Today BBC news reported that a U.K. man was “arrested after being spotted allegedly sitting in a street with a laptop using someone else’s unsecured wireless connection.” Apparently, at least two others have been arrested on similar grounds, those grounds being a UK law called The Communications Act (2003). This act makes it an offense to “(a) dishonestly [obtain] an electronic communications service, and (b) [do] so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service.” It’s basically a law against quietly splicing into your neighbor’s phone line to get free long distance or into your neighbor’s cable so you can watch Mr. Bean for free. The fact that this is a result of corporations manipulating the laws to protect their profits aside,
Does anyone else see the almost comic idiocy of what’s going on here?
The BBC news tried to turn this into an ethical debate: if it’s a victimless crime how can it be wrong. But what about these poor schmucks who are facing fines or jail time for using freely a available service. Never-mind the cute analogies on the BBC page. The fact is,
Using free wifi has nothing to do with The Communications Act!
These guys didn’t dishonestly obtain anything. These guys didn’t lie about who they were – nobody asked! Its like when someone is giving away free movie tickets to parents – it’s not your fault if s/he doesn’t bother to ask if you are a parent, especially if there’s no sign up saying anything about parents. Second, what charge were they dodging? If something is just sitting there on the street, and using it does not seem to create any problems or losses for anyone, it is an accepted assumption in every society I know of that you can go ahead and use it. This is like being pulled over for not paying a toll on a bridge with no toll booths.
This is clearly false arrest or intentional misuse of law. Either way, it’s bullshit. Listen up BBC:
Nevermind whether using unsecured wifi is moral, arresting people under laws they didn’t break is definitely immoral.
So how about giving the crown prosecutor a call and asking him what he’s been smoking?
| Comments | Published in | PREV | NEXT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 |
law internet social issues |
I have always found this topic to be somewhat of a pain and I will probably sound very hypocritical to some, nevertheless, let me put my 2 cents in.
You say that using unsecured wireless connection does not cause anybody any harm and does not create any losses to anybody. Well, I think it does. You might say that the loss is minimal, but the internet provider has just lost at least one customer, if he/she decided to steal the internet signal from a paying customer. The company providing internet service has lost however much it costs per month. If everybody in the neighborhood decides to “share” one unsecured internet connection, then all of a sudden we have a bigger problem (for the internet provider, that is). And just because they are a huge corporation doesn’t mean that we should disregard a loss of one customer.
If you buy your groceries this weekend and you happen to be in the backyard and you forgot to lock your front door, would you like your neighbors to come in and help themselves to your food? Yes, I know, you will tell me that that would be a loss to you, not the grocery store and you would have a good point there. But I also don’t understand your analogy with the greedy non-parent taking free tickets that were meant for parents. If we know the tickets are for parents only, then there has to be a sign of some sort telling us that. Or the person giving them away is screaming at the top of their lungs that the tickets are for parents.
A.
Your analogy about someone coming into your house doesn’t make any sense. These people are on the street and the signal is being beamed to them. If I was on the street and someone tossed a sandwich at me and as I started to eat it they came back and told me that I had stole it, nobody would believe them. Now, if I walk into the business and plug into their RJ-45 jacks in the lobby, your analogy would be correct and yes, in that case I would consider it stealing.
Dave, I was making a point that if I pay for something it is mine and I don’t want any unauthorized individuals to use it, whether it is protected by a password, key or other security measures. I am not throwing my wireless connection at other people to use it and it should not be taken just because it is unsecured.
Hi,
One point to note is that in the UK there are quite a lot of broadband ISPs that charge by the amount of data transferred. My own for instance charges me a fee if I exceed a certain number of gigabytes transferred each month, but there are others who actually have a per GB charge. (For instance £2/GB or £3/GB transferred)
While I know nothing about the actual case, there is a distinct possibility that there was a real financial loss to the owner of the access point.
Though obviously it should have been correctly secured. The fact that something should have been locked doesn’t affect the fact that might have been stolen.
