Wireless Haxxor Busted

[rpm]

link

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!

[Lizking]

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.

[Sandman]

I'm with Liz... someone in Florida is looking to blame everyone else for being ignorant or stupid or both.

[Vulcan]

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.

[Lizking]

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.

[Vulcan]

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.

[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.

[Lizking]

Laser, do some research on "attractive nusiance" and the legal theory behind it.

[lasersailor184]

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.

[Lizking]

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.

[Vulcan]

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.

[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.

[Vulcan]

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?

[Lizking]

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.

[lasersailor184]

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.