U.K. man arrested, fined for using open WiFi signal
posted Jul 22nd 2005 7:08PM
Looks like Florida isn't the only place
where you can get arrested for "borrowing" bandwidth as
it floats past you. Word is that U.K. police recently arrested a man for using an open WiFi signal. According to
reports, Gregory Straszkiewicz, 24, was found guilty of "dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service"
and "possessing equipment for fraudulent use of a communications service" after he was found logging on with a laptop
outside an apartment building. Straszkiewicz was fined £500 ($872) and given a year's probation; he also had his laptop
confiscated. We're not experts on U.K. law, and the details of this case are pretty sketchy, but it still seems to us
that just standing around and accessing the internet via an open network doesn't exactly constitute "fraudulent use" of
anything.
Maybe its fraudulent because of the TV and Radio taxes they pay in the UK.
My not putting a fence around my yard does not mean you can use my yard for any reason whatsoever. Think about it.
If you are not supposed to be using it, expect to face consequences if you get caught.
What worries me here is the difference between trespassing into someone's unfenced yard vs. standing in an apartment building (or outside of it) with your laptop. I hope the proper steps were taken to ensure that the defendant actually accessed the network.
To be honest, he should also have to do something illegal while on the network to commit any crime. It would be a shame to have to ensure that your laptop doesn't connect to any rouge wifi spots while transporting it.
If you don't fence in your yard, people can cut through it. Are you going to have them arrested? If you don't know enough about how to WEP your access point, then you shouldn't have one and you cannot complain when outsiders can access it. Period.
i am a floridian and i had no idea i could get arrested for that. that can't be right
What is I'm in my yard/apartment and your wifi signal is trespassing on my property.
got to love all the bad trespassing analogies that come up everytime this subject is discussed.
look, wifi has a well documented, open standard of how it works. the intended purpose of an ap is to have remote computers connect to it. if you do not wish for this to happen, do not plug one in, or take steps to limit access to it.
If you're not taking proper precautions to secure your wifi signal it's you're own damn fault if someone hijacks your bandwidth. It's the equivalent of leaving $20,000 in cash on a coffee table in front of your house and calling the police when someone happens to take it. I'm online at a bar and using the wifi of the coffee shop across the street -- are they gonna come by and arrest me because I haven't bought at least $3 of coffee like the sign says? Ridiculous.
if you don't have a fence how do I know that's your yard? if you don't want tresspassing, put up a sign. if you don't wanna share wifi, put up a warning otherwise the default should be "yes I'm open" or better yet sign and fence, ie secure it.
if you don't have a fence how do I know that's your yard? if you don't want tresspassing, put up a sign. if you don't wanna share wifi, put up a warning otherwise the default should be "yes I'm open" or better yet sign and fence, ie secure it.
how do you know if it's a free open network or not?
Please refer to the extensive discussion on this previous Engadget post: http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000597049560/
Every permutation of poor analogy has been put forward, already. The best one I can recall is a water sprinkler that oversprays onto the public street. There's no crime in standing in it to cool off or holding out a cup to drink. The analogy extends to wifi as long as the bandwidth usage is nominal and the there is no crime committed on the network owner's devices.
Please. No stupid trespassing analogies, this time around.
Wifi has completely revitalized a throwaway part of the EM spectrum primarily because the protocols were left open and the onus for security was placed on the node operators.
I think this is totally unfair. Like the previous poster said, if the apartment building don't want people to tap into their wi-fi, then set up the security settings, like i do. What's the problem? The punishment is too harsh for this problem which I don't see as a crime, at all.
Who determines what's nominal? And yes it is a crime whether you want it to be or not. No matter how easy they've made it for you by not configuring security you are still making an effort to connect to their network and use. As simple and easy as it seems to properly configure WAPs to you or me, Joe Average just wants his consumer electronics that he purchased to just work. And I do agree about the idiotic analogies that people keep putting forth when it comes to situations involving computer and information.
