "It all depends upon your definition of 'wrong.'"

But words like 'legal' and 'theft' ought, for now and the next few years, be checked at the door.

There are 'laws' on the books but some of those laws are of dubious value because they have not yet been tested in a court. For a variety of reasons neither crown prosecutors nor the lawyers for the big telecomm carriers have seen fit to bring a case. Some would suggest the prosecutors are just being good managers of the public purse. I disagree: I think they are staying out of court because they doubt they can win and they are duty bound to lay charges only when they believe that there is a good chance of a legal victory. I suspect the big telecomm carriers are avoiding court challenges to the 'digital commons' movement for a similar reason: an untested law on the books is (slightly) better than a law that has been tossed out of court and rendered totally useless, not even fit to be a vague threat.


----------



## Occam

ERC, you're probably right.  The authorities are likely to avoid prosecution except in cases of blatant maliciousness, and where there is more than adequate proof of the offence.

Wireless router and WAP manufacturers are never going to produce equipment that is set to anything but the lowest security settings by default.  If they were to force people to use higher security settings, they would be inundated with trouble calls and equipment returns because people can't be bothered to familiarize themselves with the security aspects of their equipment.  Let's face it - setting up the security on a wireless router is a PITA; even seasoned IT professionals can think of things they'd rather do than set up a secure wireless network.  But until people start using three tiers of security (disable SSID broadcasting, enable MAC address filtering, and enable WPA2 protocol with long passphrase), other people will continue to misuse their wireless network.  There are lots of resources available on the WWW to learn how to enable security - nobody has any excuse for running an open network unless they intentionally wish to.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

I was going to throw this post up earlier but the anger management team put the straight jackets on...


 since it's re-opened i will put some food for thought up on this directly from the hardware vendor... Pay particular attention to number 4, it's proof the grey is there for debate. And also my reason for stating that the Vendors be the ones who have to change, not anyone else.

This is from linksys's own website on security.

http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Content_C1&childpagename=US%2FLayout&cid=1169671217533&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper&lid=1753372680L05

Networking makes it easy to share Internet access and data. But you wouldn't want to share your information with just anyone. With a wireless network, your information is traveling through the airwaves, not physical wires, so anyone within range can "listen in" on your network. Below are five essential security measures you should take to secure your wireless network.


1. Change the default password
For wireless products such as access points and routers, you will be asked for a password when you want to change their settings. These devices have a default password set by the factory. (The Linksys default password is admin). Hackers know these defaults and will try them to access your wireless device and change your network settings. To thwart any unauthorized changes, customize the device's password so it will be hard to guess.
Show me how.

2. Change the default SSID
Your wireless devices have a default SSID (Service Set Identifier) set by the factory. The SSID is the name of your wireless network, and can be up to 32 characters. Linksys wireless products use linksys as the default SSID. Hackers know these defaults and can use them to join your network. Change the network's SSID to something unique, and make sure it doesn't refer to the networking products you use. As an added precaution, be sure to change the SSID on a regular basis, so any hacker who may have figured out your network's SSID in the past will have to figure out the SSID again and again. This will deter future intrusion attempts.
Show me how.

3. Enable WPA Encryption
Encryption allows protection for data that is transmitted over a wireless network. Wired Equivalency Privacy (WEP) and Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) offer different levels of security for wireless communication. WPA is considered to be more secure than WEP, because it uses dynamic key encryption. To protect the information as it passes over the airwaves, you should enable the highest level of encryption that is supported by your network equipment. Learn more about WPA.
Show me how.

4. Disable SSID broadcast
By default, most wireless networking devices are set to broadcast the SSID, so anyone can easily join the wireless network with just this information. But hackers will also be able to connect, so unless you're running a public hotspot, it's best to disable SSID broadcast. You may think it is more convenient to broadcast your SSID so that you can click on it to join your network, but you can configure the devices on your network to automatically connect to a specific SSID without broadcasting the SSID from your router.
Show me how.

5. Enable MAC address filtering
Linksys routers give you the ability to enable MAC (Media Access Control) address filtering. The MAC address is a unique series of numbers and letters assigned to every networking device. With MAC address filtering enabled, wireless network access is provided solely for wireless devices with specific MAC addresses. For example, you can specify only the computers in your house to access your wireless network. It would be very difficult for a hacker to access your network using a random MAC address.
Show me how.


