For those who think using any "open" wifi is OK...

Conor_3

For those in here who think they have the right to use an unsecured wifi connection..


The Register..

Two men have been arrested for "dishonestly obtaining a communications service" after they used a householder's wireless network to check their emails.
The offence happened on Sunday in Tweedmouth, south of Berwick-upon-Tweed.
A spokeswoman for Northumbria Police told the Reg: "I can confirm that two local men were using a householder's wireless network to check their email. They were arrested and are out on bail pending further enquiries."
Berwick Neighbourhood Inspector Sharon Stavers said: "This is a very unusual offence and it appears the two men were doing nothing more sinister than checking their email and getting some time on the internet for free.
"However, this is an offence and people pay good money to get the internet in their homes. It is worth reminding people who use a wireless connection to ensure they follow the manufacturer's instructions when setting it up and make sure all security systems are in place to keep computers safe."
A survey from Cisco earlier this month found 11 per cent of remote workers admitted to pinching bandwidth, up from six per cent last year.

Justin_Scotland

This is a message for those people that leave there wifi networks open.

Dont.... People reading there own emails on your internet connection is the least of your worries.

richt71

Yes it's always been illegal to 'piggyback' onto someone else's WIFI service. People just don' think they'll get caught.
But also agree you should always have a secure connection otherwise you could have the police knocking on your door asking why your unique internet access was used to access something illegal and bad like child !!!!!! (like a recent case in the US!).

superscaper

richt71 wrote: »

But also agree you should always have a secure connection otherwise you could have the police knocking on your door asking why your unique internet access was used to access something illegal and bad like child !!!!!! (like a recent case in the US!).

Although to be honest that happens a lot to people whether their network was used or not or whether there actually was any child !!!!!! or not. A huge number of people caught up in Operation Ore were because their (stolen) credit card details were used to access a particular website (which didn't contain anything illegal anyway) not because of their actual browsing/IP history and records. The investigators don't seem to work at that level of sophistication.

esuhl

Conor wrote: »

For those in here who think they have the right to use an unsecured wifi connection..

Just a small point (not meant to wind anyone up): the fact that Wi-Fi "piggybacking" might be considered illegal would not necessarily have any bearing on those who "think they have a right" to use someone else's connection. The law rarely reflects people's "rights"; it is simply a blunt (and often unjust) instrument used by society to moderate people's behaviour for the overall good.

I believe that the philosopher Julian Baggini wrote an article on how he deliberately (and in my opinion, naively) leaves his Wi-Fi connection unsecured. Would the law see him as an accomplice or an "enabler of crime"?

But, I fully accept your point that this unauthorised Wi-Fi sharing is now considered illegal.

:beer:

superscaper

esuhl wrote: »

I believe that the philosopher Julian Baggini wrote an article on how he deliberately (and in my opinion, naively) leaves his Wi-Fi connection unsecured. Would the law see him as an accomplice or an "enabler of crime"?

Obviously not because the crime is doing it without the owner's permission. Leaving your front door unlocked may be stupid but there's still a vast difference between wanting people to come in and inviting them and people who simply walk in uninvited making themselves at home. It's the theft from the network owner that's the key thing, and in your example there can't be a theft if the owner has given permission (explicit or otherwise).

buglawton

Let's say stand near a brightly lit shop window at night in order to read a newspaper, or stand watching a football match through a TV shop window.

The shop owners have paid good money for the energy or the TV in their stock and I am making use it it for free from my position on the street outside.

Am I likely to be arrested?

superscaper

buglawton wrote: »

Let's say stand near a brightly lit shop window at night in order to read a newspaper, or stand watching a football match through a TV shop window.

The shop owners have paid good money for the energy or the TV in their stock and I am making use it it for free from my position on the street outside.

Am I likely to be arrested?

Not quite the same analogy as that is something only one way and you "using" the light doesn't alter how much light is emitted. Wifi is 2 way and it's not the actual radio signal itself that's at issue here but the actual tangible use of the bandwidth. The user could be on a pay as you go system for all you know so it's quite literally costing them money.

A closer analogy is if you were using some kind of universal remote to switch on more of the lights inside the shop in order to read your newspaper. There's a large difference between something that's purely a transmitter/emitter as in your examples and a transceiver where there's actual interaction.

buglawton

Hmm, in the case of the shop my presence is perhaps a nuisance to the shop owner, blocking his window and putting other customers off. More of a nuisance or a potential financial loss in fact that someone reading emails in a car. In the real world of course, the shop owner if truly inconvenienced would complain. Or the police might say that the person is causing an obstruction and 'move him on'. The shop owner not have the option, I grant, of blocking up the window - self-defeating! The unencrypted WiFi broadcaster can block access of course if he was not so idle. At a bare minimum a warning or ticking off might be given to the piggy-backing consumer. In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of getting some convictions stats while, no warning and our email reading punter is arrested! While instead the WiFi owner should have been ticked off for leaving the door to his broadband wide open.

Another curiosity of British law: Entering an empty property and living there, and causing wear and tear is legal, so long as no criminal damage is done (http://www.urban75.com/Action/squat.html). The police have to prove that damage was done.

Funny old world!

tomsolomon

The sort of people who leave their internet unencrypted are usually lazy, stupid, computer illiterate, or just to much of a skin flint to get someone in to sort it out.....
Unfortunately they are also the first people to complain when their bandwidth is being stolen.
If you want to be lazy, stupid, computer illiterate or to much of a skin flint to get your wireless sorted out, then I have no sympathy if someone steals your bandwidth, so just shut up and stop complaining.

ITS YOUR OWN FAULT

fwor

tomsolomon wrote: »

The sort of people who leave their internet unencrypted are usually lazy, stupid, computer illiterate, or just to much of a skin flint to get someone in to sort it out.....
Unfortunately they are also the first people to complain when their bandwidth is being stolen.

You make no reference to community wireless networks, which are typically mesh-type networks that are voluntarily provided as a service to neighbours and other people in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_community_network

So... If I'm sitting in my car outside a house where a community access node is situated, but have inadvertently connected to the wireless access point of a neighbour, which is "open" but not published as being available to others, am I breaking the law?