Who determines what's nominal? And yes it is a crime whether you want it to be or not. No matter how easy they've made it for you by not configuring security you are still making an effort to connect to their network and use. As simple and easy as it seems to properly configure WAPs to you or me, Joe Average just wants his consumer electronics that he purchased to just work. And I do agree about the idiotic analogies that people keep putting forth when it comes to situations involving computer and information.
i apologize ahead of time, but i live in nyc - hey...
i'm surprised the brits didn't have 5 undercover cops chase him, hold him down, and shoot him point blank a couple of times in front of witnesses...
... actually, five times and in the head...
I guess this guy wasn't wearing out of season clothes.
"My not putting a fence around my yard does not mean you can use my yard for any reason whatsoever."
In the state of Pennsylvania, simply being on private property without causing damage is only illegal if it is obvious that it's private property, or if you refuse to leave when asked. The law _explicitly_ mentions fences as one way of making it clear property is private.
While most of these analogies suck, it's important to at least understand what the law says about trespass. "I didn't realize it was supposed to be private" is an expressly enumerated defence against an accusation of trespass.
Personally, I run an open access point. I am happy for anybody to use it. If you argue that an un-secured access point is off-limits, you are telling me that I _can't_ share my AP with other people. You're telling me that because you don't want to turn on security, nobody else should ever be able to share their connection. I find that very distasteful.
It's not hard to turn on WEP.
Please stop using those anologies, they don't apply here.
Yes, me walking on your yard would be trespassing. Me using the unsecured wifi signals that go past your property is not trespassing. People walk on the sidewalk outside of your house, you going to sue them too? None of these anologies that people have come up with work. It's YOUR fault for leaving your wireless network open, not anyone elses for using whats freely available.
This man here, and the man in Florida should of not happened, you don't like people on your network, secure it, otherwise deal with it. There are MANY free sources on the internet that will show you how, or there are a LOT of people who are willing to do it if you pay. Stop blaming everyone else for your mistakes and start looking at yourselves.
Maybe the ones that should be fined are the people who don't have the secure network. Not people who have access to it. That way, a lesson is taught since the 'intruder' probably already knows better.
Travis - the UK TV licensing laws have nothing to do with usage of internet services as far as I know. One pays a TV license to pay for the content provided by the BBC on TV and radio. Internet access is the same as it is in the US - one pays an ISP.
Canadian judge told an American satellite TV company that if the company didn't want Canadians watching signals being broadcast from their satellite, they shouldn't broadcast into Canada. Sure, the Canadians would have to obtain special equipment to decode the signals, but that's no different than this situation - you need a wifi enabled device capable of receiving the signal.
If you don't want your car stolen, you lock the doors. If you don't want to share your internet, secure your WAP.
I agree mostly with what's been said; when what's been said is about an unsecure network. Now, if I had ANY encryption, even the TINIEST bit, that seems to be telling people that I don't want them on my network, and therefore if they force their way in (even though it's so easy anyone could do it) THEN they deserve punishment.
You talk about "No Tresspassing" signs for the yard, well, same thing with my 32/64 bit encryption. like a tresspassing sign, it's not going to protect my yard, but it should at least tell people to stay away. It's MY bandwidth they're using; something I have PAID for.
Unsecured: Have at it!
Secured (any way): Go blow yourself.
#7 got it down pretty well with that coffee table scenario. i also agree with number 8 cuz if theres no fence it could be anyone's yard, so put up a fence/sign or something to distinguish that its urs and that u dont want people on it.
The defenition of fraud (in Australia at least) is any decepetion that leads to an economic loss by another party. It is a freakin huge defenition that encompasses a lot. So, yes the act was fraud in Australian law which is very similar to the British.
Heehee.. so funny.
The coffee table analogy is the best.. it seems to imply that if someone takes money that they don't own, it is the money's owner who is at fault for not safeguarding it...
While the owner probably should safeguard it, that has nothing to do with the law. It's really very simple. Taking something that belongs to somebody else is a crime (it's called "theft").
Not knowing who owns the thing you are taking is irrelevant. Claiming that the person who owns it should take better care of it is irrelevant.
