Watch it, Wardrivers

[Ryan McGinnis]

It is regulated by the power and frequency that the unit can use. In the 2.4GHz band you're not aloud to exceed 30mW of power for any channel on WiFi.

About the broadcast signal, yes it is. But, just because you can receive the signal does not mean you can transmit to it. It's no different than listening to a private ham radio repeater. Even if you have your license, you need permission to transmit on it.

Ultimately the bottom line is you're using something you didn't ask permission for.

Ethically, you might have a good argument. Legally, wardriving (with bandwidth leaching) is ambiguous. Using someone's open bandwidth is not against the law anywhere that I know of, unless the router is encrypting the signal and some sort of attempt was made to break the encryption.

Windows XP is configured out of the box to just connect to whatever the hell it sees. If you made this illegal, you would have hundreds of thousands of people unwittingly commiting crimes every day just by powering up their laptops.

Now, if you do something illegal with your wifi connection, like erasing the person's hard disk or hacking into the White House press release website and replacing it with a Youtube clip of the armless knight from "Monty Python" proclaiming that it's only a flesh wound, then yes, you could spend some time in the pokey. But thus far I don't believe anybody's been given a 300 pound teddybear just for logging onto an open wifi connection.

This should be an interesting case to follow if they actually take it to trial, since, as far as I know, it'll be the first of it's kind. I am not a lawyer, of course, and you should consult one if you need real legal advice.

 

[JF Massicotte]

Here is how it seems to be threated in Canada:


The only problem I see is if someone pays for a limited bandwidth, then using without permission becomes stealing of this bandwidth. Juste like you can steal Satellite TV signals, you can steal bandwidth.


However, juste like everything else, no complain = no crime. Even if the police catch someone entering your house, if you decide not to complain this person simply commited no crime.

However when caught doing so, police has the right to take whatever action needed to verify the nature of use of the bandwidth (ex: commiting online crimes).

 

[Karen Politte]

Grrrrrrrr..........

Our chase on Saturday, 02/24/07, concluded the second chase on which we have been "run off" from a "free" WiFi spot by the owners of the network. It appears that people - hotels in particular - are getting extremely picky about who they let access their networks. If I get run-off again - I will be going and telling the Mgr. that I was using their WiFi before coming in to book a room - but now I will not be doing so due to their hostility towards travelers.

That article that was posted originally about the gamer "wardriving" was utterly ridiculous. If YOU own a wireless internet access network then it is YOUR responsibility to see that people only use it under YOUR terms. It is NOT the responsibility of the public at large to "defend" your network and not use it in "good faith". Grrrrrrrrr.

KL

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Here is how it seems to be threated in Canada:

The only problem I see is if someone pays for a limited bandwidth, then using without permission becomes stealing of this bandwidth. Juste like you can steal Satellite TV signals, you can steal bandwidth.

To steal a satellite TV signal, you must break the encryption protecting it. That is illegal. Open wifi is usually transmitted free and clear in an unencrypted form. Intercepting those signals is perfectly legal, just like turning on your radio is perfectly legal. In fact, there are quite a few satellite feeds floating around out there that are unencrypted and perfectly legal to intercept. Of course, there is an extra step here -- transmitting back. However, that frequency is owned by the public and is unregulated (beyond some transmit power restrictions), and so there is no crime in transmitting on that frequency. If one has their router set up to execute the commands of every transmission it receives regarless of origin and that is not the owner's intent, then that's the router owner's problem, not the public's problem.

If one has limited bandwidth, then it's incumbant upon them to set up their wireless router in a way that limits access to that bandwidth. This is very easy to do. Alternately, they could use a physical cable to connect to the internet, which does not utilize radio frequencies that belong to the public.

 

[JF Massicotte]

To steal a satellite TV signal, you must break the encryption protecting it. That is illegal. Open wifi is usually transmitted free and clear in an unencrypted form. Intercepting those signals is perfectly legal, just like turning on your radio is perfectly legal. In fact, there are quite a few satellite feeds floating around out there that are unencrypted and perfectly legal to intercept. Of course, there is an extra step here -- transmitting back. However, that frequency is owned by the public and is unregulated (beyond some transmit power restrictions), and so there is no crime in transmitting on that frequency. If one has their router set up to execute the commands of every transmission it receives regarless of origin and that is not the owner's intent, then that's the router owner's problem, not the public's problem.

If one has limited bandwidth, then it's incumbant upon them to set up their wireless router in a way that limits access to that bandwidth. This is very easy to do. Alternately, they could use a physical cable to connect to the internet, which does not utilize radio frequencies that belong to the public.

