Pickpocket or hand warmer?

Message

Samray · #1 Post by **Samray** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:30 pm

Wi-Fi broadband 'thief' arrested in London

http://www.computerworlduk.com/manageme ... ewsId=4809

Is stealing wireless wrong?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6960304.stm

D-Rider · #2 Post by **D-Rider** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:18 pm

Mmmm ....

As the householder is able to choose whether or not to secure their connection, I think most people would assume that an unsecured connection is left that way deliberately to allow others to use it.

The Wifi transmission is something they are sending out in an uncontrolled manner to all and sundry.

So I don't have a real concern for the householder - normally they will not be disadvantaged unless they are wanting to use the same bandwidth that the visitor is using - but then, why haven't they secured their connection?

The people from whom you may be stealing are the ISP. They sell connection and bandwidth to users but don't deliberately offer it to people for free - so they may have some issue with it.

TBH I don't think this is going to be a bid issue as most people have secured connections in any case.

Samray · #3 Post by **Samray** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:36 pm

Seems it was a couple of litter wardens or somesuch embarrassing the Met.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000 ... 741,00.htm

Disclaimer: Some ISPs forbid sharing in their terms and conditions.

#4 Post by **Kwackerz** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:51 pm

D-Rider wrote:Mmmm ....

As the householder is able to choose whether or not to secure their connection, I think most people would assume that an unsecured connection is left that way deliberately to allow others to use it.

The Wifi transmission is something they are sending out in an uncontrolled manner to all and sundry.

So I don't have a real concern for the householder - normally they will not be disadvantaged unless they are wanting to use the same bandwidth that the visitor is using - but then, why haven't they secured their connection?

The people from whom you may be stealing are the ISP. They sell connection and bandwidth to users but don't deliberately offer it to people for free - so they may have some issue with it.

TBH I don't think this is going to be a bid issue as most people have secured connections in any case.

Some people just arent computer literate though...........................

Unsecured WiFi. Theyve read that fixed IP addresses are bad for a watching hacker to then exploit. so.. Fixed is like Secured.. you do that to screws.. secure them or fix them in wood.. so unsecured must be good... changes often..isnt secured to one IP address...

See what I mean?

It IS the customer not the ISP that you should be worried for. The ISP will actively encourage it if truth be told.. more bandwidth use by a customer.. they then hit their contract limit for the month and then have to pay over the odds for the extra.. all money for the ISP.. Youre stealing from the consumer not the ISP. the ISP doesnt give a sh*t!

I dont care my WiFi is encrypted and my white BT box is turned around so people could read the SSID if they so desired..

Pity the SSID on the back of the BT box aint the one that is in use.. mwahahaaaaa.....

Dunno about my neighbours though..

Gio · #5 Post by **Gio** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:09 pm

I believe that if the person who pays for access and leaves it unsecure then its not theft.

Seems to me the police like pestering people who aren't burglers, vandals etc.

They should be out catching real criminals.

Tweaker · #6 Post by **Tweaker** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:04 am

I really can't believe this 'It wasn't locked so it's mine to take' mentality. Who cares if the buyer of the WiFi is actually using it at the time someone else free loads it - it's still theft and those who protest otherwise are simply attempting to justify their actions. Would they feel the same way if someone took their unlocked car from their drive for 10 mins because they weren't using it at the time?

As has been said, not everyone is computer literate and to many the pc is simply a tool for the job and are happy so long as it does what it says on the box. Yes, people should try to take simply security measures but it's facile to say it's their own fault and they deserve what they get if they don't.

It's no good using the argument that if the wifi reaches my pc uninvited then I am free to use it - try using that argument with the TV licensing people and see how far you get. Broadband is not free and everyone knows that, therefore, if you use someone else's connection without their express permission, you are stealing from them - Fact. If you really think you are doing no harm, try knocking on their door and asking if you can use their connection. Of course, if they say no then you really do have a moral dilema on your hands - but I suspect those who take the WiFi without asking won't be too bothered about the moral ethics anyway.

Should the police spend their time chasing down WiFi thefts? Given the amount and severity of crime in this country, possibly not, (though it could be the subject of much debate). But, confronted by someone blatantly doing it - yes, definitely.

BFG · #7 Post by **BFG** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:26 am

If you see by the light coming from someone's house, are you stealing their electricity? ;)

D-Rider · #8 Post by **D-Rider** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:30 am

Mmmm.

In general I agree that people should not take things just because they are unsecured.
I strongly believe that I should be able to leave my house unlocked and people should not come and nick things from it (probably 'cos I grew up in a village and unless you were away for a while you never bothered to lock things). Sadly that is not the case.

However, with WiFi, it IS a different situation. There are public places where there are open WiFi hotspots and some individual users do choose to leave open connections for other people to use (although, as I said before, there is a question as to whether this is "stealing from the ISP).
With this background of open connections left for shared use, the situation is different. Of course this open for the common good approach has its roots in some of the basic philosophy of the internet.
I'm afraid I have little sympathy for people who don't even bother to find out the basics of the equipment they use and get them set up accordingly. Would we have much sympathy for people who never learned to drive but took their car out untrained - or never got it serviced because they didn't realise it to be necessary?

Another significant difference is that when my car (which did happen to be locked) was stolen off of my drive 3 weeks ago, I was left with no car to drive (well the wife's car was left - but you follow my point). When someone uses a WiFi connection it's still there for the "owner" to use - and in most situations will not have put them to any additional cost or given any perceived reduction in bandwidth. I can't see that that is the same as stealing a car or other tangible objects.

