Is it illegal?

[digininja]

My guess is that that is technically illegal but she probably wouldn't be prosecuted as it was accidental. If you had done it having read all this and knowing how a computer works then I reckon there would be a case to answer.

[taiyed14]

s 16D-3. COMPUTER Tampering. (a) A person commits the offense of COMPUTER

tampering when he knowingly and without the authorization of a COMPUTER'S

owner, as defined in Section 15-2 of this Code, or in excess of the authority

granted to him:

(2) Accesses or causes to be accessed a COMPUTER or any part thereof, or a

program or data, and obtains data or services;

Case closed, it is illegal and unethical to connect to any access point one doesn't have authorization to.

thank you for providing me some evidence.

[digininja]

That backs up what I thought, the girl wasn't "knowingly" accessing without authorization but if I did it I would be.

[singeroi]

you can buy some dongles here and it light when it detects an open wifi. the neightbor should have secured it in the first place imho.

simulation assurance vie

[DannyF]

I don't know if this is true or not but I've always heard it described as "if someone leaves their front door unlocked you would be breaking the law if you just wandered in". Yust because you don't lock your door doesn't mean you invite anyone in, same thing as leaving your wifi unsecured.

I know that it it obviously legal to enter someone's property if it is unsecured. and if someone's property is secured, you breech the security, then enter, it becomes illegal. so you might think that it would only be illegal if you crack their passkey, then use their network, or something along the lines of that. im not saying it is right to use someone's open network, but it would seem that there is nothing illegal, because if someone didn't want this to happen to them, they would secure their network.

[darkZircon]

I've always felt that connecting to someone's open access point for low-bandwidth, legal activities is perfectly acceptable. Encryption is cake to set up and even if they're just using WEP, it will let the world know that they do not want people connecting to their network. Now if you're going to fire up wireshark and start sniffing their traffic, that would be wrong. If you download a lot or do illegal things from their networks, that is also very wrong. At the end of the day, it's the owner of the ap that will have to deal with the consequences of your actions. But if all you want to do is look at a few web pages or watch a youtube video or two through an open network, I don't see what the problem is.

People have been using the 'if you house door is unlocked..' analogies, and I don't think it accurately describes the situation. Their routers are chirping 'I'm here, this is my network and you don't need a key'. I can't think of any good analogies at the moment, perhaps someone else can come up with one that depicts the situation better. For me, the bigger issue is, like using the bathroom at a fast food joint, whether or not you really want to use it. Do you really want to connect to a network you have no control over, where everything you do may be logged? Unless you're really desperate, I think not.

[h3%5kr3w]

here's my perspective.. If I DID connect to your access point, 1. how would you know, and 2. how would you know who I am? You would'nt. Not unless I'm sitting outside on your front lawn (which would be stupid)..

Your making mountains out of molehills, you dont want anyone on your network, dont make it open. and FYI to everybody getting crazy over this, this is the reason why the American courts are crap, and innocent people get sued over BS all the time. That being said Also if I were going to get sued for something, I would make sure it was something worth getting sued over, which in turn means at least one person is going to the hospital... That's all I'm saying..

Whiney baby idiots..

[Machstorm]

I know that it it obviously legal to enter someone's property if it is unsecured. and if someone's property is secured, you breech the security, then enter, it becomes illegal. so you might think that it would only be illegal if you crack their passkey, then use their network, or something along the lines of that. im not saying it is right to use someone's open network, but it would seem that there is nothing illegal, because if someone didn't want this to happen to them, they would secure their network.

No it's not obviously legal to to enter someone's property if it's unsecured. It's called trespassing, however trash, such as dumpsters and trashcans are public domain.

Try walking into someone's house in Detroit and see how far you can get.

And about Open networks:

s 16D-3. COMPUTER Tampering. (a) A person commits the offense of COMPUTER

tampering when he knowingly and without the authorization of a COMPUTER'S

owner, as defined in Section 15-2 of this Code, or in excess of the authority

granted to him:

(2) Accesses or causes to be accessed a COMPUTER or any part thereof, or a

program or data, and obtains data or services;

You are illegally obtaining services. Read the law sometime

[h3%5kr3w]

How many people that writes laws about computers and networks ever know anything about computers and networks?

