Stealing the internet! O.o
- Thread starter blueren
- Start date
- Status
madnav said:
Now, for one, it sounds like you are giving a legal opinion and I'm not quite sure how that goes with the forum rules...let the mods decide it.
Second, this argument goes like...the door was not locked, I walked in, picked xyz item and walked out. It was the owner's fault not to lock down the door.
Does it sound convincing?
madnav
Forerunner
hellfire said:
your example is flawed.
it does not apply to the situation.
one reason that the wi-fi is kept 'Open'
please try to understand the meaning of the work Open... in terms of access that is.
consider following example..
you bought a barrel of water....
Its hot summer and people are needy.
you Open the drum and keep it outside on the ground where there is no security.
For most people it will imply that you Want to share it with other and you do not mind it being used by others.. simply because you did not seal/secure/lock it for the use of yourself..
the situation is different from keeping the same drum in your house (your property) where the access is also limited to within your house.
this is not the case with wi-fi, it maybe accessible outside your home.. now you did not secure it..i mean..if you have kept is 'Open' then the general understanding is that you do not mind it being used by others..
im not talking on the base of what is ethical and what is not...but what is legal and and what is illegal.
im just telling what is logically correct in m opinion ..that is.. no legal advice is meant to be taken out of this.
Aman27deep
Herald
Don't stop me
:rofl: people will use ur girl anywhere man!!! dont keep it unsecured please! :rofl:
J/k
madnav said:
:rofl: people will use ur girl anywhere man!!! dont keep it unsecured please! :rofl:
J/k
madnav said:
Sticking to your landmark logical opinion, are you aware of the internet-hours-stealing-case referred to as Col. Bajwa's case? The accused, one Mr. Krishan Kumar purchased a computer from Mr. Shashi Nagpal. Mr. Nagpal generously provided the internet login password of another customer, Col. Bajwa to Kumar. Kumar was arrested under Sections 379, 411 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act.
So before you proclaim, in all your wisdom, that "no legal action can be taken as long is hot spot is Open", wait and think a bit.
madnav
Forerunner
hellfire said:
i dont like your tone.
but still i will try to point out what you are missing here.
you are mentioning case where someone provided the login info.
in this case no one is hacking into anything.
there is no login info to begin with.
so that case you mentioned is not a proper example.
i suppose you do not want to understand the word Open.
it simply means 'Free for public'
if there is no security as to allow someone to access.. how is anyone going to decide if the certain someone accessing the network was not authorized to access it in the 1st place?
it may just be one of the owner's machines or machines allowed by owner but is there any base to prove it otherwise ? (is suppose No as there is no one to allow or disallow the access in the 1st place)
it does not matter what the admin may infer to that word but in terms of networking it will remain 'Open to public' when it is set as 'Open'.
in the very 1st post regarding this..
i have mentioned that 'the service provider' cant do anything about it as long as he doesn't own the wifi router.'
whether or not the law differs in the owner complains is not what im trying to discuss. and it maybe different for that..yes if the owner is sane enough to be aware of wifi laws then he wouldnt keep it open in the 1st place though..
blr_p
Oracle
And that is the $million question ?madnav said:
Only defnitive answer is whatever the courts decide if and when it comes up.
I think if you create a digital space then that space belongs to you. The lack of barriers to entry should not be used to tresspass. You could eject anyone as you would in a physical space.
Basically if the other party does not have your permission to be in that space then its a tresspass, open or not.
Pretty much, yes. And ideally only one use. You don't want to be regularly piggybacking on someone else's network, especially one that you live near by to.blueren said:
There is software to allow you to find hotspots but it should not be too difficult to configure things so that when an unknown IP goes through a network that a warning pops up.
madnav said:
Didn't write it to please anyone. And had written a lil' bit more in response to the cheap personal comments, but I guess someone carries more weight with mods ... so be it!
Oh...and acts like these form my bread n butter, so go ahead, steal the bandwidth...better yet, throw a brick in a store window and borrow some game cds for a day, return them when you're done..then get in touch
madnav
Forerunner
blr_p said:
the issue arises when that digital space of someone else is occupying/available in our geographical space.
Should it be illegal to allow space overlapping?
which space shall have higher priority of existence ?
