Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on July 07, 2005, 09:28:10 PM
-
link (http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/07/technology/personaltech/wireless_arrest/)
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Police have charged a Florida man with a third-degree felony charge, after he was arrested for accessing a St. Petersburg resident's wireless Internet network without permission.
According to the police, Benjamin Smith III was seen by Richard Dinon outside Dinon's home on the night of April 20, 2005, sitting in a parked SUV and using a laptop computer. When Dinon went outside to deposit his trash, Smith quickly closed the laptop and tried to hide it.
Dinon also stated that he later observed foreign icons on his home computer screen, and suspected that Smith, 41, may have been using his network. He called police and an officer confronted Smith at 11:30 p.m., two hours after the initial sighting.
The charge, unauthorized access to a computer network, applies to all varieties of computer network breaches, and gives prosecutors considerable leeway depending on the severity. It carries a potential sentence ranging from probation to 5 years in prison.
The sentence we'll seek depends on whether he was accessing the Internet for basic personal use, or using it for pecuniary gain -- like identity theft -- or other illicit reasons," said Fred Schaub of Florida's State Attorney's office.
Smith's motives in using the network are unclear, but the laptop was confiscated from him at the time of arrest and will be analyzed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).
Bob Breeden of the Computer Crime Center at FDLE said it was only the third case of unauthorized wireless access in Florida.
"More and more people are buying wireless routers and not educating themselves about the consequences," he said. "People are very haphazard about security, and the stakes are high."
Nils, stay outa Florida!
-
It is bull dookey. An open wireless network is an attractive nuisance, just like an unfenced pool. The liability should lie upon the person emiting into the public airwaves, not the person who accepts the generous offer of an open signal.
-
I'm with Liz... someone in Florida is looking to blame everyone else for being ignorant or stupid or both.
-
If the network was unsecured by either MAC filtering, WEP, WPA, or some other method, and the network was broadcasting its SSID, and the network was issuing IP's via DHCP then this guys lawyers are going to have a field day.
It sounds like this would be the case as if the network was configured correctly then the homeowner should have noticed the "other" traffic or security attacks.
-
I mean, how would you know? It is common to allow public wireless connections, so how could someone picking up the signal know, unless the connection is encrypted (which takes a whopping 30 seconds to setup). As with all matters of law, ignorance is no excuse, especially when you use the public property for your personal use.
Take this one to the supremes, baby and let them sing.
-
Oh and you'd have to provide the necessary historical proof, ie log files, which 99% of APs don't have showing that this guys notebooks MAC address was illegally accessing your network.
-
Stupidity on the homeowner's account is not a viable reason to steal.
There are many stupid homeowners. But that doesn't mean stealing from them is legal.
-
Laser, do some research on "attractive nusiance" and the legal theory behind it.
-
Just from reading over what you've said, I seem to follow what Attractive Nuisance is.
It is something through which dangerous or illegal behaviour can be done but isn't blocked to anybody who would want to do it.
I.E. A swimming pool. Even though it is complete horse****, a homeowner is responsible if some handsomehunk kid decides to swim while he's not there and drowns.
-
The basic concept is that the person presenting the option is responsible for it, not persons who either activley seek the option or happen upon it.
If you put out a signal, it is your responsability to ensure the security of the signal. Basic, simple and irrefutable.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Stupidity on the homeowner's account is not a viable reason to steal.
There are many stupid homeowners. But that doesn't mean stealing from them is legal.
Stealing? Its no different from a homeowner setting up a huge projector to watch some sports on cable then complaining that someone standing on the street stole from him by watching it.
You do realize that to access this wireless network it may have been simple as Windows popping up and saying "Do you want to use this network" and the guy click yes?
As I understand there are lots of free wireless APs in the USA. If the network assigns him an IP address via DHCP that could be contrued or taken as "permission". Case closed.
-
The ease or simplicity of taking it does not justify the action of stealing.
This dude was paying his hard earned money and someone else was stealing it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The ease or simplicity of taking it does not justify the action of stealing.
This dude was paying his hard earned money and someone else was stealing it.
So is watching cable from the street stealing or not?
-
Laser, you are confusing a legal point. Ease of taking is not the same legal construct as is accepting a transmitted signal.
If you leave your bike in the front yard and someone steals it, then they are wrong. If you leave your bike in the front yard with a sign on it saying "free bike" then you break no law by taking it.
-
I can't decide on watching the TV from across the street.
However, you are setting up the analogy wrong lizking.
Take for example, two houses which each have a bike in their front yard. One bike is locked down, while the other is not.
