Stealing the internet! O.o

[Lord Nemesis]

^^ What I did was about just as immoral as what he had done, but I knew it is definitely not illegal and I thought it best make him drop that leeching habit of his. Even if the laws are strict, it would still side with it me. He has not connected to the Internet, but to a private Network that I run. I have full dominion over any and all computers that are on my personal Network and and I am fully responsible for whatever goes on them. Why do you think the law holds the owner of a WiFi router accountable for any illegal activity happening via his network? its in recognition of the fact that he has administrative ownership and responsibility for all the systems connected to his private network.

If I choose to delete files on one of the systems on my personal network, I can do it without any legal implications. Had it been a public network like the Internet it would be be illegal and I could be put in the docks if he can prove his case. but a private network is different. Its just like the role of an Administrator in an office network. He has dominion over all the systems in the network. He can choose to delete or add anything to the terminals on his network for whatever reason. He is only answerable to the company for his actions, not to the law. If you connect your personal laptop to that network, he can choose to delete all your important files. The law cannot do anything about it. The company management may choose to take disciplinary action if they choose to, but the law cannot touch him. However if he obtains your bank account/credit card details and uses them to his advantage, then that is illegal, but then even in such cases, whats illegal is that he obtained you account details and used them rather than how he obtained them.

 

[blr_p]

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.

Setting up a wi-fi network does not require a license to operate, anyone can do it. So like a cellphone you are free to create a transmitter & reciever. Cellphones may communicate back & forth as the airwaves are free for the public to operate on albeit limited to a narrow band owned by the cell operator. You may msg anyone on the cell network.

Where I'm not sure is just because anyone can setup a network whether that necessarily implies everyone else can also rightfully access it. If you don't have an authorised SIM card you can't get onto the cell net. If the cell operator deems you to be credit worthy then you may access their network. So here we see the cell operator putting in place safeguards to protect against unauthorised access. If you were sufficently skilled you might be able to bypass these safeguards but the bar is sufficently high that to do so would be a breach of the network.

With wi-fi , you are free to connect to a transmitter, you wardrive, find a hotspot then request access, the router grants it thinking you just another IP requesting access to the network. You're in.

Now you can query any server on the network and access any services offered. So your analogy here of leaving a barrel of water where anyone can drink out of.

Your argument essentially boils down to -- if there are no safeguards erected against random access then is any access to said network necessarily unlawful ?

If its unsecured then there are no safeguards in place, if its weakly secured then i think a breach has occurred. I still question whether the network owner is responsible here. If they knowlingly allow random access then there is no breach but if they were unaware you are saying they have no recourse.

Say you mistakenly leave yout cellphone in a public space, it gets stolen, do you have any recourse in this situation. The analogy i'm trying to draw up here is if someone heavily leeches whilst on your network without your knowledge and you do not have an unlimited plan. The ISP is going to say pay up or face a disconnection. I recently heard of cases where ppl were finding long distance calls made from their BSNL lines because STD access was not password protected. So essentially the calls were made by a few dodgy linesmen yet BSNL themselves said unless the plaintiffs could prove it they would be liable to pay the bill. Ignorance here offered no safe harbour at all, i'm not sure if these cases ever went to court given the amonuts were in the few thousands it prolly was not worth it.

Here you have a case where unauthorised acess took place but the ppl were left to fend for themselves when it came to paying up. If someone makes terrorist threats from an unsecured wi-fio netowrk they will come after the wi-f owner.

So unless i'm missing something here then will concede that in the unsecured case that i'm unable to offer a logical counter. We will know for sure if it ever come up in the courts but i'm not seeing any way to argue for it anymore because there is no way to show that the access itself was unauthorised and therefore there is no breach.

Ethically of course there are a few counters especially when the person is fully aware but thats beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

[hellfire]

Is the thread still open?

 

[madnav]

you again are giving improper examples.

Setting up a wi-fi network does not require a license to operate, anyone can do it. So like a cellphone you are free to create a transmitter & reciever. Cellphones may communicate back & forth as the airwaves are free for the public to operate on albeit limited to a narrow band owned by the cell operator. You may msg anyone on the cell network.

Where I'm not sure is just because anyone can setup a network whether that necessarily implies everyone else can also rightfully access it. If you don't have an authorised SIM card you can't get onto the cell net. If the cell operator deems you to be credit worthy then you may access their network. So here we see the cell operator putting in place safeguards to protect against unauthorised access. If you were sufficently skilled you might be able to bypass these safeguards but the bar is sufficently high that to do so would be a breach of the network.