----------



## Occam

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> 4. Disable SSID broadcast
> By default, most wireless networking devices are set to broadcast the SSID, so anyone can easily join the wireless network with just this information. But hackers will also be able to connect, so unless you're running a public hotspot, it's best to disable SSID broadcast. You may think it is more convenient to broadcast your SSID so that you can click on it to join your network, but you can configure the devices on your network to automatically connect to a specific SSID without broadcasting the SSID from your router.



The part in red isn't entirely correct;  a hacker can easily join the wireless network if you're broadcasting SSID *and* they've cloned your MAC address *and* you've used an easily-guessed WPA2 passphrase (assuming you're using those security measures, and everyone should be).

No network is 100% secure.  The idea is to implement enough measures to make a hacker choose a lesser-protected network than yours.  Broadcasting your SSID is merely telling your router to scream "HERE I AM, I'M A WIRELESS NETWORK, CONNECT TO ME".  Preventing it from doing that is just one step in making a hacker's life more difficult.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Occam said:
			
		

> The part in red isn't entirely correct;  a hacker can easily join the wireless network if you're broadcasting SSID *and* they've cloned your MAC address *and* you've used an easily-guessed WPA2 passphrase (assuming you're using those security measures, and everyone should be).
> 
> No network is 100% secure.  The idea is to implement enough measures to make a hacker choose a lesser-protected network than yours.  Broadcasting your SSID is merely telling your router to scream "HERE I AM, I'M A WIRELESS NETWORK, CONNECT TO ME".  Preventing it from doing that is just one step in making a hacker's life more difficult.



 They we're merely pointing out to the user that unless they make the change ANYONE including a potential malicious user can connect without any hardships, passwords or hacking involved, and clearly called it HOTSPOTTING.

 I was merely pointing out that LINKSYS's own black and white documentation clearly states thier hardware is OPEN for business. If anyone in this debate has a beef it should be with the hardware vendors for allowing it to be packaged insecure and broadcasting openly to your surroundings.

 BUYER BEWARE!

Cheers.


----------



## Michael OLeary

First it's the account owner's fault for not securing the network, now it's the vendor's fault for making non-secure the default.  Believe what you wish, it is obvious that any attempt to continue this debate is a waste of electrons.


----------



## George Wallace

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> .........this debate is a waste of electrons.



Pretty much so.

What is next on the program?

Enforced Universal Military Service?   >


----------



## GAP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Pretty much so.
> 
> What is next on the program?
> 
> Enforced Universal Military Service?   >



Is that not the same as the old "Survival Program" mentioned somewhere else?


----------



## armyvern

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> *First it's the account owner's fault for not securing the network, now it's the vendor's fault for making non-secure the default. *  Believe what you wish, it is obvious that any attempt to continue this debate is a waste of electrons.



How true this statement is...

It's common these days to write-off personal accountability for your own actions as someone else's fault/problem.

Sad to see actually.


----------



## c_canuk

What about One soldier, one kit? is that blaming the victim?

Clearly some have their mind made up and will not debate the point.  If you don't want to debate the issue please don't bring a hostile tone in regards to those that do, just ignore the thread instead of implying that we are wrong and immoral for having a different point of view than you.

I don't think the other points of view think it's right to exploit an unknowing users wifi. We are debating which entity is responsible for securing the WAPs based on conflicting standards, common practices and levels of infrastructure and feasibility of options to prevent exploitation. I don't think anyone is trying to assign primary blame as we all know those that exploit a WiFi connection are the culprits, however we are arguing that other entities share in the liability due to negligence on all sides.

Our position is that your solution has a high probability of being both ineffective and dangerous. We are not interested in who is to blame, we are interested in how to best server all interested parties while at the same time protect those being exploited.

If it very hard to remain polite and keep the discussion within general academic arguments when people come in on their high horse and spout off indignant exclamations on how people these days are all degenerates. Exclamations that add nothing to the conversation I might add.

Can we all take a deep breath, realize we are mostly all on the same side here, and try to understand that we all have different points of view on many different subjects and agree to disagree or at least treat eachother cordially


----------



## armyvern

c_canuk said:
			
		

> What about One soldier, one kit? is that blaming the victim?
> ...



One modem ... one owner who's paying for it. 

It ain't you.

Figure that out. Reverse your words and apply them to yourself. What's so hard about that?

And, word up ... one man leaves his kit sitting out at the canteen and you decide to take it ... guess what the MPs are charging you with?

Someone else owning it does not give you the moral or legal right to take it for your own use at will.

And you're right - I find it very hard to speak civily with those who'd profess to think that my leaving my helmet on my desk and my office door unlocked equates --- "free for the taking by them." A thief is a thief is a thief in my books.

