Hijacking a broadband connection

There probably isn't a completely accurate one, but the relevant point is the morality of deliberately and knowingly taking or using something that belongs to someone else, while assuming you have the right to do this if the owner has not adequately protected it (or perhaps doesn't know how to).

I suggest that the morality is exactly the same regardless of what it is that you take, or how easy it is to take it, because it is the fact that it belongs to someone else that makes it wrong to take it. Yet if examples are quoted involving familiar things like houses or cars, you suggest that these are not valid examples, implying (unless I misunderstand you) that you think theft is wrong for an unsecured house or car, but fair game for an unsecured wireless network. Personally I don't see the difference, because no matter how careless the owner of something has been in failing to protect it, if it doesn't belong to you, it doesn't belong to you.

The situation is slightly altered if you do it unintentionally, as, for example, inadvertently finding yourself on unsignposted private land during the course of a country walk (or is that a bad analogy too?), but apologies and explanations are usually sufficient to resolve such incidents, and decent folk would take care not to do it again. The owner of the land would, of course, be sensible to fence or signpost it, and in reality must expect a fair number of unintentional tresspassers if he doesn't, but failing to do so doesn't make the land any less his, and doesn't deprive him of the right to ask anyone on it to leave.

Rod.

You're confusing medium and media.

Paul.

Where do you get that idea from, given that he makes no reference to either?

This point is not relevant for many reasons:

First and foremost, you are talking about something that is very, very, often intended to be used for free, without asking permission, by anyone that wishes to use it, and for which there is no way to actually ask permission in the first place. The reasons that businesses, and individuals, have decided to intentionally open their networks are well known. Maybe it's not that way in the U.K., but it is in the U.S..

Because the norm is free access, and because the user's equipment will often connect to an open network unbeknownst to the user, the network owner must take at least a tiny amount of responsibilty if they do not want others using their network.

There are many good analogies if you are talking only about businesses, but I can think of no other service that both businesses, and individuals, routinely provide to anyone that wants to use it, at no cost.

That is completely irrelevant.

If the user does not establish that it *is* being offered for free, then they should not be using it. If it turns out not to be, then they will be liable to criminal prosecution.

Nobody has ever suggested otherwise. The fact that the owner has a responsibility to take care of their goods does not mean it is acceptable to just take them if the owner doesn't do that.

If I had left my connection open, and somebody used it for something illegal, that was traceable somehow to them, then the possible outcomes are:

1. I lose my account, because under the T&C of my ISP, I am responsible for usage of my account.
2. I sue the culprit for damages cause by that loss of account. I

*would* win, but would probably have the damages reduced because of my carelessness.

1. If the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service - I think in your jurisdiction it is the DA who decides to prosecute or not?) decide to prosecute, then he will probably be found guilty without the fact that I had left it to default settings having any relevance.

You may be insulting the intelligence of Joe Six-Pack, seriously.

The strongest wireless network I pick up at my house, is my neighbor's, a totally non-techie who nevertheless managed to follow the quick-set-up instructions and secure his network. He's a cop, and maybe he understood more than most people why he should secure it.

I am an EE, not a CSE. Networking is not my specialty. Yet I was able to set up security in just a couple of minutes by following the instructions.

Only if you knew that "ip address" was the question you needed answering! :)

Open in what sense?

Open and closed here are definitions of the configuration of the

*device* NOT necessarily the intentions to which it is being put.

Creative definitions and interpretations to justify an aim are pointless.

David.

Quit surfing the p*rn sites then! ;)

What part of Rod's analogy is hard to understand and/or accept? Despite the item in question, using someone else's property without their permission is wrong by any society's standards.

Any analogy on this subject needs to take into account the realities of the situation, in order to be relevant.

No argument there.

The issue is really whether or not permission is explicitly granted, implicitly granted, implicitly denied, or explicitly denied.

At least in the U.S., it is very common for permission to be implicitly granted, or explicitly denied, less common for it to be explicitly granted or implicitly denied.

I'm in total agreement.

I don't believe you.

I can accept that "free" WiFi access is commonplace there.

And I can accept that it is rare for permission to be explicitly allowed.

But I do not for one moment believe that there are more networks that are *intended* to be implicitly free for public access than there are ones which just haven't been set up right.

I agree to a point, BUT....realities are suppose to be truths. The truth is this....People are accessing open wireless networks without permission being both implicitly and explicitly granted. To a large portion of our society, wireless networking is the "new thing" and they want to be a part of it. They could care less if their wireless traffic is encrypted or not as long as it works when they set it up. Having said that, do you believe that it is their intent to implicity grant permission to access someone who happens to receive their open signal? I would argue that if they were made aware of the risks of wireless networking (especially the people who do not read their manuals) and were able to enable encryption with ease and still be able to use their network, the majority of them would do so and would not allow those without permission to access their WLAN.

In a great many cases this is exactly what they intend, at least in the U.S. (at least in places like San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and the People's Republic of Berkeley.

For the people that leave their network open out of ignorance of the pitfalls of doing so, you are probably right. For the people that leave their network open because they believe in trying to have pervasive free Wi-Fi, maybe not.

We've even got people that will set up an open network in places like Starbucks, in order to provide an alternative to the T-Mobile Hot Spots. The Starbuck's closest to me would be perfect for this, since there is a free network about 200 feet away that could be picked up with an 802.11 Cardbus card that had an external directional antenna. Personally, I'd simply go to a different coffee house, since every other one in the area has free Wi-Fi.

Probably true. But of the ones were not set up right, how many were not set up right because the owner didn't really care if someone else used it, and how many were set not set up right because the owner could not figure out how to do it. Of the ones that were left with an SSID of "default," "Netgear," or "Linksys" how many were left with it because the owner wanted to "play dumb" while leaving their network open.

All I'm saying is that enough networks are intentionally left open for a user to not be concerned when their computer latches on to one. We've become so accustomed to free wireless, at least in the SF Bay area, that we take it for granted when we turn on their machine and it connects. We don't think, "gee, I wonder if the open network that my machine connected to automatically is one that I am explicitly allowed to use." It's more "how nice, someone is nice enough to provide free wireless."

I see your point.

In message , SMS writes

I have heard that some of these "free" Hot Spots at coffee shops etc. can be malicious, actually gathering data from users for illegal purposes.

I suspect that the two of those together are not nearly as many as those who don't even know they *should* be doing anything about it.