Is Free Wifi Illegal? - Comments Page 2

As far as a business is concerned, I feel it it giving implied consent to use their WIFI if it is unsecured.

As far as a personal wirless network from a home
I don't see it as much different. you are not invading anything of theirs and it is you who are taking the risk.

[quote]It is my personal opinion that using an unsecured wireless signal should be de-criminalized. Broadcasting an unsecured signal is very much like the "open door" concept of tresspassing.

If I come to your house and the door is closed, even if unlocked, it would be an offense to enter. But if the door is standing open it is assumed to be a tacit invitation to enter- 'open house'.[\quote]

Poor analogy! Of course, if you go out and leave your front door open - silly you, you're making it child's play for potential burglars. However, that doesn't make the burglary any less of an offense than if they'd managed to pick your lock and disable your alarm.
The same principle applies to poaching others' wifi connections. The crime is the same, regardless of the ease/difficulty of committing it.

There ARE PLENTY of FREE WIFI's . Many Rest Areas
(In IOWA for Example) offer free WIFI for Motorists & Truckers ! A Simple Registration & you're good to go !

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is quite different, in that you are explicitly INVITED to use the wifi signal.

should be illegal. Just because someone forgot to lock their door (or doesn't know how) does not make it OK to come in and take a shower using their hot water. Any WiFi access point hardware (and the line to which it is connected) has some capacity limit. That is, some maximum number of KB/sec or MB/sec. If you use the service, you are slowing down their software downloads or online gaming. In my particular case, my ISP charges according to the number of simultaneous users - one user, 1st tier; 2-3 users, 2nd tier; 4-?? users, 3rd tier. We have a desktop and two laptops so I got a "No No" letter and a new rate. So moochers could and would drive up my monthly rate.

Well, for all of those that are sating that it should not be an offense because it is being broadcast, "like someone's sprinkler coming over your fence".

That's all good if you want to simply capture wireless broadcast packets and archive them on your computer, but the actual using of the internet requires you to send information back across that signal. Even clicking on the internet sends packets and informtion across the open network connection, especially if cookies are being read and scripts are being executed.

So it is not a "receive" only situation. You are sending unsolicited information across their network. This can also become a form of interference if your bandwidth usage is too high. The laws are not being poorly applied to modern technology. They are equivalent to using the same frequency and tower to broadcast your own radio station that your favorite FM station uses.

I've used "free" (unsecured) wifi all over the country & it never even dawned on me that it might be illegal. It's like someone saying, "You're breathing My air." My personal system is protected, but it wasn't always & I wouldn't have taken issue with anyone who wanted to borrow it.

Some related and, imho, interesting, considerations:

1. Is or should should it be illegal for me to passively listen in on the traffic of someone who has not secured (i.e. encrypted) their wireless connection? With a wireless packet sniffer, this is easy to do and would entail only listening in on their communications without generating any additional traffic on their connection or overhead on their router, negating many of the previous arguments against actively using their open wireless. Would their choice not to encrypt their own traffic mean they have no expectation of privacy and make passively listening in on it analogous to listening to somebody else's conversation on a bus, for example?

2. If somebody else chooses to use my open wireless connection without my permission, is or should it be illegal for me to listen in on and/or alter their communications for my own purposes? Again, easy to do and if that person is stealing services from me do they have any right to expect privacy, accuracy, or safety?

> The downloader is tracked from the computer IP.
> Have you ever known an ISP to be prosecuted for
> facilitating the download of porn? Don't think so.
> Unlikely a wifi 'owner' would be prosecuted for
> third-party downloads.

The ISPs generally track which of their customers were using a given IP at a particular time (and in some jurisdictions I believe are required to do so) so can tell the investigators which customer's account was responsible. Most wireless routers and their users don't keep such records so would have no way of knowing or showing what internal IP on their wireless LAN downloaded any given file, much less who was using that internal IP at the time. Since the external IP seen by the website at the other end of the Internet (and by law enforcement monitoring the Internet traffic) would generally be the same for all those using the wireless router at any given time, the wireless owner would have no way of proving it wasn't them or of showing who it was.

I'm no lawyer and have no idea what the legal ramifications of this may be, but since you said that the "downloader is tracked from the computer IP" I wanted to clarify that the "computer IP" on the internal wireless LAN is generally NOT the same as the wireless router's IP on the external internet, and that the latter is the only one anyone on the Internet will see regardless of which of the computers using the same wireless LAN originated the request.

The mere fact that your base station (a) broadcasts its SSID (name) and (b) has no password is far more than the "open door" analogy - it's like posting someone outside your door with a megaphone advertising that your door is open, and that all are welcome!

For my customers, I _always_ make them choose a wireless password, and set the SSID to something like "PRIVATE NETWORK" or "NOT FOR PUBLIC USE" - in other words, a definite equivalent of both a closed door and a "No Trespassing" sign.

An open network which broadcasts its name (how many 'linksys' networks have YOU seen?) can be reasonably presumed to be an open invitation. I'm not an attorney, but something that is left open when the documentation to secure it is so simple creates a strong presumption in favor of the "intruder."

EDITOR'S NOTE: You're pre-supposing a LOT of computer savvy on the part of the computer-using general public. I still meet people who don't understand the concept of copy & paste...

I had an FCC (federal comunication commision) brodcasting licence at one time and one of the laws was that it is legal to receive any signal that is not scrambled ar secured so I think that the law has to be changed if they don't want people to intercept routers.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Yes, but using free wifi is not just receiving. You're also transmitting over the same link.