When did this thread become a debate about "whose responsibility it is to secure wifi?"

I pretty much seem to view this thread as a "does an *unsecured* wifi give someone the right to use it without owner's consent and knowledge?" IE: A thread about the legality of using wifi that you don't own.


----------



## Michael OLeary

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I pretty much seem to view this thread as a "does an *unsecured* wifi give someone the right to use it without owner's consent and knowledge?" IE: A thread about the legality of using wifi that you don't own.



That's certainly where it was when this round of debate started (see replies 16 and forward).  It's not been the proponents of the "privately owned network" aspect that have continually introduced the red herrings of internet cafes, responsibilities to secure nets, free-for-use-by-default assumptions, etc.


----------



## c_canuk

the point is, your helmet doesn't call out "THIS HELMET IS FREE FOR USE" every 5 seconds when you leave it on the table, and there are no helmets intentonaly set that way that you can walk off with that it could be confused with.  - SSID Broadcast

nor is your helmet on a table marked "HELMETS FOR GENERAL USE" - OPEN SPECTRUM.

I'm sure if your helmet went missing and your supervisor found out you had left a label on it saying free helmet for use in a bin of helmets for general use, your position that it was theft would not be taken seriously. 

I'm sure if helmets came from the factory like that the first thing that the issuee would be required to do on signing for it would be to remove said label and write their name on it (un checking broadcast SSID and Set Mac Filtering)

nor did anyone say it was right and proper to exploit a router where it was questionable if the user was intentionally leaving it open. the debate was how to solve the problem and you two are getting snotty at us who are discussing an academic argument and implying that we are criminals while ignoring our arguments in favour of resorting to ad hominim attacks that add nothing to prop up your point of view and certainly do tarnish the tone of the conversation and in a small way the reputation of the site.


please by all means defend your point of view, but if you can't argue without the angry bluster you may have to admit either your arguments are lacking in substance or you lack the background information required.

I agree with you, people DO NOT have the right to exploit other's routers, but banning connecting to unsecured WiFi's will not be enforcable in the vast majority of cases, will harm other users of the spectrum and add complications to public hotspots if not destroy them and criminalize those that accidentally connect to other's routers (if I have a router unsecured with the default SSID, and my neighbor has the same, the only way to tell which is which is judging by signal stength when standing next to the router, but that's not even fool proof if there is a cordless phone or other device on that spectrum causing interferance. Move to another room and your cell phone rings there is better than 50% chance it's going to drop for a second and the laptop will connect to the stongest one... better hope it's yours or by your definition your an evil criminal that needs locking up.

There is already an established precedent that routers are not following that solves the problem, the point of laws is to prevent infringements on other's rights, not cast blame so I fail to see the difficulty in requiring venders turn off wireless on the routers by default which solves all issues, rather than yours that doesn't do anything to stop the vast majority of culprits while causing untold harm to the innocent.

prove me wrong that your plan won't criminalize people in my scenario of same SSIDs

prove me wrong that inept users on laptops won't accidentally/unknowingly connect to other inept users routers

Prove me wrong that public WiFi networks won't be affected

Prove me wrong that the guilty won't be caught/detered

prove me wrong that it won't fundementally change how open spectrum is used.

and please stop trolling.   adding comments of no substance that are inflamitory in nature


----------



## Michael OLeary

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I agree with you, people DO NOT have the right to exploit other's routers, but banning connecting to unsecured WiFi's will not be enforcable in the vast majority of cases, will harm other users of the spectrum and add complications to public hotspots if not destroy them and criminalize those that accidentally connect to other's routers (if I have a router unsecured with the default SSID, and my neighbor has the same, the only way to tell which is which is judging by signal stength when standing next to the router, but that's not even fool proof if there is a cordless phone or other device on that spectrum causing interferance. Move to another room and your cell phone rings there is better than 50% chance it's going to drop for a second and the laptop will connect to the stongest one... better hope it's yours or by your definition your an evil criminal that needs locking up.



Who has advocated banning connecting to unsecured routers? 

I do believe the distinction between advertised hotspots and private routers has been made clear repeatedly, whay can you not leave that point alone?




			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> prove me wrong that your plan won't criminalize people in my scenario of same SSIDs



Who has mentioned the criminalization of the network owners?



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> prove me wrong that inept users on laptops won't accidentally/unknowingly connect to other inept users routers



This has been discussed, and there was no directed intent against unintentional connections. Move on.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Prove me wrong that public WiFi networks won't be affected



So you believe that such a distinction cannot be made?  Despite your obvious inability (or unwillingness) to separate the two throughout this discussion?