[taiyed14]

How many people that writes laws about computers and networks ever know anything about computers and networks?

my sediments exactly, its also illegal in IL to speak English. Here we speak American. But for a lawyer prosecuting the case, it really comes down to was there a violation to what is written.

@darkZircon - i agree that the unlocked doors example is weak because it falls within a different domain.

[Binky]

I do enjoy the "How many people who write laws know anything about computers"

It's the whole 'im the only person I know who uses linux' thing all over again. If you were making a law about something, wouldn't it be completely logical to ask a professor of computer sciences or someone who knows about computers about it? I mean, its not like they're just making it up for the sake of it. How about asking the person who puts the laws up on the internet, surely they have some idea??

The fact is, this is a hacking forum, and as legal as we try and make it and insist that it is, for the most part it isn't. Its just everyone trying to justify their own little corner of the great big hacking world

[beakmyn]

This conversation has been discussed ad nauseum on just about every computer forum, web blog or whatever thing you can think of. This line of posting goes the same way EVERY single time.

You have two groups of people:

Group 1.

Uses analogies like reading lamps shining onto their property, someone else's lawn sprinkler watering their grass, watching the neighbors tv through a window, and sometimes even borrowing the neighbor's paper and returning it before they wake up. Listening to a radio.

Group 2.

Accessing any network without express permission, not implied permission, from the owner is illegal

Now group 1 uses all of these flawed analogies to try and justify why their actions are legal. They incorrectly assume that an unencrypted wireless signal is equal to express permission from the owner to use. A hotspot that is provided by a business to its customers is different then an unencrypted access point in your neighbor's house. It does not matter if the signal can be accessed from you house. They are radio waves, radio waves propogate !

Group 1 people like to use the idea that since there is no physical connection then a crime cannot be committed. This is false. A network, which you do not own is being accessed without permission. The owner of that network, pays for a service, you are using a service without paying, that's stealing. They only use it check email or only use it for a couple minutes.

It alls comes down to whether you have permission to use the network. Granted some people will leave their access point unencrypted so that other's can use it. But, you can't assume that EVERYONE who does this, does so knowingly and for the same purpose.

You can't say that Windows automatically connects to unencrypted networks. It doesn't. It requires the user to first "ok" the connection.

You can't say it's the job of the manufacturer to blah, blah, blah. They do, every Access point is capable of even the most rudimentary encryption algorithm. It's all explained in the manual that comes with the Access Point. Whether the owner chooses to use it or not is up to them.

Wifi finders listen for broadcast beacons from access points. In that beacon is information about said access point. Some higher end models will visually show you things like SSID and whether or not the encryption flag is set. Others will just light up a series of lights. In no way can I see how this information can used be considered permission to access the network connected to that access point. The wifi finders don't, they just pass along information from the Access Point broadcast to you.

It all comes down to Group 1 people trying to find a way to justify their action by using comparative methods that don't explain the same thing. And Group 2 people will always be right as every single state in the U.S. as well as most countries have a computer law that can be summed up in "if you connect to a network that you do not have express permission to connect to, you are committing a crime" It does not matter if you connect via a wire, a radio, infrared or tin cans on a string. The unauthorized connection is illegal.

And finally, most ISP state in their TOS that you are not permitted to share internet connection outside your own household. So, yes the owner is violating their TOS, if that statement exists.

