b8bboi

There's just such a big gray area in this topic since there's no physical boundaries that the naked eyes can see when it comes to wireless network range.

How's this scenario. You have "default" as you primary SID since that's the name of your home's router. You also set one of your SIDs to T-Mobile (or whatever it is) since you're a T-Mobile hotspot user. You go to a T-Mobile hotspot to connect to the Net but there's another open network within range that happens to be named "default." Of course, your card picks up the "default" network since it's higher priority. Of course, to a novice user or even an advanced user, there's no way to tell. So, you're technically breaking the laws when you're using the "default" network even though you're thinking you're just using the T-Mibile hotspot. Is it fair to the user? Of course not.

MP3Car.com

 

peecee

I have an open access point on my home network. I have the guys in my company's internet security team try to crack in to my home network about once a month, when they happen to be coming over for a party or some other activity. I don't mind if people connect and use it for whatever reason. I have QoS restrict the usage to about 15% of the total if it ever becomes an issue.

Our local grocery place just started advertising they have an open access point. After lunch today I tried to connect when I was close in (about 3 spaces back from the store front) and lo and behold, I can connect.

I don't break the TOS with my isp and I'm not breaking the law by connecting from my car to the open access point at the grocery store. If someone has an open access point, I can only guess they wanted it that way and I don't have any moral issue using it. It's not like I'm trying to hack into their home network. I could care less what they have there. I'm interested in connecting to the internet, and that's all.

__________________
My Worklog

Wiredwrx

The Wardriver has not aqgreed to any TOS. The owner, while he has agreed, can't be liable for the actions of a third party. True, he probably should protect his system, but it probably doesn't rise to any level of fault to make him liable.

Also, a violation of a TOS is not a criminal offense, or theft, or stealing, or anything like that. It is purely a civil matter.

As for theft of services, the theft of services most likely requires that the theft involve something that is paid for, or would be paid for.

"Definitions of Theft of services on the Web:

Theft of services is the legal term for a crime which is committed when a person obtains services — as opposed to goods — without lawfully compensating the provider of said services."

Since the owner is paying a flat fee for unlimited services, there probably isn't any theft of services.

Perhaps one day the courts will include APs in thier definition of computers under the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Statute (the statute Specificly and Explicitly uses the word "Computer" through out) though it hasn't been done yet, and I doubt it ever could. It would most likely take Congress to amend the law to include APs.

Michael

__________________
...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

BarryWoods

Say it with me now, "Wardrivers don't connect.". Not everyone has unlimited internet. I only have 30Gigs a month to play with, then I have to pay extra. Wireless is included in the laws. A wireless connection to a network is the same as a wired one. An AP is also considered a computer in court, which it is.

From http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030_new.html


1) the term "computer" means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;

Wiredwrx

I could care less what the DOJ says about computers. Find me one COURT that has extended the definition of "computer" to include an AP. Also, that definition seems to extend it to an ISP (communication "facility" not communications device, method, technology, or some other term) or server farm, and not to an AP.

Also, I would love to know which ISP meters your internet useage?

And, I agree, wardrivers DO NOT CONNECT, though it appears this thread is about Wardriving and/or connecting.

Michael

__________________
...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

BarryWoods

My isp is gci.com, their highspeed cable connections aren't unlimited. Let me do a little digging, I'll get you the laws you want. Oh wait, the Department of Justice is the court.

Wiredwrx

Actually, the DOJ is not the court. The DOJ is a section of the government that encompasses the protective and investigative services, such as the FBI, Secret Service, the US Marshals and the like.

The US Courts fall under the JUDICIARY, and are in NO WAY related to the court, neither Federal or State/Local.

Also, what is your zip code, I want to check what GCI has available in your area.

Michael

__________________
...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

BarryWoods

Okay, haven't really looked that hard, but here's one form PA,

§ 7613. Computer theft


(a) OFFENSE DEFINED.-- A person commits an offense if he unlawfully accesses or exceeds his authorization to access any data from a computer, computer system or computer network or takes or copies any supporting documentation whether existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer system or computer network of another with the intent to deprive him thereof.