It is not yours. It must belong to someone else. You cannot simple take it.
In the case in point, when the person decided to use someone else's wireless network knew that they didn't own the network they were connecting to.
I don't think any of these analogies that reference physical property (whether real property like a yard, or personal property) are at all applicable.
I'd say a more apt analogy would be if I was standing in the street and could hear music coming from your house.
Meantime a certain Islamic Clerk who has incited violence against the UK, while he has lived in the country these last 40 years, is not only free, but has been paid "dole" money each week by the Government.
So tell me which person deserves court time?
When listening to music, it is passive, listening to something and unable to influence it.
Browsing the net is not passive. It is making personal requests of the resource (network connection) that are your requests.. also, it can directly cost the owner of the network extra money.
It is more like happening to have the same cordless phone, standing outside someones house, and making long-distance calls using their phone number.
Folks seem to be confusing ability to do something with the right do do something.
The closest analogy I can come up with is an apple tree in your yard that extends onto the street. Is someone walking by allowed to take an apple that is accessible?
Hey Ian..
People get sent to court when they have been charged with a crime.
If the clerk hasn't been charged, he won't go to court.
You seem to suggest that the guy going to court over the wireless offence somehow prevented the clerk from going to court, or that since there are big crimes, all small crimes should be ignored.
Whats sad is, the Laptop probably auto-recognized a wireless signal, and prompted the guy if he wanted to access it.
Sue the laptop maker, intel for their centrino, and microsoft for having it implemented in the system to begin with.
Damn right.
Enough with analogies :P
Here's my analogy:
It's like a person using a service I pay for without my permission just because they can.
Let's pick my internet account as the service.
There is no need for analogy. Analogies blur the facts.
The specific case itself is clear enough.
I don't think there is much out there than can compare to this incident (ie coffee table, private lawn, etc), however, I will add my own $.02:
I think an excellent example would be the recent widespread availability of satellite radio. Take XM for example, they broadcast their signal all over North America, however, you do not have access to it unless you pay their membership fees. Say XM were to openly offer the signal without any sort of security/encryption. I don't think they would even make into a courtroom arguing that "no one should listen to our broadcast unless they pay for it." A judge would laugh and tell them to make it unavaliable to people they don't want listeneing to it. But since they do have some sort of overriding security any of us that tap into it would be fined/sent to jail. This is also true of satellite TV.
As of now, there is a fine line between "stealing" and "using" with regards to things such as open hot spots. I'm not sure how well any of these cases are going to stand up in court until some major ruligns are made or laws passed.
A question. I live in an apartment building and I have access to at least 10 networks, most of which are completely open. What would happen if my laptop were to "accidently" hop onto another person's access point while I was in my apartment, on my own property? Is it illegal for your laptop to automatically (by default) snag another signal with no help or knowledge on your part?
There is truly a fine line that needs to be made clear before people start getting arrested for "stealing".
Actually I think the common example under common law is sneaking into a cinema.
Technically it's not fraud (you're not lying or deceiving anyone) but it's by obtaining a benefit by fraudulent means. It's similar because there's no loss. Which isn't true though, you would normally have to buy bandwidth; the ISP isn't making as much profit.
I think the argument regarding "the network was not secured so therefore there's no crime" has some serious flaws. What if you left your keys in your car (it happens). Some kid gets in it, takes it for a joy ride, then drops it back.
That's a crime. You could have very easily locked the door but the kid committed a crime regardless of your negligence.
Floop,
The music example is analogous to your computer connecting to an open network. Access points are made to broadcast their presence, and computers are made to connect to the access points -- much like your ears are designed to pick up sound waves.
Also, what examples are you aware of that people are charged by the amount of bandwidth they use? If anything, the argument that says it breaks the ISP's terms of service are the most relevant -- but that complaint goes to the customer, not the passer-by.
This is ridiculous... I've used open networks many times all over the city... The authorities crossed the lines here... they've enforced a "j-walking" type law here... I would love for them to do a tax audit on the police officer.
