Can the police arrest you because they had "a feeling"

[flexy]

>>>
Sounds like both your GF and her neighbors should be prosecuted and jailed for illegal wireless Internet connectivity.[/quote]
>>>

i hope you're sarcastic...otherwise you missed my point 100%.

There are people who dont even REMOTELY know how a router works, barely manage to set up their networks on their own. As i stated it is the case Win automatically hooks up to whatever it seees on open wifi networks.

I try to remember that i saw a list of networks, their OWN network was in the list but NOT on top, NOT the one Win decided to hook the wireless up to.

Needless to say that neither GF nor parents were aware of this, neither this was desired. There technical understand goes as far as hooking up a PC, router and then let Win do the work.

Maybe they had network problems, MAYBE someone clicking around and seeing a list of networks, clicking on them until "the internet worked"...whatever. But thats not my point.

My point really is that a network owner SHOULD have a responsiblity too and the other point is i dont think its 100% ok if its considered a serious CRIME and even jail is not impossible....WIN never should connect to networks automatically without making 100% sure its the OWN network...and without warning.

If i drive by/am near any OPEN hotspot with a laptop and turn on the laptop....it just HAPPENS the laptop right after booting would connect to THIS spot and i can freely surf the net. Thats by DESIGN.

Any network owner, especially if they use a network for commercial purposes PLEASE has to know this...how dumb would they be otherwise ?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down
Again another useless physical world analogies. But the difference one has a giant sign announce it is open to the public the other one doesn't. Hey look your access point also makes that same announcement every second. Guess you lose on that point to.

Connecting to an open wifi network is no more stealing then connection to any other open server on a public network. If a person or company wish to give away there services who I'm to complain.

PRIVATE network. Big difference. PRIVATE NETWORK.

But isn't private because anyone can connect to it.

Is your house not your private property when you leave the door unlocked because anybody can walk in? Don't tell me "it's not the same because this is wireless", because it IS the same; you're using someone's private property without their permission. The fact that you are connecting without actually setting foot on their property is meaningless.

Your access point doesn't "announce" anything other than that it exists (which any wireless network must do to let someone connect, unless they know the SSID). You have to explicitly establish a connection with it to transmit anything. The AP is like a doorway -- it can be locked or unlocked, but it being unlocked doesn't imply that you are allowed to walk through it.

We're not talking about anybody's house. We're talking about coffee shop. Try to keep up.

And yes, if a business has the door unlocked, it does imply that you are allowed to walk through it. Business often have many doors, some of them say "Employee's Only" or "No Entrance" or they even *gasp* lock them so customers can't just wander in. If they want to treat a network like a door, they should put signs up saying "For Customers Only" or locking it with a password.

Thanks for making his point for him.

 

[MetalMat]

This is lame, arresting somebody using wifi is retarted. They need to go clean up the streets of real criminals, what bs.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
We're not talking about anybody's house. We're talking about coffee shop. Try to keep up. And yes, if a business has the door unlocked, it does imply that you are allowed to walk through it.

:roll:

It doesn't matter if the unsecured network is operated as part of a business or not (and the discussion has also at points touched on home wireless networks as well). And private property is private property -- a business like a coffee shop usually finds it convenient to leave the front door unlocked rather than screening each person before they enter, but they don't have to let just anyone walk in off the street. It's not the door being unlocked that implies you're allowed to walk in, but that it's a business that's open (more or less) to the public.

Business often have many doors, some of them say "Employee's Only" or "No Entrance" or they even *gasp* lock them so customers can't just wander in. If they want to treat a network like a door, they should put signs up saying "For Customers Only" or locking it with a password.

The coffee shop owner indicated that the free wifi was for paying customers only (though it wasn't clear in the news story if there was signage to this effect.) IMO this is irrelevant, as you need positive permission (not just a lack of negative permission) to use someone's private property.

Thanks for making his point for him.

Thanks for not reading the last 2 pages and ignoring everything I said?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: MetalMat
This is lame, arresting somebody using wifi is retarted.

This should be stickied, this is the new America, suck it up.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: brxndxn
The real sad thing is that nobody seems to realize that the ONLY reason those laws exist is because cell phone companies are lobbying for them. Free wifi is direct competition to cell phone-based Internet services. It's bullsh1t.

If I want to share my WIFI that I pay for, there should be no law against it. The Internet should be as free and as widely available as possible - certainly as much as people are willing to make it.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Laws against leeching wifi don't really benefit cell phone companies. They don't prevent people from giving away free wifi, they just prevent people from using people's wireless Internet without permission.

He meant companies like Verizon. He's right about that- they sell internet access, so they want it to be illegal for the public to access a person's wireless network, even if that person gives them permission.

