Though it doesnt state what the guy was doing with the connection it says he was arrested for "theft of services" from an open wireless connection.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/St...a_new_br.shtml
Printable View
Though it doesnt state what the guy was doing with the connection it says he was arrested for "theft of services" from an open wireless connection.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/St...a_new_br.shtml
This isn't only illegal in Florida, it is illegal in just about all states. It is pretty much common knowledge that gaining unauthorized access to a network is illegal.
I just think it is funny that the guy didn't immediately walk into his house and check out who was connected to his network. That would be the first thing I would have done.
How do you prove intent that an open network wasnt meant to be used by the public?
If it wasnt intended to be used by the public, shouldn't it have been encrypted or had some other security measure. Especially since the owner blantly stated that he understood how to set up the routers security features he just didn't see the point of it.
Please do not think that I am being critical here, or that I am blaming anyone.
A while ago I understand that the USA had a "2600" scam on their phone systems? we had something similar over here.
When a guy was caught over here, all they could charge him with was theft of electricity ( sorry, no pun intended..just the way the Enlish language works :) )
So, your "theft of services" is the same problem? "THEY" don't actually have a proper crime on the statute books?
:)
The article isn't clear on what exactly the guy did with the network, but here are some considerations:
Technically, it is not illegal to connect to someone else's wi-fi, as long as there is no protection on that network.
In technical terms, it is not illegal to "intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public".
An unprotected wi-fi network is exactly that: an electronic communication system, readily accessible to the general public. If the network is protected, the law doesn't apply anymore: breaking someone's WEP and connecting to the network is illegal.
The same law (the ECPA) also mentions "intentional interception" for this act to be illegal, and the "intentional" part is important: if you're sitting outside someone's house for hours using his network, it's pretty obvious that it's intentional. Consequence: it's illegal.
So, summarized:
- Open network, and you connect to it unintentionally: nothing illegal about that
- Open network, and you connect to it intentionally: illegal
- Secured network, and you connect to it unintentionally: illegal
- Secured network, and you connect to it intentionally: very illegal
What this guy was doing falls into that second category: illegal...
Maybe he was pulled over looking at a mapping program and accidently logged on to the person AP :)
I agree that theft is theft, but the owner needs to take responsibility for his own mistakes as well. I know that I have pulled over and grabbed some free net access when I was looking for directions and to just kill time once in a while.
Quote:
Originally posted here by spamdies
How do you prove intent that an open network wasnt meant to be used by the public?
Ask the owner of the network what the network was intended for.
I'll use the often used analogy of door locks. Even though I'm tired of seeing this analoyg. We need a new comparison if you ask me...Quote:
If it wasnt intended to be used by the public, shouldn't it have been encrypted or had some other security measure. Especially since the owner blantly stated that he understood how to set up the routers security features he just didn't see the point of it.
If I leave my backdoor unlocked and you walk in you are still breaking and entering. It doesn't matter that I was not smart enough to lock the door in the first place. Nor can you blame the owner of the network as he does not control the actions of the criminal.
I see unsecured networks all of the time. Do I ever use them, no. Why not? Because I wouldn't want somebody else poking around in my network. It's a matter of ethics. Just because you can break the law doesn't mean that you should or have a right to.
Im not fond of that analogy either. Because your unlocked door isnt on your property, its sitting in my living room.
I do agree that it is immoral to use these networks. I also feel that not only do the poeple leaching band width need to be addressed by the law, but also anyone running an unencrypted network need to somehow be made aware they are resopsible for all traffic through the network even if it means that all wireless networks have to be encrypted by law.
How about another anology who is resposible for the crime, the arms dealer or the arms buyer? how about a drug dealer or a drug buyer?
In many cases that is impossible to many users. And the door lock analogy does not easily apply. You don't know where the door lock is, expecially with open and public systems in the same area. For example. Setting in my office I see 7 open wi-fi networks. One labled bob. How the heck do I know what or where bob is? He could be a mile away or setting in a car. Another one says something like rt01cityname. What is that? Is it a free public access point? The answer is unclear. It's like someone talking over my walkie talkie uninvited. Anoying but legal. In fact you may not even know which network you are connected too even if you think you are accessing the local coffee shops free connection. As Negative pointed out there are existing laws that cover radio freqency access as long as the network controls are not compromised and other laws aren't broken then there really isn't much that can be done. And I agree with that.Quote:
Ask the owner of the network what the network was intended for.
In this case the dude was caught three times hanging out in a car outside the victims domocile. He is undeniably stupid. Chances are he broke other laws as well.
