Quantcast

Might want to rethink stealing your neighbor's Wi-Fi signal...

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Man Charged With Stealing Wi-Fi Signal

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Police have arrested a man for using someone else's wireless Internet network in one of the first criminal cases involving this fairly common practice.

Benjamin Smith III, 41, faces a pretrial hearing this month following his April arrest on charges of unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony.

Police say Smith admitted using the Wi-Fi signal from the home of Richard Dinon, who had noticed Smith sitting in an SUV outside Dinon's house using a laptop computer.

The practice is so new that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement doesn't even keep statistics, according to the St. Petersburg Times, which reported Smith's arrest this week.

Innocuous use of other people's unsecured Wi-Fi networks is common, though experts say that plenty of illegal use also goes undetected: such as people sneaking on others' networks to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information and send death threats.

Security experts say people can prevent such access by turning on encryption or requiring passwords, but few bother or are unsure how to do so.

Wi-Fi, short for Wireless Fidelity, has enjoyed prolific growth since 2000. Millions of households have set up wireless home networks that give people like Dinon the ability to use the Web from their backyards but also reach the house next door or down the street.

It's not clear why Smith was using Dinon's network. Prosecutors declined to comment, and a working phone number could not be located for Smith.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,162
1,261
NC
N8 said:
Stealing the signal is the criminal offense... the other stuff is just add-ons.
F'ing stupid. Stupid stupid stupid.

They're broadcasting an unsecured signal onto public property (or another person's private property).

These people should be beaten. Yet another frivolous use for our justice system.
 

ioscope

Turbo Monkey
Jul 3, 2004
2,002
0
Vashon, WA
That's bull****. It's a victimless crime. THis is just one more example of political machines running the legislative and police arms of the government.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,162
1,261
NC
johnbryanpeters said:
We have discussed this before. If I purchase bandwidth, I am not conveying to you a license to use it, whether or not I am technically savvy and energetic enough to properly secure it.

I do not regard the arrest as frivolous.
If you purchase a car, you must learn how to properly operate the particular car you purchased. If you do not do so, you will likely damage something.

If you go to a casino, you must learn how to spend your money and play the games wisely. If you do not do so, you will likely be parted with your money.

If you buy a gun, you must learn how to safely operate it and respect it. If you do not do so, you will likely hurt yourself or someone else.

If you buy a wireless router, you must learn how to set it up and secure it. If you do not do so, you will likely have your bandwidth used.

Sometimes, if you purchase something or go somewhere, you have to learn the rules governing that item/place. If you don't bother to learn the rules, there are consequences. I don't know what to say here, except that if you are technically savvy and demanding enough to require a wireless network, then not securing it is just plain lazy.

It's not like you have to delve deeply into the intricacies of wireless packet transfer to put a stupid password on your network, it's all spelled out in the manual that came with your router. Or by the tech support technician. Or by the online documentation.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
binary visions said:
If you purchase a car, you must learn how to properly operate the particular car you purchased. If you do not do so, you will likely damage something.

If you go to a casino, you must learn how to spend your money and play the games wisely. If you do not do so, you will likely be parted with your money.

If you buy a gun, you must learn how to safely operate it and respect it. If you do not do so, you will likely hurt yourself or someone else.

If you buy a wireless router, you must learn how to set it up and secure it. If you do not do so, you will likely have your bandwidth used.

Sometimes, if you purchase something or go somewhere, you have to learn the rules governing that item/place. If you don't bother to learn the rules, there are consequences. I don't know what to say here, except that if you are technically savvy and demanding enough to require a wireless network, then not securing it is just plain lazy.

It's not like you have to delve deeply into the intricacies of wireless packet transfer to put a stupid password on your network, it's all spelled out in the manual that came with your router. Or by the tech support technician. Or by the online documentation.

So if you buy a bike and keep it outside your garage, would it be ok with you if someone 'borrowed' it, or parts from it, regularly???

Is it ok to rape a woman because she dresses slutty?


NO!
 

riderx

Monkey
Aug 14, 2001
704
0
Fredrock
N8 said:
So if you buy a bike and keep it outside your garage, would it be ok with you if someone 'borrowed' it, or parts from it, regularly???

Is it ok to rape a woman because she dresses slutty?