What you are saying makes sence but law just dont work that way: Legally bandwidth is a PRODUCT (classified as service) that people OWN by paying for it. For a judge, leaving it unprotected is searching for problems just like letting your car's doors unlocked forgeting keys in but it doesn't mean you want to share it.

So basically, by doing so you are taking someone else's property and it becomes stealing. I am not saying it should be threated as a crime but by definition it sure is.

So everyone that does wardriving might be commiting a crime if the owner of the wifi network doesn't want to share it. By not asking we are taking the risk to be commiting a crime.

But again, no complain = no crime. Fortunately most (read most) people have common sence and will make the difference between the guy that is 'stealing' bandwidth and the one just getting some data needed for a hobby.

 

[David Drummond]

What you are saying makes sence but law just dont work that way: Legally bandwidth is a PRODUCT (classified as service) that people OWN by paying for it.

Every ISP agreement that I have ever read (that you must agree to when you sign up with them) has wording to the effect that you DO NOT own any part of the service and are just paying to "use" the service.

Sort of like when you pay one of those machines when you put air in the tires. The person in front of you paid to turn it on, and it's still running when they drive off....are you going to wait until it stops to put your money in and use it, or use it while it's still running.

On another note, many ISPs are putting in their contracts that you are not allowed to have an unsecured network on their service. So who is in the wrong then? The person the drove by and used it, or the person that left it open?

This debate is carried out many times around the Internet, and like politics, either side of the debate will never change the mind of someone on the other side.

 

[JF Massicotte]

This debate is carried out many times around the Internet, and like politics, either side of the debate will never change the mind of someone on the other side.

100% agree with you.


By the way I'm not saying people who do wardriving are criminals since I do the same... I just believe this is not totally right.

 

[Karen Politte]

I do not think that a wardriving case would stand in a court of law if the service that was being "exploited" was A) free, B) open to the public and C) the public regularly use it. How could anyone possibly argue that in court?? I see no way.

If people don't want others using their networks it is THEMSELVES who need to take the appropriate measures of protection. It is NOT the public's responsibility to protect THEIR network.

IMO it's just another imaginative way for corporate entities to sue people for no reason. Welcome to the western world.

KL

 

[Dan Robinson]

If people don't want others using their networks it is THEMSELVES who need to take the appropriate measures of protection. It is NOT the public's responsibility to protect THEIR network.

I would agree with this if it weren't for the difficulty in securing a router. I tried several times to add encryption to my Linksys router, because people around my neighborhood were using my connection. I could see the activity light on the router when I wasn't online and noticed the slowdown when I was. I even had a kid from a house down the street knock on my door and ask if my internet was down because he couldn't get online with my connection!

You have to turn on the encryption, set the key, then set each computer up to use that key. No matter what I did, I could *not* get it to work. I ended up just unplugging the router and not using it. Was I missing something simple? Maybe, but while I'm not a major computer geek, I know my way around them pretty well. If I couldn't do it, the average Joe probably is not going to be able to.

I can imagine most everyone who tries to secure their network ends up giving up, and either leaving it open or just not using wireless altogether. And so, I wouldn't place the blame on the network owner or assume that they want others to use their network if their router is open.

 

[B Ozanne]

I even had a kid from a house down the street knock on my door and ask if my internet was down because he couldn't get online with my connection!

That's priceless.

In theory, it is easy to setup encryption. Just make sure you pick the right encoding style and keep the code simple. I used codes like 0000000002. I never deal with the passphrase. Once the code is properly set you wont need to enter it again.

I'll admit that I have had some clients with router problems. I turned off their encryption and everything worked fine. I warned them of the risks, and given the location of their houses it was worth it. No real neighbors, far from the street, etc.

I live in a condo so encryption is mandatory. The biggest problem here is too many wireless routers. I can regularly see 10 or more routers, half of which are open and all are transmitting on the same frequency.

 

[David Drummond]

I wonder why your having so much problem securing Dan? I used to have a little difficulty when I mixed brands of cards/routers (with desktop) PCs, but that went away when I used the same brand. Never had the issue on laptops. I had mine locked down for a while because it was being abused by a neighbor, but them moved so I unlocked it. I generally use the 128bit WEP.

 

[Robert Dewey]

It's interesting that Windows does automatically pick up the strongest signal. I have this problem when I'm at our other house (next door) and want to pickup my signal - mine is usually weaker than the neighbors, so my connection constantly switches back and fourth. I had to manually delete my neighbors connection(s).

 

[David Wolfson]

Heh, this is appropriate. Thank goodness for unsecured wi-fi. Our wireless-G router decided to die today. I'm upstairs with a laptop mooching off a good enough signal until I can get around to replacing the router tomorrow night. Here we come, wireless-N. Thankyew neighbor, whoever you are!