Some people might think that you're joking, because anyone concerned about freeloaders would use some sort of security. Or they may think that you've chosen that SSID as protection, "honest judge, my SSID implied that I didn't want anyone using my network, it's not my fault that the neighborhood crack pusher was using it."
What if the SSID is set to 'Fuck off, no freeloaders" then?
Opps, yes, it was Intel. Not HP. (I just think of HP when I think of Oregon...)
But that supports exactly what I'm saying. Schwartz didn't view what he was doing as a security intrusion, so much as doing his employer a favor by demonstrating that there were problems which he alone seemed to recognize. I'm not saying what he did was smart, I'm just saying he didn't think he was really breaking the law. He thought he was getting around a couple of hard to deal with Pointy Haired Bosses. He was probably right to at least some degree, and greatly wrong to a much greater degree.
Frankly, I thought, then and now, that criminal prosecution was ridiculous, and lends weight to the PHB concept.
On the other hand, having had PHB's try to start exactly that kind of investigation of *me* on at least two occasions that I know of during the time period when that was a typical reaction to anyone in a telephone office who understood computers, I can't describe how stupid I think it is to not recognize the potential danger. And of course the appropriate response to that danger is to keep ones nose so polished clean that such investigations turn out embarrassing for the person who instigates them. (I ended up with battle scars; they ended up bleeding to death!)
I snipped to the point.
The question wasn't "what is an encyclopedia entry for SSID", but what is the definition.
It isn't even remotely close to a point.
If you honestly believe that then you are an idiot.
Please stop trying to justify theft.
You are wrong.
It IS their responsibility. At least in this country. Yours may have "millions of free access networks", although I doubt it. But even if we did, it would *still* be the responsibility of the person connecting to ensure they had permission.
The crime does require intent, so leaving their computer set up to just connect to whatever it happens to find probably would not result in a conviction.
But deliberately seeking out "open" networks would - and HAS.
Yet another bad analogy. There is no expectation that any store would give away its products for free, but many businesses and individuals intentionally allow free use of their wireless networks. The ones that decide not to allow free access simply secure their networks.
If some other posters here are correct, free wireless is not common in some countries, but in the U.S. it is very widespread. So widespread in fact, that some cable companies and phone companies are trying to get laws passed that restrict it because they are justifiably worried that free access will result in less subscriptions.
Last time I knew (it's been awhile), they all did keep logs.
However, for privacy reasons those logs are *not* shared with just anyone. Law enforcement and any legitimate business reason, but never just because someone wants to know who it was that did it...
Of course even if it did change, you can get a domain name and DNS service that will update within seconds of being notified of a change.
Do a ping to my domain name, and my web site (listed in my signature below) now, and then do it again tomorrow. One will probably change, the other won't.
For a while longer my connection is a dialup v.90 modem that gets disconnected every 8 hours. It often gets the same IP address if dialed back immediately, but most of the time my IP address changes at least a couple times a day. The www and mail hosts are both directed at other hosts.
Need an invitation? What could be more inviting than "Please Login:". It asked me to login, so I did.
The Florida law that makes "unauthorized" network access a felony requires that the user get "permission" from network owner. I realize that the UK might be different, but methinks that the legality hangs on this point. If you have permission, it's legal. Without permission, it's criminal. That leaves the question of what constitutes permission. Some document signed by the network owner would be nice, but rather impractical. Some kind of relationship (business, personal, tenant) might also imply permission. No easy answer for what constitutes permission.
Whether you lock your door or not is immaterial. There is no expectation that anyone is opening their house to anyone that wants to come in, because no one does this. With wireless it is exactly the opposite.
Microsoft got it right with their 'Wireless Network Connection Status' box:
"Unsecured wireless network This network is configured for open access."
Now you may argue that it was the router manufacturer, not the end user, that configured it for open access, but that is no excuse.
Sorry, that's not the way it works. If it is not intended to be available then it would not be configured for open access. There is the principle of unreasonableness, which the courts do recognize. It would be unreasonable for the end user to know which open access networks are intended for open access, and which are not. For example, I pick up eight wireless networks from my house, including my own. Three are secure, including my own. Two clearly appear to be intentionally open, based on the SSID, though there is no one to check with as to whether or not they really are open. Three have names like "Netgear," "default," or "Linksys," which may or may not be intentionally open. There is no way for the end user to determine which open access networks are really intended to be open access. If it ever went to court.