See i'm not at all discussing any access where the network is secured.
piggybacking is still a matter of controversy in many jurisdictions (articles referred at the end of this post)
but most jurisdictions consider it as an offense only if used for illegal activities over the internet. (except for one case in singapore where the punishment was rather rubbish and totally a kind of slavery)
Basically there are two reason why i am still interested in discussing this as i have two concerns:-
1. like you mentioned.. about the space.
as like you mention, the guest user(one gaining the access) is intruding in the digital space of the owner..
would it not rather be that the radio broadcast of that same router owner is intruding in the guest's home?
2ndly,
how can the guest get access until and unless the router accepts the request?
after all it is a two way transaction... Say the guests computer scans for available wifi hotspots from his home...he finds several spots and requests access from those. Now it is upto the owner/his router to either accept OR reject access. Can you really bring the guest under guilt and charge him if he was granted access after requesting it?
again all about Open hotspots this was.
it becomes illegal if the guest performs illegal activities over the internet or tries to modify services/permissions over the host router/computer.... which anyways is illegal over your own connection isn't it?
hellfire said:Didn't write it to please anyone. And had written a lil' bit more in response to the cheap personal comments, but I guess someone carries more weight with mods ... so be it!
Oh...and acts like these form my bread n butter, so go ahead, steal the bandwidth...better yet, throw a brick in a store window and borrow some game cds for a day, return them when you're done..then get in touch
no i did not expect you to please me with your tone.
just expected to keep the discussion civil rather than going personal about it.
i have not said it is ethical to leech off someone else's bandwidth and maybe you are too involved in proving me wrong than in discussing the subject.
all along what i'm trying to say is..
how are you as a owner, going to prove that you did not permit the user to leech of your bandwidth ??
the phenomenon is known as piggybacking and different jurisdictions have different terms for the same.
most consider it as an offense if used for illegal activities over the internet such as downloading/accessing banned/protected data ..which also is an offense over internet connection of own.
im not interested in discussing this any further with you as you completely fail to understand the intentions behind the discussion and are driven rather melodramatically..
For you to read:
Piggybacking (Internet access) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Legality of piggybacking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
blr_p
Oracle
Only if overlapping of your space with mine prevents me from operating my space or vice-versa, otherwise no.madnav said:
If we lived adjacently and both ran wi-fi networks neither would interfere with each other as we would be able to join our repective networks without any issue. So I don't see overlapping of wireless networks as a problem given we would be using consumer grade equipment and there is little chance of one network's signal overwhelming the other.
If you request access to join my network and it is granted then i think there is no way to say that you were intruding.madnav said:
But, was I (personally) made aware of your request ?
My agent ie the router allowed you in. I had no idea my agent allowed you access.
Would I have thought differently had I known my agent would do this ?
Yep and I would be held responsible as it happened on my network.madnav said:
By putting up a sign that says if i'm not personally informed about your request then its a tresspass.madnav said:
In this case its similar to me leaving me front door unlocked and you trying to open it and then after finding it open saying it was my fault. But the point is you did not get permission from me to enter in the first place.
Now if i get roobed as a result I can blame myself for not having locked it but it does not let whomever robbed me off the hook.
madnav
Forerunner
blr_p said:
it is just your way of stating it as per your convention.
actually the theory of space doesn't even stand here.
it is broadcasting of radio signals and you may just be broadcasting them in my premises without my consent. which might be a major offense.
blr_p said:
actually if both networks are over same broadcasting frequency channel then they are forced to share bandwidth and thereby speeds are reduced.
i certainly wouldn't want someone else's network hogging bandwidth in my home.
but anyways that has got nothing to do with legality that we are discussing here..or is it??!!
blr_p said:
actually that is not the case.
your agent did not inform you is a matter of your irresponsibility in this case.
in fact it is you(host) who has configured the agent to not inform you or to allow anyone to enter your space. so again you are at fault here.
it is like dual standards.
please read the piggybacking threads.
all cases are inferred to be illegal only when some illegal activity was performed over the internet.
blr_p
Oracle
I was trying to use the metaphor of space to define the network.madnav said:
Another way of asking is in what way does running a wi-fi infringe on you.
Can you substantiate how my running a wi-fi will adversely affect you.