Powering up a laptop with DHCP and a wireless card enabled is not illegal. Many systems would automatically connect to the first wi-fi it could find.
Well, here's the problem: the law, if it forbids this type of activity, is pretty confused.Quote:
Originally posted here by mohaughn
Ask the owner of the network what the network was intended for.
I'll use the often used analogy of door locks. Even though I'm tired of seeing this analoyg. We need a new comparison if you ask me...
If I leave my backdoor unlocked and you walk in you are still breaking and entering. It doesn't matter that I was not smart enough to lock the door in the first place. Nor can you blame the owner of the network as he does not control the actions of the criminal.
I see unsecured networks all of the time. Do I ever use them, no. Why not? Because I wouldn't want somebody else poking around in my network. It's a matter of ethics. Just because you can break the law doesn't mean that you should or have a right to.
Not only did the network likely advertise its presence and services (via SSID broadcast), and not only was it entirely open despite the fact that it didn't have to be, but in order to log on to the network, someone's computer had to request services and credentials (namely, an IP address through DHCP, as well as a link), and the network had to grant them to him. And worse, it would appear that the owner of the network deliberately left it that way (though I don't think this is critically important).
A closer analogy than the one above would be that a sign is hung on the door that says "Come on in! Public welcome. Just turn the knob!"
Now, how do you distinguish legally between this and any other, implicitly allowed network access? Beats me. But if I were the defense attorney, I'd sure make the case that this network was specificaly configured to provide services to any member of the public who wanted them, just like most open access ports out there...
It's real simple. If you don't know whether or not you are authorized to use a network resource, any type of resource, don't use it. It is up to the user to make sure that they are authorized to do something. And if they are not, they are liable for their actions.Quote:
n many cases that is impossible to many users. And the door lock analogy does not easily apply. You don't know where the door lock is, expecially with open and public systems in the same area. For example. Setting in my office I see 7 open wi-fi networks. One labled bob. How the heck do I know what or where bob is? He could be a mile away or setting in a car. Another one says something like rt01cityname. What is that? Is it a free public access point? The answer is unclear.
How many people here think it is perfectly legal to walk into a public place of business, and hook their laptop into the rj45 connection sitting behind the water cooler? It may not get you arrested, but as soon as somebody in that office sees you sitting on the floor with your laptop hooked up to the wall they are going to ask you what you are doing. Same thing applies. There is no sign that specifically says you don't have the right to use this, but there is nothing that would give you the impression that you have the right to use it. In some cases, you probably would get arrested depending on how the office workers wanted to treat you.
People want to make a distinction just because this is transmitted through the air, and that distinction just doesn't exist. A network device is a network device, if you are not authorized to use it, using it is illegal.
I don't know if I totally agree with Negatives analysis of the issue as ignorance does not excuse anybody from the law. The prosecutors may not choose to prosecute you if they think you meant to connect to another machine, but the act itself it still technically illegal.
Most people may not realize this, but plugging your laptop into a wall socket in a public place is also illegal. People were getting arrested for this frequently several years ago. It doesn't matter that there was not a sign saying you can't use it, or that there was no security measures in place to keep people from using them.
That I'm aware of New Hampshire is the only state that has taken an official by passing a law stating that unsecured network operators cannot prosecute people who use their networks- http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...03/HB0495.html
More legal items to read, written by lawyers and quoting the FBI and other federal laws-
http://www.vjolt.net/vol9/issue3/v9i3_a07-Ryan.pdf
Specifically it notes this memo published by the FBI. "Identifying the presence of a wireless network may not be a criminal violation, however, there may be criminal violations if the network is actually accessed including theft of services, interception of communications, misuse of computing resources, up to and including violations of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Statute, Theft of Trade Secrets, and other federal violations"
Note that this journal entry draws a fine line about what is considered intent. It could be argued that by telling your wireless NIC to connect to a wireless network that you intentionally meant to connect to that network. The law is pretty clear, how it is applied is what is not clear.
actually this would be tresspassing. And I wouldnt be so sure about people questioning what you are doing...or atleast not caring. Its amazing how far "Im here to fix the computers" will get you until somone with even a little knowledge will call your bluff.Quote:
How many people here think it is perfectly legal to walk into a public place of business, and hook their laptop into the rj45 connection sitting behind the water cooler? It may not get you arrested, but as soon as somebody in that office sees you sitting on the floor with your laptop hooked up to the wall they are going to ask you what you are doing. Same thing applies. There is no sign that specifically says you don't have the right to use this, but there is nothing that would give you the impression that you have the right to use it. In some cases, you probably would get arrested depending on how the office workers wanted to treat you.