NO!
No, but if someone stored their bike in my house without asking, I'd feel free to use it. Which is the case most of the time (not in this article), people broadcasting their signal into someone else's house and then the other person using it.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,162
1,261
NC
N8 said:
So if you buy a bike and keep it outside your garage, would it be ok with you if someone 'borrowed' it, or parts from it, regularly???

Is it ok to rape a woman because she dresses slutty?


NO!
What a stupid post, N8, even for you. :rolleyes:

None of my comments were about breaking the law. They were about obvious, easily preventable consequences of certain actions.

By all means, though, continue with your ludicrous comparisons. It's kinda funny that you'd actually compare making use of a wireless signal broadcast outside of one's own property to tresspassing onto your neighbor's land and stealing his bike, or raping someone. Yes, that's very relevant.
 
J

JRB

Guest
N8 said:
Is it ok to rape a woman because she dresses slutty?


NO!
Careful, N8. You can't compare crimes. Remember when I got busted about it over the taking the unclaimed bikes. :think:
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
binary visions said:
If you purchase a car, you must learn how to properly operate the particular car you purchased. If you do not do so, you will likely damage something.

If you go to a casino, you must learn how to spend your money and play the games wisely. If you do not do so, you will likely be parted with your money.

If you buy a gun, you must learn how to safely operate it and respect it. If you do not do so, you will likely hurt yourself or someone else.

If you buy a wireless router, you must learn how to set it up and secure it. If you do not do so, you will likely have your bandwidth used.

Sometimes, if you purchase something or go somewhere, you have to learn the rules governing that item/place. If you don't bother to learn the rules, there are consequences. I don't know what to say here, except that if you are technically savvy and demanding enough to require a wireless network, then not securing it is just plain lazy.
If you left your keys in the ignition, it is ok to steal your car?

If you do not secure your gun, it is ok to steal your gun?

(Also there was a famous lawsuit where the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles sued an Atlantic City casino to avoid paying his gambling debts. His defense: they gave him free drinks, so he was too drunk to gamble. He lost the suit, btw)

I don't disagree about securing your Wi-Fi and not depending on legal protection, similar to stopping Peeping-Toms by pulling down the shades.

However, at one point, there were no computer crimes because there were no laws against hacking. If one could break into a system, no matter how secured it was, you could probe around for anything. What you did with the information you found was something else, but the actual act was not considered illegal.

Everyone should protect their sh*t, bottom line. But now Wi-Fi theft is now crime, apparently. I won't be sneaking any more free internet now...
 

clancy98

Monkey
Dec 6, 2004
758
0
yeah, they all come back to "if its okay to take a bike why not rape someone"

don't know how you are still missing the difference. ah well.
 

clancy98

Monkey
Dec 6, 2004
758
0
sanjuro said:
If you left your keys in the ignition, it is ok to steal your car?

If you do not secure your gun, it is ok to steal your gun?
If I leave them both in YOUR garage, yes.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
clancy98 said:
If I leave them both in YOUR garage, yes.
I am from New York City, so there is a strong chance I have stolen your car and gun if you left them unsecured.

Do you think NYC cars which people do not lock up tight last for very long? Guns are a rare thing though in New York...
 
J

JRB

Guest
clancy98 said:
I heart e-morality


none of you are reading this at work, are you? :think:
I guess you are saying I am stealing time. Well, I made several after hours calls with sales guys and distributors, so it all really works out. Thanks for watching out though.

*I could care less if someone takes a wireless signal, but stealing is stealing.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,162
1,261
NC
sanjuro said:
If you left your keys in the ignition, it is ok to steal your car?
No, you are removing someone's property and committing grand theft auto.

If you do not secure your gun, it is ok to steal your gun?
No, you are removing someone's property, and committing theft.

However, at one point, there were no computer crimes because there were no laws against hacking. If one could break into a system, no matter how secured it was, you could probe around for anything.
Again, there is an intent to probe into private information. I don't see the relationship here. A signal is broadcast to an area outside of your property. A person is making use of that connection, not probing into your computer. Not stealing your bike. Not raping your wife :rolleyes:. The only reason anyone would even notice is if the person were consuming excessive bandwidth, or doing something illegal that got traced back.

