Is it legal to access an open wi-fi access point?

Robert Jacobs wrote:

Ok well if Im wrong or not? and thanks for your opinion, here is my answer to his question if he lives in the USA. ---NO--- and now whether he or you want my opinion or not you?re going to get it ? and here is another ear full for ya?.

The only legality is a big fat ?I DON?T KNOW? (unless you live in Canada think they do have some clearly written laws) and that is words from the law makers not me. No one knows in this country. The FBI doesn't know how legal it is" or "It may be illegal, because you're using someone else's connection or you're spying on their network. Its not clear and this issue will create ridiculous legal problems, which is bad news for both consumers and law enforcement, unless a sensible, national policy can be developed. As we know there's plenty of free access around for travelers. It seems to me that being able to download your e-mail at an open connection is a good thing. The legality of this practice in the U.S is quite hazy, and there are many mitigating factors. One is that some organizations deliberately leave access points unencrypted so that people can use them as necessary. Also, many computers with built-in wireless simply grab the first signal they detect. Then there's the trespassing issue: The wardriver isn't trespassing on the router, the router is trespassing on the wardriver's airspace remember this. Law enforcement doesn't need to get involved whenever some guy in a doughnut shop poaches a nearby Wi-Fi connection to check his e-mail, thinking he's on the shop's network. This shouldn't be a crime, even if he's intentionally poaching.

WE MUST PUT THE BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY ON THE BROADCASTER NOT THE END USER GUYS

That is what needs to be done. It has to be made clear that people sending open connections all over town should be responsible for them. That?s the thing you guys need to remember. And forget all you guys out there with your stupid theories about if the doors to someones home is left unlocked do you just walk in and all that BS ? give me a break. This is what you need to know and forget all the BS you hear from these pussy whipped wackos that are even too afraid to take and eat a cherry of their neighbors tree that is on the fence line. Stealing or not how cares your not trespassing its right there in front of your face while your standing on your own property. Forget these wackos with their silly ass opinions in this group. HERES THE DEAL: Once a wireless signal leaves private property, it becomes public domain. If the person transmitting the signal wants it protected, then encryption is up to him or her. If someone beams an Internet connection into my home or into my car as I drive down the public street and I happen to lock onto the signal, he is trespassing on me, not the other way around. Public policy must reflect this logic. Keep it out of my house and car if you don't want me using it. Does this make sense to some of you wackos ? Let anyone who wants to provide open access do so without hassle or fear. Groups in many major cities now are openly promoting free 802.11 connectivity. Many coffee shops, restaurants, and community groups now provide free wireless access, and directories of these hot spots are easy to find online guys. This ubiquity of access is to be encouraged as in the public interest. But it can't happen if the law doesn't make the person transmitting the

802.11 signal responsible, instead of blaming any roaming users who are simply grabbing open connections. The thing for we USA group members here to remember is that we must not follow the Canadian model that views using unprotected 802.11 connections as bandwidth theft. My computer grabs wireless signals impinging on my house more often than it grabs my own wi-fi connection if I have my security turned off. My computer loves to and its so much easier to connect to automatic connections out there that are set up with just the default settings. It just does. Agencies shouldn't be required to sort this out; it would be a law enforcement nightmare. In fact, it's in the public interest to discourage law enforcement intervention in this area, or you and I could be arrested for accidentally connecting to another person's router, when I didn't want to connect to it in the first place. You guys decide and the answer to the question, straight answers sometimes don?t just answer the question.

Come into my home under those circumstances. I promise you that you will not leave alive.

if your nieghbor's wan is transmiting in to your house he is trespassing

so it should be ethical to use what he is putting in your house

BS!!!! If your neighbor COULD stop the transmission he probably should BUT it is a radio type signal! It goes wherever it can, it is non-directional without an antenna! If your neighbors wifi can be seen and received at your home it is NOT legal to then use it!!!! Without his permission, that is!!!! It would also be neighborly to tell him that it can be seen and that it is open to the public and he needs to encrypt it at the very least!

