is it Legal to steal someones internet signal?

[Fezmid]

The difference there is radio wave are free to anyone to receive.  Transmission of a wireless signal belongs to an individual.

652338[/snapback]

You do realize that wireless networking signals are radio waves, don't you?

[Fezmid]

If someone enters your unlocked house and robs you is it a crime?

652347[/snapback]

You can't compare taking something tangible with taking something intangible. If I use your internet connection, I'm not stopping you from using it. If I take your car, I AM stopping you from using it. Apples and oranges.

 

And that's not even taking into consideration the fact that you're bombarding me with your radio waves. I never ASKED to be bombarded with your waves.

 

CW

[Nervous Guy]

You can't compare taking something tangible with taking something intangible.  If I use your internet connection, I'm not stopping you from using it.  If I take your car, I AM stopping you from using it.  Apples and oranges.

 

CW

652363[/snapback]

my bill is tangible...I pay for it every month.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Yes they do.

652354[/snapback]

 

Well they shouldn't!

 

Are they supposed to pay if your home burns down after finding out you did your own electrical work (and that caused the fire)?

 

Believe me... I don't see why they should have to coddle the meatheads.

 

If people were accountable... They would accept the consequences.

 

Insurance companies can start to condition them to think straight... But, then again the WANT YOU TO MAKE A CLAIM... Claims=RATE HIKE. They talk with forked tongues... They prefer you "eating" the claim, they win... You claim, they win... It is win-win for them while turning people into mindless marroons that blame others...

 

My father totaled a new car in 1969... He owed three years on it and torqued it up while he was "torqued"... This was before insurance (mandatory, I think)... He paid on that totaled car for the full term of the loan... Would I do that today, I would like to tell you I would... But, I am again... I am no saint... I don't know where my parnents went wrong though...

[VABills]

Sorry but there are not only state laws but there is federal laws against it. Whether the DA chooses to prosecute is another matter but it is illegal, and a felony.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/technology...nternet_piracy/

 

Just like illegal aliens, it is illegal, they are commiting a crime, it's a matter of whether someoone wants to throw them in jail.

[Fezmid]

my bill is tangible...I pay for it every month.

652368[/snapback]

Yeah, what's your point? You pay it, and if you broadcast your signal to the world, you won't even know that someone is using it.

 

You know what I meant, but I'm humoring you anyway.

CW

[ExiledInIllinois]

Sorry but there are not only state laws but there is federal laws against it.  Whether the DA chooses to prosecute is another matter but it is illegal, and a felony. 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/technology...nternet_piracy/

 

Just like illegal aliens, it is illegal, they are commiting a crime, it's a matter of whether someoone wants to throw them in jail.

652373[/snapback]

 

If it is the law it is the law... I respectfully disagree with these laws but, have to abide by the law till it is changed.

[Fezmid]

Sorry but there are not only state laws but there is federal laws against it.  Whether the DA chooses to prosecute is another matter but it is illegal, and a felony. 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/technology...nternet_piracy/

 

Just like illegal aliens, it is illegal, they are commiting a crime, it's a matter of whether someoone wants to throw them in jail.

652373[/snapback]

Did you actually READ the article you linked to....?

 

The legality of stealing your neighbor's connection is murky at best.

 

"All of this stuff is so new, it's hard to say what the liability issues are," said Robert Hale, a San Francisco-based attorney who recently published an academic paper on the subject.

 

Hale points out that there is a federal law on the books that ostensibly prohibits using someone's access point with out their permission. But "without permission" is vaguely defined and the law seems more geared towards computer hacking.

 

"It's a gray area," said Paul Stamp, an analyst at the technology consultants Forester Research. "By not restricting access it could be argued that you're implicitly making that available."

 

"A broad statement concerning the access of unprotected wireless networks as being always legal or illegal simply can't be made," said Jackie Lesch, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice. "It's just kind of dicey."

 

The only person in the article saying it's illegal is some cop in the "Internet crimes against children" unit. I'd hardly call that an authoritative answer, especially compared to the other people, such as the DoJ spokeswoman.

 

In addition (and the article touches on it), lots of places give free WiFi access. How am I supposed to know if it's a legit one or not, considering there's no authentication needed? It's not like you do anything other than fire up your laptop, click "go onto the internet" and bam, you're done (assuming it's unsecured).

CW

[Nervous Guy]

Yeah, what's your point?  You pay it, and if you broadcast your signal to the world, you won't even know that someone is using it.

 

You know what I meant, but I'm humoring you anyway.

CW

652375[/snapback]

From VABills linky....

 

"On the state level it could be more clear. "It's unlawful access", said John Geraty, an officer with the Internet crimes against children unit of the San Francisco Police Department.

 

According to Geraty, using your neighbor's wireless is specifically prohibited in the California penal code. "It's not yours and you're taking it," he says. "

[Ramius]

The difference there is radio wave are free to anyone to receive.  Transmission of a wireless signal belongs to an individual.

652338[/snapback]

 

Well, i'm not trying to get into a moral debate about whether its right or not, just a legal one.

 

2 things to consider.

 

1. They receive their internet service via a some type of cable, and then choose to broadcast it all over their apartment. Its not like the ISP designates a wireless signal just for them.

 

2. kind of a crazy analogy, but its the same type of situation.

