For those who think using someone else's WiFi signal is legal...

Confessions of a WiFi Thief

So yeah, for those of you who think it is okay because you are not "stealing" a physical object...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1813969,00.html

 

I wrote a paper on this...

 

And I cannot believe he used the expression "bona fide" which means; sincere and honest, without any intention to deceive. Who doesn't know today that Internet is not free?

I wonder how would HE feel if his neighbor would constantly take HIS car to do errands without telling him, especially with the price of gas today!

 

I've the victim of bandwidth theft as well. My own fault: I left my connection unsecured (mainly because I, for some reason, couldn't access my access point anymore, to set a password).
Now, I didn't mind anyone using my connection anyway, untill some nice person decided it was cool to download GBs throught it. As soon as I noticed, it was bb old access point and hello new access point with security active =)
If I ever were to be unable to pay internet, or if there's a problem with my connection or whatever, I wouldn't hesitate to search for unsecure networks. Obviously, I'd only use them for keeping up to date (reading newspapers, getting my email, ...) and NOT for downloading the latest version of 2 nights in Paris

Yeah, you can call me a criminal now :x

 

everyone's probably done this at one point. it's as bad as downloading music or something... everyone's a criminal and i read this article last week and giggled.

 

Open wi-fi is unsecure and potentially unsafe

If you want free internet, go to your local or state library. Where they offer open connections for educational purposes. Not recreational uses

 

At the same time these kinds of problems are the fault of the network admin. Its the equivalent of leaving your front door unlocked and open; what do you expect??

 

Yeeeah... sorry about the quadruple post...

 

yep, except most people won't walk through someones front door just because it's open or unlocked. people see that as wrong. however, the majority of people would probably say that they've mooched someone's internet before and do not think it's bad. i personally don't care. if you leave your network open for people, then that's your own fault.

 

While it's tempting to think that this is something new, or that you can use your neighbor's unsecured wi-fi network because his signals travel into your property, it's not a new issue (conceptually) and, even under the old common law, you cannot use your neighbor's network for your own purposes although, subject to laws governing interfering with a radio signal, you can either (i) remove the trespass by (legally) blocking the signal from entering your property, or (ii) in certain aggravated circumstances, forcing your neighbor to rein in his signal.

As far as the legality, this sort of thing is probably most analogous to a case where your neighbor owns a fruit tree that sits entirely on his property, but the branches of which overhang your property and drop fruit on your property. In that instance, the question becomes, can you take the fruit, either that drops on your property, or from the branches that overhang your property? Seems pretty simple, no?

The answer is, as a general matter, you cannot; a point that was settled back in the early 1800s. For an example, read through the Connecticut case of Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 177, 185 (1836). In that case, Lyman owned a pear tree the roots of which were entirely on his property, but the branches of which overhung Hale's property. Hale collected quite a large amount of pears that dropped on his property, and Lyman eventually sued him for damages.

The court held, in summary form, that, while Hale had the right to remove the overhanging branches as a nuisance, he had no right to take the fruit and convert it to his own use. Thus, the basic issue of whether or not a person can use a part of his neighbor's property when that property intrudes into that person's own land was settled in the negative back in 1836.

Now, in this case, the neighbor's network is just like Lyman's pear tree, and the signal you detect in your own home from that network is just like the fruit from the overhanging branches of Lyman's tree. Applying the rule of law from that case to this situation, you may remove the nuisance caused by your neighbor's intruding signal, but you may not use that signal for your own ends by, for example, using it to connect to the internet and download stuff.

Seems pretty simple, right? For those who feel like a little light reading on the topic of overhanging trees and other rights to the airspace over one's real property, here's a link to a short (32 pp ) article.

 

If they`re to lazy to set up passwords or encriptions for the wifi , it`s just as much their fault.
A thief will steal things from your house if you leave the front door wide open.
Legally, the thief goes to jail ,but to start with,it`s your fault for making it possible.

 

I'm going to look into this in my law practice - very interesting.