Hell, if the average user sets up a wireless network, and their neighbor downstairs has one too, there's a good chance the user will be connected on their neighbor's connection a good portion of the time without even knowing it. It's not like Windows labels one as yours and one as your neighbor's. You just pick one and if they are named the same thing, you likely pick the one with the stronger signal. However, legally, ignorance is no excuse. It's interesting that they're using an existing law to include making use of a wireless connection. I wonder if the guy's lawyer will find a hole in that? I can think of several technical reasons why it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I don't know what the law says.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
65
behind the viewfinder
I Are Baboon said:
You have an office?
and i don't even have to wear a tie. :thumb:

i actually had a window office until i had to relocate for the project i'm currently on.

the cube i had before i left for ireland was f'in horrible, though. way too much noise. i like my office. :dancing:

edit - aside from that ~12 month stint in a cube when our group moved buildings, i've been in an office since '94 or so.
 

riderx

Monkey
Aug 14, 2001
704
0
Fredrock
loco said:
*I could care less if someone takes a wireless signal, but stealing is stealing.
When someone puts something in your house without you asking for it, I call it a donation.

If someone slipped a $20 bill in your mailslot and you come home to find it on your floor, what do you do with it? If you spend it, did you steal it?
 
ioscope said:
That's bull****. It's a victimless crime. THis is just one more example of political machines running the legislative and police arms of the government.
It's not victimless.

In my particular case, I use wireless to support my customers when their server farms get into trouble. I need 100% of the bandwidth that I pay for on tap at unpredictable times. If you hack in and start downloading your porn streams when I'm trying to solve a problem it could cost my customer tens of thousands of dollars. I take the time to try to secure my resources, but I'm human and have been known to screw up at least once.

Pay for your own services.
 

llkoolkeg

Ranger LL
Sep 5, 2001
4,335
15
in da shed, mon, in da shed
I've noticed that several times when this debate has cropped up, people justify their theft by saying "...but he broadcast his signal into my home or on to public property". Let's be real here- you cannot contain a wifi signal to your property lines any more than you can prevent people from eavesdropping on your wireless phone with a baby monitor. The crime is not trespassing via wifi; it is theft of services. Now I do agree that people should secure their nets, but the punishment for being naive, careless, cheap or lazy should not be theft.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,162
1,261
NC
johnbryanpeters said:
Pay for your own services.
Look, I agree that you should pay for your own services. Wholeheartedly. I don't go around testing my neighbor's wireless connection before paying for one of my own.

My main beef with this is that I consider it a silly waste of time for the police and our judicial system. From a high moral ground, stealing bandwidth is not the right thing to do, whether or not its broadcast onto your property.

But illegal? Oh please. Don't you think the law enforcement officials and judges have something better to do with their time than slap people on the wrist for something like this?
 

berkshire_rider

Growler
Feb 5, 2003
2,552
10
The Blackstone Valley
Security experts say people can prevent such access by turning on encryption or requiring passwords, but few bother or are unsure how to do so.
There are very few excuses for anyone to not either (a) secure their own wireless setup, or if there is a technology barrier, (b) to hire someone else to do it for you. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong. :stosh:
 
J

JRB

Guest
I went to pay one night at a team penning and tied my horse to the pen while I wrote a check. Some drunk took my $2500 horse, $1200 saddle, and $250 headstall and bits. He just borrowed it, and the cops didn't even take it seriously. He didn't view it as theft, but if I ever find out who it was, I fully intend to beat the piss out of him.
 

llkoolkeg

Ranger LL
Sep 5, 2001
4,335
15
in da shed, mon, in da shed
riderx said:
When someone puts something in your house without you asking for it, I call it a donation.

If someone slipped a $20 bill in your mailslot and you come home to find it on your floor, what do you do with it? If you spend it, did you steal it?
Poor analogy. Because it cannot really be contained(encrypted and contained are NOT the same thing), wifi is going to bleed over property lines no matter how hard the owner works to prevent it. I cannot think of a plausible analogy for this problem, but if your neighbor has a commodity that he is paying to receive and he cannot help its use from bleeding into the property of others, he shouldn't have to lock it up to prevent it from being stolen. A good neighbor would not steal the signal, but try to help the unwary owner secure it.
 

Ciaran

Fear my banana
Apr 5, 2004
9,841
19
So Cal
binary visions said:
Look, I agree that you should pay for your own services. Wholeheartedly. I don't go around testing my neighbor's wireless connection before paying for one of my own.