[h3%5kr3w]

Here's my analogy. I dont rightly give a shit what everyone else thinks about this and neither should you.. Why? Because your not changing me, I am not changing you and we are not changing ANYONE else's opinion on this subject.. We might as well talk about religion or politics. Point blank. I do not agree with the laws. Why? Because it is easier to can someone who is completely innocent, that's why. Yes If I hack something, sure I broke the law. I am not trying to deny that, and truthfully that is not why I feel the way I do about it. The reason why I feel the way I do about it is because of the good old what if, which is what these laws were based on. What if someone uses my open AP to connect to the internet and hack something? That's why these laws were made. Now on the other side of the coin, what if I were to be driving by some smartasses house, my laptop has the wifi card on, and connects to their network, they see me as I pass by, get my tag #, find my mac address on their dhcp server, and then blame ME for hacking something that they did? This is something that could definitely happen.

Think about this scenario a bit.

Some guy hacks a bank, leaves his AP open, waits for someone with a laptop to pass by and connect momentarily (how many girls just close the laptop, throw it in the backseat and forget it's on? or guys for that matter as well), get's their mac address off the DHCP server, and then blames the innocent bystander for using his AP to hack into something that the owner of the AP did? If you say yah but.. No. No buts. He contacts the authorities, cleans his computers prior to the investigation, maybe tweaks his mac tables a bit, if it collects timed data for connections, and OH LOOK! It's your mac address, connecting to his AP, that could match the time that the bank was hacked. If you say no, then how did he get your mac address? It's different for every person. "I saw this guy sitting outside my house on his laptop, so I decided to find out where he was going.. etc.etc.etc".

If you say well, that's one scenario, yah it's one. So is someone trying to hack into something on purpose, but so is someone accidentally connecting into an AP. This is a 1/2 to 1/2 situation of ethics, not the 5/8 to 2/8 that you keep saying it is.

Bottom line, we live in America.. well... I live in America, and we can say what we want about our law system, and what we agree and disagree with. And I disagree with this law because it is NOT a concrete law, and it CAN be used one way or another to screw an innocent victim, or to let a law breaker go. This is not what we need.

[Machstorm]

Here's my analogy. I dont rightly give a shit what everyone else thinks about this and neither should you.. Why? Because your not changing me, I am not changing you and we are not changing ANYONE else's opinion on this subject.. We might as well talk about religion or politics. Point blank. I do not agree with the laws. Why? Because it is easier to can someone who is completely innocent, that's why. Yes If I hack something, sure I broke the law. I am not trying to deny that, and truthfully that is not why I feel the way I do about it. The reason why I feel the way I do about it is because of the good old what if, which is what these laws were based on. What if someone uses my open AP to connect to the internet and hack something? That's why these laws were made. Now on the other side of the coin, what if I were to be driving by some smartasses house, my laptop has the wifi card on, and connects to their network, they see me as I pass by, get my tag #, find my mac address on their dhcp server, and then blame ME for hacking something that they did? This is something that could definitely happen.

Think about this scenario a bit.

Some guy hacks a bank, leaves his AP open, waits for someone with a laptop to pass by and connect momentarily (how many girls just close the laptop, throw it in the backseat and forget it's on? or guys for that matter as well), get's their mac address off the DHCP server, and then blames the innocent bystander for using his AP to hack into something that the owner of the AP did? If you say yah but.. No. No buts. He contacts the authorities, cleans his computers prior to the investigation, maybe tweaks his mac tables a bit, if it collects timed data for connections, and OH LOOK! It's your mac address, connecting to his AP, that could match the time that the bank was hacked. If you say no, then how did he get your mac address? It's different for every person. "I saw this guy sitting outside my house on his laptop, so I decided to find out where he was going.. etc.etc.etc".

If you say well, that's one scenario, yah it's one. So is someone trying to hack into something on purpose, but so is someone accidentally connecting into an AP. This is a 1/2 to 1/2 situation of ethics, not the 5/8 to 2/8 that you keep saying it is.

Bottom line, we live in America.. well... I live in America, and we can say what we want about our law system, and what we agree and disagree with. And I disagree with this law because it is NOT a concrete law, and it CAN be used one way or another to screw an innocent victim, or to let a law breaker go. This is not what we need.

