Man Charged With Stealing Wi-Fi Signal

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott Greczkowski

Welcome HOME!
Original poster
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Cutting Edge
Sep 7, 2003
103,271
27,968
Newington, CT
Ok this is STUPID....

Man Charged With Stealing Wi-Fi Signal Wed Jul 6, 8:15 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/ap_on_hi_te/techbits_wi_fi_theft_1&printer=1

Police have arrested a man for using someone else's wireless Internet network in one of the first criminal cases involving this fairly common practice.

Benjamin Smith III, 41, faces a pretrial hearing this month following his April arrest on charges of unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony.

Police say Smith admitted using the Wi-Fi signal from the home of Richard Dinon, who had noticed Smith sitting in an SUV outside Dinon's house using a laptop computer.

The practice is so new that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement doesn't even keep statistics, according to the St. Petersburg Times, which reported Smith's arrest this week.

Innocuous use of other people's unsecured Wi-Fi networks is common, though experts say that plenty of illegal use also goes undetected: such as people sneaking on others' networks to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information and send death threats.

Security experts say people can prevent such access by turning on encryption or requiring passwords, but few bother or are unsure how to do so.

Wi-Fi, short for Wireless Fidelity, has enjoyed prolific growth since 2000. Millions of households have set up wireless home networks that give people like Dinon the ability to use the Web from their backyards but also reach the house next door or down the street.

It's not clear why Smith was using Dinon's network. Prosecutors declined to comment, and a working phone number could not be located for Smith.
 
Next thing you know its going to be illegal to walk around and carry one of those pocket WiFi Finders.

The person who should be arrested should be the owner of the connection by not protecting his network and signal.
 
Ah geez my crazy state :(

Did they just make this law up or something?

How would anyone have a clue that it's illegal to use someone's open WiFI network...
 
It gets friggin embarrasing to say I am from Florida sometimes.

From my office I can pick up three unprotected wireless networks, none from my house and three from my in-laws house. At another house I used to live in the kid next door used to access my network, I kinda felt sorry for him so I even directed the signal more towards his house and told him if he ever tried to hack my computers or run a server I'd shut him down.
 
Unless he hacked or did anything malicious then he should be found innocent.
 
He Was Stealing The Wifi Signal - It Was Not His To Use - Its Just The Same As Stealing Satellite Tv And Scott I Think Its very Narrow Minded Of You To Say The Owner Of The Connection Should Be Arrested , Do We Arrest Victims Of Other Crimes???
 
BFG said:
How would anyone have a clue that it's illegal to use someone's open WiFI network...
Ignorance isn't an excuse. While you many not know something is against the law, that doesn't mean you get a Get Out Of Jail Free card.

I see both sides to this argument. On one hand, I have to fault Dinon, the owner of the unsecured access point, for not having due diligence in securing his AP. However, there was no permission, either explicit or implied that granted Smith the right to access his network. Following laws as they are currently written, it was unlawful access to a computer network. Dinon had a network and Smith accessed it without permission.

I can't imagine that this goes to trial and results in a signifianct sentence if indeed Smith was just using it for internet access. My guess is suspended sentence or parole, a fine, and/or community service. However, since the state is tight lipped as to what Smith was doing exactly, circumstances might change. If he was accessing Dinon's computers, stealing/transferring information, setting up malware, etc, then things are different.
 
THUNDERJETT922 said:
He Was Stealing The Wifi Signal - It Was Not His To Use - Its Just The Same As Stealing Satellite Tv And Scott I Think Its very Narrow Minded Of You To Say The Owner Of The Connection Should Be Arrested , Do We Arrest Victims Of Other Crimes???
Because this person was to stupid to properly protect his network from others using it as specified in the users manual.

it is not the same as stealing Satellite TV, you are not deciding anything, you are receiving a signal which is bring broadcast, just like listeniing to your favorite FM signal on the radio.

He was FREELY broadcasting this signal for anyone to use, there is no law against that at all., it is his job to make sure his network is secure, and in fact him leaving his network open like that might just get him in trouble with his ISP for violation of their user agreements.

Its not stealing anything.

it was like a few years ago this guy had some wireless video sender, one day this guy and his wife decided to make an adult film and it was broadcast over the wireless sender. The next day the wife went outside and the neighbor had a grin on his face, a few days later the wife walking outside caught a glimpse of the persons TV and noticed it was HER on the screen in action, the neighbor recorded their video. They called the cops and the neighbor was arrested however later when it went to court it was thrown out because the neighbor who had the wireless video sender freely sent the video out for anyone within range to pick up.