Just a thought to think about anyway…
I have to agree with dave…. if the person who is paying for the service dont secure it then what exactly is being stolen….. you could knock on their door and tell them your not happy with them beaming wifi signals through your living room….all it takes is a “click” “click” and its secure… if someone was to crack the wep encription then it is theft in my eyes…. but its like leaving your football in the front garden, the kids from next door borrow it, play with it for a while and return it……what would happed if a public phone box broke down and allowed ppl to make free calls? would it be theft to use it? surely not if the device allowed you access.. my internet is unlimited and i very rearly use it to its limits….i cant say i would be to bothered if someonw wanted to use my conection… the ppl like Angus Hardie who pay per gig should have been advised by the company that provided it to secure it..otherwise i think its their fault for sending the signal to unauthorised computer devices.. all the info that would of been needed from them to do it would of been the router code example “192.168.0.1″ A while ago the goverment sided with mobile networks over contract debt, networks like orange and vodafone…. although this has nothing to do with broadband i think its very similar to how the law has been used here…. communications act?? this law was passed in 2003 or something like that…. its being missused on a massive scale,,, i think if someone was up in court for this offence then i think a good solicitor could get them off….
For the amount of money we pay in taxes, internet should be free for everyone….. i think every street light should be fitted with a device that assigns any device that wishes to conect a uniqe IP just like a router…. i know there are security issues with this,,, but the amout of money virgin media , bt and sky are making out of the avarage joe is way to high…… it probably cost me a month what “nasa” pay to send info to their satalites in a year…. We get ripped off…
If they could charge us for oxigen they would… they would have meters fitted to our faces just for profit…..
Doesn’t this just reflect the state of the UK today. Personally, I think that we have too many police deployed in low risk areas, probably too many police anyway and too many social workers. Everyone I know is a social worker! All they do is take kids, who are not bad but bored, on day trips out that costs the UK taxpayers millions. This prevents crime so why have so many police. This country really is falling apart, the sooner we get tougher and get rid of this ridiculous government, the better!
thanks !! very helpful post!
Thanks for the info, definitely helped
Umm, it is, should be, and should remain, against the law to illegally use someone elses wireless network. Someone else paid for that bandwidth. You want some? Go get your own! It is illegal to go tromping through someone’s yard too.
Victimless crime? How do you know? Do you know what that bandwidth was being used for? No, you don’t, so you have no idea. You are decreasing the available bandwidth of the person that legally owns it! Get a clue! Or better yet, get some bandwidth of your own! If I catch any yahoo on my network, I will own your computer by the time you log off!
@Angelika, first, who gives a shit about the ISP’s profit margin? I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the ISP doesn’t care one iota about you, so why should you worry about it? Second, I agree with Dave. Third, leaving the connection open sends a clear signal that you don’t mind people using it.
@Dave, spot on dude.
@Angus, while I see your point, I must reiterate the difference between using and stealing. If I leave a baseball bat on a field, and someone else hits a few balls with it, maybe they do a few cents worth of damage to the bat, but that isn’t stealing. Stealing is when you take something from someone and they no longer have it at all.
@J4M1E, free, tax-payer funded high speed internet? Now there’s an idea…
@Stan, “it should remain against the law to illegally use someone else’s wireless network”? WTF does that mean? How are you supposed to know whether it’s ok to use a network? If it’s secured, that tells you not to use it. If it’s not secured, that’s a signal that it’s ok. On what evidence do you base the conjecture that using unsecured internet should be illegal?
@Kevan. WHat do I base it on? Well, the law. You state that because the owner hasn’t secured it, it must mean it is a free site for your use. That is completely bogus! Many people out there have wireless and don’t have the knowledge to secure it. SOme others have open wireless as a convenience for their customers, not dregs that sit outside without buying anything. That baseball bat you borrowed? Yes, that is theft. If you leave the keys in your car, does that mean I can take it for a drive, as long as I don’t make too much damage?
Saying it is their fault for not securing the wireless is like saying the teenage girl deserved to get raped because she dresses provocatively. You are blaming the victim. If you truly thought it was ok to use the network, you would knock on some doors and ask. WHy don’t you? Because you are afraid you will be told NO.
Saying it is not their fault is not like saying the teenage girl deserved to get raped. It is more like saying that if you leave a car running in the middle of the road with the doors open that you deserve to have your car stolen… and I would agree with that, although it’s not really relevant to the discussion here as you’re still taking something that someone no longer has in that case. Most wireless access points come secured with a default password now days. I would argue that if your wireless is secured, even with a default password, that it should be illegal for anyone else to use it (even though it’s obvious what the password is). If the wireless is unsecured, it’s fair game. I know quite a few people that leave their wireless open and don’t mind other people using it.
Re: Dave. Ok, so you use a different crime, car theft instead of rape. The point is that you are still blaming the victim for the crime, and not the criminal. If I leave my car running and you take it, would you not still be arrested for stealing my car, even if you just drove it around the block and returned it? Of COURSE you would! Yeah, I was stupid for leaving it running, but YOU committed the crime! I did not give you permission to take the car.