Unfortunately, things aren't that simple. Do you have any idea how many networks you're going through to post on Antionline? How about the other web sites or Internet resources you visit every day? Have you been granted explicit access to each and every one, perhaps in writing or in person?Quote:
Originally posted here by mohaughn
It's real simple. If you don't know whether or not you are authorized to use a network resource, any type of resource, don't use it. It is up to the user to make sure that they are authorized to do something. And if they are not, they are liable for their actions.
Implied access to countless external network resources is assumed by all of us, every single day. And we assume that due, in large part, to how the networks are configured. In the case of unsecured wireless networks, it can be truthfully argued that 1) by-and-large, the networks advertise themselves as available, 2) the networks are open and available and 3) the networks provide credentials and access when they're requested using open protocols. Furthermore, virtually every wireless access point made comes with the ability to change any and all of these factors.
So no, I don't think things are quite as simple as you indicate, and I'd be very interested in seeing how a judge ruled in a case like this if a vigorous and knowledgable defense were mounted.
WiFi network is basicaly a buncha electromagnetic waves. Charging someone for access to that is like charging one w/ access to copyrighted material because they are listening to a radio that you are blasting out of your window. I understand that many ppl don't know how to secure their network but if that's so then they have 2 choices
1. pay someone to do it, just like paying ADT to secure your house
2. stop using it
What the man did is basically used some electrons in other guy's cable wire. If he didn't noticibly hinder the bandwith what are you going to blame him for? And even if he did, how are you gonna put value of damages on "that".
I should sue *****s like the "victim" for making their network use my laptop battery and NIC's bandwidth. God when will ppl stop being so anal about eveything.
not a bad idea...I should sue neighboring companies becasue their insecure, high powered wireless network is interfering with my network. Or atleast I could make that claim. :) either that or go over an offer to fix it for them for a fee...choices choices.Quote:
I should sue *****s like the "victim" for making their network use my laptop battery and NIC's bandwidth. God when will ppl stop being so anal about eveything.
Actually yeah, I do have prior knowledge that I'm ok using these resources. I have a service contract with my ISP that gives me access to the internet, they have service contracts with their network providers that give them access to the global cloud. Port scanning isn't illegal, but just banging on the door of a service is different than actually using that service. The journal I posted makes that distinction in that you can document everything about a wireless network, but you can't connect to it and send packets across it. I can't control how my tcp/ip packets are routed, atleast once it gets to the equipment owned by my ISP. Now my ISP could route their packets through something that they are not authorized to do so and they would be liable.Quote:
Unfortunately, things aren't that simple. Do you have any idea how many networks you're going through to post on Antionline? How about the other web sites or Internet resources you visit every day? Have you been granted explicit access to each and every one, perhaps in writing or in person?
The law does not make much of a distinction between wireless networks and traditional wired networks. They are all considered network resources, with the exception of NH. But you could still be held accountable for a federal crime if you were to do something that attracted the attention of the FBI over a wireless network in NH.
It is obvious that not a lot of people on here were not around and using modems back in the late 80's and early 90's. You could get into hosts all over the place, and it was illegal. Many terminal systems back then had no security. If you could issue the right command you can run telnet or some other type of command depending on the host system to connect out to other systems. A lot of phone switches were completely open and available as well. Just because there was a lack of a security systems did not give you the right to use that system.
Ah, but you do have some control -- at least, as far as the destination is concerned. The sites you visit are your choice. Just because someone puts up a publicly-accessible web server on TCP port 80 doesn't mean they've given explicit permission to access their network and use the computing resources of the server, does it?Quote:
Originally posted here by mohaughn
[B]Actually yeah, I do have prior knowledge that I'm ok using these resources. I have a service contract with my ISP that gives me access to the internet, they have service contracts with their network providers that give them access to the global cloud. Port scanning isn't illegal, but just banging on the door of a service is different than actually using that service. The journal I posted makes that distinction in that you can document everything about a wireless network, but you can't connect to it and send packets across it. I can't control how my tcp/ip packets are routed, atleast once it gets to the equipment owned by my ISP. Now my ISP could route their packets through something that they are not authorized to do so and they would be liable.
I suppose it would be an interesting test case: someone puts up an open web server, then files criminal charges against anyone who accesses it, claiming that they never intended anyone to access their network and their server. Frankly, I don't think it would go anywhere, but then, I'm not a lawyer.
