3 ms·

>Why is it hard to use random open wifis? Walking around my neighborhood there are at least 5 open wifis in my block. With google fiber, high speed, open public

by batista 14y ago

>Why is it hard to use random open wifis? Walking around my neighborhood there are at least 5 open wifis in my block. With google fiber, high speed, open public wifi will only get more common. If you are in the US (and in some other countries), you know it's illegal, right?

lutusp 14y ago
> If you are in the US (and in some other countries), you know it's illegal, right? Not necessarily. An open WiFi hub can represent a free service offered by, for example, a restaurant or lodging establishment, both of which expect and accept public logons in order to attract business. It's not obvious how an individual might distinguish between these hubs and a private hub that happens not to have a password. If someone decided to prosecute a user of an open hub, they would have to shoulder the burden of evidence to prove that a person knowingly defrauded the hub operator, rather than innocently accessed a public resource. If the hub has a password, that's a different story altogether, but in the case of an open WiFi hub, the burden is on law enforcement to prove that an individual knowingly stole the service. Innocent until proven guilty. Imagine someone driving along a public road, next to a drive-in theater. He pulls over and watches the movie over the top of an inadequate fence. Is he guilty of a crime? Imagine someone walking along a street who stops and reads the newspaper headlines through the front of a newspaper vending machine. Is he guilty of a crime? Both the above examples would require the prosecutor to prove "guilty knowledge", knowledge that the behavior was wrong. It's the same with open WiFi hubs. There are plenty of open hubs that are intentionally public, and that accept logons from anyone. And there are hubs owned by unsophisticated computer owners that don't have a password simply because the owner doesn't know how to set one up. Is the public required to distinguish between these cases, or face prosecution? No.
- batista 14y ago
  >Both the above examples would require the prosecutor to prove "guilty knowledge", knowledge that the behavior was wrong. It's the same with open WiFi hubs. No, it's not. You are not supposed to use a wi-fi, even if it's open (that is, unlocked), unless you have specifically see it advertised as freely available to the public (i.e in an airport, a cafe, etc). >Not necessarily. An open WiFi hub can represent a free service offered by, for example, a restaurant or lodging establishment, both of which expect and accept public logons in order to attract business. It's not obvious how an individual might distinguish between these hubs and a private hub that happens not to have a password. You're not supposed to distinguish between them. You are only supposed to use the restaurant or lodging hub when you are AT the restaurant or the hotel, as a customer. And you're supposed to know which is their wifi name. Being in a cafe that offers free public wifi doesn't give you an excuse to bypass the law and connect to any open nearby Wifi signal you can get ("But, Judge, I couldn't tell which was which").
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > You are not supposed to use a wi-fi, even if it's open (that is, unlocked), unless you have specifically see it advertised as freely available to the public (i.e in an airport, a cafe, etc). Many service providers that depend on open WiFi hubs would vigorously disagree. There are a great number of places where open, unsecured WiFi hubs are intended to be accessed by the public, and there are an equal number of client programs that connect up to an open hub and alert the user that a service has been located -- all automatically. Reference: http://www.ehow.com/how_2193989_connect-wifi-wireless.html http://www.ehow.com/how_2193989_connect-wifi-wireless.html Also, those WiFi hubs that serve as a portal to a paid service often use an open, unsecured hub as a gateway. In this case, the user is meant to log on automatically and then open a browser to complete the authentication process. If people believed they weren't allowed to log onto an open hub, this system would collapse. > Being in a cafe that offers free public wifi doesn't give you an excuse to bypass the law and connect to any open nearby Wifi signal you can get ... As shown above, this is simply wrong. Some hubs require a password, some do not. Of the latter, some hope you will log on to begin an authentication process, some hope you will log on just to drum up business. I visited a town in Alaska this summer that had a McDonald's with an open hub -- no password. I asked about it, and the proprietor said it was open to attract people to his business, and he didn't care that some people used it without buying anything, especially because the lurkers needed to gather around his place of business (to get adequate signal strength), making it look popular and attracting paying customers.
philwelch 14y ago
Is it really? I'd love to read more about this....
- batista 14y ago
  Here's an example: "In St. Petersburg, 2005, Benjamin Smith III was arrested and charged with "unauthorized access to a computer network", a third-degree felony in the state of Florida, after using a resident's wireless network from a car parked outside." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking#United... Or: Using a neighbor's wireless access point may not be legal even with their permission. The answer varies depending on the policies of residential Internet service providers and plans among other factors. (...) Many U.S. states prohibit unauthorized access to computer networks including open Wi-Fi networks. While interpretations of these laws may vary, some precedents have been set in recent years: 2007 - a man in Michigan was fined for using the Wi-Fi hotspot of a local cafe, from his car 2006 - Illinois man David Kauchak was fined for unauthorized use of a local agency's Wi-Fi access point 2005 - a Florida man faced felony charges for piggybacking onto a neighbor's Internet connection without their permission http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wirelessfaqs/f/legal_free_wifi.htm http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wirelessfaqs/f/legal_free... And: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/pr_burning_wifi_squatting/ http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/pr_burning_wifi_squatt...
  - lutusp 14y ago
    These cases proceed based on a person's obvious intent to defraud. A person logging onto a WiFi hub in a public place doesn't normally fall into this category, unless they can be shown to have an intent to defraud. Example: http://tndf.net/tndf/currentbill.htm http://tndf.net/tndf/currentbill.htm Partial quote: "It is an offense for any person, knowingly and with the intent to defraud a communication service provider ..." (emphasis added) The burden of evidence for an "intent to defraud" lies with the prosecutor, not the plaintiff. (IANAL)