Some gateways come with default passwords – SOME. Most don’t. Most users don’t know HOW to secure their network, though they do know how to shut off and lock their car. The point is you are trespassing, and you may be causing damage by doing so. You have no idea what that network is being used for. The person may be maxing their bandwidth on something, and your intrusion is hurting what he is doing.
If a door is left open to a building does that give you permission to go wandering through the building? No, it is called trespass. That is the best analogy I can make. An unsecured wireless is like an open door on the street to a building with no windows or signs. It is illegal to enter that building.
So you all say that an usecured wireless is an invitation to come in, and if they wanted you out they should have secured it. Yet you KNOW most people don’t have the knowledge to secure it themselves! I say that if they intended to let you wander into the network, they would have named the SSID in a way to let you know it is ok. This is how most free wireless is done, with SSID’s like: FREE or PUBLIC WIFI. You are taking people’s ignorance at security and turning it into an excuse to commit a crime, period, and then you have the balls to turn around and blame the victim. Hope you wander by my wireless some day.
I agree, the car theft is still a crime. That’s why I said it’s not really relevant to this situation. The biggest reason I have to argue against “stealing” someone’s wireless being illeagl is because they are beaming it into my living space. If you’re sitting outside someone’s house on the street then sure, maybe you’re stealing their wireless. But if I’m sitting in my own home and someone puts their wireless in my space, then I don’t consider it stealing. The same way that if someone put something in my front yard, I wouldn’t consider me taking it into my house stealing.
In reference to your point about users not knowing how to secure their wireless: It’s not really my concern to teach them. If you don’t know how to drive and you drive and crash your car, its your fault whether you knew how to drive is not the issue. The internet is not a playground but everyone thinks it is because we have dumbed it down for the masses. Do you blame Microsoft if you don’t know how to use your computer and delete system files so that your computer doesn’t boot? No, it’s your fault because you didn’t bother to learn about the responsibility that you are adopting.
Again, I will agree that hacking into someone’s network or exploiting a vulernability that may exist could be considered stealing.
Dave:
I can see your point, but I would argue it is still stealing. If your neighbour flies his remote control plane over your yard, you do not have the right to take it. You have the right to complain about it. We are definitely on murkier ground when the signal intrudes on your living space.
The article though, is about someone sitting in his car stealing access. And you agree with me, that this is a crime, not, as the blogger puts it “bullshit.” The blogger is in the wrong here. The person was arrested because he committed a crime.
As for the ignorance of the population, I can somewhat agree with you, and the law does too, in a way. If you fail to secure your wireless, and a crime is committed on your wireless, you CAN be held responsible! However, as much as I HATE people who buy computers and wireless and fail to learn even the basics, I would not go as far as to blame them, or say that the criminal should not be arrested because the wireless owner is an idiot. I would be the first to say he probably deserved it, because he was stupid, but that doesn’t excuse the criminal action of the person intruding into the wireless.
While I am willing to concede a point for the sake of arguement about where the wireless is penetrating (in reference to stealing by sitting in someone’s front yard). I personally think that if someone is beaming their wireless outside their house. It’s fair game. Officially, I know it’s not legal but just as, listening to the radio, or talking on someone’s walkie talkie channel cannot be considered stealing, I personally don’t believe that utilizing a signal, flying across the air can be stealing.
I do agree with you, that it’s absurd to prosecute someone for something that happened on their network by another individual. Could you prosecute the government if I accessed their network and stole a bunch of credit card numbers? Oh wait, the rules change when we try and hold the government accountable. How silly of me.
In reference to how dumb the general population is: I’ve pretty much gotten to a point that I can no longer watch any mainstream TV, listen to the radio and even watching the news is painful now. We’re a society of insecure, self centered, idiots all craving attention and affirmation that our life is not average. It’s quite pathetic.
Well, it seems we agree more than we don’t then, which is good. About the only place where we seem to differ on is what we can do with other people’s signals when they intrude on our property, which is understandable. I don’t even know if that has been tested very thoroughly in the courts yet.
I also agree it is somewhat silly to hold people responsible for crimminal behavior on their network when they leave it undefended. The exception I make is in business applications. I think that businesses should be made VERY responsible for any criminal behavior that happens on their networks due to a lack of protection. They at least, should know better!
Nice debating with you! It has been enlightening!
Just look in the law books of your state. Oh wait. There is nothing in there about this. So what are you 2 fighting about…..?