There was a big thing about it in the news a year or two ago, with Verizon trying to stop PA from having free WiFi spots.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
What exactly is not using encryption if not giving access to everyone?
They decided that it would be convenient to their customers to leave the network open to everyone to use. That is their decision, but then they shouldn't complain that everyone is using their network, if that's the setting they chose.

You are not entitled to use something you don't have permission to use. It's as simple as that. You can try to spin it anyway to justify stealing, but that is what it is.

Every addition person that is on that wireless network degrades the experience for paying customers. So you are STEALING something from others. The laws are getting pretty solidified about this as you can see in yet another story of somebody getting busted for stealing that which they don't own or operate.

The music analogy is incorrect. By listening to said music you are not causing harm to the owner/operator of that music.

And it's VERY easy to tell if it's a free hotspot, there will be a screen that is shown on your browser or signs stating that it is.

It is not that easy. Even as we speak, there is intense lobbying by the telecom companies (and other companies which profit from internet access) to bar free-wifi.

Around here in PA, this law took place a couple of years ago:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/01/2225258

There was another situation in Boston, where the airport tried to shut down the airlines' idea of offering free wifi. They citied "security reasons", but the real reason was that they just installed their own wifi in the airport, and that one cost money.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060102-5879.html

When you interfere with a company's ability to make a profit, they'll try to shut you down by any means necessary.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: spidey07
By sending the 802.11 probe request you are ASKNIG to attach to the owers network.
By sending the 802.11 ASSOC request you are attaching to a computer you do not own or operate, nor do you have PERMISSION to use. This is a federal crime.

You initiated the stealing of said services. Stop the entitlement mentality.

You actually left out the step where their router GRANTS you permission to use the network. Your computer says "Can I come in?", their router says, "yes you may, here is an IP address" and you're good to go.

If they don't want outsiders using it, they can easily program their router to disallow access.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: spidey07
By sending the 802.11 probe request you are ASKNIG to attach to the owers network.
By sending the 802.11 ASSOC request you are attaching to a computer you do not own or operate, nor do you have PERMISSION to use. This is a federal crime.

You initiated the stealing of said services. Stop the entitlement mentality.

You actually left out the step where their router GRANTS you permission to use the network. Your computer says "Can I come in?", their router says, "yes you may, here is an IP address" and you're good to go.

If they don't want outsiders using it, they can easily program their router to disallow access.

I've already explained this. A DHCP server has nothing to do with layer2 association. Nothing at all. Not even on the same planet.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

If the cafe has free internet access, he wasn't doing anything illegal. If it's free to CUSTOMERS, he was doing something illegal.

And even then, he can probably get out of it if he was smart. What defines a "customer"? Having purchased coffee within 15 minutes? 30 minutes? 1 day? 1 year? He can probably make a legally valid case stating that he has bought coffee from them in the past and is therefore a customer. If the coffee shop's terms of wifi use did not state the duration, he has a defense.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: brandonbull

If the cafe has free internet access, he wasn't doing anything illegal. If it's free to CUSTOMERS, he was doing something illegal.

And even then, he can probably get out of it if he was smart. What defines a "customer"? Having purchased coffee within 15 minutes? 30 minutes? 1 day? 1 year? He can probably make a legally valid case stating that he has bought coffee from them in the past and is therefore a customer. If the coffee shop's terms of wifi use did not state the duration, he has a defense.

Nope.

The owner of this PRIVATE network says what is and is not permission.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: spidey07

I've already explained this. A DHCP server has nothing to do with layer2 association. Nothing at all. Not even on the same planet.

You made that claim, but what difference does it make in the context of a legal case? Their router is set to authorize everybody who tries to connect. It's as if they told their doorman to let everyone in. They configured this. The option to deny people access is available to them, they just chose not to enable that option.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Nope.

The owner of this PRIVATE network says what is and is not permission.

You clearly do not understand how the legal system works. Before you challenge me on this, I suggest gaining some more knowledge.

If the coffee shop's terms of Wifi usage was contructed such as "only patrons of this coffee shop can use the Wifi", and they don't define the time limit, then this guy has a sound legal argument, as long as he's been a patron in the past (and no other ordinances define this for them)

On the other hand, if the terms of Wifi usage stated, "patrons may use the Wifi for no more than 1 hour after purchase", then he's screwed.

But don't try to tell me that it wouldn't be a valid defense in my first scenario. Lawyers depend on loopholes like this to get their clients out of trouble all the time. If the law was as cut and dry as you seem to think it is, there would be no room for interpretation, no room for argument, and no room for defense lawyers.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: spidey07

I've already explained this. A DHCP server has nothing to do with layer2 association. Nothing at all. Not even on the same planet.

You made that claim, but what difference does it make in the context of a legal case? Their router is set to authorize everybody who tries to connect. It's as if they told their doorman to let everyone in. They configured this. The option to deny people access is available to them, they just chose not to enable that option.

