LITTLEBLACKDOG.COM

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:15 pm Post subject:

leave a big chalk mark outside Smile

Isn't this no different from war driving? Cept that you weren't actively looking for the connection

Moderator Joined: 26 May 2001 Posts: 8155 Location: Borneo

I don't like the word war driving in this case. This has nothing to do with immoral behaviour. I assume that the person who owns the wireless network wants it to be open to everybody

Moderator Joined: 26 May 2001 Posts: 8155 Location: Borneo

mellowgreengiant wrote:
Wow... this kind of reminds me of the whole RIAA/p2p thing. Technology lets us do something new and then we gotta figure out if it's legal or not.

I think csign makes a good point. And it makes sense to me as long as that's all you do when you connect (Accessing purposely available local network services). But if you connect and then use their ISP to connect to the internet, I think that's crossing the line. Basically you could call it stealing. But there we go again... talking about stealing intangible things again.

It is not stealing. The gas station in my neighbourhood has a watertap. It is not protected or anything but is clear purposely set up so people could get water from it. If you set a wireless network up in a way that you don't need any password or something like that to get on the net and i can access it from my own house (or the street, etc.) then i have every right to assume that using your network to connect to the net is what you wanted.

Moderator Joined: 26 May 2001 Posts: 8155 Location: Borneo

hrbib21 wrote:
If you found $20.00 on the street could you be prosecuted because it belongs to someone else?

This is something completely different. I would compare it with a waterfontain in a park

Quote:

If you use autoconnect and you happen to be on someones network without your knowledge, I don't see any negative legal implications in that. For example, you go to your local coffee shop which has a public wireless hub and you connect but you connected accidently to the guys network 2 doors down. I guess the question here would really be intent. Did you intend to do it or not?

If i can get on yopur network without any hacking than i have every right to use it within reason and without violating your privacy

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2003 5:04 pm Post subject:

lyttek wrote:
If someone sets up a wireless hot-spot and decides to leave it open for public use, how do they notify anyone of that? And if you stumble upon a hot-spot such as you did, how does a user know whether or not the connection was left open on purpose, or by accident?

WarChalking.org

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:19 am Post subject:

Quote:

if no else is on the network, and therefore not using any bandwidth, is it really stealling bandwidth? as soon as i disconnect, all their bandwidth is fully restored.

i didn't intend to connect, but i may or may intend to stay connected... we'll see which case gets more support.

Careful there. This all depends on a lot of factors. You could be rolling up their monthly download quota for example. I sure wouldn't appreciate someone else downloading on my bandwidth if I had a quota (which I don't ftr).

Summing up here. You were "simply scanning for networks"... If I recall my FCC radio rules, you are (mostly) free to scan radio frequencies to your heart's content. You aren't supposed to divulge what you find, or make use of frequencies you are not licensed or authorised to use. You are (in the USA) licensed to use the 2.4GHz "instrumentation" spectrum but you may not be explicitly authorised to use any connection you find.

If you walk up to a gas station and use their water fountain it's one thing. But say you walk into your neighbor's back yard and start using their garden hose to fill your pool without permission. I'd think your neighbor would get upset.

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:13 pm Post subject:

EdisonRex wrote:
. But say you walk into your neighbor's back yard and start using their garden hose to fill your pool without permission. I'd think your neighbor would get upset.

at least in wisconsin, you don't pay for the water you get out of the pipe, you pay for the water that goes into the sewer, so that analogy isn't quite right on, but i know what you're saying. it also isn't very common to have download caps around my home away from home, but i agree, if there were, then it would definately be wrong to take any bits away from the people licensing the line.

i did look at mailboxes to try to find who it might be based on the wireless network name, but my attempts were futile. i'd even be willing to pitch in a few bucks a month. so i guess i'll keep digging around, and see if i can't figure out who's letting me ride for free.

Moderator Joined: 26 May 2001 Posts: 8155 Location: Borneo

EdisonRex wrote:

Careful there. This all depends on a lot of factors. You could be rolling up their monthly download quota for example. I sure wouldn't appreciate someone else downloading on my bandwidth if I had a quota (which I don't ftr).

If you set it up that i can use it without password than i assume you are sharing your connection with the world. So touch luck if you setup your connection wrong

Quote:

You are (in the USA) licensed to use the 2.4GHz "instrumentation" spectrum but you may not be explicitly authorised to use any connection you find.

explicitly not, but implicitly absolutely

Quote:

If you walk up to a gas station and use their water fountain it's one thing. But say you walk into your neighbor's back yard and start using their garden hose to fill your pool without permission. I'd think your neighbor would get upset.

I see it as the gas station

Moderator Joined: 26 May 2001 Posts: 8155 Location: Borneo

hohlecow wrote:
at least in wisconsin, you don't pay for the water you get out of the pipe, you pay for the water that goes into the sewer, so that analogy isn't quite right on, but i know what you're saying.

How do they measure it? I guess by measuring water use and assuming that input is same as output

Quote:

it also isn't very common to have download caps around my home away from home, but i agree, if there were, then it would definately be wrong to take any bits away from the people licensing the line.

They set up a drinking waterfountian on the public road and they don't want to share it then they should keep a lock n it otherwise it is fair game

Quote:

i did look at mailboxes to try to find who it might be based on the wireless network name, but my attempts were futile. i'd even be willing to pitch in a few bucks a month. so i guess i'll keep digging around, and see if i can't figure out who's letting me ride for free.

windows messenger maybe?
Not msn but you knew that.

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:48 am Post subject:

csign wrote:
I don't like the word war driving in this case.

War Games was a great movie.

Quote:
Greetings, Professor Falkin. How about a nice game of chess?

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2003 4:25 pm Post subject:

EdisonRex wrote:
Summing up here. You were "simply scanning for networks"... If I recall my FCC radio rules, you are (mostly) free to scan radio frequencies to your heart's content. You aren't supposed to divulge what you find, or make use of frequencies you are not licensed or authorised to use. You are (in the USA) licensed to use the 2.4GHz "instrumentation" spectrum but you may not be explicitly authorised to use any connection you find.

As far as FCC regulations go, that is dead on... but I'm not 100% sure that one might not be subject to certain computer crime laws, being that you have obtained unauthorized access to a private network... even though no efforts were made to secure the network... I'm not up-to-date enough on the laws concerning network intrusion to know if they would cover this scenario.

Personally, my opinion, on the matter, is that you should, if at all possible, inform the owner of the network of the security flaw, and hope for the best. (and I know you have already said that you are trying to do just that). If the owner of the network goes off about it, show him/her exactly what you did to obtain access to the network, and show that you were not actively "hacking" them.

The problem is that morallity and legallity are rarely the same.

Moderator Joined: 26 May 2001 Posts: 8155 Location: Borneo

No, if you allow people without any password to access your network than it should be assumed that your oke with it when people use your network otherwise you should have use a trivial password

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 6:27 am Post subject:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12564

Wendy Grossman's take on the matter. She's right about the UK.

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 8:25 pm Post subject:

EdisonRex wrote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12564

Wendy Grossman's take on the matter. She's right about the UK.

interesting read... and it fits my suspisions on the matter... I guess I should stop being so lazy and should start reading up on what the laws here in the states are on the matter.

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:48 am Post subject:

Wireless hacking bust in Michigan

salient points:

- if you cause damage, you committed a crime, regardless of if it was easy or not

- simply the act of connecting was not a crime

- in Texas, someone got acquitted because he did not cause any damage although he connected to an unsecured wireless network.