ZeroHour Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I dont know about other OS's but I have never autoconnected to any open access point in Windows. You must initialise the connection and chose the access point. The act of connecting is the same as connecting a cat 5 thus unauthorised access to a network. Laptops only auto connect if you tell them too so your to blame and your always reponsible for what your laptop does. The person with the open point is responsible for any use unless they can prove it was an unauthorised user. Then they must be able to catch said person to say avoid being held liable. It is the home users requirement to secure there hub but if its unsecured you still cant use it legally. FCC act is like other said, as frequency range and nothing to do with the act of connecting. What BT are doing is opening points for openzone customers (who are logged btw) and they sit on a different network from owners devices so they cant sniff each others packets I believe and that also protects the owner a little from liability as BT is the controlling factor in the connection. Its still early days for the BT thing and I have not heard all the details yet so this may be subject to change.
sahmeepee Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 The Fon system still requires you to sign in and be a member. And what stops someone setting up an AP which looks exactly like a FON AP, but actually just collects FON passwords?
powdarrmonkey Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 And what stops someone setting up an AP which looks exactly like a FON AP, but actually just collects FON passwords? Probably not very much; but in this case the crime is inverted.
Martin Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 So what happens if BT were to open up, say, your Business Hub so that anyone with an OpenZone account can access your network and internet bandwidth without your permission? Is that illegal? Who is actually breaking the law (BT, the wireless user, you for being an ISP)?? The whole thing is a very grey area with clumsy laws and even clumsier implementation by non-technical people. IMHO, if people at daft enough not to protect their wireless properly then it is their own fault. Maybe if they had a "04:00am big knock on the door" because their IP address had been found to be accessing KP they might start to understand why security is important! mb
originofsymmetry Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I always thought that the Data Protection Act stated that a data holder has to take adequate protection to their data (as that could be at risk in this situation), an unsecured wireless connection does not seem like adequate proctection to me.
jcollings Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I always thought that the Data Protection Act stated that a data holder has to take adequate protection to their data (as that could be at risk in this situation), an unsecured wireless connection does not seem like adequate proctection to me. Doesn't make someone stealing your bandwidth any less illegal!
originofsymmetry Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Doesn't make someone stealing your bandwidth any less illegal! At no point did I make out it was....
RabbieBurns Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I dont know about other OS's but I have never autoconnected to any open access point in Windows. You must initialise the connection and chose the access point. If your network at home is called NETGEAR, and doesnt have any security, then windows will connect to any wireless network called NETGEAR which matches your home setup (ie, no security) There is a way to disable this, but its on as default.
GrumbleDook Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Two key words here folks .. the OP said 'used' not 'connected' The use of a connection is indeed illegal under the communications act but use must be proved. Should a device randomly connect to a radio network it is not authorised to do then it is negotiating a connection. This is not use of a network or an internet connection. Once the connection is negotiated then anything else would be use. DNS traffic to the ISP (always set your DHCP to put your ISP's DNS in rather than use your home device instead. This forces anyone who connects to 'use' immediately ... go on, be nasty!), surfing the web come under communications act. Attempting to connect to devices in the home user's network would come under computer misuse act.
powdarrmonkey Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 I always thought that the Data Protection Act stated that a data holder has to take adequate protection to their data (as that could be at risk in this situation), an unsecured wireless connection does not seem like adequate proctection to me. This is nothing to do with the DPA; if you were storing confidential material about other people, then it would be. This is just about someone connecting up and stealing some throughput, and then protesting they are innocent because you asked for it by leaving the security off.
Hacksawbob Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Just a few legal observations, Yes. You are trespassing. Tresspass is a civil not criminal. In any criminal act apart from a few special cases, (as far as I'm aware the communications act does not have what is known as strict liability) there is the act (the actus reus) and the intention (the mens rea, no really!) without both parts proved beyond a reasonable doubt there is no conviction. If you unintentionally connect to a ap with the same SSID and default password as your own there would not be intent and therefore no crime has been committed.
bmdixon Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Probably would only get charged if you were using it excessively. I will admit that i have quickly googled something or checked a site on an open connection but i wouldn't ever dream of using it more than briefly. I believe that this is ok (although probably techically still illegal) and don't see the issue. If i downloaded loads of stuff or accessed illegal content then fine but a quick google doesn't hurt anyone (if they even notice!)