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Prove me wrong that the guilty won't be caught/detered



There has been open admission throughout this thread of the difficulties of identification and prosecution.  This has not been a necessary point for continued debate.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> prove me wrong that it won't fundementally change how open spectrum is used.



How it will be used in a technical sense, or how some people will continue to massage their arguments to excuse their actions in using private networks simply because they are unsecure.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> and please stop trolling.   adding comments of no substance that are inflamitory in nature



Please stop accusing others of "trolling", and please stop setting up red herring arguments and then trying to debate them instead of the central question.


----------



## George Wallace

c_canuk said:
			
		

> and please stop trolling.   adding comments of no substance that are inflamitory in nature



I have to agree with others.  You are the one who should be following this little point of advice.  You have totally wandered off on tangents throughout this discusion.

Are you a thief or not by using access to someone's WiFi?  Yes or No?  It is a simple question.  It has nothing to do with what settings others have their routers set at or where they are.  It is a simple question; "Are you a 'Thief' if you knowingly access someone's private WiFi?"  This has nothing to do with Public, but with someone's personnal WiFi.  Are you a Thief or not by using Other's Bandwidth?


----------



## Edward Campbell

You’re wandering off into the minefield again, George.

That *WiFi* bandwidth *IS NOT YOURS*. There is *no problem*, neither legal nor regulatory, with sharing any frequency – so long as one does not cause harmful interference. Period.

The real problem, and I agree it is one, starts when someone ‘uses’ another’s property: the router, which, despite being a radio station, is a piece of private property. The problem is exacerbated when one intrudes into another’s contractual arrangements for service with the ISP and telco and so on, and things spiral downwards from there: legally and morally.

But please, friends, stay away from discussing ‘theft’ of radio signals.


----------



## garb811

No matter how much people try to make it the issue, the issue is NOT the WiFi bandwidth, that is really only the MO of the theft in this instance.  The issue is the use of the piggybackees contracted and paid for service between that router and the ISP without his/her knowledge and consent.


----------



## George Wallace

I have to agree with you ER, that the 'radio waves' are not the concern, but the accessing of an individuals hardware in order to use those 'radio waves' for two-way 'communication/data transfer'.


----------



## armyvern

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You’re wandering off into the minefield again, George.
> 
> That *WiFi* bandwidth *IS NOT YOURS*. There is *no problem*, neither legal nor regulatory, with sharing any frequency – so long as one does not cause harmful interference. Period.
> 
> The real problem, and I agree it is one, starts when someone ‘uses’ another’s property: the router, which, despite being a radio station, is a piece of private property. The problem is exacerbated when one intrudes into another’s contractual arrangements for service with the ISP and telco and so on, and things spiral downwards from there: legally and morally.
> 
> But please, friends, stay away from discussing ‘theft’ of radio signals.



I agree with you on "the real problem". It irritates the "hell" out of me that there are some who would assume that using the "wifi" streaming out of my modem causes me "no harm" by presumption.

If it's that "OK" and legal to do ... why the hell aren't their butts sending me a card in the mail saying "thank you for the invitation to intrude into your modem and allowing my to beam my signals on "free wifi" through your computer components."

It seems that those who feel this is acceptable to do, feel that their presumption of "non-harm" is the proper CoA. Funny that they don't think that they should "presume harm" and seek permission (they DO know that modem is costing ME money and is connected to MY computer). That'sjust not in their benefit though because they know damn well the owner of saidmodem is going to say "no" 99 timesout of 100.

Yep, they're quite willing to assume they've been "invited", but not quite so willing to assume they've "NOT been invited." So, why not check with the owner of the modem first then? Really, if it's not illegal and there's no harm ... why aren't they asking? And, we ALL know the answer to that.  :


----------



## George Wallace

Vern

These are the same people who think that it is fair to walk across the lawn of someone who lives on a corner lot.

That lawn is like a router.  It is someone's property.  It is watered, fertilized, and mowed (Maintained) by the owner.  It is not Public.  How much must the property owner spend on maintaining that lawn, especially if trespassers cross it so often as to have created a pathway?  Is not ownership of that lawn implied by the fact that there is a home on the property and the lawn is properly maintained?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

c_canuk said:
			
		

> the point is, your helmet doesn't call out "THIS HELMET IS FREE FOR USE" every 5 seconds when you leave it on the table, and there are no helmets intentonaly set that way that you can walk off with that it could be confused with.  - SSID Broadcast



The purpose of a SSID broadcast is _*NOT*_ to advertise the wireless network as FREE.  It is to say "here I am".  YOU are adding the 'free for use' part on your own, a misjudgement on your part.