Come on, why on earth do you think they sell products like Wi-Finder? WiFi sniffers are sold by major corporations not shady alley shops. They are sold for the sole reason to find open networks so that one can use one. By the fact that this practice involves the aid of major corporations kind of "legalizes" it, wouldn't you say? I think the judge and police officer are out of touch with current society. This guy should get his notebook back and compensation for his troubles.
I can understand the guy getting arrested if he cracked an encryption key, attempting to do something illegal with the wi-fi connection but come on they are labeling this guy as a hijacker! he was piggybacking the internet connection he did nothing wrong, i mean come on it's like someone dropped a $50 bill on the ground and i found it who do i giv it back to the police screw that it's mine, the guy did nothing wrong with the connection he was just using it to surf the net...Stealing internet connection by means or cracking is not ok but come on it was open he did not steal anything...
Going to the apple tree analogy... no matter what the answer is, it doesn't warrant prosecution. If someone leans on your, do you call the police for infringing on your private property? Technically it's illegal, but you don't prosecute anyone for doing it. Yes, it's wrong. Yes it pisses you off. But you don't prosecute someone for it. You just give someone a warning. This is simply Draconian, myopic and primitive.
One more thing does this mean that if I decide to make a mobile wi fi hotspot that i can call the cops and get someone arrested for using my hotspot and claim they were illegaly using it without my permission?
I'm on my back porch as I type. I am in range of three wireless networks besides mine. Mine is the only one with security. If my neighbors don't want me to use their networks, they should encrypt it, prevent it from spilling into my home and back yard or go ethernet.
All wireless routers have some sort of security built in. It is the responsibility of the owner to prevent unauthorized use.
The courts will eventually figure this out.
To Floop,
Analogies are very much needed to put matters into perspective. Using myopic logic as in this case, causes an outcome that is out of context with the realities in society.
To Floop,
You can't compare physical property which has set norms in society with an inanimate object with its' own set of norms.
Tim,
ISP's in Australia, at least, can charge an overhead for traffic in excess of your monthly allowance, or start to degrade your connection speed the more you use.
Hence the owner of the network may be directly affected, either financially or by degraded speed, by someone else accessing it.
Wireless networks are devices that are used to communicate wirelessly. Their usage can be private or public. Their design has nothing to do with that.
Although I personally think the punishment is severe and the crime insignificant, I also think the lack of respect for private property, the "defend it or lose it" attitude, "everybody does it" and "it's a small crime so it doesn't really matter" attitudes are more serious.
And I think it's funny that people suggest that "yeah, he should have been fined, but only if he was doing something illegal like decrypting or hacking".. the guy was fined.. he did something illegal. Just something that is illegal that you don't think should be.
Nuff said.. although I noow reckon if a guy shot another person, some of you would be blaming the dead person for not wearing a flack jacket, and claiming that guns are made to be fired and hit things and if you don't want to be hit, you should wear protection otherwise you are stupid.
If you buy a wireless router/access point you know what you are buying therefore you should have it secured i mean come on RTFM that came with the device.
To Hooty..
I think you are mistaken.. physicality has nothing to do with it.
If I used your phone, wirelessly, using my handset but your wireless phone receiver, without your permission, and called up a $1000 bill on your behalf, have I done wrong? Or are you okay with that?
Floop,
ALL cordless phones have security to deal with unauthorized use. If I somehow disabled the security and someone else uses it, MY FAULT.
Get over it. Enable encryption if you don't want people to use your network. Take some responsibility.
That's the real issue here. People are too dumb to secure their networks so they expect the government to police their stupidity. AGAIN: take some responsibility...
See I still do not have a cell phone that being one reason btw im me dude bouncesignal
To Floop,
Everything has its' own set of norms... and the majority here will agree that there was no crime committed that warranted prosecution. So if I stand outside your window on the street listening to your music am I stealing? No (I hope you agree)! Come on Floop, laws should be enforced, but enforcement doesn't always equal prosecution.