My neighbor goes to the bank and takes money out. The bank hands him the cash and he walks out. (this is him buying internet service)

He goes home and places the pile of cash in his backyard, and doesnt have his yard fenced in, knowing that it tends to get windy. (the wireless broadcast)

The next day i find a few $20's in my yard. Is it theft for me to pick them up as my own? No, it isnt. (note again, not the morality, but the legality) I found money in my yard, therefore i have a rightful claim to it. (me picking up the wireless broadcast)

Now, look at the situation: i didnt go into his open yard and take the cash, that would be theft. Thats what it appears the guy in the article did. He was actively looking for an internet signal to swipe. The cash blew into my yard, effectively making it mine.

All the neighbor had to do was to put a fence up to keep his cash in his yard. (put a login/password on his network)

My arguement is that i didnt steal anything, i was using what was at my disposal. And its the neighbor's fault for not protecting himself.

 

Something similar happend to me with comcast. I signed up for cable, and i started getting HBO and some premium channels, when i just had the basic cable plan. no it wasnt a free promotion, they messed up and were routing the wrong cable package to my apt. Did they charge me for theft? No, they saw they frigged up, and i was simply using what was being piped into my apt. They found the mistake after a bit and corrected it. My point is, they fugged up, and i was simply using what was given to me, accidentally or not.

[VABills]

Did you read it?

 

Hale points out that there is a federal law on the books that ostensibly prohibits using someone's access point with out their permission. But "without permission" is vaguely defined and the law seems more geared towards computer hacking.

 

 

 

On a federal level, according to Lesch, prosecuting decisions are made on a case to case basis, mostly depending on the type of system accessed and what it was accessed for.

 

 

On the state level it could be more clear. "It's unlawful access", said John Geraty, an officer with the Internet crimes against children unit of the San Francisco Police Department.

 

According to Geraty, using your neighbor's wireless is specifically prohibited in the California penal code. "It's not yours and you're taking it," he says.

[ExiledInIllinois]

In addition (and the article touches on it), lots of places give free WiFi access.  How am I supposed to know if it's a legit one or not, considering there's no authentication needed?  It's not like you do anything other than fire up your laptop, click "go onto the internet" and bam, you're done (assuming it's unsecured).

CW

652383[/snapback]

 

Bingo!

 

If it ain't secure... It is free.

 

Who the hell knows... Your neighbor might be offering a WiFi Spot and doesn't really care.

 

Securing means you DON'T want any unauthorized users in... Is this a kind of terms of agreement? That is the only authentication existing I know of.

[Ramius]

I see your point VA, but my point is that its being broadcasted. I wouldnt be hacking into my neighbors network, hes left it open. If he wants it closed, then secure it.

 

I liken it to my neighbor blasting his XM radio (which he would be paying for) in his apartment, then charging me with a felony for listening to it in my apartment, because i'm not paying for XM. If he doesnt want me listening, he can secure his transmission by turning the volume down.

[Fezmid]

Did you read it?

Yes. I even highlighted the relevent portion. I'll do it again. And underline it too!

 

Hale points out that there is a federal law on the books that ostensibly prohibits using someone's access point with out their permission. But "without permission" is vaguely defined and the law seems more geared towards computer hacking.

 

CW

[VABills]

Yes.  I even highlighted the relevent portion.  I'll do it again.  And underline it too!

CW

652393[/snapback]

And using someones computer equipment and stealing his bandwidth wouldn't be hacking?

[Fezmid]

And using someones computer equipment and stealing his bandwidth wouldn't be hacking? 

652395[/snapback]

Well, again if you read the article you posted, everyone (except some cop in CA) said that it's VERY murky and that no, there really IS no definitive answer.

 

Define hacking. Am I "hacking" everytime I turn my radio on? Because that's all you do to use an unencrypted wireless signal.

 

I'm pretty sure the law doesn't even use the word "hacking" in it, because it actually has NOTHING to do with breaking into computers... The media has twisted it. The term for people who break into computers is "crackers."

CW

[ajzepp]

Alright, you guys need to stop, cause this is giving me a real complex. I used to look out my bedroom window when I was a kid and sometimes get lucky enough to see my hot sexy large-breasted neighbor get undressed. She'd often times leave her curtains open and her dresser was pretty much right in line with the window. I agree with Ramius and Fezmid....if you're neighbor isn't going to close the curtain, then I'm going to go get the binoculars!!!

[ExiledInIllinois]

Here me out:

 

The law SHOULD (I know thtat it might not) deem that any signal that doesn't make an attempt to secure it is implied to be free.

 

Pretty simple... This still doesn't mean you do other things while accessing this tacitly implied "free" agreement.

 

Once somebody puts something up to keep others out then it is illegal.

 

Now... This isn't to say you are allowed to "damage" one's property (ie: computer, snowmobiles on my lawn ) either.

 

I don't mind what people do if they can PASS all tests against harming others or their property... I do admit, that is pretty hard to do nowadays.

 

Innocuous surfing might be just that case... But aren't they using resources? Hard disk space, memory, etc... And on.

 

That is why the 20 line statement at the top should hold true.

[Fezmid]

Innocuous surfing might be just that case... But aren't they using resources?  Hard disk space, memory, etc...  And on.

If I use your wireless internet, I'm not using any of those things. All I'm using is your bandwidth, of which you probably aren't using 95% of it anyway. (cable is generally around 6000kbps. Most websites only download at about 300kbs at most). The users who are doing more than that are probably the ones who are securing their routers.

 

CW

[Arkady Renko]

It's not just whether someone will prosecute, like with illegal aliens, but also whether courts actually will read the statutes to say that this behavior is prohibited.