With wi-fi , you are free to connect to a transmitter, you wardrive, find a hotspot then request access, the router grants it thinking you just another IP requesting access to the network. You're in.

Difference is there. If the wifi network has security then router doe not have to "think" anything.
and again example is flawed.
Cell phones operated on SIM basis, every SIM has a unique Number to access the network.
In case of the concerned wifi network, the ISP has no business with who is getting access beyond that router...It is sole responsibility of the owner...you could compare it with cell phone only if ther authentication process was as per ISP's terms.

Now you can query any server on the network and access any services offered. So your analogy here of leaving a barrel of water where anyone can drink out of.

Your argument essentially boils down to -- if there are no safeguards erected against random access then is any access to said network necessarily unlawful ?

If its unsecured then there are no safeguards in place, if its weakly secured then i think a breach has occurred. I still question whether the network owner is responsible here. If they knowlingly allow random access then there is no breach but if they were unaware you are saying they have no recourse.

How will the guest user supposed to determine if the owner is aware or unaware?
and can you render the guest user guilty for ignorance of the host user?

Say you mistakenly leave yout cellphone in a public space, it gets stolen, do you have any recourse in this situation.

If speaking technically, then nobody stole anything in above scenario.
You left/lost the cell phone in public.
Someone else found it. (moral obligation to return it is there)
It can not be termed stolen if the owner did not have any sort of possession over the object or it's surroundings.

Say you mistakenly leave yout cellphone in a public space, it gets stolen, do you have any recourse in this situation. The analogy i'm trying to draw up here is if someone heavily leeches whilst on your network without your knowledge and you do not have an unlimited plan. The ISP is going to say pay up or face a disconnection. I recently heard of cases where ppl were finding long distance calls made from their BSNL lines because STD access was not password protected. So essentially the calls were made by a few dodgy linesmen yet BSNL themselves said unless the plaintiffs could prove it they would be liable to pay the bill. Ignorance here offered no safe harbour at all, i'm not sure if these cases ever went to court given the amonuts were in the few thousands it prolly was not worth it.

Now about the whole situation.
Again, you have lost the device, not stolen by anyone.
you are at the mercy of the person who found it.
but this has no relevance with the situation in this topic.
as unlike cellphone, router is not lost.

As for leeching part and bill etc.

If you have kept the Access Point Open despite of knowing the terms and conditions of your data/tariff then it is really your fault.
You can not blame others for your irresponsible behaviour.
neither can your ISP.

Most of the member take the advantage of BSNL 3G work around and most of us have taken advantage of ebay discounts in ways that were not intended to be by either BSNL or eBay. Can they render us guilty for being irresponsible and ignorant about their system/operation ??!!

once again i would like to mention that im not discussing the moral POV here, just the POV of legality.

Here you have a case where unauthorised acess took place but the ppl were left to fend for themselves when it came to paying up. If someone makes terrorist threats from an unsecured wi-fio netowrk they will come after the wi-f owner.

So unless i'm missing something here then will concede that in the unsecured case that i'm unable to offer a logical counter. We will know for sure if it ever come up in the courts but i'm not seeing any way to argue for it anymore because there is no way to show that the access itself was unauthorised and therefore there is no breach.

in that case the router will be examined and if communication was not using mac IDs of machines belonging to the owner then he will be rendered innocent.

The main question still remains..
how is the guest user supposed to determine whether the Open stop is present because:
a: Someone ignorant has left it open,
b: Someone generous likes to share bandwidth,

legality apart, even morality can not be determined without answer to that question.

 

[madnav]

^^ What I did was about just as immoral as what he had done, but I knew it is definitely not illegal and I thought it best make him drop that leeching habit of his. Even if the laws are strict, it would still side with it me. He has not connected to the Internet, but to a private Network that I run. I have full dominion over any and all computers that are on my personal Network and and I am fully responsible for whatever goes on them. Why do you think the law holds the owner of a WiFi router accountable for any illegal activity happening via his network? its in recognition of the fact that he has administrative ownership and responsibility for all the systems connected to his private network.