Someone could also raise the point that your neighbour is broadcasting wireless signals through your body - that's extra radiation. I have yet to see this type of lawsuit and would like to know more about the science behind radiation levels emitting from wifi-routers. Does anybody know the level of radiation emitted from a regular wireless G/N router and their toxicity level?

I mean - we are bombarded with radio waves all the time. If you live in an apartment you will get bombarded with at least 20 signals day in day out. Does anybody know about the health effects - if any of this radiation?

 

Let me know when you are in my town, I will keep windows and doors closed and I may also block the chimney (car, house, Jeep, Office, etc.)

 

Original posted by Calivin on a different and not related topic, but i thought it was funny.

"No matter, they can't catch me. I am the fabled Free Pirate, i steal free stuff. Those free samples in the supermarket? I stole them. Those free mints you get in the hotel? I stole them. The homemade cookies you left out for the cat? I nomed those too."

 

And he leaves no fingerprints behind

 

I will never be in your town, so leave everything opened.
What town was it again?

We have them too, but we keep them locked up in basements.

 

Maryland, I have already pass the word, we are actually starting to put deadbolt locks as well

 

Wireless a/b/g/n are all radio frequency radiation (2.4-5.something GHz) that operate at perfectly safe levels. There is a plethora of electronics out there that operate at far higher frequencies, such as cell phones; which have been debunked for causing ill health.

 

In 30 seconds you will hear your doorbell ring.

I sincerely advise you to not answer it.

 

Interesting. Though I wouldn't bet on any court making that same ruling nowadays

 

Of course not, they had guillotines back then.

Here in Australia, WiFi and even Bluetooth is protected under the Telecommunications/VoIP laws and regulations, also the Broadcasting services Act. They will pretty much treat wifi stealing as you running a hose into your neighbors tap and stealing their water or electricity.

Alot of protective laws have been introduced and passed since wireless became big. It all depends on your country of course

 

In which respect? That he couldn't help himself to the fruit, or that he could remove the overhanging branches as a nuisance?

Generally, unless the commonlaw rule has been displaced by statute, contemporary courts still apply this rule. In that respect, you certainly do get courts nowadays making the same ruling.

 

Shyster, what rationale was used for not allowing Hale to gather and use the fruit which fell onto his property (I'm too lazy to read the 32 page link, and probably too dumb to understand it, anyway lol)? Seems odd to me. Was he required to allow Lyman onto his property to gather the pears, or just not to eat them himself? Why would Hale be allowed to trim back the branches, but not eat the fruit that simply fell onto his land - I don't see a practical difference as far as how Lyman would have been affected.

Thieves disgust me, but sometimes acts which turn respectable, law-abiding folks into criminals seem almost ludicrous. Lyman/Hale and now the wifi issue, though I understand what you've explained (more or less lol), seem, at least on the surface, to be the fault of the owner of the tree/person responsible for the unprotected wifi. Over the years I've read about various silly laws still in effect; these, in my own humble and totally uneducated-about-law point of view, seem senseless.

 

I would expect that he is entitled to use the fruit for himself.
If not, I at least would think that he's entitled to some sort of compensation, because his neighbour is "using" his property (blade would cut in both directions )

Now, I'm from Belgium, and I have no idea how these things are in the UK, but here in Belgium, that neighbour wouldn't stand a chance

 

Talking about regulations, I wonder if we can charge someone who is tapping on our WiFi connection?

 

I was actually caught once. 'Tis kinda funny actually.

Sometimes my PB automatically goes to the first open network instead of our own. I keep disabling this, but it still does it. Before I tended to use our neighbours network when i needed to upload large files, as they had better uploadspeed than us. Then I upgraded our bandwith, and stopped using theirs. However, my powerbooks still connected to their network from time to time.

A week or so after the upgrade, i was using it. When i had put it into sleep mode, I had iTunes running and was sharing my library. I took it out of sleepmode, used it for a few minutes, then thought to check which network it was connected to, but not before our neighbours daughter saw the shared library in iTunes.

