using a neighbors wifi: is it stealing?

[KukriKhan]

Because you are using his acces-point. If I can't ask wether or not I can use it, different story. Neighbour has protected network and I asked his password. Sure! If it wasn't protected I would have asked anyway it's my neighbour after all.

Exactly. You are respecting your neighbor's ownership of a service by politely asking to share it. Not doing so = stealing. Albeit, a petty theft.

[Hooahguy]

but now, you have a problem. what if you live in a densly populated area and you cant find out who the owner of the router is?

[Andres]

I don't think using the wifi of his neighbour is that bad. Ok, it's not done, but not worth to make a drama of it, let alone to call the police for it.

What bothers me more is the lack of respect the kid shows to his parents by circumventing the punishment (but then again, at that age, I would probably have done the same ).

I do hope his parents find out and punish him a bit more thoroughly, by just taking away the kids' PC for a whole month.

[Fragony]

but now, you have a problem. what if you live in a densly populated area and you cant find out who the owner of the router is?

Then he should have secured it, how should I know it isn't a public network?

[Lemur]

Kukri, I think you also need to consider the responsibility of a person who chooses not to secure their own "property," which in this case is broadcast well beyond the borders of their physical home. Let's say a hot brunette chooses to dance naked in front of her window. Is it voyeurism to look at her lithe body? Yes. But shouldn't she have considered closing the freakin' drapes?

The one does nothing to excuse the other, but I find your exclusive focus on the CRIMINALITY of using wide-open wifi to be a little monomaniacal.

I'd also like to point out that the only criminal case in which a man was charged for leeching a coffee shop's wifi was an extreme case. The staff even told the dude that if he would just buy a cup of coffee, they'd leave him alone; but he sat in his car leeching for days and days, and refused to patronize the business even slightly. In other words, he was a jerk, and was charged under conditions no normal person would provoke.

[KukriKhan]

Is that even possible, to be "a little monomaniacal"? Like "a little pregnant"? :)

I think our disconnect on this is (I may be wrong; I can't read your mind, but your words lead me to believe that you think:) stealing must, by definition, involve some level of harm to the one who is stolen from.

I don't think stealing has to satisfy that requirement. The taking of that which is known to be owned by another, without permission, is enough.

[Lemur]

Okay, let me come at this from another angle, since reading another person's newspaper seems like the best analogy so far:

You're at a coffeeshop reading your paper. You leave for a while. Do you, as the owner of that copy of the paper, have any obligation to, say, take your paper with you, or put it behind the counter, or do something to secure your own property? Or should you wait until someone picks it up and looks at it before you storm back in to declare that stealing is wrong?

I think "theft" is an inexact term for this situation, just as it would be not-quite-right for someone reading the paper over your shoulder. If another man sleeps with your girl, likewise, he's done you wrong, but "stealing" isn't quite right. I'm open to a better, more precise term.

[Fragony]

Had to read that 3 times. More like using a little washing powder someone left behind imho.

And as a term, what id wrong with 'using', nice term, and it already exists.

[Adrian II]

Look at what the WiFi says before connecting. It requests access which is granted. If the network was secured it would be denied.

There you go.

Like I said, someone is going to have to do the dirty work and unearth case law, technical protocols, industry standards. And it ain't me. I am working myself through a stack of secret emails that were passed to me and some of them have very interesting senders and receivers.

Yup, this could be an all-nighter.

[HoreTore]

And it ain't me. I am working myself through a stack of secret emails that were passed to me and some of them have very interesting senders and receivers.

Oh oh oh oh!!!

Pass them on!

[Hooahguy]

I am working myself through a stack of secret emails that were passed to me and some of them have very interesting senders and receivers.

i had nothing to do with this.

[Gregoshi]

Let's fix this little Lemur analogy to fit the wifi scenario:

Let's say a hot brunette blonde chooses to dance naked in front of her window. She doesn't know how to operate the drapes nor is she even aware that people outside might be able to see her. Is it voyeurism to look at her lithe body? Yes. And the proper thing to do is the tell her that she can be seen by people on the street and teach her how to operate the drapes (or at least attempt to teach her).

My apologies to women and blonde women in particular for the above remarks. However, as you well know, you often have to speak to men in a language they understand.

[Banquo's Ghost]

My apologies to women and blonde women in particular for the above remarks. However, as you well know, you often have to speak to men in a language they understand.

Uh-oh. That's curtains for Greg.

[Gregoshi]

Uh-oh. That's curtains for Greg.

Justice is blinds.

Or so I hope cuz that means its aim is bad...

[Adrian II]

Oh oh oh oh!!!

Pass them on!

Um, that would be bad form.

Seriously, there's not much in it that's newsworthy, but God this stuff is hilarious. My oh my, some of the people that govern this country are soooooo stoopid. Weeeeee!

