Arrested For Using Wireless Internet

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by apc
People who have no clue what they're talking about and are just regurgitating jargon they've picked up on vs. people who actually know a thing or two about wlans being argued with. It cracks me up every time.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by apc]

Ahh... Happens in every thread, no matter the topic!

I truly hope that wasn't directd at anything i have posted, considering it's my job in real life. The condescending tone is truly sickening,

Eyewitness86

You cannot possibly say that banning people from illegally using an internet connection is a clear police state. If someone was arrested for simply using the internet from their own connection, then it would be a police state.

Nope, at least on my part! I was just agreeing with the general assessment of the "armchair expert" which you get in every thread....

Originally posted by loam
Although, that is not to say the police state argument does not hold true for other examples.

See, for example, Children taken from parents and adopted ‘to meet ministry targets’

Whilst disturbing, only a handful of cases in a ten year period are genuine mistakes. I wouldn't really buy too much into the media hype.

reply to post by defcon5


I agree with you defcon5, but to a point.

The legislative on this issue varies from state to state, country to country. You posted Florida State Law but that law does not apply to lets say UK or some other country.

The argument or point I'm trying to make is that this Wi-Fi issue (regarding access and internet use via third party) in not properlly defined or regulated so throwing statements (by journalists, officials or ATS members) like stealing, trespassing, hacking, intentional missusing or illegality of this actions is not right, responsible or true. This area also lacks proper judicial praxis. Therefore I am totally against any type of arrests that are being made by police because the legal matter is not clearly defined. And I hate (always have and always will) this kind of ad hoc court decisions or making an example of some people. That type of prosecution is to repressive and have no place in free and democratic societies IMHO .

But util this issue is properlly regulated my advice would be
- freeloaders don't piggyback
- and for consumers (1. secure your networks and 2. CAVEAT EMPTOR)

[edit on 24-8-2007 by yanchek]

Originally posted by hlesterjerome
The IP addresses on the computers on the wireless side are hidden to the outside world.

In tech lingo, this is referred to as NAT (Network Address Translation).


Read more...

[edit on 8/24/2007 by damajikninja]

hehe NAT is what the gateway does... unless you've leased a partial class C and then you have an actual router. But the radios just encapsulate normal tcp/ip packets and send them on their way. The client applications see a normal ethernet connection, oblivious to the wireless component. So as far as the network is concerned, the wireless clients are like any other wired node.

In short a WiFi connection is just like an invisible ethernet cable. The radio has no ability to route packets between networks or do any translation.

Of course there's those little radio/gateway combos, but those are just lame.

All I can say is, that if you do not secure your wireless network, there will always be people, who are going to abuse that. And you have to be very naive, not to do that in the first place, since I know of several cases, where in an apartment building a laptop would pick up not one, but several wireless network signals, which were NOT secure and were very easily accessible. That is like having a bike, but when you leave it, you do not lock it up. Somebody will sure going to "borrow" it for a while. Opportunity makes a thief.

reply to post by Jedi_Master


Agree 100%.

There are a lot of mum'n'dad types out there who wouldn't know didly about securing their wireless network if it was just plug'n'play advice from the shop they got it from. And most broadband connections are either set so you pay extra for every meg after a set quota has been reached, or shape you to almost dialup speeds.

To say "Yeah I do it, coz why not - it's a victimless crime !" is like saying peeping thru the bedroom window of your sexy neighbour while shes undressing is acceptable also.

But strangely, you get arrested if you're caught peeping thru the window...

Or it's like saying setting up a camera in the female toilet at your place of work, is acceptable.

No ones getting hurt, what you're taking is not tangible, it's just looking....

Bah, why not just accept that if you leave a window open, then you should be arrested when a burglar comes in with little or no effort and takes all your posessions..

Amazing...

reply to post by stumason


Awesome post Stu!

You hit the post on the head with the router subnet info, I didn't want to jump the gun and post multiples just from the first page, so I'm glad I saw yours.

Excellent job !

Originally posted by yanchek
CD is a material thing not a service.

The money paid for the internet bandwidth used, is a material thing.

So by your definition if you went to a bar and drank a half of bottle of beer, pay for it, and then went home and another guy or bartender drank the other half that would be theft?

No, it would be theft if the person bought a beer, drank half of it, put down with the intention of finishing it, and then another guy or bartender drank the other half while he was not looking.

You may have defined the legalities, but by definition (and pure common sense) this is theft.

To claim that it's only theft if it is a material object, is to basically state that software piracy is also not theft? No ??

reply to post by apc

Correct. 802.11 and ethernet are just different physical layers. The data is transfered the same way via TCP/IP. Just think of the wireless segments as a "bridge".

