Stealing Internet

[benjay]

Really? I'd like to see how, considering I've only ever logged onto my own network, my parent's network (with their permission), my in-law's network (with their permission), and any hotel that has advertised it as a service of staying at their hotel...

grats

[jdoggivjc]

My position is that an authorized user is a user that meets the configured authentication parameters for access to a resource.

So basically you are of the position that if someone (albeit foolishly) leaves their keys in the ignition and the car door unlocked that any passerby is authorized to utilize the vehicle? I'm sure if the owner called the police he/she would probably get a stern lecture about security, but I highly doubt the police allow the "borrower" to just get away with it due to the owner's lack of security protocol...

[Iastfan112]

From what I've read(although there are differing opinions and what my line of thought is, no its not stealing. By not encrypting at all they are giving their implied consent to you using their network.

[Bader]

So basically you are of the position that if someone (albeit foolishly) leaves their keys in the ignition and the car door unlocked that any passerby is authorized to utilize the vehicle? I'm sure if the owner called the police he/she would probably get a stern lecture about security, but I highly doubt the police allow the "borrower" to just get away with it due to the owner's lack of security protocol...

Yes because it is completely logical to compare using a service and stealing another person's property(goods)

[jdoggivjc]

Yes because it is completely logical to compare using a service and stealing another person's property(goods)

The argument is the same - it's available and it's not secure (locked down), so it's open to the public's use. I highly doubt when the person using the vehicle is brought before the judge on theft charges that his "well it was unlocked with the key in the ignition so it's available for public use" excuse is going to fly...

[Bader]

The argument is the same - it's available and it's not secure (locked down), so it's open to the public's use. I highly doubt when the person using the vehicle is brought before the judge on theft charges that his "well it was unlocked with the key in the ignition so it's available for public use" excuse is going to fly...

You're missing the point

Yes, I think we all agree that if I hopped in an unlocked car that had the keys in the ignition I should be punished for stealing and rightfully so

But it makes no sense for you to try and use an example about stealing goods in an argument about stealing a service, they are not the same thing

[jumbopackage]

EXACTLY! You can't know that you do or do not have authorization, so why would you assume that you automatically do?

Don't know what you mean by that.

Yes, you need to have some kind of permission. Whether that is your neighbor saying go ahead, or a business offering free wi-fi to everyone, or a hotel offering free wi-fi to customers and you are actually a customer. Something. Someone needs to tell you that you are allowed to access their network before you do it.

Because you automatically have access to EVERYTHING on the internet, unless you explicitly don't. It's a, by default, permit network. Not a deny one. The wireless network is an extension of that. Why would I assume I do not? Do I not go to certain IP addresses on the internet because I didn't ask the owner of that network block first?

I'll grant you that. It is likely that there are routers that default to requiring authentication.

However, you're saying you can make no assumptions about who is authorized to use the network, and then you assume that you are authorized. It seems that you are the one making the assumption, not me.

Well you're always making an assumption, aren't you? It is consistent with the nature of networking electronics that data will always flow unless explicitly told not to.

How would you know the 'authentication parameters' without talking to the owner of the network or getting some other kind of indication of them? You would know the requirements of access, but that doesn't tell you that you are allowed to be there. Just because you can go certain places doesn't mean that you are allowed to go there. Two different things.

A. because they are advertised in the wireless beacon

Actually, you are allowed to go places unless it is explicitly stated that you can not. I.e. you cannot be charged for trespassing unless the property is marked as private property. So yes, assuming that things are public is pretty much the standard.

Traditionally, for either type of trespass, some level of intent is required. Thus, the trespasser must not simply unwittingly traverse another's land but must knowingly go onto the property without permission. Knowledge may be inferred when the owner tells the trespasser not to go on the land, when the land is fenced, or when a "no trespassing" sign in posted. A trespasser would probably not be prosecuted if the land was open, the trespasser's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property, and the trespasser left immediately on request.

In this case, enabling encryption is a digital "no trespassing" sign, IMO.

So basically you are of the position that if someone (albeit foolishly) leaves their keys in the ignition and the car door unlocked that any passerby is authorized to utilize the vehicle? I'm sure if the owner called the police he/she would probably get a stern lecture about security, but I highly doubt the police allow the "borrower" to just get away with it due to the owner's lack of security protocol...

That is a different analogy. As I've stated before, the situation with wireless networking is more akin to your chauffeur giving other people rides to where they want to go, after you advertise you have a chauffeur and you tell him that it's ok to give anyone who walks up a ride somewhere. If you call the cops because he takes someone somewhere and you didn't want him to, even if you told him you could, do you think they would go arrest the person who was getting the ride you had authorized the chauffeur to give?

Now it could be that the service you use happens to paint a big "CHAUFFEUR HERE" sign on the car, and that their policy is, unless you tell them otherwise, to give anyone that walks up a ride. If the policy of the company is common knowledge, is it incumbent on the people who want a ride to restrain, or is it incumbent on you to tell the chauffeur not to give other people rides and not to advertise his existence?

[cmoneyr]

Because you automatically have access to EVERYTHING on the internet

Accessing someone's wireless network is not the same thing as accessing the internet, surely you know that right?

[Bader]

Accessing someone's wireless network is not the same thing as accessing the internet, surely you know that right?

The internet is a series of machines that have been put on a network and have been given a navigateable address

A wireless network is part of the internet

[ahaselhu]

Well you're always making an assumption, aren't you? It is consistent with the nature of networking electronics that data will always flow unless explicitly told not to.

Whether the data will flow or not is not in contention. The question is whether or not it is reasonable to assume authorization on a network is granted if you are able to connect to it.

Actually, you are allowed to go places unless it is explicitly stated that you can not. I.e. you cannot be charged for trespassing unless the property is marked as private property. So yes, assuming that things are public is pretty much the standard.

In this case, enabling encryption is a digital "no trespassing" sign, IMO.

I don't think this analogy is exactly fitting, since in this case you are not gaining access to goods or services you would otherwise have to pay for. You can't be charged with stealing simply by being on private property.

However, I'm having difficulty coming up with a truly analogous situation.

[cmoneyr]

The internet is a series of machines that have been put on a network and have been given a navigateable address

A wireless network is part of the internet

The "internet" that most everyone talks about is the world wide web, which is merely a part of the internet as a whole. In order to access the world wide web he has to go through his neighbors persoal network, that's where the rub is.

[cmoneyr]

A wireless network is part of the internet

Not necessarily true, you could have a home network without any internet access, but it would still be illegal for someone to enter it without being authorized.

[Bader]

Not necessarily true, you could have a home network without any internet access, but it would still be illegal for someone to enter it without being authorized.

Le sigh

I'm glad the discussion has now devolved into disproving unnecessary parts of each others comments rather than contributing to the germane argument (I realize I contributed to this)

[cmoneyr]

Le sigh

I'm glad the discussion has now devolved into disproving unnecessary parts of each others comments rather than contributing to the germane argument (I realize I contributed to this)

How is it unnecessary? jumbo talked about the "internet" being free to use, you said a wireless network is a part of the "internet" which doesn't always have to be true.

[ahaselhu]

I guess the main issue I have is that the average joe who sets up a wireless network in their residence can quite easily allow others to access their network inadvertently. Its "common knowledge" that people can take your property if you don't protect it. I'm not so sure it is "common knowledge" that people can use your wireless network if you don't secure it.

Again, I don't know what the law says about this, and it very well may be that the law views this as jumbopackage is describing. But in my opinion, for the reason above, there shouldn't be any expectation that a wireless network is available to the public unless the owner has explicitly given their permission.