I go out to my driveway, start my car in the winter, and go back in the house.  Is that broadcasting "he wants to warm the car up some" or "I am running, so therefore I must be free for the taking"?  If you drive away with my running car, from my driveway, that you noticed from your yard/driveway, just because it was there and running, you are STILL stealing it.  You knew it wasn't your car.  You drove away in it anyways.  You didn't come to my house and say "hey, can I use your car? I'll pitch in on the gas money" and leave the choice to me to decide if I want you using something of mine, you just 'assumed' and used.  Different examples; same principle.


----------



## Shamrock

The Internet seems to be a moral vacuum for some.  It's not that they're doing things that are contrary to social norms, instead they just seem to apply everyday morality to their keyboard.

A good example of this is here.  A false Craigslisting maliciously advertised everything at a person's home as free for the taking, and sure enough, people arrived and started helping themselves to the free stuff -- and argued with the owner about the legality of what they were doing.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Shamrock said:
			
		

> The Internet seems to be a moral vacuum for some.  It's not that they're doing things that are contrary to social norms, instead they just seem to apply everyday morality to their keyboard.



I would agree but would phrase it somewhat differently:

_They wish to adopt that form of moral vacuum learned within the social anonymity of the internet and apply it to real world situations when they feel it is to their advantage to do so._


----------



## c_canuk

indeed, and that is immoral and a failure of personal responsibility.

I think the root cause of our personal differences in this thread stem from us having 2-3 different conversations going on at once that use similar terms and but different levels of human interaction and different directions of conversation..

can we seperate this thread into 2-3 different ones? 

1. a Discussion of the moralities of various activities including exploiting unsecured routers that are definitly not intended for public use and those that are questionable

2. a discussion of the technical aspects, common practices by supplyers/manufactures, and legal technicalities in how they conflict and re enforce eachother

and if not combined with thread #2

3. a discussion of how to protect those that are currently at risk of being exploited by unsavory characters.

Perhaps in the interest of helping members we could start a thread for support of routers in the radio chatter forum, I will volunteer my services to anyone who PMs me that is in the CFB Gagetown area if they need help securing their router. 

I hold no hard feelings towards anyone in this thread, I feel that we all hold the same moral viewpoint or at least range from mostly argee to strongly argee, and hope that we can all continue to be cordial to eachother in other topics and from this point on. I feel that other than a small amount of topics all of us tend to have very similar ideals and opinions on a broad range of topics, posting in forums however we tend to let our emotions get a little out of control at times. 

I'm willing to shake hands and have a pop/beer with anyone who wants at griffins 1630 on tuesday.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Actually, there's been only one core discussion point, which has been repeatedly derailed by a blinding smoke screen developed by those who would bury a moral argument they cannot win in a maze of unnecessary technical red herrings.


----------



## armyvern

c_canuk said:
			
		

> indeed, and that is immoral and a failure of personal responsibility.
> 
> I think the root cause of our personal differences in this thread stem from us having 2-3 different conversations going on at once that use similar terms and but different levels of human interaction and different directions of conversation..
> 
> can we seperate this thread into 2-3 different ones?
> 
> 1. a Discussion of the moralities of various activities including exploiting unsecured routers that are definitly not intended for public use and *those that are questionable*
> 2. a discussion of the technical aspects, common practices by supplyers/manufactures, and legal technicalities in how they conflict and re enforce eachother
> 
> and if not combined with thread #2
> 
> 3. a discussion of how to protect those that are currently at risk of being exploited by unsavory characters.
> 
> Perhaps in the interest of helping members we could start a thread for support of routers in the radio chatter forum, I will volunteer my services to anyone who PMs me that is in the CFB Gagetown area if they need help securing their router.
> 
> I hold no hard feelings towards anyone in this thread, I feel that we all hold the same moral viewpoint or at least range from mostly argee to strongly argee, and hope that we can all continue to be cordial to eachother in other topics and from this point on. I feel that other than a small amount of topics all of us tend to have very similar ideals and opinions on a broad range of topics, posting in forums however we tend to let our emotions get a little out of control at times.
> 
> I'm willing to shake hands and have a pop/beer with anyone who wants at griffins 1630 on tuesday.