Ultimately, it's a matter for the courts, unless a law specifically forbids using an open wireless access point without the explicit permission of the human who owns it. As I noted before, I think it would be interesting to see how a good defense attorney would do against a more generic "unauthorized access of computing resources" charge.Quote:
The law does not make much of a distinction between wireless networks and traditional wired networks. They are all considered network resources, with the exception of NH. But you could still be held accountable for a federal crime if you were to do something that attracted the attention of the FBI over a wireless network in NH.
People have a hard time visualizing the wireless world versus a physical jack on the wall. There is a difference. You are broadcasting clear invitation on public frequencies that anyone can pick up. By simply saying come connect to me - in non technical terms: "Anyone want an IP? OK here you go, here is my gateway and here are my DNS servers. Let me configure it for you." In fact the gateway in effect is also violating the law and talking to my laptop. If one connects to a box that is not theirs and manipulated files, that is a defferent matter. Or any of a million other things like not broadcasting SSID etc would change the tune a bit. On the bright side, new versions of WI-FI require encryption as a standard implementation. For exactly this reasonl.
If the person doesn't even know how to secure his/her wireless they more than likely do NOT have logging turned on. So unless there is some type of proof of brute force I don't see how they could charge someone.
I don't have a problem with this law actually. Of course it depends on what the network is; e.g. public hot spot offered by a shop or cafe.
If I park outside your house on the street and freeload off your network to surf hotasianbabes.com, or to download warez, you should be pissed off and you should call the cops. Even my mom, who is the most un-techie person imaginable would know what you are doing and call the cops on you. War Driving is just not an uber-31337 h4x0r secret anymore. So kiss it goodbye unless you are doing an official audit for someone who is paying you to poke at their network.
We can get all sticky about signal ranges and such, but it is still stealing a connection from somebody who is paying for it, no matter how you slice it.
-- spurious
Spurious.. let me ask you a question
Would your mom know someone is actually using ya'lls connection? Don't answer the question for yourself cause I'm assuming you would.
And so how would a cop determine what I was doing?
There's just no way in of this will hold up.
Well. If there is a car you don't know parked outside your house with an antenna on the roof, and a nervous looking dweeb with a laptop inside we don't need to many other variables to solve for X. :)
On the subject of police. Don't forget that a WiFi card is essentially a radio. Law Enforcement devices that can isolate and record transmissions are nothing new; WiFi specific devices probaly already exist. Also, any decent amount of forensics could determine that an intruders MAC had been on the network; even on those little cheap D-Link rigs. So, I guess it really depends on how badly they want to bust that ass.
:DQuote:
Well. If there is a car you don't know parked outside your house with an antenna on the roof, and a nervous looking dweeb with a laptop inside we don't need to many other variables to solve for X.
Still at this moment it's all assumptions and the police could be called on "suspicious activity"
So now our cops need to be CWSA.. LOLQuote:
On the subject of police. Don't forget that a WiFi card is essentially a radio. Law Enforcement devices that can isolate and record transmissions are nothing new; WiFi specific devices probaly already exist. Also, any decent amount of forensics could determine that an intruders MAC had been on the network; even on those little cheap D-Link rigs. So, I guess it really depends on how badly they want to bust that ass.
What if he just pulled over to type out some stuff he remembered and didn't want to forget. When he booted his laptop up it connected to the first strongest signal.
Okay, okay... :)
Personally, I am going out to the street to beat the kid up and take his laptop for my collection. I'll probably take his car battery too since you can always use a spare.
Picture it. A car full of nerds and their laptops with multiple 8dB antenna's on the roof, wires going all over the place, a few GPS units and spooky steven hawkins'ish voices saying crap like "New SSID LIMA-ALPHA-MIKE-ECHO-ROMEO found" blaring out of the tiny little laptop speakers. It would take a pretty dense cop miss out on what's going on.
You apparently live in an area where law enforcement is not very sophisticated or computer savvy. Have fun while it lasts.......
-- spurious
We've already established the guy in the car is a dumbass and should be arrested on stupidity anyway. With modern equipment you don't have to park in front of the house. Parking on the street with a laptop is not a crime. And I hope it stays that way. Your house ends at the street and in many cases way before that. Technically since there is legal right of way, my property ends 3 feet before the sidewalk.
Personally I would have beat on his window with a pipe until he either faced me or left and then turned of my wi-fi until I **** a clue.
Good Question, I used to have an open access point when I was renting a house near the Lake. 1.) it was for my friends and I to use on the beach and 2.) for anyone with some PC knowledge to use if they found it.Quote:
Originally posted here by spamdies
How do you prove intent that an open network wasnt meant to be used by the public?
