Forum Moderators: open
-----
[theinquirer.net...]
&
[rrstar.com...]
“We just want to get the word out that it is a crime. We are prosecuting it, and people need to take precautions,” Assistant State’s Attorney Tom Wartowski said.
Kauchak was arrested in January in Loves Park when local authorities learned he was accessing the Internet through a nonprofit agency’s computer. "
Will the cops be raiding Walmart and charging them with selling bulgary tools for selling hot spot finders?
If I leave my network open, then rat on anyone who connects to it is that entrapment or a legal way to get rid of neighbors I don't like?
Look for this to make its way into politics, a bar owner near a capitol could settup a wireless network then call the police to have lawmakers of the party he dislikes arrested when they bring in their laptops and connect to the WiFi....
He pleaded guilty Tuesday to the charge and was fined $250 and sentenced to one year of court supervision.
Whoa, lets not get ahead of ourselves. The subtitle in this thread, "one year in jail is the penalty," is wrong. Supervision and jail time are two different things.
he was fined, but let's face it, his life will never be the same. With an arrest and conviction record his options are very limited in this country.
That's obviously factually wrong.
As far as getting a good job or a professional license with an arrest /conviction record, Google is your friend.
How can you form an opinion without that key piece of information?
William.
I have accidentally tapped into other people's wifi before accidentally!
That's just crazy.
Now, if the WiFi was left wide open ... That's not a crime. First of all, all WiFi equipment has an option for automatically connecting to the strongest available WiFi within range. How is anyone supposed to be able to tell the difference between a wireless connection which is truly open to the public, and one which is only "accidentally" left open (although I would put the blame on the owner of the connection for being stupid enough to leave it wide open).
There's a mile wide difference between hacking into a WiFi connection and simply using it.
If he accessed an open WiFi network to gain access to the internet and then pled guilty, he is a moron. I would have fought that one to the Supreme Court. IF this is the case, it sets a VERY BAD pressitant.
So im a criminal, come on get a life.
Yet again petty and trivial incidents are punished disproportionatly, honestly then people wonder why no one has any respect for the law.
Seems to me its about breaking new ground fopr career advancement some rozzer.
he was fined, but let's face it, his life will never be the same. With an arrest and conviction record his options are very limited in this country.
According to the law, you can get 12 months in jail for lots of things. But, in practice, it rarely happens.
He'll be fine. Employers may even find him to be... resourceful.
The problem here is that a lot of networks, especially in the vicinity of restaurants, provide this service for free and wide open. Other networks are left open out of ignorance. How is someone who finds an open network to know the difference? How can you know the network operator's intent. Simply, you can't.
I think the answer to this is simple. If there is any kind of security or other barriers that prevent you from accessing the network without some sort of key or authentication (WEP, WPA, MAC ACL, etc), then it's obvious that the owner's intent was to prevent others access to it, and doing so without authorization could be termed a crime. It's not unreasonable to assume that a network left wide open was done so intentionally.
People also equate this to a residence. "But if I leave my front door wide open, that doesn't mean it's okay for someone to just walk in." No, of course not. And there rarely, if ever, is a circumstance when it would be okay for a stranger to walk into your house without authorization. There's no ambiguity there, so that's pretty cut and dry.
This, however, is more like whether or not an individual is allowed to walk into someone's place of business. There are times when it is okay (like during normal business hours) and there are times when it is not (when the business is closed). Businesses clearly mark this with Open/Closed signs, by locking and unlocking doors, or by other methods that give anyone the business' clear intent.
The 802.11a,b,g,whatever standards don't have any type of "Open, Come On In!" sign that can be posted and recognized universally. The only way an owner can communicate their intent is by locking the network down, or not. If it's locked down, then that conveys the intent for outsiders to not access it.
Regarding the naive people that buy a router, plug it in, and go, resulting in an open network; I don't feel sorry for them at all. Why do so many people believe they are computer techs? Most people would hire an electrician to do electrical work, a plumber to plumb, and a doctor to take care of their health. Why hasn't this carried over to computers for many home users? I can appreciate the do-it-yourselfers out there. But the router comes with *instructions* that clearly describe the consequences of not locking down your network.
Given that:
- Locking down a network is a clear communication that outside access is not allowed,
- Many businesses (and some individuals) purposefully create open networks for outsiders to use, and this practice is growing,
- The protocol doesn't have any designed method of communicating the network operator's intent, and
- All (if not most) consumer wifi access points include instructions that tell you to secure your network,
...it can only be assumed that an open network is intended for public use.
