What happens if you are caught by the owner of the signal?
Can he prosecute you?
Printable View
What happens if you are caught by the owner of the signal?
Can he prosecute you?
In places of the world the answer is yes because of laws against unauthorized access to a computer or computer network.
What is wardriving?
I'm pretty sure it's what used to be done a lot more often. Programs that scan selected phone number ranges for a computer on the other end (the o so great internet connection type sound we always used to hear) and records them.Quote:
Originally posted by ua549
In places of the world the answer is yes because of laws against unauthorized access to a computer or computer network.
People then used these as potential explorations ;)
Wardriving, or warwalking as the on foot version is called, is when you walk or drive about trying to find open wireless access points that you can connect into with a laptop or PDA. Then you 'warchalk' or something like that, mark the access point on a map so other people can abuse it as they want.Quote:
Originally posted by freedonX
What is wardriving?
By the way, this is not something I do myself, just heard rather a lot about it.
John
You are referring to wardialing.Quote:
Originally posted by Murder
I'm pretty sure it's what used to be done a lot more often. Programs that scan selected phone number ranges for a computer on the other end (the o so great internet connection type sound we always used to hear) and records them.
People then used these as potential explorations ;)
The law should be against people leaving it open in the first place :D Its like leaving the keys in your car with the engine running, a sack of money on the drivers seat and the door open. I'd not use wireless just because 9/10 times its unstable. Those people in front of the house probably get a better signal than you do :)Quote:
Originally posted by ua549
In places of the world the answer is yes because of laws against unauthorized access to a computer or computer network.
Eric
Just because a door is not locked, does not give someone the right to go through it. Should folks whose computer is infected by malware be guilty of a crime for not taking precautions? Blaming the victim for a crime in not ethical under any circumstances.
I agree that folks should use common sense in these matters, but we can't legislate common sense. If we did there would be no more freedom.
Should folks whose computer is infected by malware be guilty of a crime for not taking precautions?
Isn't that the case in California now though?
I seem to remember seeing something on UK news about California being the first place to prosecute a company that in effect was an 'innocent' party whose systems were being abused without them being aware???
Sure I heard it on TV / Radio and also read it on THG ...but it is 'news' after all so may not be 100% true
I work for one of the US Federal Law enforcement agencies (shouldn't say which one). What the current feeling is among us non-supervisory (read: not the govt's official position, just our water cooler talk) is that if you access a company's or individuals wi-fi, you may be able to use it provided a) the wifi wasn't encrypted so you didn't "hack" in and b) you do not access the company's/individual's system computer.
The sticky part is if you use up enough of their bandwidth that it actually costs the company/individual money (even if you don't access the internal system), you can technically be prosecuted for affecting a computer used in interstate or foreign commerce due to the loss you caused that company.
I guess a good rule of thumb is, if it feels wrong, it probably is. And don't surf someone's wi-fi, get caught and go "Hey, some federal agent on sharky's forum board said it might be legal." Like i said, this is MY opinion, not the official opinion of the govt.
ESB
Heh go and try this~ you'll still get arrested for stealing a car whether or not it was fully locked, or unlocked & running. We use wireless at home.. keycode is changed once a month. Even then I think someone would notice if there is a person outside their house 20 hours a day since that's how long it would take to crack the 10 digit code. I see my neighbors wireless network though, but he has it encrypted so cant get on, havn't tried "hacking" into it.Quote:
The law should be against people leaving it open in the first place Its like leaving the keys in your car with the engine running, a sack of money on the drivers seat and the door open.
In short, it is not illegal. Unless the owner of the network equipment expressly places a warning for those logging into their network. I worked for a Sheriff's department a while back and we had to deal with this. The prosecutor basically said that the only way you could prosecute is if you could 1) prove damage, or 2) issue a disclaimer to those logging in.
So have fun. Just don't break anything. However, with the new anti-terror laws this could have changed. But I am not aware of it.
No offense, but just because the Prosecutor decides not to press charges doesnt mean it is illegal :D There are plenty of cases where they have no, due to financial reasons or gains....Quote:
Originally posted by irwincur
In short, it is not illegal. Unless the owner of the network equipment expressly places a warning for those logging into their network. I worked for a Sheriff's department a while back and we had to deal with this. The prosecutor basically said that the only way you could prosecute is if you could 1) prove damage, or 2) issue a disclaimer to those logging in.
So have fun. Just don't break anything. However, with the new anti-terror laws this could have changed. But I am not aware of it.
But I would side on the side that it is illegal, You have no right to access a network that you are not given permission too.. That is a crime... Doesnt matter the means in which you access it...
Just logging in will uses corporate resources which is costly :) So there is a financial loss...