I've already explained the difference between authentication and authorization.

the owner/operator is in control of the authorization aspect.

Stop stealing, stealer.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: spidey07

I've already explained the difference between authentication and authorization.

the owner/operator is in control of the authorization aspect.

Stop stealing, stealer.

You've either just been hit by a short bus or you're trying to slander me.

Show me where I said that *I've* stole wifi.

Go on, show me. Until you can, please don't suggest otherwise.

 

[91TTZ]

I'm still waiting.

(I accept apologies)

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: spidey07

I've already explained this. A DHCP server has nothing to do with layer2 association. Nothing at all. Not even on the same planet.

You made that claim, but what difference does it make in the context of a legal case? Their router is set to authorize everybody who tries to connect. It's as if they told their doorman to let everyone in. They configured this. The option to deny people access is available to them, they just chose not to enable that option.

Your doorknob is set to allow everyone in who can twist the knob....so it's up to you to lock your doors, or I can come eat your porridge/break your Lazyboy, and sleep in your bed.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: spidey07

I've already explained the difference between authentication and authorization.

the owner/operator is in control of the authorization aspect.

Stop stealing, stealer.

You've either just been hit by a short bus or you're trying to slander me.

Show me where I said that *I've* stole wifi.

Go on, show me. Until you can, please don't suggest otherwise.

You are advocating stealing, it's a play on "swiper, stop swiping" from a kids show.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: spidey07


You are advocating stealing, it's a play on "swiper, stop swiping" from a kids show.

You hurt my feelings immensely.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: spidey07
By sending the 802.11 probe request you are ASKNIG to attach to the owers network.
By sending the 802.11 ASSOC request you are attaching to a computer you do not own or operate, nor do you have PERMISSION to use. This is a federal crime.

You initiated the stealing of said services. Stop the entitlement mentality.

You actually left out the step where their router GRANTS you permission to use the network. Your computer says "Can I come in?", their router says, "yes you may, here is an IP address" and you're good to go.

If they don't want outsiders using it, they can easily program their router to disallow access.

I've already explained this. A DHCP server has nothing to do with layer2 association. Nothing at all. Not even on the same planet.

Yet you have failed to point out where the law distinguishes between OSI layers.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Yet you have failed to point out where the law distinguishes between OSI layers.

Access point is a computer by every defintion (processor, memory, long term storage). You connect to a computer and/or computer network without permission.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: spidey07

I've already explained this. A DHCP server has nothing to do with layer2 association. Nothing at all. Not even on the same planet.

You made that claim, but what difference does it make in the context of a legal case? Their router is set to authorize everybody who tries to connect. It's as if they told their doorman to let everyone in. They configured this. The option to deny people access is available to them, they just chose not to enable that option.

Exactly. But don't expect him to understand that, he'll keep reciting the OSI model like Hoffman in Rain Man.

"Layer 2, it's layer 2. Stick to layer 2. Not layer 3. It's layer 2" *sways autistically* "Gotta be layer 2. Layer 2."

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: spidey07

I've already explained this. A DHCP server has nothing to do with layer2 association. Nothing at all. Not even on the same planet.

You made that claim, but what difference does it make in the context of a legal case? Their router is set to authorize everybody who tries to connect. It's as if they told their doorman to let everyone in. They configured this. The option to deny people access is available to them, they just chose not to enable that option.

Exactly. But don't expect him to understand that, he'll keep reciting the OSI model like Hoffman in Rain Man.

"Layer 2, it's layer 2. Stick to layer 2. Not layer 3. It's layer 2" *sways autistically* "Gotta be layer 2. Layer 2."

What part of authorization do you people not understand?

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: spidey07

I've already explained this. A DHCP server has nothing to do with layer2 association. Nothing at all. Not even on the same planet.

You made that claim, but what difference does it make in the context of a legal case? Their router is set to authorize everybody who tries to connect. It's as if they told their doorman to let everyone in. They configured this. The option to deny people access is available to them, they just chose not to enable that option.

Exactly. But don't expect him to understand that, he'll keep reciting the OSI model like Hoffman in Rain Man.

"Layer 2, it's layer 2. Stick to layer 2. Not layer 3. It's layer 2" *sways autistically* "Gotta be layer 2. Layer 2."

He says that because several people have made the statement that getting a DHCP address means they have been granted permission.

If you want to talk about Acessing wifi/associating with an AP, you HAVE to talk about layer 2, because it's the ONLY RELEVENT LAYER.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Yet you have failed to point out where the law distinguishes between OSI layers.

Access point is a computer by every defintion (processor, memory, long term storage). You connect to a computer and/or computer network without permission.

So if you connect to a web site for which you don't have permission and receive a 403 is that breaking the law? You attempted to connect to something without permission. If you're going to rigidly abide by the rules, let's do it properly.