The only way i could think is if you wanted to run one yourself and the signal from mine prevented you from doing so. Are you aware of any way that a wi-fi could interfere with any other radio equipment you may be using.
If you follow this line of reasoning then should we be allowed to use cell phones at all because invariably signals will be intruding on each other anyway.
Its been shown that we may operate such radio equipment provided it does not adversely affect similar operation by others as well of said equipment. If it does then that could be seen as hindering their ability to use their equipment. Otherwise signals can cross over but their use thereof is in no way affected by either party.
Ok so i have a n-network and you have a g-network, if we are on the same frequency it downgrades mine to a g. So all i do is use a different frequency in that case and i can fully use my n.madnav said:
Legality only in the sense if there was nothing i could do to use my n with the presence of your g. But this was forseen and there are workarounds so you are not preventing me from operating at my desired speed or vice versa.
Thing here is it requires the operator to be fully aware of consequences of a failure to understand how the network operates. What if the router does not support the latest & greatest security patches ?madnav said:
I can't remember the legal principle but what you're implying amounts to saying if i use a complicated lock without being aware of its downsides then anyone that tries to open that lock is not guilty.
Note that i did not say tamper i just said trying to open it and in so doing gaining unauthorised access.
Say maybe i forgot to change the default code and you try this and it lets you in. Do you have a right to enter my house in that case ?
eg, somebody walks into your house either to check it out or happens to be thirsty or wants to use the loo. They did nothing wrong except they did not ask for your permission to do so. How would you feel ?
Let's say you eventually find out who this person was, would you beleive them when they told you what they did ?
I bet your imagination would run wild, and you would be a tad upset as there is no way for you to really know if they are telling the truth. And there really is no way for them to prove it either. They could say nothing was damaged or stolen and you could verify that but thats a nightmare of a job to do on your part if they were going to dissapear shortly after this exchange.
In the same way how does you managing to enter my network confer any legitimacy on you being there without my express consent.
I used the metaphor of space here to imply its exclusivity ie its a private space and its owner has a right to keep it that way.
I glanced through these and it appears that in the majority of times, the person piggybacking was considered in the wrong.madnav said:
In the end, whether its wrong or not depends on whether the network owner considers it to be so. Given its a private space the owner has a right to make a complaint. Said owner would also have to prove an intrusion did occur.
As i said earlier if its just plain browsing then there is no problem but you cannot always be sure that will remain the case therefore the owner should have some protection. Namely if a crime is commited from an owners network then provided that person was not authorised to use the network in the first place, the blame rests solely on that person for his actions.
The law here presently would incriminate the network owner but as soon as he could show that a third-party entered the network then he would be off the hook.
d@rK nEmEsIs
Forerunner
madnav
Forerunner
No, now you are contradicting your own statement in previous post.blr_p said:
my arguement was that the digital space is not PRIVATE (unlike how you said previously)
now you are trying to explain that it should not be private.
which is what i already said.
unlike your home which is private (no matter if door is Open), the same ideology does not apply to wifi digtal space..the whole purpose is that the space is PUBLIC.
It would be like talking on 2-way radio on a public airway and then expecting others not to listen to it.
while if you want the communication to be mutually exclusive, it is your sole responsibility to encrypt the communication over PUBLIC airways.. which again where the wifi operates.. no one owns it.
The thing is again about accessing what is not secured at all.blr_p said:
im not arguing over something that has weak security or outdated security....but no security at all in the 1st place.
im going to keep two cans of beer on the PLAYGROUND today for me to drink later. n now if someone else drinks them then i shall lodge a police complaint.
im going to install my landline phone on the nearby GARDEN today, and if someone uses the service then i shall call police.
words in CAPs are Public property just like the radio bands are.
The common perception is that you own the wifi coverage if you own the wifi router..which is not the case.
blr_p said:
Again..no one even tried to open any lock..
there was no lock to begin with in the 1st place.
and the example is again flawed as the property is PRIVATE in this case and WIFI is PUBLIC.