Consdiering that I was working directly with the prosecutor in this case, on a guy that they wanted to nail, I am sure that there was nothing that they could do. This case even involved wire fraud, but it is all too questionable. It was not that they did not want to, it was that there was no law on the books authorizing them to. They spoke to numerous judges including federal, and the consensus was, if you do not warn people, an unsecured network is as public as the lines it runs over.Quote:
No offense, but just because the Prosecutor decides not to press charges doesnt mean it is illegal There are plenty of cases where they have no, due to financial reasons or gains....
The only thing I think that can dispute it, is that its free air.. The data wasnt encrypted and you are allowed to take anything out of the air without being a crime...Quote:
Originally posted by irwincur
Consdiering that I was working directly with the prosecutor in this case, on a guy that they wanted to nail, I am sure that there was nothing that they could do. This case even involved wire fraud, but it is all too questionable. It was not that they did not want to, it was that there was no law on the books authorizing them to. They spoke to numerous judges including federal, and the consensus was, if you do not warn people, an unsecured network is as public as the lines it runs over.
But that is different when one can transmit.. So I am not sure, I guess it depends what kind of judge and time they want to put into it.
I would think they would be able to pull a conviction if they tried, There must be some small silly law he broken if you search the massive law books...
I know the attornies I work for can find small items to toss into cases, that are basically pulled out of thin air! LOL
Yeah, thirteen cases of wire fraud. However, the portion I worked on was the network intrusion. I was the one who caught the guy and found out who he was. The point is, yes, they can nail him on wire fraud, but that was ancillary to the orginal scope of the investigation, and that was him accessing the county network without permission. Unless you have posted warnings and discaimers somewhere on your network (the criminal does not have to necessarily see them, they just have to be somewhere) it is not a crime.Quote:
I would think they would be able to pull a conviction if they tried, There must be some small silly law he broken if you search the massive law books...
Furthermore, information broadcast over the air is even on more shaky legal ground. It is considered to be publicly accessible. And the assumption is that if you are not going to protect your network, it is not illegal. If the information is encrypted, then it is considered to be private, even though it is travelling over a public medium.
I put this message on every network where I do any kind of consulting. It meets the legal requirements in virtually every jurisdiction in North America and most jusrisdictions in Europe when translated into the local language.
This system is for authorized users only. Individuals using this computer system without authority, or in excess of their authority, are subject to having all of their activities on this system monitored, recorded and their use of this computer system terminated. In the course of monitoring individuals improperly using this system, or in the course of system maintenance, the activities of authorized users will also be monitored. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of criminal activity, management may provide the evidence of such monitoring to law enforcement officials.
Some of that is true. An example would be DSS broadcasts, it is encrypted, but it is not illegal to capture it over your private property. This is why DSS can't prosecute anyone for cable theft. They (directTV) are willfully broadcasting a signal over your property and as such you can do what you want with it. Now it is a totally different story when it comes to stealing cable. You are tapping into a sealed system that is off your property.Quote:
Originally posted by irwincur
Yeah, thirteen cases of wire fraud. However, the portion I worked on was the network intrusion. I was the one who caught the guy and found out who he was. The point is, yes, they can nail him on wire fraud, but that was ancillary to the orginal scope of the investigation, and that was him accessing the county network without permission. Unless you have posted warnings and discaimers somewhere on your network (the criminal does not have to necessarily see them, they just have to be somewhere) it is not a crime.
Furthermore, information broadcast over the air is even on more shaky legal ground. It is considered to be publicly accessible. And the assumption is that if you are not going to protect your network, it is not illegal. If the information is encrypted, then it is considered to be private, even though it is travelling over a public medium.
So, as for network singal usage if your singal makes it on to public land or your neighbors land then really there isn't anything you can do about if they can receive it and use it. It's no different then the old analog cordless phones. As, for them accessing your networking equipment and manipulating it there is where they might get into legal trouble. Specially if you can prove they cost you money, by taking up bandwidth or by doing damage to you financially.
BC
Speaking on the issue of whether users are responsible for wireless networks left open, are you in trouble if the knife you left in the road in front of your house is used to rob a bank? What about if the weapon was a gun? A big metal rod? The car you left you left running?
Why is it allowable (in a theoretical sense) to legislate common sense in some cases but not others?
A laptop bought with cash at a computer show combined with an open wireless AP eliminates the need to obfuscate your digital identity in a hacking attempt. At what point does this possibility become so dangerous that there becomes a need for penalties on the AP operator?
As a responsible admin, all my wireless networks are encrypted and only allow machine based on MAC address and a sufficiently long alphanumeric password.