Now putting that all aside, my understanding of this article was that the police officer approached this person sitting in his car in the middle of the night with his laptop. How was he to know that the internet connection was coming from an open wifi signal? Does that mean that if I'm sitting in my car using my laptop and I'm connected to the internet with my EVDO card, I have to worry about being harrassed? Is your ordinary cop going to be able to tell the difference between someone sniffing on someone else's wifi and an innocent individual using a legitimate paid service?
In my experience, no. They can't even tell the difference between a cannabis plant and a parlour palm. I've seen them seize a keyboard 'in case there is any data on it'. The police are supposed to intimidate and harrass on behalf of the state, not 'think' or 'know anything'. Would you want smarter police?
Not me. Not really.
The real problem here was the lunatic who pleaded 'guilty to get it over with'. Such cowardly behaviour will earn a ten year stretch in Guantanamo, when I rule the world.
It's a scary thought when the govermnet starts taking this steps, If it was an open wifi network, if it was a lock wifi network and he broke in the guy deserve it.
PS: lol I like the comment blame it on windows :) which it's true.
he was probably told to pay $250 and probation if he pleaded, or face a year in jail if he contested the charge.
We have power outages all the time which would likely render the "closed system" open for one and all unless the company owner resets the passwords and does whatever you have to do to prevent the system from being used by anyone with a computer and bluetooth technology!
We have power outages all the time which would likely render the "closed system" open for one and all
I was just in a Salt Lake Hotel (the Econolodge!) with a superb high-end wireless setup, and the manager said the police often will drop into the parking lot to use his excellent broadband. He was happy about it but I guess those officers now will have to ... arrest themselves.
how they identify the user?
The guy with the GPS, laptop, and PRINGLES CAN :-)
In any case, a person should be able to manage their network especially if they're in a zone where there are many people walking, working, or living.
These things do happen. And in the modern world with its constant surveillance its going to happen more and more. Would you be happy to explain your every action to a thug in a uniform whose IQ is unlikely to be as big as his shoe size?
The victim could have stood up in court and explained wifi. The fact he hasn't done it only makes it much more likely I'll have to :(
I found some kiddie porn once where my website should have been. The police reaction: "who had access to your computer recently?"
They could have thrown away the key (luckily I noticed it before my customers did). But I explained all about "servers" in words of one syllable and no-one in my household got arrested. It can be done.
I like 'blame Windows' too :)
Losers who cant even get a Mc Job
The logic is simple, someone is paying, and it isn't you!
You knew that someone was paying, and by stealing the resource for free you are defrauding at least one person, possibly hundreds.
If I leave my Porsche Convertible open topped on your street does this give you a right to take it? I think not! Leaving my WiFi less than 100% protected applies in the same manner, it was never yours to use!
Of course we should all take precautions against these people, but our lack of security doesn't give them a mandate to steal!
What's next? A court case because I admired someone's garden as I walked past without them giving me express permission to look in their direction? Because I took shelter under your porch whilst waiting for the bus in the rain?
But just accessing the internet via a wifi connection seems more than reasonable. Since when did people become so selfish, especially during Lent?
This is a big setback to wifi. I always leave my wifi connection wide open deliberately so that anyone in range can connect. I am responsible enough to have up-to-date firewalls, anti-virus, and restrictive port blocking on the machine and router level.
Of course we should all take precautions against these people, but our lack of security doesn't give them a mandate to steal!
Um, well ... in the islands, where boaters are readily supplied with free WIFI in many areas, they would never realize they are stealing if a system is available. It isn't as cut and dried (in all situations) as some may think.
First, very few things in life are simple. Second, even if someone is paying and it isn't you .. a crime has not necessarily been committed. Incidental use of the service may not necessarily make anyone pay more, either.
"You knew that someone was paying .."
Maybe, maybe not.
" .. by stealing the resource for free you are defrauding at least one person, possibly hundreds."
Not unless there is financial loss .. and isn't fraud based on intent?
One other note: where I live, the city has made several areas (a park, the central promenade) free open wireless zones.
Could a bunch of creative commies got together and set up a bunch of fee co-op wifi zones, like Amsterdam's white bicycles or whatever? (Or wasn't that done - I seem to recall somebody sued to stop it)