Originally posted by Souljah
I know of several cases, where in an apartment building a laptop would pick up not one, but several wireless network signals, which were NOT secure and were very easily accessible.

i used to do that when i lived at the old complex...my network would go down for whatever reason and i would just scan real fast and anywhere between 1 and say 10 unsecured networks would be up at any given time.
i'd jump on one of those till mine was back up.

thats why i have mine buttoned up and not broadcasting...i don't want anyone piggy backing on me

edit* are there people that are still on broadband connections that only allow so much traffic up/down?

dayum....i would NEVER get hooked up with that...i thought those days were long gone

[edit on 24-8-2007 by Boondock78]

Originally posted by Boondock78
...edit* are there people that are still on broadband connections that only allow so much traffic up/down?

dayum....i would NEVER get hooked up with that...i thought those days were long gone

[edit on 24-8-2007 by Boondock78]

I'm on a cable-tv modem. My bandwidth is huge, but not unlimited. This is typical of many broadband connection -- it's not unlimited. If 10 computers started stealing my internet connection, then my bandwidth will be spread more thinly, and the bandwidth that would be available to my computer would be narrow. I'm paying for wide bandwidth, not narrow bandwidth. Those 10 guys would be stealing the bandwidth that I paid for.

However, my network is secure.

Poopie.

I'm mixing wireless internet service, Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless LAN.

Oh boy, I made such a mess.

Sorry guys, my bad.

Originally posted by yanchek

I'm mixing wireless internet service, Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless LAN.

IIRC You are required to encrypt the software for the Hot Spots (at least it was for the one I setup), I've setup only one, but IIRC when setting it up with the software that came with it (don't ask me what it was it was a long time ago in a job I had, far far away )...

But anyway if you don't encrypt it the Next button is greayed out until a key is put in, so it has to be encrypted...

I'm sure some one will correct me if I'm wrong on the above (and I'll welcome it )...

But anyway what this person did was illegal...

reply to post by yanchek



What you are saying is correct in the general sense; Utility laws do very from state to state and certainly from country to country. I think what you will find though is that the cable companies tell you in their contract with the customer that it is illegal to rebroadcast their signal to the public, and that is pretty much standard everywhere. This would include the internet service as well as your cable TV or phone service. In these instances you are only leasing the bandwidth and the equipment (modem, lines, etc) from the provider ISP. Now if you have your own private network or internet connection, and you wish to broadcast that to the public in general that is your right, but it is certainly illegal to rebroadcast the ISP’s private signal, again which you lease from the ISP, to the general public. You are correct in the fact that perhaps they should not have arrested only the user in this instance, the company who was illegally rebroadcasting the signal is possibly even more liable for breaking the law in this case. They were facilitating the theft by broadcasting it, same as if I set my cable TV line on my front lawn with a sign saying “free cable hook-up”, or if I bought a transmission tower and started sending it out over the airwaves for free. I think the only difference in this case may be intent.

Originally posted by yanchek
But until this issue is properlly regulated my advice would be
- freeloaders don't piggyback
- and for consumers (1. secure your networks and 2. CAVEAT EMPTOR)

True on this bit for certain…

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by malganis
Anyway this is dodgy ground because anyone who turns their laptop on while sitting in the street would automatically be connected to the nearest open WiFi connection, laptops do that automatically. Maybe if the guy repeatedly used their connection after they'd asked him not to then he could face trouble. But still, why don't they just encrypt it?

Just because laptops do that (and YOU can change the setting to turn this off) does not make it right or legal.

I can automatically kill my girlfriend with a toaster in the bath, but it ain't legal.

I didn't say it was legal, I said it was dodgy. As you said yourself, a lot of people are dumb towards this kind of thing so they wouldn't know how to turn the auto-connect setting off. So if some old guy sits down in a park with his laptop and turns it on, it will automatically connect to the nearest network without even asking him. And you think this guy should be arrested for that?

And for your comparison you can't automatically kill your girlfriend with a toaster in the bath, that would involve you actually taking a toaster from the kitchen into the bathroom and throwing it in, knowing full well what you're doing. A lot of people who auto-connect to WiFi networks DON'T know full well what they're doing, because they don't even have to tell/want the computer to connect.

Originally posted by malganis
I didn't say it was legal, I said it was dodgy. As you said yourself, a lot of people are dumb towards this kind of thing so they wouldn't know how to turn the auto-connect setting off. So if some old guy sits down in a park with his laptop and turns it on, it will automatically connect to the nearest network without even asking him. And you think this guy should be arrested for that?

Ignorance is no defence. The old guy is breaking the law if he did that, whether he knew it or not.

Originally posted by malganis
And for your comparison you can't automatically kill your girlfriend with a toaster in the bath, that would involve you actually taking a toaster from the kitchen into the bathroom and throwing it in, knowing full well what you're doing.

Whether I planned to commit a crime or whether it is accidental is not much of a defence.

Originally posted by malganis
A lot of people who auto-connect to WiFi networks DON'T know full well what they're doing, because they don't even have to tell/want the computer to connect.

See above

Originally posted by stumason

Whether I planned to commit a crime or whether it is accidental is not much of a defence.

well, i'm no lawyer but i always thought it was a pretty damn solid defence....intent to commit a crime or not....

don't matter

Intent is not always a defense. If a law is broken, and intent is a factor, then it generally states that within the law, and there are usually lesser penalties if there was no intent. . By example, intent is a deciding factor between manslaughter and murder.