Suppose I have a GMRS radio network (I'm not too familiar with the exact rules of GMRS as opposed to FRS and Amateur Radio, but it fits the example well) set up for my fleet of busses. The radios are mine, but the airwaves are public. Do I have a valid complaint when someone transmitting on their own personal radio runs down the batteries in mine? How about if they are stepping on my frequency and one of my busses breaks down but can't communicate to base? What about when they discover the DTMF code to my phone patch?
Preexisting radio rulings and codes would be an excellent place to look for prescedent like in the example above.
About the whole satellite TV thing, sure you can capture the encrypted signal, but what happens to the people that say "DSS can't prosecute anyone for cable theft" when they smack you with a DMCA violation?
This whole discussion is so interesting because there is a load of prescedent waiting to be applied and examined, both in its original medium, and in new situations.
That is only partly true.. You are allow to capture anything in the air.. As long as you do not decrypt it.. Decrypting a signal that was not meant for you is ILLEGAL.. So yes they can and will prosecute people for cable theft.. It is still a crime.. But they cannot prosecute you for stealing channels which are not encrypted...Quote:
Originally posted by BremenCulhaven
Some of that is true. An example would be DSS broadcasts, it is encrypted, but it is not illegal to capture it over your private property. This is why DSS can't prosecute anyone for cable theft. They (directTV) are willfully broadcasting a signal over your property and as such you can do what you want with it. Now it is a totally different story when it comes to stealing cable. You are tapping into a sealed system that is off your property.
So, as for network singal usage if your singal makes it on to public land or your neighbors land then really there isn't anything you can do about if they can receive it and use it. It's no different then the old analog cordless phones. As, for them accessing your networking equipment and manipulating it there is where they might get into legal trouble. Specially if you can prove they cost you money, by taking up bandwidth or by doing damage to you financially.
BC
And to answer Jackbass questions.. It is illegal to transmit on a channel you are not registered for through the FCC.. Or a public frequency range such as CB...
Most radio operators requires you to register a frequency with the FCC and only use that frequency.. So if someone else is transmitting on it, it is illegal :D
In the USA it is not legal to break encryption of copyright material of any kind. That includes RF transmissions.Quote:
Originally posted by BremenCulhaven
Some of that is true. An example would be DSS broadcasts, it is encrypted, but it is not illegal to capture it over your private property. This is why DSS can't prosecute anyone for cable theft. They (directTV) are willfully broadcasting a signal over your property and as such you can do what you want with it. BC
It is also illegal to intercept telephony communications of any kind. In Florida a Democrat party official was found guilty of a felony for using a scanner to intercept and record a phone between a Republican candidate and his advisor. She mailed the tape to the DNC who made public the contents. IIRC it was during the 1998 or 2000 elections.
The problem here (and the problem I ran into with the prosecutor and federal judge) was this: plain and simple the laws have not kept up with the crimes. And the further you move from even slightly applicable laws (fraud, telecom act, etc...) the higher the burden of proof. Considering that the burden rests with the prosecution, no one will prosecute beause it is almost impossible to prove guilt under current law. It is even more difficult to link old laws to current crimes. A large portion of this difficulty rests with ignornace within the legal community regarding modern computing issues.
Unless the network is specifically said to belong to 'x' party. A home wireless network, without a warning, is carried over public utilities (cables and phone lines) as well as public airspace. It is public. If there is encryption, this would probably be different, as encryption implies ownership of the information. But, most war drivers are looking for open non encrypted networks anyways.
Two of my neighbors have open networks, I have checked them out, is that really illegal if they are willingly broadcasting.
Ironically enough, while I was paying my speeding ticket recently I sat in on a few small claims hearings and one of these cases was one neighbor sueing the other for damages to do using an unmarked open WiFi connection. The Magistrate ruled in favor of the defendant, he drew a correlary to private property and trespassing. If you own a one acre lot and you only fence/mark off only half that lot and leave the other half unmarked and some other person decides to enter that unmarked half acre you are SOL in reguards to getting a conviction on trespassing. Because you failed to comply with the necessary measures to establish "private property" (that being the erecting of a fence or the posting of signs at a certain interval along your property line).
Doesn't mean it's legal.Quote:
Originally posted by ewitte
The law should be against people leaving it open in the first place :D Its like leaving the keys in your car with the engine running, a sack of money on the drivers seat and the door open.
Say I fired my gun and you were standing in front of it. Could I say "Well you were standing in the way of the bullet?" :)
They may not be willingly... but rather unwillingly broadcasting.Quote:
Originally posted by irwincur
Two of my neighbors have open networks, I have checked them out, is that really illegal if they are willingly broadcasting.