Firestarter · #9 Post by **Firestarter** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:56 am

D-Rider wrote:When someone uses a WiFi connection it's still there for the "owner" to use - and in most situations will not have put them to any additional cost or given any perceived reduction in bandwidth. I can't see that that is the same as stealing a car or other tangible objects.

So, if I siphoned off a litre of petrol from your car once in a while, you wouldn't mind - I've not stopped you using the car, and you wouldn't notice that I'd taken a litre because it's such a small quantity. - no harm, no foul? Most people wouldn't miss that 0.5Gb you just downloaded from their unsecured connection, but what if they came to need it and couldn't because they'd hit the limit that they'd paid for?

But, you're right, there are lots of "open" WiFi spots, giving free access, so how do you recognise that you're connecting to someone's connection that they didn't intend to leave open instead of a true open connection?

Anyone who doesn't secure their connection is asking for trouble, same way as not locking your doors will eventually lead to you getting robbed. They don't deserve to have it stolen, but it will happen all the same. And when most set-up tools for wireless routers take you through setting up rudimentary security, there's no excuse not to apply some. But not doing so still does not imply "permission" to use the connection.

BFG · #10 Post by **BFG** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:16 pm

Surely the very definition of the word broadcast defines this issue. All broadcasts are intended for an open audience. It is never illegal to listen to or make use of a broadcast. If persons transmitting wish to limit their audience, they should transmit a narrowcast.

By default, wi-fi routers are configured on broadcast, and the instruction manuals inform the users how to make them into narrowcast. It's easy. No access control equals broadcast, access control equals narrowcast.

well, if only life were that easy

Gio · #11 Post by **Gio** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:20 pm

BFG wrote:Surely the very definition of the word broadcast defines this issue. All broadcasts are intended for an open audience. It is never illegal to listen to or make use of a broadcast. If persons transmitting wish to limit their audience, they should transmit a narrowcast.

By default, wi-fi routers are configured on broadcast, and the instruction manuals inform the users how to make them into narrowcast. It's easy. No access control equals broadcast, access control equals narrowcast.

well, if only life were that easy

Well put BFG, I couldn't agree more

D-Rider · #12 Post by **D-Rider** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:25 pm

Firestarter wrote:[
So, if I siphoned off a litre of petrol from your car once in a while, you wouldn't mind - I've not stopped you using the car, and you wouldn't notice that I'd taken a litre because it's such a small quantity. - no harm, no foul? Most people wouldn't miss that 0.5Gb you just downloaded from their unsecured connection, but what if they came to need it and couldn't because they'd hit the limit that they'd paid for?

Wouldn't bother me - take all the petrol you like - my car is a Diesel ...

But more seriously, that might be OK ... if I paid for unlimited petrol on a monthly basis irrespective of how much I use - in the same way that I pay for broadband. With the normal system of buying fuel, I'm still disadvantaged if you nick the odd litre.

Are you saying that some ISPs still cap their download useage? TBH, not having looked around for ages I just assumed that to be a thing of the past. S'pose that may change things a bit but then people can always secure their connection ......

Falcopops · #13 Post by **Falcopops** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:54 pm

D-Rider wrote:Are you saying that some ISPs still cap their download useage? TBH, not having looked around for ages I just assumed that to be a thing of the past. S'pose that may change things a bit but then people can always secure their connection ......

That's the question I'd like to know the answer to.

I'm in a situation where my wireless router isn't working properly yet so when I fired up the new laptops and found various unsecured networks I just latched onto the best signal and off I went.

There are freely available networks in my area so I might be on one of them or maybe not (I'm pretty sure I know which category I fall into).

If there are limits then I'm depriving A N Other of something, if there are no limits then I'm not (unless I'm slowing them down), so I am.

I guess I'll just get mine set up properly.

Firestarter · #14 Post by **Firestarter** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:55 pm

D-Rider wrote:Are you saying that some ISPs still cap their download useage? TBH, not having looked around for ages I just assumed that to be a thing of the past. S'pose that may change things a bit but then people can always secure their connection ......

Yup, some still do, especially on the budget connection accounts (at least they did last time I checked).

At the end of the day, if you don't want it knicked, put a lock on it

Tweaker · #15 Post by **Tweaker** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:58 pm

Sorry Andy but I can't agree with your untrained driver analogy - an untrained driver is likely to kill someone - on unsecured WiFi has not, as far as I'm aware, killed anyone. And depriving you permanently of your car is not the analogy I was using. It's more akin to taking the keys from near your back door and 'borrowing' your car to run an errand, returning it unmarked 10 mins later.

I tend to agree with most of what FS has said and, sad to say, he is right that if you don't secure your house/car/WiFi etc, someone will, sooner or later, nick it. So, of course, it makes sense to be security minded - but I still don't hold with the philosophy of 'If I nick it because you haven't secured it then it's your own fault'

Yes, there are open access hot spots around but these are in places you might reasonably expect to find them - cafes, hotels etc - they are NOT in resdential streets and it's hard to see how anyone could justify parking outside your house and then claim he thought it was free hot spot!!

Surely the very definition of the word broadcast defines this issue. All broadcasts are intended for an open audience. It is never illegal to listen to or make use of a broadcast. If persons transmitting wish to limit their audience, they should transmit a narrowcast.

If that is so, why then is it neccessary to pay to watch SKY satellite which is 'Broadcast' to the entire country, and beyond? WiFi systems are sold, predominantly, to people who want the convenience of BB anywhere in the home or small office. Pretty much everyone is well aware of that and, however you dress it up, everyone is equally well aware that it has not been provided for their unauthorised use.

Don't you just love a good debate!!