By your thinking, the bike that is not locked down is free to take. Because if the guy didn't want to have it stolen, he would have locked it down.
-
No laser, that is not my analogy at all. A bike that is simply laying there is different than a bike that has a sign (i.e. is broadcasting a signal) indicating that it is available for anyone who cares to take it.
-
No, that's not how it is.
There isn't a sign on the side of the house saying that the Wireless broadcasting doesn't have any encryption.
Nor does the bike in my analogy have a sign on it saying that it's free to take.
I was correct by saying that through your analogy the bike that isn't locked down is free to take.
-
Man, its guys like this that give brokeass pilots like me a bad name. I mean, check this out - in my apartment complex alone we have 9 WiFi networks to choose from - 7 of which are non-WEP enabled. 4 of which are 3 MB upstream, the one of which I choose to leach off. Its stupid in a way, because the simple reality is you can't wack a guy unless you have some DF gear. And even then, its pointless to go after.
Just the news making a big deal out of nothing important, as usual.
-
Lasar, I will try one more time to explain the difference, just because.
An RF network uses public frequencies. Encryption is provided free, and the ignorance of it's use is no more relevant than any other law of which you may be ignorant. Ignorance is no excuse, and the provider of the signal is liable for it's security.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, that's not how it is.
There isn't a sign on the side of the house saying that the Wireless broadcasting doesn't have any encryption.
Nor does the bike in my analogy have a sign on it saying that it's free to take.
I was correct by saying that through your analogy the bike that isn't locked down is free to take.
Not its more like this:
Where you live there is a common pool of bikes free for tourists to use (I've been somewhere like this, can't remember where though... some tourist spot). You leave your bike *outside* your property, unlocked, with instructions on how to ride it beside the bike. Some tourist comes along and rides off on it.
-
geez..i read over that attractive nuiscence stuff...what a load of CRAP. Even if you had a circus in your backyard..if someone is trespassing, they are trespassing and the owner should never be liable...I never even knew about this before..another infringment of property rights and another loophole for criminals. Trying to find out how long this crap has been around..anyone know?
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
geez..i read over that attractive nuiscence stuff...what a load of CRAP. Even if you had a circus in your backyard..if someone is trespassing, they are trespassing and the owner should never be liable...I never even knew about this before..another infringment of property rights and another loophole for criminals. Trying to find out how long this crap has been around..anyone know?
Too long.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Nils, stay outa Florida!
hehe... they would never catch me cause im a haaxor geniouses dude ehh.. besides i use a mac they are uber. Right Vulcan? ;)
Seriously..
Sounds like the laws are kinda similar. Over here one is free to access all wifi networks that are _not secured_ and use internet. You can not however access other computers on that network.
-
You guys are so full of it. You want to blame the guy who bought the equipment? It may sound easy to you, but trust me, I have helped soooooo many people setup computers that JUST DONT GET IT. I swear they really and truly cannot comprehend how a computer functions, let alone how a wireless router broadcasts or assigns IP addresses. The problem is not the owners, its the manufacturers. Unlike vehicles, where you have to show proficiency to be able to operate one, computers are sold to anyone with the cashola. A large percentage of them can barely use one to check email, let alone configure a wireless network for security. To them, a firewall is the brick in the back of the fireplace. Viruses are something you go to the doctor for, not download fixes for. Spyware is something off the Mission Impossible movie.
Until someone puts pressure on the industry to configure these setups as SECURE BY DEFAULT, there are going to be people taking advantage of the ones who buy the equipment and dont know how to set it up. Thats not an "attractive nuisance", its just a person who is in over his head.
-
Not sure what it is in your jurisdictions, but in most jurisdictions, attractive nuisance concerns laying out things attractive to children. So unless it's kiddy hackers out there you're pulling in that you're concerned with, it usually would not apply.
-
If you are broadcasting unsecured into the public right of way, then you are providing public access.
-
Theres this 18 year old chick lives down the road from me, and catches a bus on the corner near my house most days.
Problem is, she's HOT, and every time she's standing around waiting for the bus she distracts me from what ever it is I should be doing.
Attractive nuisance by definition. :)
-
Are you allowed to walk into other people's houses, if the door is unlocked?
No.
Are you allowed to use their property for your own benefit?
No.
-
The guy that got caught WAR driving is not l33t enough...noob :p
Many compter geeks drive around looking for open AP, and depending if they are white hat, they usually warn retards about their open hole. But some have fun, like uploading porn to noob's system. :aok