It is nothing like overhearing a radio that your neighbor is playing. There is a difference between "intercepting" a signal, and USING that signal. Suppose your neighbor is listening to XM satellite radio. Something he pays a monthly fee for. And now, not only can you hear his radio because it is too loud, you are changing the channel to what YOU want to hear. You are depriving him of something he paid for. It is theft, plain and simple. Same with stealing (yes, stealing) Wi-Fi. The owner is paying for it, you are not. And if enough people hook up to it, his performance will be a lot less than he is paying for. You are stealing part of his serivce. This Florida guy will pay a price. He will likely plead down, but he will not have the case dropped.
And seriously, everyone who says "The guy deserves it if he doesn't secure his network" need to understand how ridiculous you sound. It is like a rape suspect saying "She deserved it! Look what she was wearing!"
the guy CAMPED THERE ALL NIGHT!!!
he deserves to be arrested for sheer stupidity!
the owner of the house notices the car with the laptop... sees the guy inside... and the guy inside still sits there.... little while later the guy sees him still sitting there
its tampa bay FL... relocate if you have to use someone elses internet oh so bad... hell he could probably drive down the street and around the corner!
See, but in this case, you would not press charges, because you wanted to allow it. But that does not give people the right to EXPECT that ll Wi-Fi found is that. In this case, the burden of proof is on the person taking it. He/she is obligated to establish that the owner does not care that it is being used. It is not up to the owner to establish that he/she does NOT allow it.Quote:
Originally posted here by Info Tech Geek
Good Question, I used to have an open access point when I was renting a house near the Lake. 1.) it was for my friends and I to use on the beach and 2.) for anyone with some PC knowledge to use if they found it.
And people doing this is total residential areas, clearly outside the reach of any netowrks that are intended for everyone's use, know damn well they are taking it from a private user.
And here is a good question. WHY are people doing it! Why go, sit outside someone's house just to get on the internet unless you are trying to cover your own illegal activity? If someone has the knowledge and equipment to steal someone else's Wi-Fi, then they have the money to pay for their own. So why do it? Curioisty is not a defense for breaking the law. "Just to see if I could do it" is not a defense. So why do it? Yes, the situation described of being on a beach is a differnet situation. (Though I find it a bit sad that people are on a beach and still feel the need to be online.) But I would expect that the cast majority of arrests in the fuutre will be like this current case. A guy sitting in his car outside someone's home.
Quote:
Originally posted here by PapaPark
What if he just pulled over to type out some stuff he remembered and didn't want to forget. When he booted his laptop up it connected to the first strongest signal.
If you think that is going to introduce reasonable doubt into the minds of jurors, then by all means go and steal someone's services. But just know that unless the jurors are complete idiots, they are not going to buy that argument.
I stayed away from this one for a while for several reasons ( not the least of which the fact that it took days for Comcast to respond, then repair their lines. ) But since it is still going, I have a few thoughts on the matter, though I am no expert.
First, to respond to nihil who askedIn New JerseyQuote:
So, your "theft of services" is the same problem? "THEY" don't actually have a proper crime on the statute books?
In response to something mohaughn saidQuote:
N.J.S.A. 2C:20-8. Theft of Services.
a) A person is guilty of theft if he purposely obtains services which he knows are available only for compensation, by deception or threat, or by false token, slug, or other means, including but not limited to mechanical or electronic devices or through fraudulent statements, to avoid payment for the service. "Services" include labor or professional service; transportation, telephone, telecommunications, electric, water, gas, cable television, or other public service; ...
XTC46 saidQuote:
How many people here think it is perfectly legal to walk into a public place of business, and hook their laptop into the rj45 connection sitting behind the water cooler? It may not get you arrested, but as soon as somebody in that office sees you sitting on the floor with your laptop hooked up to the wall they are going to ask you what you are doing. Same thing applies. There is no sign that specifically says you don't have the right to use this, but there is nothing that would give you the impression that you have the right to use it. In some cases, you probably would get arrested depending on how the office workers wanted to treat you.
That is totally incorrect ( at least in New Jersey ). It was a public place ( key word here is public.) The person was a member of the public and thus entitled to be there ( they did not say the business was closed, did not say the person was not authorized to enter, nor that the person surreptitiously remained within. ) It would be Theft of Services, maybe, see below.Quote:
actually this would be tresspassing. And I wouldnt be so sure about people questioning what you are doing...or atleast not caring. Its amazing how far "Im here to fix the computers" will get you until somone with even a little knowledge will call your bluff.
This highlights several problems when attempting to prosecute someone: what law exactly did the person violate? Did the person damage files? Obtain information such as credit card numbers, bank account numbers, etc.? ( again, see below.)
