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

[NL_engineer]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?