(b) GRADING.-- An offense under this section shall constitute a felony of the third degree.

HISTORY: Act 2002-226 (S.B. 1402), § 3, approved Dec. 16, 2002, eff. in 60 days.

18 Pa.C.S. § 7614 (2005)

If you are connecting "just to surf the net" you are still connecting, without permission, to a network. There are a few states that have laws specifically for wireless, give me a bit and I'll get them.

MP3Car.com

 

Wiredwrx

You're ALMOST correct.

We still have not proven that an AP is a computer.

That law makes it illegal to access a computer YOU HAVE NO LEGAL ACCESS TO, and to take or copy information. Since the AP is not a computer, that is not illegal. Also, there is no INFORMATION STORED internal or external to the AP, that one is taking or copying when they access. The only information they get, stored internal or external, is fromt he website or mail server, which is AUTHORIZED access.


It is not illegal under that statute to "connect without permision, to a network" it is illegal to unlawfully "ACCESS any data" on a computer that you are not authorized to access. Since connecting to the AP does not ACCESS information on a system of the owner, there is no violation in connecting.

This is a computer ANTI HACKING statute. Look also at the end, the "intent to deprive" means to take from someone (but most likely also includes the act of rendering the information worthless, since that is a deprivation also under the law)

You need to read the WHOLE statute, and not just the heading or title.

I did look at the CGI website, and it does appear as if they have some pay as you go plans, but not for cable, only for wireless access to remote villages of Alaska. Perhaps in that situation there is theft of services. However, since theft is a specific intent crime, the person would have to KNOW that the person pays by the meg, and that the person intended to deprive the owner of that meg of data/bandwidth. Of course, that amount would have to be above the diminimus standard.

Michael

__________________
...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

BarryWoods

Well, you're right, there isn't a specific law, yet, that prohibits using the connection. Though what you do while using it can get you into trouble. An access point is a computer, it does store information, hell mine is running applications in linux right now. All network switching devices are technically computers, otherwise they would just be hubs, and that would make a mess of everything now wouldn't it.

joego

If an AP is considered a computer (I think it is) then it is illegal to get information from it right? Does that include what comes in over the internet? Although there is no intent you would technically be breaking the law.

__________________

Wiredwrx

I assure you, the fact that you see it as a computer has nothing to do with wether a court will consider it a computer. Your belief that since you can run applications on it makes it a computer would open up so many Noncomputers to your definition of computer,like would a Furbi be a computer, or a leapfrog learning device?? And I doubt a court will ever go that far though who knows what the future will bring. Maybe in the future it will, but clearly this conversation isn't about the future, it is about the present.

Also, what do you mean when you say that "though what you do while using the connection can get you in trouble"?

Michael

__________________
...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

Wiredwrx

Not sure what you mean. Currently the law forbids taking information from the computer of another with out permission. You want to assume that an AP is a computer. I disagree, thoguh even if I was wrong ( and no court till this day has said I am) the information would have be stored and accessed from the AP/ computer for it to be a violation of the law. Perhaps the packet forwarding technology would be akin to storing it, but I would argue that using an AP doesn't really require that the user ACCESS the information, because in fact, all it does is broadcast it, and that the storage of the packets isn't really to store, hold, safeguard, and make available for use or reading by people, in the way that a HD would, which is, in essence, what all the laws in this area are about.

Michael

__________________
...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

BarryWoods

You're still accessing a network to get to the internet, accessing a network without the owner's permission is illeagle. If you are accessing the internet through my wifi you are actually accessing it through my firewall since it caches everything that goes through it, it's an ibm e-series server running ipcop. It basically boils down to theft of service. You are using my internet connection, which you didn't pay for, my electricity, which you didn't pay for, my paper to print out the access logs, that I will take to court, along with the photo's of your car sitting outside my house.

Enforcer

He must be driving a snowcat then, seeing as you are in the North Pole.

__________________

MP3Car.com