The ECPA ( Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, this amendment affected several sections of the law ) that Negative referred to is very complex to say the least. Although he covered it rather well so briefly, to say that one connecting to anwould depend greatly on who's network and what the person did when they realized they were connected, what frequencies they were listening on, etc. Again, very complex.Quote:
Open network, and you connect to it unintentionally: nothing illegal about that
And who is allowed to enforce? Well, there again, it depends what applicable statute was violated in the U.S. Code, but for the wiretap, basically any law enforcement agency including local government, but do they actually know that?
Would Barney Fife know what statute or code applied?
Would he ( now, not when the show was written ) be trained for such things?
Obviously ( as in the case of N.J. as described above ) a case could be made for theft of services if one attempted to access the Internet via the connection, because they are now using services described which they are not entitled to. But who is the victim? The cable company? The subscriber?
What about ( as mentioned ) someone who intentionally leaves the network open for others to connect to? Without knowing the subscriber's intentions and contract with the ISP it would be hard for any law enforcement officer to bring charges.
I suppose their best recourse would be to at least detain the person for identity purposes and confiscate all equipment as evidence. Remember, law enforcement, at least here in the U.S., don't need to prove anything immediatly, just have Probable Cause. And the probability in a case such as described ( in the article ) is they violated either the ECPA or committed Theft of Services. Proof would come later, after the equipment was properly examined and a proper investigation was done. But each case would have to be judged individually.
Even if the proof was not able to be obtained, how useful do you think that laptop would be by the time the person got it back? ( Remember, it could take years to do so. ) Are you willing to chance losing that shiny new laptop?
Just my thoughts.
Thank you IKnowNot for your response..............
Over here the problem would be largely how the service is provided. Now, if you steal my gas or water or electricity I can have you, because I am on meters and pay for quantity consumed.
My broadband and telephones are on contract.............I pay a fixed sum for any amount of use, that is where I perceive the problem to be................I cannot demonstrate any additional cost or personal loss? and that would be what the law requires?
:)
Well,
Based on the general consensus of "theft" most people here. The only real way around the issue is removing devices from the public domain and licensing their installation by utility companies. It will then no longer be an open and public situtation.
Why are so many totally open wireless networks out there anyway? It's my opinion that this is the real problem... I'm in downtown Atl a lot, and I often have several open networks to choose from. Nobody has any concept of security with wireless networks it seems. Oftentimes all it takes is the click of a button (possibly a little more effort) to enable WEP, which would deter 99.9% of unauthorized people from even taking a second look at your network. The only people that would are the ones that are specifically hunting for *your* network...and the odds of that are low.
As far as what would qualify as theft.... Assuming that you haven't broken any laws, it becomes a matter of opinion. If you by chance connect to a nearby network (meaning your computer automatically connected to the nearest, strongest available network through no actions of your own), then does it comes down to exactly how much of a drain you put on the network? Anyone would consider it theft if you're downloading music and video files, but I'm guessing that not everyone would if you're simply checking email, completely oblivious to the fact that you're on a network that's not intended for public use.
Of course most of us are educated enough about the subject to know when we're intruding, but I've seen people sitting around this pavillion eating Subway (a popular spot to eat for my Uni) and surfing the web from this one business's network. I doubt if they even realize that they're outside the radius of the school's network and that they've connected to a different one.
My post became very long before so I cut it. I will continue. Hopefully this will also answer some other questions. Remember, this is my interpretation only. Check with all applicable laws and Prosecutors having jurisdiction before charging anyone with offenses under the described statutes.
nihil ,
In New Jersey, for someone to connect to a computer network as the Florida case, which uses say a dial-up connection, for the purposes of Theft of Services the subscriber is not the victim ( strictly speaking ) but it is the telecommunications company providing the service which is the victim. For the purpose of this section it is irrelevant of the financial amount of services used ( except in determining fines. )
That means three to five years in jail. The statute provides a similar structure for theft of cable television services, which could include cable broadband access.Quote:
2C:20-8. Theft of services ...
h. Any person who, with the intent of depriving a telephone company of its lawful charges therefor, purposely or knowingly makes use of any telecommunications service by means of the unauthorized use of any electronic or mechanical device or connection, or by the unauthorized use of billing information, or by the use of a computer, computer equipment or computer software, or by the use of misidentifying or misleading information given to a representative of the telephone company is guilty of a crime of the third degree.
The existence of any of the conditions with reference to electronic or mechanical devices, computers, computer equipment or computer software described in this subsection is presumptive evidence { emphasis added } that the person to whom telecommunications service is at the time being furnished has, with intent to obtain telecommunications service without authorization or compensation or to otherwise defraud, created or caused to be created the condition so existing.