This is sort of like the thinking that the light from you or your wife's body in the hot tub on your patio is trespassing through the neighbor's property, so he should have the RIGHT to use his binoculars to watch, if he so chooses.

Legality of access to radiated signals was legislated years ago when people started using radio scanners to listen in on analog cell phone conversations. Basically, federal law states that you have to stop listening in on a conversation as soon as you realize it's not meant for you. Encryption is *not* required to make a case against an eavesdropper. Unlike radio and TV signals that are broadcast with the express intent to be received, signals from private emitters are not (other than those on "public" requencies, such as CB, family radio, ham radio, etc.).

I am not familiar if/how the courts have ruled regarding interception of digital signals on WANs, but I would bet that they'd view intentional usage of someone else's private wireless network to be illegal (imagine if you made phone calls using equipment that cloned someone else's cell phone, but only did it during "anytime" minutes so they didn't end up paying anything for the time you used. The service provider could almost certainly prevail in a civil suit, and quite possibly a criminal one as well.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 07:16:51 GMT, hell hound spoketh

That is about the dumbest thing I have heard all year.

Lars M. Hansen

'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)

| >if your nieghbor's wan is transmiting in to your house he is trespassing | >so it should be ethical to use what he is putting in your house | | That is about the dumbest thing I have heard all year. | | Lars M. Hansen |

| (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)

Be patient. The year is young. :-))

To use "what he is putting in your house", you are "putting your signal back into his house".

I can't see accessing an un-encrypted and open SSID being "illegal", but I do question the ethics of doing such.

I put much of the blame of un-intended wireless use to the wifi manufacturers though. By default, most manufacturers hardware is setup to use generic SSIDs ("linksys", "default", "mshome", "webstar") and be un-encrypted. I think the initial configuration scripts for wifi hardware should require using a unique SSID and also encryption. Afterwards, the user can change the SSID name and go un-encrypted under "Advanced Settings". Unfortunetly, the opposite is true now -- and face it, a large number of wireless users don't even bother going into the so-called "Advanced Settings".

My WLAN (802.11a, 802.11g) wireless is WPA/Radius'd, MAC filtered, etc, but I do keep 802.11b completetly open strickly for internet access. (Can't get to my WLAN from 802.11b, can only get out on internet.) My intention for the open 802.11b is for anyone to use the internet. I told my neighbors to feel free to use it, which they have from their back porch. My philosophy about giving some open access is that perhaps I may want to use someone else's open internet access. However, I wouldn't do so unless it was clearly evident that such access was intended to be open. I'm showing my open intention by including the text "_OPEN" as part of the 802.11b SSID name. I'd like to see this type of convention implimented by everyone that is intentionally giving any open internet access. If I come across an open "linksys", "default", etc SSID equate it to someone who didn't lock their front door. Just because the door is unlocked, I wouldn't enter their home -- so why should I use their wireless?

hell hound wrote in news:hell.hound.1k2nuz@WiFi-Forum_dot_com:

DAMN RIGHT

i dont want those damn cancer causing waves going through my head

ALL DAY...EVERY DAY!!!

FUK DAT

smowk

First time a kiddie-p*rn person uses your "open" net and the cops come and take YOUR system away, and then don't give it back for a few days, you DO have licenses for EVERYTHING right, then you will close that door too. The easiest thing is to close the door but give the key to the neighbors, prevents random drive by access. If ANYONE can use your net connection then I or anyone else, with a little knowledge, can use it and be untracebale. How can you trace someone if they are only using your connection this week and are gone who knows where next week?

The reason you make the DEFAULTS the most simplistic and least controlled is for those who have no clue that want to use the technology. Plaming the manufacturer is the second most stupid thing I have heard this year. Thats like blaming a Gun Manufacturer because the owner of the gun has no idea what a safety is.

"f/fgeorge" wrote

True -- downloading child pornography and spamming from my open access top the list of my "nightmare scenerios".

I'm not going to sit in my house, hands fisted around a shotgun, though. Yes, it is a risk, but I'm confident that in my location either activity is probably not very likely. Of course, if I found someone sitting in my driveway and doing either activity, I wouldn't hesitate to press charges. Not for using my access, but for downloading child pornography or spamming.