"Questionable" ... if it's "questionable" you'd be seeking my permission to use it, but you're not. That means that you're treating it as a "given invitation" and that there is "no question that I've invited you to do so." It's all a matter of morality and looking at it from the angle that best benefits you (not "you" as an individual per se, but rather from a broad perspective).

If something is indeed "questionable" ... don't you think the proper and moral thing to do is "seek permission/clarification from the owner" vice "assuming/presuming" an open invite, because that's what the advocates pro "using someone else's modem signal bandwidth" seem to be advocating?

Mine is secured btw, and Griffins is possible --- I'm in Borden now, but will be home next week. I'll need a map and directions on howto get to Griffins however.


----------



## c_canuk

I never said it was moral to connect to an unsecured router who's owner you don't know the intentions of.

I said in a technical light it could be submitted that an unsecured router broadcasting the SSID could be argued in court to be an invitation.

That due to the nature of how automated everything is, there will be people who accidentally connect to other peoples routers, so legislation to catch those we would define as thieves is going to be very tricky and difficult do to as precedent of other devices operating in that spectum and technical arguments bent to their needs could be used, and enforcing a law aimed at them is going to be difficult to enforce as now you have to prove the intent of someone you have never seen. 

I think legislation is going to be near impossible to enforce unless it's to prevent the situation of a consumer being put in that position in the first place. 

I feel that legislation should be aimed at solving the problem, not just punishing the small amount of guilty that may or may not be caught.

I feel that a owner of a device that communicates automatically on the owners behalf using open spectum to devices that are not the owner's should take some personal responsibility in keeping their network at least a little bit secure, and those connecting to networks should also take personal responsibility to ensure they are connecting to one they are authorized by a human to do so. I feel that personal responsibility applies all around.

If you insist on claiming I'm advocating people to connect to access points willy nilly that is your prerogative, however you could at least argue why you think that rather than just insult me from a position that you are the absolute authority on the subject and claim omnipotence.

I'm repeatedly swallowing my irritation and attempting to extend the olive branch. If you are too arrogant to accept it, then the breakdown in tone of this conversation cannot be my fault.


----------



## c_canuk

> "Questionable" ... if it's "questionable" you'd be seeking my permission to use it, but you're not. That means that you're treating it as a "given invitation" and that there is "no question that I've invited you to do so." It's all a matter of morality and looking at it from the angle that best benefits you (not "you" as an individual per se, but rather from a broad perspective).
> 
> If something is indeed "questionable" ... don't you think the proper and moral thing to do is "seek permission/clarification from the owner" vice "assuming/presuming" an open invite, because that's what the advocates pro "using someone else's modem signal bandwidth" seem to be advocating?
> 
> Mine is secured btw, and Griffins is possible --- I'm in Borden now, but will be home next week. I'll need a map and directions on howto get to Griffins however.



completely argee that you should not connect to questionable routers, I mentioned earlier that I don't. The only default ssid I've ever connected to was the one in the JRs in Kingston after I checked with the bar keep.

Have a nice trip home.

I'll see if I can dig up a map for you.  ;D


----------



## armyvern

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I never said it was moral to connect to an unsecured router who's owner you don't know the intentions of.
> 
> I said in a technical light it could be submitted that an unsecured router broadcasting the SSID could be argued in court to be an invitation.
> 
> That due to the nature of how automated everything is, there will be people who accidentally connect to other peoples routers, so legislation to catch those we would define as thieves is going to be very tricky and difficult do to as precedent of other devices operating in that spectum and technical arguments bent to their needs could be used, and enforcing a law aimed at them is going to be difficult to enforce as now you have to prove the intent of someone you have never seen.
> 
> I think legislation is going to be near impossible to enforce unless it's to prevent the situation of a consumer being put in that position in the first place.
> 
> I feel that legislation should be aimed at solving the problem, not just punishing the small amount of guilty that may or may not be caught.
> 
> I feel that a owner of a device that communicates automatically on the owners behalf using open spectum to devices that are not the owner's should take some personal responsibility in keeping their network at least a little bit secure, and those connecting to networks should also take personal responsibility to ensure they are connecting to one they are authorized by a human to do so. I feel that personal responsibility applies all around.
> 
> If you insist on claiming I'm advocating people to connect to access points willy nilly that is your prerogative, however you could at least argue why you think that rather than just insult me from a position that you are the absolute authority on the subject and claim omnipotence.
> 
> I'm repeatedly swallowing my irritation and attempting to extend the olive branch. *If you are too arrogant to accept it,* then the breakdown in tone of this conversation cannot be my fault.



