Get three services for $100/mo
November 16, 2007 8:18 AM PST
Wi-Fi piggybackers confess
Fifty-four percent of computer users admit to using someone else's Wi-Fi without permission, according to a new survey by security firm Sophos. And many Internet-enabled homes fail to secure their wireless connection properly with passwords and encryption, allowing others to steal Internet access rather than pay an ISP, said Sophos, which carried out the 560-person survey.
Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos, said borrowing Wi-Fi Internet access may feel like a victimless crime but it deprives ISPs of revenue. Furthermore, if you hop onto your next-door neighbor's wireless broadband connection to download movies and music from the Internet, chances are that you are also slowing down their Internet access and depleting their download limit, Cluley added. In addition, using an electronic communications service with the intent to avoid paying is breaking the law.
Gemma Simpson of Silicon.com reported from London.
See more CNET content tagged:
Sophos Plc.,
Graham Cluley,
Internet access,
Wi-Fi,
survey
Most people I know have enough trouble connecting to their OWN wi-fi hardware, much less piggybacking off of somebody elses.
encryption for people like me that need wifi on the go....
anyone that picks up my signal is welcome to use it....
why would anyone consider using an unencrypted wifi signal as
stealing??? this article is ********....
swallows and passes along, with utter credulity, the dubious
ethical and technical claims of ISPs and a security specialist. It
needs to be emphasized that CNET may market to consumers, but
it is captive to the companies about which it reports.
what's the difference between someone knowingly sharing and someone unknowingly sharing? are there special agreements for coffee shops and whatnot? is it illegal regardless of the owner's intentions?
when i see a list of available access points, how am i supposed to know which ones are residential and which ones are commercial?
this is why you shouldn't legislate things like this, laws are made by people who don't understand the technology, and can't answer these sorts of questions.
Either you have it black and white, or you live in the world of grays. The ISPs (RIAA, MPAA, etc) only see their revenue stream in black and white, but they see regulatory requirements in a lot of grays. Funny how that stuff works, don't you think?
Cry me a f***ing river.
This is such a simple moral argument that I am baffled that the only postings here are from the anarchy crowd that see no problem with not paying for a utility.
And of course if it's not locked up it's ok to take it...
Such stupidity makes me weep.
Unless WiFi has a flag that says "I'm open, but you don't have permission" you can only assume you have permission.
The other option is to assume the owner of the unsecured WiFi is a moron who is too stupid to actually run WiFi or call someone who does. I prefer to give folks the benefit of the doubt.
That means perission granted on unsecured WiFi. However abusing the privlidge and using it outside of traveling is too much.
It doesn't deprive ISPs of much revenue as anyone piggybacking off your connection can't likely leech much considering they contend with whomever else might wander by.
My Vonage WiFi phone automatically logs into whatever open access points it finds. (I set the password on mine and I suggest you do too if you have one. Check the forums for instructions.)
So by owning this phone these mental midgets are claiming I'm stealing? No.
AFAIK it's illegal to circumvent security measures. If there are no reasonable security measures to keep you out of a computer system, since there are no borders in computerland I believe the law says you're granted access.
So technically "lowjacking" WiFi access is completely legal and all this recent fuss about it is rediculous.
Prove me wrong, please... (Proof implies links to legal papers.) Yes, I'm putting the burden of proof on those who would disagree. I don't care.
Stealing wireless (yes STEALING) is no different that STEALING
cable. Both are against the law.
If you want legal documents, check out the 10 commandments,
pretty sure there is one commandment that references taking
something that doesn't belong to you.
The moron running the unsecured wifi point. Which is of course, different then someone intentionally letting people have access.
I will bet dollars to doughnuts that this moron is also running XP or Vista with all the required third party security tools. And of course have the default log in and password on their router which means it is not only simple to change the router settings and thus own the bandwidth, but is also simple to hack into any machines running on the LAN(wireless or Ethernet).
These types of people have no business running a LAN, much less using a computer.
The idiots who think it is the same thing as breaking into a car, house or bank vault, get a clue. 802.11 is a radio signal running on a (fairly)unregulated, PUBLIC, band. The signal is in MY home and is unencrypted. Not at all different then a radio stations signal.
Want to keep people out? Lock it up! Sure, it is illegal for someone to walk into your house, even if it is unlocked, but everyone is going to call you an idiot for not locking the door.
I routinely use encrypted RealVNC Enterprise to log into my machine at home and surf while I'm on the road, because I don't necessarily want the sites I visit to be public knowledge like they would be if I'm connected through a client's network or a hotel router (and get that arrogant "well-if-you're-not-doing-anything-you'd be-ashamed-of-then-you-don't-have-to-worry" chip off your shoulder: my surfing and personal e-mail is _my_ business and nobody else's).
I'm well within my rights to use my broadband connection that way. Look at the TOS of any ISP and prove me wrong.
Most will.
Instead of lamenting and telling us we're 'depriving you of revenue', you should be thinking 'how do we adapt to this fact?'
You're about to see the entertainment industry leaders tank. Don't follow them with this idiocy.
The burden of responsibility is on the subscriber providing the wireless access, not the freeloader.
- Case precedence?
-
by Iamkar33m
November 19, 2007 8:01 AM PST
- To all those exclaiming the illegality of sharing WiFi, show me a law stating such. I'll even settle for any case precedence set in a U.S. Court indicting an internet subscriber for sharing his connection or even a leecher for using an open connection. Until then, your claims that internet sharing is illegal go without merit.
-
Reply to this comment
View
all 2 replies
-
-
See all 76 Comments >>Also you claim that people who leech off of open connections are depriving ISP's of revenue? That sounds like something RIAA or MPAA would claim. You know what, those same people leeching off of an open connection have no intention of subscribing to an ISP in the first place. How is it considered lost revenue if there was no intent to subscribe?
So until I see DIRECT references to LAWS set by US COURTS (and the 10 commandments don't count as I am not Christian) or, case precedence set by US COURTS... your arguments are baseless.