My main beef with this is that I consider it a silly waste of time for the police and our judicial system. From a high moral ground, stealing bandwidth is not the right thing to do, whether or not its broadcast onto your property.

But illegal? Oh please. Don't you think the law enforcement officials and judges have something better to do with their time than slap people on the wrist for something like this?
:stupid:

Yeah, sure... it's illegal, and wrong, but there are better things that the law enforcement resources can be used on. I guess pot smokers and wifi thieves are the dangerous criminals of the world and they must be stopped... Lest they continue to support the terrorists with their dastardly deeds. :rolleyes:
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
binary visions said:
Look, I agree that you should pay for your own services. Wholeheartedly. I don't go around testing my neighbor's wireless connection before paying for one of my own.

My main beef with this is that I consider it a silly waste of time for the police and our judicial system. From a high moral ground, stealing bandwidth is not the right thing to do, whether or not its broadcast onto your property.

But illegal? Oh please. Don't you think the law enforcement officials and judges have something better to do with their time than slap people on the wrist for something like this?
I already made references to two of the points you question:

1. Without a law, there is no crime. Obviously illegal Wi-Fi users are not exactly "rapist and murderers", but there is now enforcable legal protection. How it is enforced is another question but at least the law is not on the Wi-Fi thieves' side.

Again, without computer crime laws, there would no computer crime.

2. Should "peeping toms" be a crime if no one is hurt? If someone is not careful about their shades, is it OK to stare? And I will answer this question, since your answers doesn't make much sense. There is a right to privacy, even if you don't know your privacy is being violated.

Using another Eagles story, their cheerleaders sued every team because there were peepholes into their locker room from the Visitor's lockers. Apparently these holes existed for at least 10 years. No one was hurt, but they did have the basis for a lawsuit because their privacy was violated.
 

Reactor

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2005
3,976
1
Chandler, AZ, USA
My experience in watching cases like this is this: If the police are charging him with a offense like this, it's just to put him on ice and track him while they gather evidence. If he drove to another 'hood to use a broadband connetion, it means he didn't want whatever he was doing associated with his neighborhood. He didn't want some overly-curious forensics person with a wireless sniffer searching for his MAC address, and knocking on his door. There is an element of premeditation here. It's not your neighbor piggybacking, this guy was probably doing something criminal.

They probably have a computer forensics expert going over his computer right now, probably with ENCASE or IMAGEVIEW.
 

Ridemonkey

This is not an active account
Sep 18, 2002
4,108
1
Toronto, Canada
johnbryanpeters said:
We have discussed this before. If I purchase bandwidth, I am not conveying to you a license to use it, whether or not I am technically savvy and energetic enough to properly secure it.

I do not regard the arrest as frivolous.
If you leave a keg on my lawn I am going to tap it. If you broadcast an unsecured signal onto my property, I'm going to use that too. Same damn thing.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,162
1,261
NC
sanjuro said:
There is a right to privacy, even if you don't know your privacy is being violated.
Using someone's WiFi connection is not invading their privacy. We're not talking about intercepting data, he's simply using their gateway to provide internet access.

As LL said, this is theft of a service. It has nothing to do with privacy or taking someone's data.
 

Ridemonkey

This is not an active account
Sep 18, 2002
4,108
1
Toronto, Canada
llkoolkeg said:
Poor analogy. Because it cannot really be contained(encrypted and contained are NOT the same thing), wifi is going to bleed over property lines no matter how hard the owner works to prevent it. I cannot think of a plausible analogy for this problem, but if your neighbor has a commodity that he is paying to receive and he cannot help its use from bleeding into the property of others, he shouldn't have to lock it up to prevent it from being stolen. A good neighbor would not steal the signal, but try to help the unwary owner secure it.
So its a users responsibility to know which connections in their list of signals are theirs? When they are often labeled things like "811.g"? If I go to my friends and setup my laptop, it may not be possible for me to know which is his and which is his neighbors.

This is simple logic folks. Secure your signal if you don't want people using it. When cities implement free wifi over large areas (several cities are working on this) - are we supposed to spend a lot of time and effort into defferentiating signals we are supposed to use and signals we aren't? Give me a break....

Most companies dont even charge for BW so unless the "thief" is doing something illegal this isn't hurting anyone.