Apparently, it knows no bounds.

I haven't claimed that "you" personally have advocated SFA. 

But, I've yet to see a valid arguement as to why their "presumption" that it's "an Open Invite" is acceptable (and is also their standard belief).

I already know why they presume it's an "open invite" rather than presume "it's NOT an open invite."

See, they have two choices. To presume it is, or to presume that it isn't.

Now, if you're someone getting something for free through someone else's modem ... of course you're going to presume the former. It's in your best interests to do so - although "your best interest presumptions" do not equal "moral or acceptable practice."

NOW again: don't take the "YOU" personally. If I wanted to single YOU out -- I'd use your name. As per my last --- I am using "you" in the broader sense. Thanks for noticing that part in the original post.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You’re wandering off into the minefield again, George.
> 
> That *WiFi* bandwidth *IS NOT YOURS*. There is *no problem*, neither legal nor regulatory, with sharing any frequency – so long as one does not cause harmful interference. Period.
> 
> The real problem, and I agree it is one, starts when someone ‘uses’ another’s property: the router, which, despite being a radio station, is a piece of private property. The problem is exacerbated when one intrudes into another’s contractual arrangements for service with the ISP and telco and so on, and things spiral downwards from there: legally and morally.
> 
> But please, friends, stay away from discussing ‘theft’ of radio signals.



Edward,.....you are lost here. WE DON"T CARE ABOUT THE RADIO BANDWIDTH, when we say "bandwidth", we mean the measured amount of internet downloading that I have bought from a PRIVATE company via thier PRIVATE lines into my PRIVATE house.


----------



## Edward Campbell

He said *WiFi* bandwidth! That's radio bloody bandwidth.  :boring:  Jeesh!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I'm glad I stayed out of this one :


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Radio waves in the air are debatable.  The fact that the waves have to hit a physical component owned by someone is not questionable.  THAT is the 'connection to the cloud' as it were, and that physical connection and hardware is not yours.  You are using my entry point (gateway) to the Internet.  How can anyone with half a brain argue differently?  Do the magic Keebler elves make your radiowave transmission into paper messages that pidgeons then 'make go to the Internet'?  

If you transmit to my wireless router that is connected (in my case) to my cable modem, that then transmits your data over my Eastlink HSI connection that I am paying for, your data is on my network, period.  Who cares that the part of the RF spectrum is public or private;  my network is not public, secured or not.  Your goddamn data is going to end up going thru my router.  PERIOD.

What is so ****** hard to understand about that????????????????????????????????????????????????????

As for the this SSIDs are broadcasting "I AM FREE TO CONNECT TO" idea, if you believe so, someone show me ONE technical reference, authority that desribes the purpose of a jesus SSID broadcast is to advertise a free jesus service.

 :brickwall:


----------



## MamaBear

Interesting discussion, but I'm with the moral majority here.

I liken the whole situation to air - it's free.  But when my husband goes scuba diving and has to have his tanks filled, he pays for that air.  Rather.... he pays for the materials and time provided by a business person to get the "free" compressed air into his tanks.  I would think if someone were to walk into a dive shop (during open, welcoming business hours) filled up their scuba tanks with air, and then walked out without paying - they could be charged with theft, no?

And on that same note, even though air used to be free at all gas stations, they are now starting to charge people for "free" air.


----------



## medaid

Wow... this has been the most interesting read.

To address a few points from a while back.

1) The Crown uses something known as "public interest" as a gauge, whether or not to press charges all boils down to "public interest". This is simply explained as, is it within the public's interest to press charges on a subject matter as this? If the answer is NO? Then the Crown says "Thank you" to the member who had proffered the charges and ask them politely to try again.

2) Criminal Code. The Criminal Code defines all Federal legislation pertaining to offences which contradicts the good nature of public order. If it's listed within the Criminal Code it is a Criminal Offence, be it Indictable, Summary or Dual Procedure. It doesn't matter at all what YOU think is a Criminal Code offence, it's what the GOVERNMENT thinks and enacts on behalf of the people. 

3) There are elements to a crime. The Actus Reus (the act of commission) and the Mens Rea (the guilty mind). In majority of cases both need to be proven in order for a conviction to be obtained through ruling, but in some only one or the other may be enough, but are few. 

4) Theft as defined in s.322 of the Criminal Code: Anyone who fraudulently, without colour of right, takes, converts, anything animate or inanimate with intent to deprive the owner of it. Is completed when with intent to steal anything, the accused, moves it, or causes it to move, or begins to cause it to become moveable. 

