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

[CountDC]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?