Anyway, did anyone look into the jurisprudence on bandwidth use and abuse yet? Come on, there's gotta be an online library with that sort of stuff.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, in terms of the law, here's a discussion from some knowledgeable people about that fellow in Michigan who got sentenced to some community service, where they doubt if any crime was committed in the first place:

But did Peterson actually commit a crime? The answer hinges on Michigan's somewhat unique computer crime law, and in particular on its definition of the meaning of "authorization." Like every state — and like the federal government — Michigan has an unauthorized access statute that serves as the basic computer crime law. (For my take on these statutes, see this article.) Here's Michigan's law, Section 752.795(a):

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization . . . Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

So far, this is a pretty standard unauthorized access statute. But Michigan does something that is pretty unique; it has a statutory presumption against access being authorized:

It is a rebuttable presumption in a prosecution for a violation of section 5 that the person did not have authorization from the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission to access the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network or has exceeded authorization unless 1 or more of the following circumstances existed at the time of access:
(a) Written or oral permission was granted by the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission of the accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
(b) The accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network had a pre-programmed access procedure that would display a bulletin, command, or other message before access was achieved that a reasonable person would believe identified the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network as within the public domain.
(c) Access was achieved without the use of a set of instructions, code, or computer program that bypasses, defrauds, or otherwise circumvents the pre-programmed access procedure for the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

If I had been Peterson's attorney, I would have had a bunch of arguments in his defense. First, I would argue that having a statutory presumption is unconstitutional under Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979). A presumption that a material element of a criminal statute has been satisfied violates the Due Process clause, which requires the government to provide each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 524. Second, I would argue that even if the presumption is constitutional, it doesn't apply here: under (c), "[a]ccess was achieved without the use of a set of instructions, code, or computer program that bypasses, defrauds, or otherwise circumvents the pre-programmed access procedure for the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network." And finally, the access was not unauthorized or in excess of authorization because the coffee shop intentionally made the wi-fi available to anyone. What's the rule — no hopping on wifi from a coffee shop unless you enter the shop? Unless you actually buy something? What if you're outside waiting for a friend to join you for a latte, but you haven't gone in yet? Where do such rules come from, and what notice does a defendant have before being held criminally liable? I've written before about how unauthorized access statutes threaten to punish an incredible amount of conduct online, and this seems like the latest evidence in support of the point.

So legally, it seems like it could be quite hard indeed to prosecute someone for using your wi-fi.

CR

[Hooahguy]

but the main problem with everything is this:
lets take my area. im on my laptop right now. i have a powerful wifi antennae. i detect 7 networks right now- one is mine (locked down), 5 other locked down networks, and an unsecured network called "linksys." about 100 meters behind my house there is an apartment complex. i also have 2 neighbors. i know what my neighbors networks are called, and the unsecured one isnt theirs. now, if i was in my friends position, how would i find whos network was unlocked? the name of the network is a brand name, so its very hard to find out. my neighbor has her network as her name+"house" so its easy, but not here. the only thing i can think of is to go to every person in the apartment complex and asking whos network is "linksys."

[Xiahou]

Okay, let me come at this from another angle, since reading another person's newspaper seems like the best analogy so far:

You're at a coffeeshop reading your paper. You leave for a while. Do you, as the owner of that copy of the paper, have any obligation to, say, take your paper with you, or put it behind the counter, or do something to secure your own property? Or should you wait until someone picks it up and looks at it before you storm back in to declare that stealing is wrong?

I think "theft" is an inexact term for this situation, just as it would be not-quite-right for someone reading the paper over your shoulder. If another man sleeps with your girl, likewise, he's done you wrong, but "stealing" isn't quite right. I'm open to a better, more precise term.

Analogies are a tricky business, but I think accessing someone else's network would be more akin to tresspass than reading a paper that they've left lying around. By using someone's wi-fi you're accessing their home network. If you're doing it without their permission it's not much different than accessing any other property without permission. You could cross someone's yard without their permission if they didn't put up a fence. But, just because they don't have their yard encased in razor wire doesn't mean its open for public use.

Call it what you want, but what it really boils down to is that you're using someone's property without their permission. Not a capital offense, but it's not exactly good manners either and could be illegal in many jurisdictions.

[HoreTore]

Um, that would be bad form.

Seriously, there's not much in it that's newsworthy, but God this stuff is hilarious. My oh my, some of the people that govern this country are soooooo stoopid. Weeeeee!

You bloody tease.

[drone]

From the US standpoint: I still adhere to the principle that the airwaves are public (regulated to prevent interference, but still public). Anything broadcast should be fair game to any citizen that has the ability and knowledge to receive and translate it (don't get me started on my state's ban on radar detectors...).

The wifi routers and network cards are all approved for use by the FCC. How they get used beyond that approval is up to the owners. Some people like to leave their wifi access open, either out of kindness or for plausible deniability purposes. Others are ignorant, but that's no real excuse. And then there are those that lock down their access points as tight as possible.

I had my connection open for a while, then some neighbor started chewing up obnoxious amounts of my bandwidth (must have been downloading movies and such, it got really slow). So I fixed it. Turned on the best encryption offered and added MAC filtering. If you don't want your connection used, take the antenna off your router and put a terminator on the connector. Or at least turn on some form of encryption. Plug your PCs into the router with Cat5. Don't buy cordless phones, don't use cell phones. Otherwise don't be too surprised if your transmissions are intercepted or manipulated.