Now the bad news.
1st)The cost of the service here could be negligible compared to the cost of the investigation and attorney fees.Quote:
... In addition to any other disposition authorized by law, and notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:43-3, every person who violates this section shall be sentenced to make restitution to the vendor and to pay a minimum fine of $500.00 for each offense. In determining the amount of restitution, the court shall consider the costs expended by the vendor, including but not limited to the repair and replacement of damaged equipment, the cost of the services unlawfully obtained, investigation expenses, and attorney fees.
2nd) ( provided in several places within the statute )Mind you, the act of Theft of Services and the possession of equipment are both crimes, and can be charged separately .Quote:
Any communications paraphernalia, computer, computer equipment or computer software prohibited under this subsection shall be subject to forfeiture and may be seized by the State or any law enforcement officer in accordance with the provisions of N.J.S.2C:64-1 et seq.
Also, if someone were to provide such services ( say, through an open Wi-Fi ) purposely so that others can use the services when they have no legal right to do so ( that should be spelled out in the contract the person has with the provider ) they could also be charged under this statute.
Since we already covered the federal statutes, I want to touch briefly on the state statutes concerning computer crime.
This statute obviously contains much more, including damaging data, coping data, altering data, describes distinct types of data ( and owners ), etc., and anyone wishing to dig through these further can look them up. But the reason I included this here should be obvious. Just accessing the system via Wi-Fi ( once the connection is known ) is a crime of the third degree ( again ). And again, each offense under this section would be charged separately.Quote:
2C:20-25 Computer criminal activity; degree of crime; sentencing.
A person is guilty of computer criminal activity if the person purposely or knowingly and without authorization, or in excess of authorization:
a.Accesses any data, data base, computer storage medium, computer program, computer software, computer equipment, computer, computer system or computer network; ...
As mentioned before I am not sure how many law enforcement officers are aware never mind trained properly in these statutes, but they are on the books and available.
Another point to consider is the cost of an investigation. Even if someone is caught red handed, the computer equipment would have to be analyzed. How many agencies have this ability? How many are willing to spend the money and resources?
Just my thoughts.
Hi IKnowNot Interesting.
We don't have statutes like that over here. We have all the stuff about damaging equipment and stealing data, but not "services"
I have ADSL and 56.6 dial up. The ADSL is a contract to supply the service to my home. If someone accessed my WiFi then it is MY service they are using, not the Telco's, as I have already paid them for it. Fot this reason the Telco couldn't care less, they are getting paid for what they are providing.
If for some reason the intruder exceeded my bandwidth I would have a case, as I would be charged extra, and would have a demonstrable loss. In the case of 56.6 it costs me £0.01 per minute, so I would have an immediate loss. Over here, you need to demonstrate loss or deprivation, or it won't even get to court other than as a civil case. It would be classed as gratuitous litigation, which I can assure you is a very expensive pastime.
In neither case would our police show the slightest bit of interest. I would be bluntly told to p1$$ off and hire a security consultant. They would be far more interested in software piracy which is a criminal offence and for which they would be able to enlist the support of out Trading Standards Office, Customs & Excise and even the Inland Revenue (the proceeds of crime are taxable over here :D )
I suspect that our Telcos steer well away from the technology side as they got a hammering years ago when they introduced cordless phones that did not handshake with the base unit..........people got some very interesting phone bills. So long as someone is paying them what they want, that is all they care about.
I recall reading that the FBI and Secret Service are not interested in anything involving a loss of less that $5000?.
My current feeling is that these laws you refer to are badly flawed as they are effectively unenforceable? Your agencies just do not have the resources and probably lack the expertise as well? Anyway aren't terrorism, rape, murder, narcotics, grand theft auto etc rather more important?
I have always taken the view that an unenforceable law is a bad law and should not be on the statute books.
:)
You hit the nail on the head Nihil. Say that 5 times fast.
Same here, no damages no case.Quote:
demonstrate loss or deprivation, or it won't even get to court other than as a civil case
And the law is flawed, it's unenforceable and in retrospect unconstitutional in some cases. Unenforcable laws border on idiocy and are the play ground of politicians seeking to appease the ignorant populace.Quote:
I have always taken the view that an unenforceable law is a bad law and should not be on the statute books.
Actually, here it is opposite. You do not need to show a loss in a criminal matter, but must show a loss for a civil proceeding: no loss ( damages ), no case.Quote:
you need to demonstrate loss or deprivation, or it won't even get to court other than as a civil case.