powdarrmonkey Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Just a few legal observations, Tresspass is a civil not criminal. In any criminal act apart from a few special cases, (as far as I'm aware the communications act does not have what is known as strict liability) there is the act (the actus reus) and the intention (the mens rea, no really!) without both parts proved beyond a reasonable doubt there is no conviction. If you unintentionally connect to a ap with the same SSID and default password as your own there would not be intent and therefore no crime has been committed. True. But intentionally using someone else's connection is theft, because you are depriving them of a service they pay for: the fraudulent taking of property belonging to another, with intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property
bmdixon Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 True. But intentionally using someone else's connection is theft, because you are depriving them of a service they pay for: What exactly are you depriving them of..... they still have their connection (assuming you don't hog it all) (just playing devils advocate)
budgester Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 It would be so cool if everyone with a wireless access point could make a portion of the available bandwidth available to everyone, so that we could get a countrywide free wireless network or mesh. In fact I'm sure there was a group doing this a few years ago, can't remember the name, but it was a big deal in the open source community. Until then make sure you spoof your MAC address ;-) and start [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warchalking]Warchalking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] Not that I'm advocating breaking the law.
powdarrmonkey Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 In fact I'm sure there was a group doing this a few years ago, can't remember the name, but it was a big deal in the open source community. That would be fon, a Spanish company. BT partner with them, as far as I know that's all the relationship is.
powdarrmonkey Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) What exactly are you depriving them of..... they still have their connection (assuming you don't hog it all) (just playing devils advocate) I have a capped connection: if somebody were to steals all my allowance for the rest of the month, I'd be pretty . I'm also responsible for what happens on my line, so if someone starts fetching pictures of small children through it, it's me that'll be held to account. Edited March 5, 2009 by powdarrmonkey grammar
bmdixon Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 I have a capped connection: if somebody were to steals all my allowance for the rest of the month, I'd be pretty . I'm also responsible for what happens on my line, so if someone starts fetching pictures of small children through it, it's me that'll be held to account. Oh ok, i agree with you there. And definitely on the illegal stuff, i was just meaning small usage ie a google search and then quick browse of a site. If they download loads or access illegal sites then definitely an issue.
powdarrmonkey Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 i was just meaning small usage ie a google search and then quick browse of a site. If they download loads or access illegal sites then definitely an issue. Small usage is just as much theft as big usage, there's no grey line.
mac_shinobi Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Small usage is just as much theft as big usage, there's no grey line. I agree thats like saying i went to tescos the other day and I only stole a little chocolate bar - not like I stole a whole box of chocolate slabs or anything more then that - end of the day its still theft
MarkPower Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 didn't some fella about a year or so ago, get a police caution for sitting outside someones house and using their unsecured wireless? Yes they did so I would say it is a no no........well only if you get caught
bmdixon Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 I agree thats like saying i went to tescos the other day and I only stole a little chocolate bar - not like I stole a whole box of chocolate slabs or anything more then that - end of the day its still theft Yes but what do you actually lose when someone uses your connection (and doesn't use all the bandwidth, access illegal stuff etc)? Nothing. I'm not saying it's not wrong but i don't agree that it's theft.....
jcollings Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Yes but what do you actually lose when someone uses your connection (and doesn't use all the bandwidth, access illegal stuff etc)? Nothing. I'm not saying it's not wrong but i don't agree that it's theft..... Potentially it costs you money. If you are on a capped service and someone uses it illegally to download stuff this could put you over your limit for which you pay!
Hightower Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 If that's the fon programme, you've got a garbled version of it. It goes like this: - you allow the homehub to have a second SSID with no key that is totally segregated from your own network, but uses the line as a gateway - other BT and fon subscribers get an allowance in minutes and can buy some more to be used on other subscriber's fon gateways - your home traffic always gets priority, but while out and about you can still get on the net as part of your subscription I saw this when I first got my home hub - sounded good, apart from my speeds are crap to start with and there's no way I'm risking them getting slower.
GrumbleDook Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Just a few legal observations, Tresspass is a civil not criminal. Correct, but breaking & entering, and theft are ... but trespass is usually only resorted to when the intent is difficult to prove for theft or B&E. In any criminal act apart from a few special cases, (as far as I'm aware the communications act does not have what is known as strict liability) there is the act (the actus reus) and the intention (the mens rea, no really!) without both parts proved beyond a reasonable doubt there is no conviction. If you unintentionally connect to a ap with the same SSID and default password as your own there would not be intent and therefore no crime has been committed. Unintentional is ambiguous ... the response would be that you should have configured *your* device (ie the item that *you* have control over and is *your* responsibilty) not to automatically connect. The equivalent of ensuring you have the safety catch on when carrying loaded small arms to prevent accidents (which can lead to manslaughter charges). Yep, connection is not illegal, but use is. However, you may inadvertently *use* the connection once connected (backgrounds service such as DNS or things like MSN messenger) so *your* responsibility is to ensure that your machine is not configured to automatically connect. Remember that ignorance of the law is not admissible as defence in criminal cases (but can be used to seek leniency).
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now