That afternoon her father came over and (very politely) asked about it. I explained, and he accepted. He was quite nice about it, actually. He didn't even mind the sharing, as it's broadband and whatnot, just wanted to know if I had done it.

So the next time you're borrowing, you should remember that some program you have running may give you up.

 

Wtf, iTunes enables file-sharing by default? Thats not a very wise design decision...

 

why not ?

 

My Macs used to do the same thing. I didn't have a clue about networks, passwords, etc, etc, and often found my machines connected to others' networks. The solution (at least for me), was to set up WPA. Having to use the password to get online seems, for reasons I don't really understand, to stop my machines from searching for other, unprotected networks.

 

I don't know what I did, but it doesn't do that anymore.

 

I still think that people should password -lock their wifis.
If not, consider it free.

 

Consider it free to pay a fine or get in jail as well

 

me too!!!

just don't be stupid enough to be sitting in front of their house, in your car w/ the interior lights on at nite

on blue's advise, I now use a 25 digit random generated password on our routers w/ wpa2......... and recommend the same to our clients.....

 

At least those thieves shouldnt be that stupid... why stay in a car while you can
do it inside of your house with some good anntenas? .

 

That's right, put an antenna on Verizon tower so you can get the whole town

 

they should do what they do with stolen cars.if the keys are left inside/network unsecure then the owner should be fined aswell.

this was a while ago and but i read in an article that it wasn't a crime to connect to an unsecure network, it was only illegal if you crack their password and connect.i think it was an article on the fbi cracking a network in only a couple of minutes.

i myself use unsecure networks a lot. and if i wanted i can crack the password in a max time of 30 min, minimum time around 10 min.maybe more or less

 

this article was written in response to the article posted by the OP

http://blogs.computerworld.com/why_its_ok_to_steal_wi_fi

his first reason brings up a good point.

 

Whether it's a crime or not is a different kettle of fish from whether, e.g., your neighbor can sue you for damages in civil court. For it to be a crime, there has to be a specific statutory provision that covers the activity and applies criminal sanctions to it. In many instances, the existing criminal laws are not adequate to cover theft of network services; however, in some places they are, depending on the wording, the judge hearing the case, and the existing caselaw that interprets the statutory wording.

 

yeah...you lost me with that. too confusing for me to understand

 

So they can sue me, if they`re dumb enough to leave it for free access, my computer will connect regardless if I want to or not.
So he can sue Windows for the bad management

 

In other words, there is no specific law saying you can't steal your neighbor's WiFi service, then lawyers must follow the spirit of the current laws.

 

I mentioned that in my paper.

 

Which paper?

 

lol in the end he left his network open my home network is totally pass protected and stuff.

 

I don't care what other people think, but to use paid service resources w/o paying is stealing, and more nasty is when you use other people resources, because they are paying for you, is just disgusting.

 

Basically, for an act to be criminal, there must be a pre-existing law, generally a statute, that makes that specific act criminal and imposes punishment. On the other hand, for an act to give rise to a claim for non-criminal damages, you can argue by analogy to other cases covering different, but morally and ethically similar, facts, and ultimately have to pay damages, even if that particular act has never been treated as something you could be sued for. That is where the real meaning of the term "common law court" comes into play - U.S. courts, particularly state courts, are common law courts, which basically means that they have a certain amount of reserved authority to make new law.

For example, it used to be the case that so-called emotional distress injuries could not give rise to a claim for damages; that changed during the 19th and 20th centuries, and the change was generally driven by the courts themselves, not the legislatures.

 

The one I mentioned above; I wrote it on wireless technology and ethics.

 

Sorry, I don't see it, just give me a link and I will read it.

 

I have to warn you, it's written from a Christian perspective, and it's not a very in-depth paper; only 5 pages. It's basically an overview of wireless technology and my opinion on the ethics involved

View attachment Wireless Paper.pdf

View attachment Wireless Works Cited.pdf

 

Wow. That killed this thread, huh?