If I choose to delete files on one of the systems on my personal network, I can do it without any legal implications. Had it been a public network like the Internet it would be be illegal and I could be put in the docks if he can prove his case. but a private network is different. Its just like the role of an Administrator in an office network. He has dominion over all the systems in the network. He can choose to delete or add anything to the terminals on his network for whatever reason. He is only answerable to the company for his actions, not to the law. If you connect your personal laptop to that network, he can choose to delete all your important files. The law cannot do anything about it. The company management may choose to take disciplinary action if they choose to, but the law cannot touch him. However if he obtains your bank account/credit card details and uses them to his advantage, then that is illegal, but then even in such cases, whats illegal is that he obtained you account details and used them rather than how he obtained them.

as long as it is Open, it is not private. (i think :ashamed

but anyways,

as long as you are not the administrator of the guest machine(client), whether it be on your private network or not... you have no legal rights to modify anything on that client/machine. you can bar network service to that client/machine at max as an admin to the network.

In companies, the network admin is also their system admin.

you yourself mentioned that his lappy was pretty unsecure over the network, do not be on the defense now

i bet it was not completely unsecure and you did hack into it and modify it.

now that is completely illegal.

 

[blr_p]

How will the guest user supposed to determine if the owner is aware or unaware?
and can you render the guest user guilty for ignorance of the host user?

Agreed in the case, where the network is unsecured.

As for leeching part and bill etc.

If you have kept the Access Point Open despite of knowing the terms and conditions of your data/tariff then it is really your fault.
You can not blame others for your irresponsible behaviour.
neither can your ISP.

ok

Most of the member take the advantage of BSNL 3G work around and most of us have taken advantage of ebay discounts in ways that were not intended to be by either BSNL or eBay. Can they render us guilty for being irresponsible and ignorant about their system/operation ??!!

once again i would like to mention that im not discussing the moral POV here, just the POV of legality.

Agreed on legal pov.

The main question still remains..
how is the guest user supposed to determine whether the Open stop is present because:
a: Someone ignorant has left it open,
b: Someone generous likes to share bandwidth,

legality apart, even morality can not be determined without answer to that question.

I'm coming around to your pov on this via
- absence of breach
- The public space idea was harder to grasp. If a network is unsecured then its open to public access regardless of whether the network is private or not, whether the owner intended it or not. This is where i think i got stuck.

Its quite a subtle point as we're talking ONLY about the case where someone accesses an unsecured wi-fi for browsing. They can
- query the other systems on the network
- eavesdrop on the network

but cannot
- modify anything on any machine on the network.

In short using the network in a non-damaging way is ok if the wifi is unsecured.

Course the interloper should be aware that any activity can be logged and if done on a regular basis could be risky. The simple solution for the owner is really to secure the network and the kicker here is it does not need to be fort knox grade, so long as there is some sort of security present any bypassing of this security is a breach and would be against the law as it stands currently.

If the owner can show an intrusion occurred, he would have all the evidence required to prosecute. If he additionally shows damage ocurred then the interloper is screwed

 

[Lord Nemesis]

^^ Nope just because its insecure doesn't mean its a public network. Its still a private network being maintained by me. Even a wired network can have points that are open and can be used to connect an arbitrary system without the knowledge of the owner. Doesn't change the fact that its a private network. As administrator I would have ownership of any machine as long as its connected to my private network. The client machines (even if its someones personal machine) has to comply any and all policies imposed by the administrator on the clients. The very act of connecting to the network is an implicit agreement to the same. For example my network may have a policy that enforces deletion of any executable files in a shared folder with write access. If some one attaches a personal lappy to the network, make no mistake that any files fulfilling that condition would be automatically deleted.

I didn't have to resort to hacking to get into this guy's machine, but even if I did, it would still not not be illegal as long as its a private network and the same belongs to me. On the other hand, if the other guy has to resort to hacking to get into my private network, it would be illegal.

 

[blr_p]

^^ Nope just because its insecure doesn't mean its a public network. Its still a private network being maintained by me. Even a wired network can have points that are open and can be used to connect an arbitrary system without the knowledge of the owner. Doesn't change the fact that its a private network.

Private yes, but there is no breach in this case is there. The interloper is not unauthorised as there was no check to let them in.

As administrator I would have ownership of any machine as long as its connected to my private network. The client machines (even if its someones personal machine) has to comply any and all policies imposed by the administrator on the clients. The very act of connecting to the network is an implicit agreement to the same.

ok

For example my network may have a policy that enforces deletion of any executable files in a shared folder with write access. If some one attaches a personal lappy to the network, make no mistake that any files fulfilling that condition would be automatically deleted.

Haha, now if you can figure out a way to make a message pop up with those terms to anyone joining your network, it would have excellent deterrent value

As a disclaimer it should be the first page they see in a browser with 2 choices below
- a 'No' option to leave
- and a 'Yes' to enter the dungeon :devil2:

Click through agreements, how easy can it be.