The idea that just
You are losing your mind.
Exactly. This even applies to radio and television broadcasts, which are only offered to the public under specific terms and conditions for specific purposes. They are *not* public property, and you may *not* do what you like with them.
Rod.
Permission is the key point wherever you are. *People* can give permission. Non-sentient artefacts cannot. They can only do what they have been set up to do.
Most of the equipment we are talking about here is factory set to transmit its manufacturer's name as an identifier, and to allow anybody to make contact, and it's probably safe to assume that most of the people who buy it don't know this. Therefore a manufacturer's name on an unsecured network almost certainly means that it belongs to somebody who does not know that they are vulnerable. Their ignorance is *not* the same as their permission for you to help yourself. Anyone who wants to indicate their permission for anyone to use their network can quite easily change their broadcast SSID to something that makes this clear.
Rod.
Nonsense. I have a home wireless network, and to my knowledge, there are at least two other wireless networks in my road. My brother has a wireless network. I've set up two further wireless networks for other people. There is at least one wireless network at my place of work. All of these wireless networks of which I have direct personal experience are installed for the use of their owners and are not intended to be freely used by anybody else. On what do you base your ridiculous assertion? Why on earth should it be assumed that something of mine is available for anybody to use, simply because it isn't a tangible object like a house or a car with locked doors?
Rod.
What's that got to do with the price of cheese when you're broadcasting into the public domain?
Paul.
Cite a specific legal case, please. I'll assume you're just guessing otherwise.
Paul.
That is the main point in this discussion which I disagree with. I believe that the owner should be responsible for the correct operation of his equipment (computer or otherwise) and for correctly setting it up or configuring it. Therefore, barring case of malfunction (in which case the owner should get it fixed), the operation of automatic equipment *is* an indication of the owner/user' intent.
No they don't.
No they don't. Who says they have to?
My ISP doesn't - they specifically configure their routers so that's it's not possible to associate a specific IP address with a specific customer. See:
--
Well yes they can keep logs, but they don't have to contain information that could identify the customer. Some ISPs place a certain value on privacy, mine for instance:
--
I suspect that is *most* countries.
I believe North America is quite unusual if "free" wireless access is as widespread as you say it is.
Whether your model will spread, or whether it will become more restricted in the US & Canada, remains to be seen.
I'm surprised they can't restrict it by contract, if they are concerned. The ISPs providing connectivity could easily include contract terms forbidding their customers from offering unrestricted access.
Unless your anti-trust laws would prevent that?
The simple fact that your SSID is publicly visible does NOT mean that it is an offer to use it for free, nor does it give permission to do so.
Yep. That is more or less the same in the UK.
But the point is that permission cannot just be assumed. There has to be something (more than just the presence of an open router) to indicate that permission has been deliberately granted.
That is simply untrue.
I would bet there are a higher proportion of properties where there is an implied right to enter (every shop, museum or similar) than there are deliberately open wireless networks.
No they didn't.
That statement makes an implication that is simply untrue.
This is not unusual for Microsoft.
The fact that it is configured that way is no excuse for *assuming* it is deliberate.
Particularly if the value is still that of a router manufacturer (which is what most are set to by default).
You are wrong. That *is* the way it works.
That can VERY easily be shown to be false. I would expect that well in excess of 90% of networks "configured" for open access have not been actively configured at all, but just left to default values.
And a simple demonstration of that fact in court would almost certainly be sufficient for the court to accept that it should NOT be assumed from the fact that a network is open, that it is *intended* to be used for free public access.
The last three are almost certainly not intended to be open access, and I am quite suer that the "reasonableness" test you talk of would show that.
I might just be able to accept that if deliberately free access is as widespread in the US as you claim, then one with a changed SSID that is not using encryption or blocking the SSID, has *probably* been left open by deliberate decision.
One still using factory default settings almost certainly is not a deliberate decision at all.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.