[Xiahou]

From the US standpoint: I still adhere to the principle that the airwaves are public (regulated to prevent interference, but still public). Anything broadcast should be fair game to any citizen that has the ability and knowledge to receive and translate it (don't get me started on my state's ban on radar detectors...).

There's a difference between monitoring a signal and transmitting thru/communicating over their equipment.

By connecting to their access point, you are communicating with their wireless network (not just monitoring) and are connecting yourself to their home network- without permission. Using your cordless phone example- it'd be the difference between listening to their calls vs using their cordless phone's base station to place your own phone calls from your house.

Using the victim's stupidity is no justification for doing something to them that you shouldn't be doing.

edit: Again, to be clear, I'm not advocating that wifi freeloaders should be given the death penalty. I'm just pointing out that it's a very gray area at best and probably technically illegal in most jurisdictions. I've done it before and may even do so again(though I don't make a practice of it)- but I recognize it for what it is.

[Beskar]

The law here is pretty clear. Unauthorised access isn't allowed.

[rory_20_uk]

But the router authorises it.

[drone]

There's a difference between monitoring a signal and transmitting thru/communicating over their equipment.

By connecting to their access point, you are communicating with their wireless network (not just monitoring) and are connecting yourself to their home network- without permission. Using your cordless phone example- it'd be the difference between listening to their calls vs using their cordless phone's base station to place your own phone calls from your house.

Using the victim's stupidity is no justification for doing something to them that you shouldn't be doing.

If you weren't calling long distance, why would it be a problem? It doesn't cost anything. If you call long distance, then you are stealing, because that will cost the equipment owner money.

My views on the fair use of the electromagnetic spectrum are somewhat extreme. By removing the physical aspect (wires) from the equation, communications security is non-existent. This is compounded by the desired "ease of use" aspect of computer products. If you are going to buy something that has potentially huge implications, you should learn how to use it properly.

[KukriKhan]

If you weren't calling long distance, why would it be a problem? It doesn't cost anything. If you call long distance, then you are stealing, because that will cost the equipment owner money.

My views on the fair use of the electromagnetic spectrum are somewhat extreme. By removing the physical aspect (wires) from the equation, communications security is non-existent. This is compounded by the desired "ease of use" aspect of computer products. If you are going to buy something that has potentially huge implications, you should learn how to use it properly.

But that is it, right? If you buy something (in this case, both hardware, and monthly broadband service), do you not have the right of ownership of that product/service? And the right of assent/refusal to share that product/service? And if someone besides you uses that product/service, without your assent, is he not stealing?

That was the question posed by the thread title:

using a neighbors wifi: is it stealing?

and OP.

The past 3 pages of tech discussion is why I switched "wifi" for "car". Not because I tried to make car a universal analogy (Lemur was right, it was weak), but because as soon as the topic involves 'tech', we get caught up in the minutiae of what is possible, instead of what is right. You guys are correct IMO, that anyone who buys, installs, and uses devices that employ the IIEE 802.11 a thru n protocols ought to rtdm and understand the implications of broadcasting, and appropriate measures for security. If they don't, shame on them. But they are protected by the same concept that protects mini-skirted girlies from being harrassed, fondled, brutalized, or worse. Her selection of clothing is no invitation to rape, no matter her ignorance.

But in the end, all that is irrelevant to whether the 'taking' of something not your's is stealing. It is. It has been for at least 6000 years, and it is today.

If I were an active duty cop, would I arrest the kid? No. It costs too much to prosecute such a petty offense against humanity, and laws are unclear.

If I were the lad's father, and found out about this? No computer for 6 months, bread and water for a week.

But that's just me. :)

[Fragony]

But isn't sharing really the whole point of wi-fi? That's what people with interesting glasses and haircuts have been telling me.

[KukriKhan]

But isn't sharing really the whole point of wi-fi? That's what people with interesting glasses and haircuts have been telling me.

Sharing = permission/ assent. yes?

[Beskar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking


Here it is anyway, in the UK, it comes with fine and conditional discharge.

[Gregoshi]

The sharer usually knows he is sharing. And a "thank you" is usually in order from the recipient. But that might tip off the "friendly neighbor" who doesn't realize he's sharing anything.

This whole issue boils down to what assumptions you are willing to make about the situation.

When I got Verizon fiber optic service a couple of years ago they provided their own wireless router. From what I read and what I was told, when the tech set it up the router would be secure and protected. I took them at their word. Several months later I had to tweak the router settings to play an online game and when I went into the router setting for the first time I realized I had been broadcasting free internet to the whole neighborhood. I was rather annoyed with Verizon and told them so.

Some of the assumptions made above would have me labelled as "one heck of a nice guy" or "an idiot that should know how to secure his router" - both wrong.

[Adrian II]

[..] as soon as the topic involves 'tech', we get caught up in the minutiae of what is possible, instead of what is right.

In this case, we get caught up in the question of what it is that we've bought. It's not just a gadget, it's a gadget that offers access to the GHz 2,4 band which is free, but probably subject to intricate legislation or jurisprudence.

Most property analogies fail. Even the yak.