Wifi is great, I use it all the time, as I drive around with my laptop I am always running into unencrypted hotspots, free for anyone to use.
 
This is exactly why I have my wireless network set at 128 bit encryption, overkill maybe but I take no chances with security.
 
DarrellP said:
This is exactly why I have my wireless network set at 128 bit encryption, overkill maybe but I take no chances with security.

All 128 does is somewhat protect your data. Better to limit access with MAC
address.
 
The way my DSL wireless works is you have to put the random encryption number in that I created to even access the wireless port. I doubt anyone could ever figure out the digits I put in the code.
 
There are nuerous ways to protect your Wifi network, You should at least have WAP enabled. If you don't you are giving an open invitation to anyone to use your internet connection.

There are lots of great products like these http://www.handtops.com/show/news/68 for you to drive around and find open WIFI connections. (I like the Canary Model) :)
 
John Walsh said:
It gets friggin embarrasing to say I am from Florida sometimes.

From my office I can pick up three unprotected wireless networks, none from my house and three from my in-laws house. At another house I used to live in the kid next door used to access my network, I kinda felt sorry for him so I even directed the signal more towards his house and told him if he ever tried to hack my computers or run a server I'd shut him down.

just 3 huh...

i can pick up... (hits the scan button) 6 from work...

no less than 3 from home... and 3 unsecure 1 secure from my inlaws (i can pick up mine at my in-laws due to my large antenna)

My inlaws occasionally use my connection when their cable modem goes down but i programmed in my wep key for them.

My wifes friend lives accross the street and her husband is always cracking my wep code....128 bit no less.... finally i discovered he only had 802.11b so i set my routers to G only and that put a stop to that.


back to the topic... I really lean in the direction that this owner lacked the due dilligence to protect his network from hapless intrusion... it would be different if the guy broke his wep code or committed crimes...
 
bhawey said:
All 128 does is somewhat protect your data. Better to limit access with MAC
address.

yeah but it takes 30 seconds to spoof a mac... less if you know what brand you are trying to spoof.

around here wal mart sells these blitz wireless adaptors... they all start with the same 3 "Numbers" (for those unaware these numbers are in HEX) so if you can scan te last 3 numbers and grab a connection.. it takes maybe 30 seconds.
 
Poor innocent fellow just sits in his car and receives a WiFi signal. But, he is transmitting to a network he is not authorized to use.

And to say the owner of the WiFi is to blame is akin to blaming a woman for being raped.

If I leave my doors unlocked on my house, is it OK for someone to wander in and use my stuff? No. It may be poor judgment on my part but the intruder is solely to blame for his actions.

I can't believe you guys are saying it's OK to use a WiFi you don't pay for.
 
128-bit encryption also requires a key. The person who would want to connect to it would need this key. Every packet sent and received would have this key attached to it's header.
 
I find it truly amazing that there are people here who believe that if one freely broadcasts his internet connection that anyone who sees it should be arrested. The rape scenario is totally ridiculous as much so as if someone decided to run around your house naked and you were arrested for not shielding your eyes from the broadcaster of lewd and indecent exposure. But the owner of the open wifi broadcast is not guilty either. He is just stupid and now wants to blame someone else for his stupidity.
The homeowner and broadcaster of an open wifi is not guilty of any crime Scott but is guilty of just being stupid. Because one is stupid and fails to lock down his network does not mean that anyone who sees this open doorway should be arrested either.

There is only one way I see someone doing wrong here. That is if a person uses reasonably prudent protection procedures and a hacker uses hack tools to break that protection, it is akin to breaking and entry. Then the hacker should go to jail. But if the home owner and wifi owner freely broadcasts his signal for all to see and someone looks at it, I say, the invitation, was accepted. There are plenty of warnings on this that come with this technology.
Do we know that the user hacked through the guy's security? Or was it open and unsecure? That should be the deciding factor, in my opinion AND anyone who thinks looking at an open broadcast should be a felony is an idiot too! That's my opinion and sorry for your stupidity if that fits you.

To the one that claimed we are a retroactive society, not proactive- Thank God that is so. Otherwise imagination and creativity would be outlawed!
 
After reading some of the stupid replies from people on this thread it's no surprise to me the US has so many damn laws. You can't steal Wi-Fi. If someone is dumb enough to broadcast it all over the neighborhood then they shouldn't complain when someone "steals" their bandwidth.

This worked out great for me on vacation in Phoenix. I was staying in a house in a nice neighborhood while "stealing" :eek: some guys bandwidth. Thanks for keeping me off dial-up man! :up
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Request for .ico

NHL reaches DEAL!!!!

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)