Hijacking a broadband connection

Huh?

It certainly does no such thing. Unless, of course, you have left it to the default value, which both Paul and I were suggesting be changed first.

It means that "casual" browsers won't see it at all, so there is no danger of them connecting to it. It most certainly does not make it difficult for them to avoid it.

I seem to recall some of our more dodgy bretheren across the pond have a policy of making sure that their wi-fi network is *not* secured, and advertising that fact, so that if any wrongdoings are detected by their ISP they can claim that there is doubt about who did it, thereby avoiding the legal consequences (criminal and, less likely, civil).

Is that a possibility over here ?

Cheers,

John

I think you think wrong. I think many people buy their wireless gear in the belief that free internet is available, and there was a time occasionally the newspapers would tell you where there was free wireless broadband to be had. A typical journalist's view is at

Is it? Or isn't it?

I shut off my kids' internet access at 11pm. Hypothetically (of course) they might then, with my knowledge, try to circumvent this curfew by seeing whether they can connect to any network within range. And hypothetically (we aren't talking about young infants, here) they might browse any available files on that network. If I am the householder and I turn a blind eye to this, I think I might be liable.

I never thought they were. But see my other post in this thread. If the unauthorised access is known to me and is done on a regular basis I think there might be a knock not necessarily at 4am but maybe later in the day. Scenario: your neighbour is puzzled that his broadband performance is slow. He gets an expert like you to come and check whether his system is working properly. He is told "there's your problem - the people next door are using your connection and they seem to be downloading stuff using Kazaa and Limewire all day and all night. Do you like your neighbour? If not, let's tell the police".

Doesn't matter what it looks like as long as it is secure.

I don't see why not. There's no law that I know of that states that you have to (attempt to) secure your network (or house or car for that matter. Guns yes but not the rest).

Therefore it's pretty simple to introduce reasonable doubt and that's all you need to do to defeat a prosecution which in a criminal case has to be "beyond reasonable doubt".

The only problem is that Derby Constabularly for example are a year behind evidence collection in kiddie p*rn alone, let alone anything else. They have racks of computers awaiting forensic inspection so you'd lose your PC for a long time if nothing else.

David.

That's a either a gloriously flawed analogy, or a nonsensical question. Using a publically-available wireless network is more akin to someone on the street at night reading a newspaper by the light from your windows. Theft of light? If you don't want it to happen, put up curtains.

Fair enough. But what's been stolen? Where's the intention to permanently deprive?

Mike

--

'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'

Does this mean that you also think anyone who is careless enough to leave their front door unlocked "deserves all they get" if they are burgled? Do you think thieves should not be prosecuted if they steal from people who have not taken adequate precautions against this?

In fact, if you think about it, anybody who has anything stolen from them could be said not to have taken adequate precautions, because if the precautions *had* been adequate the items would not have been stolen, so on that basis any theft is exonerated if the thief can carry it out successfuly.

Personally I prefer the old-fashioned morality wherein theft is wrong, the wrongness being defined on the basis of who the stolen items belong to, and nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is easy or difficult for the thief to take them.

Rod.

Your analogy and conclusion are both flawed.

Having an unsecured and fully-announced wireless network is like leaving your door not only unlocked, but wide open with a "please help yourself" sign outside. In such an instance, I definitely have no sympathy.

Also, you assume that because I have no sympathy with the "victims", I think that the people taking advantage of the blind stupidity of those with open networks shouldn't be prosecuted. Where did I say that?

Apart from those, you're spot-on.

Paul.

Not necessarily.

I know of several people who not only are aware that their broadband connections are being piggy backed, but actually encourage it. This guy does exactly the same thing

Its one way of spreading internet availablilty in small communities where not everyone wants to invest in their own ISP account, although I'm not sure whether the guys doing the "providing" are breaking the T&CS of their own contract with their ISP.

It seems to me it would only be an offence if the person hijacking the connection *knew* that their access was unauthorised. If a wireless network is wide open from a security point of view, I wonder whether you could mount a defence on the basis that you assumed it was done intentionally (which, as I say above does happen), and had no reason to assume otherwise. As I understand it, a prosecution would have to prove that you knew it *wasn't* authorised, which isn't immediately obvious if the security is wide open or non-existent

Brian

When a London council sets up a free, public access, service for anyone with a suitably equipped (wireless-enabled) device, then yes, one can get a mixed message... On Islington's web site: "The Technology Mile runs from Highbury Corner to the Angel along Upper Street and provides free wireless internet access to local businesses, residents and visitors to Islington. It is the largest free access zone in London and supports the A1 Borough project."

Not quite the same. It's easy for anyone to understand an open door, but less easy, particularly for a novice, to understand computer networking. In either case, theft is still theft, whether it's easy or difficult for the thief to accomplish.

And where is the "please help yourself" sign? Please don't say that the mere existence of a wireless access point that *can* be accessed amounts to an invitation to do so. You might as well say that parking my car outside is an invitation for somebody to scratch it - because they can - or that leaving my windows without bars on them is an invitation for somebody to break them - because they can - or perhaps that leaving my house without a 24 hour armed guard is an invitation for somebody to set fire to it - because thay can - but where would this line of reasoning end?

You didn't say it. I didn't say that you said it. I was *asking* if it reflected what you thought because it seemed to follow from what you *had* said. Thank you for clarifying the matter.

Rod.

Agreed, but is it right to assume wireless networks are public property unless otherwise indicated?

Think of an open door. Would you assume it meant anyone was invited to enter unless otherwise indicated, or would you assume it was private property unless otherwise indicated? Even if you did think it was acceptable to enter without asking (e.g. into a shop), would you then assume the right to take things or use things without asking?

Rod.

That would probably depend on how widely available actual public property networks become

Brian

I don't think that should matter, so long as the SSIDs are different. It may reduce the available bandwidth a bit, but it won't leave you connected to the wrong network.

What I thought he meant was that if the SSID is visible, then you will see it in the list, and can tell your PC not to connect to it.

But if it isn't, AND the SSID happens to be one you have connected to before, then your PC may connect to it without it ever showing in the list to be de-selected.

In the Wireless Network connections window.

It shouldn't have started because it's irrelevant.

The open invitation is on anyone's "connect" dialog box when they fire-up their wireless networking. Connecting through doesn't specifically require a deliberately malicious intent, merely ignorance. All your examples require malicious intent. My analogy is still the most accurate one.

I didn't think that I had.

Paul.

An open door on your PC is private. When you put an open door onto someone else's PC, they're already half-way in.

Paul.

Similar but not quite the same because in doing so, reading the paper does not impact on the other light in the house. Using network bandwidth does.

Don't confuse the propagation of a radio wave with the data that it carries. This whole issue of "well the RF was in my back yard" just isn't the end of the story.

Similar to joyriding. Joyriding in a car isn't theft because there's no intention to permanently deprive the owner, just go out and have a good thrash in someone elses car with your mates. It never seems to become theft when the car is set fire to either for some strange reason.

This will run and run and there's no point thinking up cute analogy after analogy because it's for the legal folk to kick it around and just like any other legal situation, it's the one with the best argument that wins, nothing more.

Prosecution: "but my client had WEP enabled" Defence: "well we all know that WEP is dead and can be cracked in 10 minutes, your client was negligent in not following network security practice and for not knowing that wireless is by its nature insecure." etc etc etc.

David.

Surely he is mad? The threat to his liberty from people using his connection for copyright/illegal p*rn is a real one.