Wow, on the web without trying ????

We got our first real notebook (Acer Aspire 3683), it has an atheros aireless adaptor. We had used dial up to connect to the web but one day i noticed that the antivirus program was updating without having the cable connected to the computer ?

Just to prove that there was a connection i tried win update and bingo, it updated.

I dug around and found that there were a number of wireless networks, 4 in total, 1 secured, 3 unsecured. The computer seemed to have found one called "TP-LINK" and was connected to it. I used google on the desktop and could not find a provider called that.

Any suggestions as to what is happening and precautions we should take ?

As you guess we are new to wireless, though we are relatively computer literate in other areas.

PS: Has Vista home Basic installed.

 

Do any of your neighbors have Wifi?

 

Congratulations, you just unknowingly committed a federal felony. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2193346,00.asp

What happened was that your neighbors have wireless networks to share their broadband connections for their own households. But a good portion of them were too lazy or ignorant to set up a password for those connections. I suggest turning off your wireless on your notebook to avoid any problems.

 

One that we know of, but his is secured and shows up as such on the list. There may be others but we do not know all the neighbours that well and we are in a prominent position on the side of a hill with views over about 60 homes.

 

If your neighbors get broadband, I'm sure it's available to you too through a cable/DSL company.

 

Cable broardband is available, however we work all over the country and have access via other means for that. We are waiting until a better commercial wireless network is available that covers where we live (rural town) and where we sail our yacht so we can hook up on the move, that is why we got the notebook.

I have disabled the wireless feature of the notebook until we can study up on the correct use of it. Not sure how it was turned on, or does it do that by default with a vista install ?

 

I dont think vista will not automatically connect to an unsecured network (for legality and big security risks). I think it even warns you when you attempt to manually connect to one.

 

Yes it warns you and automatically turn off all discover/sharing

 

Vista does ask a lot of questions. It is our first encounter with it. I have to say that Vista has not been as bad as we thought it may have been. I was thinking of trying Ubuntu but need to make sure everything is running OK with vista first, while the notebook is new and under warranty.

 

Accessing an unsecured wireless network without the router owner's express permission may, or may not, in fact be a federal felony, but not on the basis of the linked article, which states that the closest federal law comes is "unauthorized access" under 18 USC 1030; however, a review of the statute itself raises significant doubts about whether connecting to an unsecured wireless network violates the statute.

First, under every possible violation covered by the statute, the minimum required state of mind is at least "knowingly," so, as far as the OP is concerned, I seriously doubt if the OP had the requisite state of mind, so no felony - in general, it's very difficult to commit most types of felonies "unknowingly;" the point of the criminal law is punishing blameworthy actors, in part to prevent others from committing the same acts in the future - a goal that is not served if the law could be violated unknowingly (keep in mind, there are still the occasional strict liability statutes, e.g., statutory rape, and that the "knowledge" one must have is, generally, knowledge of the underlying facts, not that the act itself is illegal).

Second, unless a court (or another definitional section in the statute) defines the term "unauthorized access" in a way that is significantly broader than the basic dictionary meaning of the term (don't be surprised, it happens frequently), then it's very hard to see how the OP's actions constituted "unauthorized access" because the router owner him/herself intentionally set up a broadcast device that they must have known was unsecured and broadcasting it's availability to all comers, and knowingly chose not to enable the available security measures that would have restricted access. At most, one might be able to make out a civil cause of action for trespass, primarily because the standard for committing a civil trespass is much lower than that necessary for a criminal trespass, or possibly a civil cause of action for conversion, but for purposes of a criminal cause of action, unless a court says otherwise, I would think that the owner of the router would have had to take some affirmative action to indicate who was, and who was not, "authorized" to access the network as a necessary predicate before someone else could be convicted of accessing that owner's network without authorization.

That the router owner must have taken some affirmative action to limit the access to the network is implicitly supported by subsection (a)(6) of the statute, which makes it a crime to traffic in passwords or "similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization" which implies that you need some sort of information like a password - something that isn't common, publicly available knowledge, in order to access a computer for purposes of the statute, and that you must not be authorized to possess that information before you can have a violation of the statute.

Third, you need to commit some sort of other bad act beyond the mere act of unauthorized access in order to violate 18 USC 1030; i.e., in addition to unauthorized access, you must also (and here I paraphrase liberally):

1. obtain information that has been determined to be in need of protection for national security/defense concerns;
2. obtain financial information or government agency information, or obtain information from the computer to which unauthorized access was obtained across state lines;
3. access a computer that is exclusively for the use of the government, or take any action that affects the government's use of a nonexclusive computer;
4. access with intent to defraud, take action in furtherance of the intended fraud, and obtain something of value (other than the use of the computer itself, if the value of such use is $5,000 or less for any 1-year period);
5. cause damage that results in losses of $5,000 or more, physical injury, or damage to a government law-enforcement computer;
6. with intent to defraud, traffic in access information;or
7. with intent to extort, send a communication through the channels of interstate commerce.

So, at least with respect to 18 USC 1030, I doubt that using a neighbor's unsecured wireles router to access the internet constitutes a federal felony.

 

Man, you almost wrote a book!

 

Unless the OP isn't living in the US. Before posting, you should find out where the OP lives, and then give guidance regarding laws and such.

 

Yah, I know, it's a really bad habit, but...

Now there's a more interesting answer in there than you might think. If the other predicate acts were met, it would still be a federal felony, even if the OP lived outside the US (at least so long as one or more of the network or computer components was located in a place over which the US had jurisdiction, e.g., an embassy compound in a non-US country). The thing with most US laws that don't specify limitations on their own coverage is, they technically have global coverage, and the de facto limitation tends to be juridiction over the person who violated the statute (i.e., assertion of US criminal jurisdiction is a little pointless if you cannot get a hold of the person who committed the alleged violation) and principles of international comity (i.e., you don't go around charging the citizens of other countries with violating US laws unless you can make that charge stick and it doesn't damage your overall relationship with the other country).

 

Thanks, for the excellent explanation ! Even if it does not apply exactly to my situation I am sure it is of interest to many subscribers. I live in Oz.

 

That's very kind of you. BTW, here's a very short brief from Wikipedia as regards "unauthorized access" laws in AUS. It looks like mere access of an unsecured wireless network isn't a federal crime (Canberra must have other fish to fry?), although in WA it may be treated as unlawful operation of a computer system (although the article doesn't give a citation to any relevant WA law).