    Let's take this example that you guys have so happily argued for. The guy's WAP is unsecured and you decide to connect to it because you can. Because you think it's an open invitation to do so. You are not currently operating a WAP of your own, and since your neighbour was an idiot you got yourself free internet. You never bothered to inform him/her because if you did, you wouldn't have free internet anymore. 

    So... Actus Reus, you did it. You connected to that WAP and you were happy with yourself, and so impressed that you can argue about all the legalities of it all that you decided you'll continue to use it. Mens Rea. In fact, the instant you decided to connect to that WAP knowing or not knowing you're wrong, by virtue or wanting to take advantage of that you have established Mens Rea, and by doing so after you thought of it Actus Reus. Done deal. Crime committed. Now, if a LEO caught you and decided to throw your miserable immoral behind before the Crown, it starts at numero uno again. 

   You have indeed committed theft, since you had fraudulently obtained access, you had no colour of right to do so, you took and converted the WAP's signal to your own use and thus depriving the owner of the WAP who had paid for their service the full pleasure of using it. You had in fact completed the theft by redirecting the signal to you, or splitting it thus causing it to move, moves it and made it moveable.

   Regardless. Crime is a Crime is a Crime. Don't like the law? Vote, change the government and have it thrown out, quashed or changed. But claiming that you're right does not make it so. You've broken the law that's it. Whether or not LEOs are going to enforce every single piece of legislation that is out there is up to them. But in most cases it's unreasonable. They've gotta take care of the more important crimes so that those that condone crimes can sit on free WAP and whine. 

   This will be my one and ONLY post in this thread. I can't stand those who had blatantly broke the law and had not backed it up with any single decent argument. To those who have argued this thread with good material and other legislation and examples to back up your argument, I say bravo to you. You have actually thought up ways to set precedence, and if this crime ever goes before a Court then a lawyer should analyze your ideas because I think they're certainly related and valid in some ways. Again... until the day comes when legislation has changed, take solace in the fact that quite a few of you have broken the law, and you may smirk all you want about it but you are why LEOs will always have job security through the idiocies of man.


----------



## S.Stewart

The Kindergarten definition of the phrase steal or stealing is simply to take without permission; funny how kids generally get it right at such a young age. No matter the circumstances around how one acquires something willingly that is not theirs, the end result is the same.

For example if I was in front of you at the local gas bar to pay for my fuel, and upon leaving I dropped my credit card, just because I have dropped it, therefore it is no longer secured in my wallet, do you believe that gives you the right to do with my card and thus my funds what you wish?

Just because its bandwidth not something that you can see and hold, doesn't change the principle.


----------



## c_canuk

like I said before there are 3 different conversations going on

1. those that are condemning people who connect to unsecured routers that they aren't 100% sure they have the owners blessing. that's 99% of the people who post here.

2. a technical discussion on ways that it might be argued that SSIDs may or may not be invitations in a technical and/or legal sense and NOT in a MORAL sense.

3. a discussion on the best way to prevent exploitation of the innocent while not hampering legitimate users

some people can't seem to differentiate between these arguments. 

Arguing that an unsecured SSID may be argued in court as an invitation due to technical reasons IS NOT, I SAY AGAIN, IS NOT advocating everyone to go right ahead and exploit the routers. Several of you fly off the handle the second we start discussing technical details and legal technicalities that may or may not be convincing in court and instead of arguing in that context you claim we are advocating something we all believe to be immoral and call us thieves.. why don't you start the witch burnings and passing thought crime while you are at it. Discussing technical operating proceedures and what ramifications that has on the legal world IS NOT A CRIME

Vern, sorry about that, the post was not meant in rebuttal to your comment, it was the comment above yours that smugly insisted that my motivation was not to discuss the technical aspects but to justify behaviour I find reprehensible, I should have quoted it, my bad


----------



## George Wallace

ENOUGH ALREADY!

No more tangents.

This topic has been beaten to death.

The insistance by some that Radio Waves are Free and any router that sends out a SSID or whatever saying "Here I am, USE ME" are ignoring the fact that that router belongs to someone and should they turn it OFF there will be no FREE radio waves, so they must be controlled by someone and really not free, and NO SSID screaming "Here I am, USE ME"; so once again controlled by some "private" individual.

As we will not reach any agreement on this topic, and this is not a FREE site, but a privately owned and paid for site.............................Topic LOCKED!






How's that!


----------



## Nfld Sapper

:deadhorse:

 ;D


----------