by batista 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

> If you are in the US (and in some other countries), you know it's illegal, right? Not necessarily. An open WiFi hub can represent a free service offered by, for example, a restaurant or lodging establishment, both of which expect and accept public logons in order to attract business. It's not obvious how an individual might distinguish between these hubs and a private hub that happens not to have a password. If someone decided to prosecute a user of an open hub, they would have to shoulder the burden of evidence to prove that a person knowingly defrauded the hub operator, rather than innocently accessed a public resource. If the hub has a password, that's a different story altogether, but in the case of an open WiFi hub, the burden is on law enforcement to prove that an individual knowingly stole the service. Innocent until proven guilty. Imagine someone driving along a public road, next to a drive-in theater. He pulls over and watches the movie over the top of an inadequate fence. Is he guilty of a crime? Imagine someone walking along a street who stops and reads the newspaper headlines through the front of a newspaper vending machine. Is he guilty of a crime? Both the above examples would require the prosecutor to prove "guilty knowledge", knowledge that the behavior was wrong. It's the same with open WiFi hubs. There are plenty of open hubs that are intentionally public, and that accept logons from anyone. And there are hubs owned by unsophisticated computer owners that don't have a password simply because the owner doesn't know how to set one up. Is the public required to distinguish between these cases, or face prosecution? No.

batista 14y ago
>Both the above examples would require the prosecutor to prove "guilty knowledge", knowledge that the behavior was wrong. It's the same with open WiFi hubs. No, it's not. You are not supposed to use a wi-fi, even if it's open (that is, unlocked), unless you have specifically see it advertised as freely available to the public (i.e in an airport, a cafe, etc). >Not necessarily. An open WiFi hub can represent a free service offered by, for example, a restaurant or lodging establishment, both of which expect and accept public logons in order to attract business. It's not obvious how an individual might distinguish between these hubs and a private hub that happens not to have a password. You're not supposed to distinguish between them. You are only supposed to use the restaurant or lodging hub when you are AT the restaurant or the hotel, as a customer. And you're supposed to know which is their wifi name. Being in a cafe that offers free public wifi doesn't give you an excuse to bypass the law and connect to any open nearby Wifi signal you can get ("But, Judge, I couldn't tell which was which").
- lutusp 14y ago
  > You are not supposed to use a wi-fi, even if it's open (that is, unlocked), unless you have specifically see it advertised as freely available to the public (i.e in an airport, a cafe, etc). Many service providers that depend on open WiFi hubs would vigorously disagree. There are a great number of places where open, unsecured WiFi hubs are intended to be accessed by the public, and there are an equal number of client programs that connect up to an open hub and alert the user that a service has been located -- all automatically. Reference: http://www.ehow.com/how_2193989_connect-wifi-wireless.html http://www.ehow.com/how_2193989_connect-wifi-wireless.html Also, those WiFi hubs that serve as a portal to a paid service often use an open, unsecured hub as a gateway. In this case, the user is meant to log on automatically and then open a browser to complete the authentication process. If people believed they weren't allowed to log onto an open hub, this system would collapse. > Being in a cafe that offers free public wifi doesn't give you an excuse to bypass the law and connect to any open nearby Wifi signal you can get ... As shown above, this is simply wrong. Some hubs require a password, some do not. Of the latter, some hope you will log on to begin an authentication process, some hope you will log on just to drum up business. I visited a town in Alaska this summer that had a McDonald's with an open hub -- no password. I asked about it, and the proprietor said it was open to attract people to his business, and he didn't care that some people used it without buying anything, especially because the lurkers needed to gather around his place of business (to get adequate signal strength), making it look popular and attracting paying customers.

philwelch 14y ago

Is it really? I'd love to read more about this....

batista 14y ago
Here's an example: "In St. Petersburg, 2005, Benjamin Smith III was arrested and charged with "unauthorized access to a computer network", a third-degree felony in the state of Florida, after using a resident's wireless network from a car parked outside." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking#United... Or: Using a neighbor's wireless access point may not be legal even with their permission. The answer varies depending on the policies of residential Internet service providers and plans among other factors. (...) Many U.S. states prohibit unauthorized access to computer networks including open Wi-Fi networks. While interpretations of these laws may vary, some precedents have been set in recent years: 2007 - a man in Michigan was fined for using the Wi-Fi hotspot of a local cafe, from his car 2006 - Illinois man David Kauchak was fined for unauthorized use of a local agency's Wi-Fi access point 2005 - a Florida man faced felony charges for piggybacking onto a neighbor's Internet connection without their permission http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wirelessfaqs/f/legal_free_wifi.htm http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wirelessfaqs/f/legal_free... And: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/pr_burning_wifi_squatting/ http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/pr_burning_wifi_squatt...
- lutusp 14y ago
  These cases proceed based on a person's obvious intent to defraud. A person logging onto a WiFi hub in a public place doesn't normally fall into this category, unless they can be shown to have an intent to defraud. Example: http://tndf.net/tndf/currentbill.htm http://tndf.net/tndf/currentbill.htm Partial quote: "It is an offense for any person, knowingly and with the intent to defraud a communication service provider ..." (emphasis added) The burden of evidence for an "intent to defraud" lies with the prosecutor, not the plaintiff. (IANAL)