No body tried any code. There was no security to begin with.blr_p said:
Your house is your PRIVATE property, Radio bands that wifi uses is PUBLIC
Again read what i quoted for above example.blr_p said:
also i would like to mention that 'asking for permission' is disabled by YOU. you can not expect people to hack into your house and then get your personal contact number and then call and ask for permission do you?
i would like to point out again.blr_p said:
Internet is a service. piggbacking refers to using that service. and that is not rendered illegal directly.
however, stealing any info on the host and/or modifying anything on the host is rendered illegal...and that is beyond the discussion.
but again the example fails as house is PRIVATE and radio band is not.
blr_p said:
I guess that is why you are not able to understand what im trying to say so far.
it is not PRIVATE, the common perception is that it is.. but the fact is that it is not.
blr_p said:
again this stuff is as i said,
accessing = using the service.
crime/modification/tapping = illegal anyways doesn't matter if you are on someone's else's network.
d@rK nEmEsIs said:
again,
the keyword is 'unauthorized'
in this case it is authorized by the router as the ignorant owner did not care to implement any security.
heck there is no authentication process at all to categorize this under unauthorized access or hacking.
I know a lot of idiots who would just jump at the idea of getting Internet free over someone else's WiFi connection (or at anything that they think they are getting free. I guess its typical Indian mentality) without giving a thought to legal/moral implications (In any case, most Indians think that if they are not getting caught, its not immoral even if its theft or murder), but do any of these people at least consider the risk they are taking. A hacker might host an unprotected WiFi router just to get unsuspecting bakra's on to his network. It will be easy for such a guy to intercept packets originating from your machine or even hack into your machine. Similarly, what if the connection is found to have been used by a terrorist. You may get nailed as a terrorist or accomplice simply for being on the same network. The price you would pay in such scenarios would be a lot worse than simply investing in your own personal Internet connection.
Some time back I had to run my WiFi Router unprotected to share my connection with my room mate and some devices that had problems connecting to a secure authenticated network. A former neighbor thought he hit the jackpot when he found he could get free Internet from my router (he did not even know who it belonged to). When I noticed that someone was leeching from my connection, I didn't know who it was, but I thought I would teach him a lesson. I found his own lappy to be pretty unsecure over the network and I messed his lappy so bad that he would never think about doing such a thing ever again. Later I found this guy with his friend cursing the 'hacker' who messed up all the important stuff (which was mostly movies/music) on his lappy.
Some time back I had to run my WiFi Router unprotected to share my connection with my room mate and some devices that had problems connecting to a secure authenticated network. A former neighbor thought he hit the jackpot when he found he could get free Internet from my router (he did not even know who it belonged to). When I noticed that someone was leeching from my connection, I didn't know who it was, but I thought I would teach him a lesson. I found his own lappy to be pretty unsecure over the network and I messed his lappy so bad that he would never think about doing such a thing ever again. Later I found this guy with his friend cursing the 'hacker' who messed up all the important stuff (which was mostly movies/music) on his lappy.
madnav
Forerunner
^^
what you did was illegal and what he did was not illegal
he could screw you legally (if laws are that strict about cyber crimes) but on the same thing you couldn't screw him for leeching free bandwidth.
im not supporting this morally, i understand neither do you. But at the same time your moral did not draw a line between whether you shall retreat or not...i guess again indian mentality at play...or is it just the normal human nature worldwide? Too complicated question perhaps!!
yes you could be in trouble if the same connection was made to use by some terrorist...and so would be the router owner.
but none of them would be charged for leeching free bandwidth, but for the crime they committed.
Also.. cyber dogs have been roaming around mumbai with equipments to locate Open hotspots at at cafes and restaurants and they have been making them secure after 26/11 incident (where the similar Open Hotspot lead to communication with terrorists)
what you did was illegal and what he did was not illegal
he could screw you legally (if laws are that strict about cyber crimes) but on the same thing you couldn't screw him for leeching free bandwidth.
im not supporting this morally, i understand neither do you. But at the same time your moral did not draw a line between whether you shall retreat or not...i guess again indian mentality at play...or is it just the normal human nature worldwide? Too complicated question perhaps!!
yes you could be in trouble if the same connection was made to use by some terrorist...and so would be the router owner.
but none of them would be charged for leeching free bandwidth, but for the crime they committed.
Also.. cyber dogs have been roaming around mumbai with equipments to locate Open hotspots at at cafes and restaurants and they have been making them secure after 26/11 incident (where the similar Open Hotspot lead to communication with terrorists)
- Status