Generally speaking, most of the theft statutes ( with a few exceptions as you have seen ) depend on the amount of theft to determine the grading of the offense. The more monetary amount involved, the greater the crime, and thus the greater the penalties. But the offense was still committed.
I guess this is all in how you look at it and exactly how the laws are written. If you climbed a utility pole ( or dug down to the wires ) and tapped into your neighbors telephone lines are you cheating your neighbor ( who may be very pissed off ) or are you cheating the Telco because you are not paying them for using their lines, equipment, etc? Even though your neighbor paid for their services, you are cheating the Telco of collecting additional service charges from you.Quote:
The ADSL is a contract to supply the service to my home. If someone accessed my WiFi then it is MY service they are using, not the Telco's, as I have already paid them for it. Fot this reason the Telco couldn't care less, they are getting paid for what they are providing.
Generally speaking, although they probably could be more specific, they are not necessarily flawed and are enforceable. However, again, I agree lack of resources and expertise are major factors when attempting to enforce them. ( I'll get back to this )Quote:
In neither case would our police show the slightest bit of interest. I would be bluntly told to p1$$ off and hire a security consultant. ...
My current feeling is that these laws you refer to are badly flawed as they are effectively unenforceable? Your agencies just do not have the resources and probably lack the expertise as well?
Al Capone ring a bell? :)Quote:
They would be far more interested in software piracy which is a criminal offence and for which they would be able to enlist the support of out Trading Standards Office, Customs & Excise and even the Inland Revenue (the proceeds of crime are taxable over here )
No debate here! And no doubt political grandstanding had much to do with the creation of these laws. But it is how they are applied that matters. That's where proper education of law enforcement comes in ( or lack thereof. ) If they are trained properly and apply the laws appropriately there would be no problem ( why my disclaimers are needed. )Quote:
Unenforcable laws border on idiocy and are the play ground of politicians seeking to appease the ignorant populace.
Back to enforcement.
If every law enforcement officer seized every laptop computer they saw with Wi-Fi because it could be used to connect to a computer or computer equipment, etc. of another who also used Wi-Fi ( technically under the statutes would be a violation ) the statute would be thrown out and there would be no convictions. But, if they only seized computers where they had probable cause to believe the equipment was actually used to connect to equipment of another unlawfully, the claim by the defendant would ( should ) not arise that the law was too broadly written. ( basically, abuse it and loose it. )
Just as not every speeder is stopped and issued a speeding ticket, not everyone tapping Wi-Fi will be caught ( probably next to none up until now. ) But with such publicity will come awareness by both law enforcement officials and the general public. The more people become aware, the more they will think suspicious of a vehicle parked in some neighborhood with someone using a laptop. The more calls the police get, the more pressure will be put on them to actually learn the laws concerning computers and related crimes. This also leads to more opportunities for the politicians to grand stand. So I would expect, after this, to see more such stories.
I must admit that I find these discussions rather interesting, particularly as ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the Law over here.
Hmmm, I have noticed a certain tendency for American Law to criminalise things that would be civil actions over here. I suspect that like ourselves you must have "cease and desist" and "specific performance" in your civil laws?Quote:
Actually, here it is opposite. You do not need to show a loss in a criminal matter, but must show a loss for a civil proceeding: no loss ( damages ), no case.
Now this is a really amusing one................that is actually a VERY SERIOUS CRIMINAL offence over here...........you would be looking at 7 years?, maybe 14? This is possibly historical? the postal system and the telephones used to be run by the same government body...........the laws remain.Quote:
If you climbed a utility pole ( or dug down to the wires ) and tapped into your neighbors telephone lines are you cheating your neighbor ( who may be very pissed off ) or are you cheating the Telco because you are not paying them for using their lines,
That is another interesting one...........my real criticism is that the laws are too detailed and specific and criminalise things that are probably best left civil, or midemeanours?Quote:
Generally speaking, although they probably could be more specific, they are not necessarily flawed and are enforceable. However, again, I agree lack of resources and expertise are major factors when attempting to enforce them. ( I'll get back to this )
...................yes the FBI couldn't nail him but the IRS put him in Joliet for 11 years for tax evasion. They also have a much better expenses budget than our lot..........proper meal and booze in central London rather than sandwiches and coffee :DQuote:
Al Capone ring a bell?
Strangely, that seems to be a deliberate policy over here............write the laws loose and let case law and precedence sort it out? BUT, please remember that we would consider most of this issue to be civil law, not criminal. Obviously there is a big difference in approach?Quote:
the law was too broadly written
I find this very interesting because we have yet to draft our laws in these areas, how you guys get on will probably help us a lot.