Whenever I leave for an extended period (i.e., more than three days), I bring everything down anyway.

Requiring a unique SSID and entering at least a WEP key during initial configuration doesn't add much complexity. I'm not putting "blame" on the manufacturers as in they should be held accountable and liable, but rather perhaps they should account for the least common denominator.

As for the weapon analogy, I've never purchased a weapon that was locked and loaded with a round in the chamber. Almost always, the bolt is forward, selector is on fire, and the trigger has been squeezed to keep tension off the springs.

Gads, don't be silly... That would be LOGICAL, make too much SENSE, and cut down on sales of things you just plug in and it works, to the dumb consumer's with money in their wallets. It would be too complicated.... :)

Some manufacturers used to default to security enabled, and sales sucked.. They made it open by default, and sales went up something like 80%

neighbors to

everyone that

Excellent points. I was about to make a post after reading all these threads that basically said the same thing.

As far as someone using the "Captain Midnight" fiasco with HBO as an example, that's completely different. I know all those farmers in the mid-west years ago tried to use that argument about "radio waves invading my privacy so if I build a descrambler I ain't breakin' no laws..." was shot down many times in courts.

With a satellite signal, in some respects I can *almost* see *some* validity in the argument - note I said *almost* see *some*, I didn't say it was right or wrong, just that I myself find some parts of the concept interesting. Whether DirecTV/Dish Network has 1 customer or 100 million, it's still costing them the same amount of money to bounce signals.

It's a one-way argument, literally.

As for WiFi and open APs, that's an entirely different situation all together. If you're just sitting in your house, with a desktop or laptop equipped with WiFi equipment, or even out wardriving in a car with a WiFi-equipped laptop, and you decide to sniff packets out of the ether, I have no issues with that whatsoever, none.

It's similar in principle to listening to FM radio, in my view. The packets are floating around, so snag 'em if you want 'em. If people are too careless and ignorant to read the instructions and learn how to secure their networks, so be it.

The problem comes in when you go from just listening to actively broadcasting and accessing *someone else's* network and resources. That's where it crosses the line from "fun/no harm done" to "theft/intrusion."

There have been a lot of good examples of pros and cons in this thread so far, and I hope the debate continues.

As for my answer to the question that started this thread, "Is it legal to access an open wi-fi access point?," I would ask the thread starter to clarify what he defines as "open" and then we can take it from there.

"Open" to me means one that I know for certain is available for anyone's use, a totally free and publicly known AP that is advertised, either by public notice or the SSID stating such information.

Appending "_OPEN" to your SSID on a truly open AP as someone suggested earlier is a VERY GOOD IDEA that I intend to implement myself. I have a few neighbors that aren't as serious about PCs as I am and I've told them they're welcome to hit my 11g AP if they go buy the wireless PCI cards for their desktops.

Sooner or later it will be a matter of law, but what does that really mean anyway. It's certainly not a deterrent just having a law about something. If that were true, drunks wouldn't drive, assassins wouldn't kill, etc etc.

For those questioning the matter-of-fact legality of accessing ANY AP ANYWHERE in the US WITHOUT the explicit authorization of the service provider owning the AP, read this:

Once you get past the legalese, it basically states in no uncertain terms that it is illegal to access network resources without explicit authorization. Period.

Just my two cents.

Paul

Ummm... when was you ever saw someone actually read the instructions, unless they try and install it and it doesn't work? Sides, people are of the mentality nowadays that if it doesn't work out of the box, take it back for a refund.... :(

Don't get me wrong.. As a computer person, I think it would be fine, but as a part owner of a sales place, it would absolutely KILL retail sales to dummies with cash in their wallet, and again as a sales/profit oriented person, I wouldn't order or stock anything that won't make me money...And if anything is done to make something not work out of the box, I and many other places, wouldn't sell it..... Stupid? yes.. but Reality? Yes.....

But the manufacturer could have a "config" utility or procedure that required the owner to enter a new subnet, SSID and WEP key, instead of simply leaving it at the defaults.