I other words you disagree with the law because you don't understand it

[barry99705]

Here's my analogy. I dont rightly give a shit what everyone else thinks about this and neither should you.. Why? Because your not changing me, I am not changing you and we are not changing ANYONE else's opinion on this subject.. We might as well talk about religion or politics. Point blank. I do not agree with the laws. Why? Because it is easier to can someone who is completely innocent, that's why. Yes If I hack something, sure I broke the law. I am not trying to deny that, and truthfully that is not why I feel the way I do about it. The reason why I feel the way I do about it is because of the good old what if, which is what these laws were based on. What if someone uses my open AP to connect to the internet and hack something? That's why these laws were made. Now on the other side of the coin, what if I were to be driving by some smartasses house, my laptop has the wifi card on, and connects to their network, they see me as I pass by, get my tag #, find my mac address on their dhcp server, and then blame ME for hacking something that they did? This is something that could definitely happen.

What kind of fucked up operating system do you use?? I've not seen one in about 5 years that will automagically connect. They all ask first now.

Personal opinions have nothing to do with the law. You don't like the law? Too bad, it's still the law. Until you convince your mayor, governor, congressman, whatever to change it, that's what we're supposed to go by. I've been seeing these kinds of "discussions" for a very long time, and just like beakmyn said, there's only really two groups. Those that abide by the laws, and those who try to justify themselves around them.

[MBP]

very very simple. The network is not yours. You pay nothing on the bill. You cant use it legally without permission.

[Vampyr]

The problem with many of the arguments above is that:

a) laws differ from state to state and country to country, and

b) people are getting confused between ethics and law

In my opinion, it is perfectly ethical to use an open AP as long as it does not disadvantage the owner (ie. don't use it when the owner is using it, small data usage, legal activities etc). If it does not negatively affect them, then it is not unethical.

If it is illegal in your area then it is illegal, no ethical justifications (including analogies) will change that.

Remember that ethics and law are not even nearly the same thing (some above have clearly been mistaken).

[barry99705]

The problem with many of the arguments above is that:

a) laws differ from state to state and country to country, and

B) people are getting confused between ethics and law

In my opinion, it is perfectly ethical to use an open AP as long as it does not disadvantage the owner (ie. don't use it when the owner is using it, small data usage, legal activities etc). If it does not negatively affect them, then it is not unethical.

If it is illegal in your area then it is illegal, no ethical justifications (including analogies) will change that.

Remember that ethics and law are not even nearly the same thing (some above have clearly been mistaken).

It IS illegal to use a computer network without permission in all 50 states.

[beakmyn]

It IS illegal to use a computer network without permission in all 50 states.

And most countries.

[miT]

I know this topic has been argued since the birth of 802.11x but it's good to see peoples views on the laws and have a heated discussion about it.

You never know what comes from collaboration in mass!

[barry99705]

And most countries.

Dude some of the places you go the stop signs are just a suggestion....

[Vampyr]

It IS illegal to use a computer network without permission in all 50 states.

I am not from America, we have states in other parts of the world too.

And most countries.

"Most" does not equal "all".

[barry99705]

I am not from America, we have states in other parts of the world too.

"Most" does not equal "all".

Well since this website resides in the United States, those are the laws I'm talking about. I'd go out on a limb and say that more than 75% of the members here are in the US.

Just the ones that don't shoot you because you wore a blue shirt on Monday....

[beakmyn]

I am not from America, we have states in other parts of the world too.

"Most" does not equal "all".

Well, tell us where you're from and we'll tell you if it's legal where you live. It seems you keep trying to find a way to make it seem ethical, moral and or legal by using only the portions of our replies that support your position.

How about we make it easy.

If it's not yours then it's stealing. There in EVERY country/state/province/town/city/burgh/commonwealth/village/carbon unit gathering of > 1 that is true. Stealing is wrong don't do it.

Somewhere at some point somewhere other then you made a decision on what is right and what is wrong in the his/her/its/the groups "eyes". Going against this decision makes you wrong in their "eyes". Whether or not you are part of the group or not does not change their decision. Now if the group happens to be a body that is able to levy fine/prison time/loss of appendages then you are at their will.