NL_engineer
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
muffin said:They don't have to know how to put it together, which is why someone else does - however they do need to be lisenced to drive it.
You missed the quote
muffin said:They don't have to know how to put it together, which is why someone else does - however they do need to be lisenced to drive it.
Snafu-Bar said:...the public is not breaking anything, they are only making useage of what freely given away.
NL_engineer said:You missed the quote
the 48th regulator said:Interesting Article, from a a Toronto-based technology lawyer;
Wireless hotspots and the law
An interesting question that arises is when use of publicly accessible wireless access points is lawful and when is it not.
There have been a few isolated examples of individuals being charged with certain offences as a result of accessing private wi-fi access points, although this has typically occurred in conjunction with other activity that was clearly illegal. In other words, the wireless connection was being used as a tool to further a different activity, such as hacking into computer systems or downloading child pornography, as opposed to simply pursuing an otherwise lawful purpose such as downloading some information or a map from the Internet.
muffin said:It isn't the signal that's the problem, its the access to the paid internet service. If you cut a little hole in the wall and spliced your neighbors phone/cable line and ran it to your place would that be different or just messier.
Shamrock said:I had edited this into my previous post, but in the length of time it took me to form this, several other posts had buried it.
Since proponents of use of insecure bandwith as legal are here, I have a question. Were I to maliciously leave my WAP insecure and monitored their usage and publicly display everything they broadcast, including personal information, passwords, banking information, etc. have I committed an offence? They freely gave it to me.
40below said:The trouble with sweeping moral statements like that is they're moral and they're sweeping. First off, if I use an unsecured network to check my web mail or surf for 15 minutes to kill time, I'm not going to exhaust their bandwidth. I have better things to do than stand on a sidewalk for eight hours downloading torrents, and people might get suspicious. .
Bruce Monkhouse said:I find that veeeeery interesting,.........how could they be charged with a crime that wasn't a crime?
How convenient when there was maybe a good chance for convictions based on the other evidence collected that resulted in those charges that a totally legal pasttime was illegal. Bean counters, anyone??
Bruce Monkhouse said:I find that veeeeery interesting,.........how could they be charged with a crime that wasn't a crime?
How convenient when there was maybe a good chance for convictions based on the other evidence collected that resulted in those charges that a totally legal pasttime was illegal. Bean counters, anyone??
Shamrock said:I had edited this into my previous post, but in the length of time it took me to form this, several other posts had buried it.
Since proponents of use of insecure bandwith as legal are here, I have a question. Were I to maliciously leave my WAP insecure and monitored their usage and publicly display everything they broadcast, including personal information, passwords, banking information, etc. have I committed an offence? They freely gave it to me.
c_canuk said:READ YOUR DOCUMENTATION INCLUDED WITH YOUR PRODUCT
by using public radio frequencies you are REQUIRED by the FCC and CRTC to emit no interference and recieve transmissions, your WiFi Access Point (WAP) must by law allow incomming signals. You are not allowed to encrypt, scramble or otherwise obscure your signal in a way that makes it unreadable...
what you can do however is encrypt the network using the signal.
When you use a public frequency within your home, anyone who recieves it can interact with it legally. Your signal is a beacon saying "Hello! I'm here!" if you choose not to log into your router and shut off the beacon and/or apply data encryption it is your fault if someone connects to it. Public signals are not subject to property laws any more than the oxygen trees in your yard produce.
You are not legally allowed to claim any signal you broadcast on public frequency's as your property.
the manuals that come with the product have pictures and one line per picture instruction that a 12 year old could follow, the connection information is generally written on the bottom of the router next to the serial number from the factory which brings you to a web page hosted on the router's internal network that has a wizard for setting up the router including wireless security.
if you can log onto army.ca and post a message, you can RTFM and secure your wireless network.
and you would be wrong.
an unsecured router by default acts like a beacon, it is your responsibility to be familiar with your device on condition of using it, ignorance of the law is no excuse. and there is a lot of precedent set, most notably by a man who brought a laptop into the court room, and showed how windows automatically will try to connect to the internet and will do so with an unsecure wireless connection if you click one single yes button.
Imagine your grandmother being labled a criminal just because she accidentally connected to the wrong network that is beaming "I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!! I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!I'M HERE CONNECT TO ME!!!" into her house.
the problem in your case was a neglectful service technition or policy from Rogers.
BTW there are a lot of people who deliberatly leave their wireless internet connections unsecured.
some are altruistic and think the internet and access to informations should always be free and don't mind sharing the wealth
some are looking for suckers to connect so they can steal information
some are large organizations and municipalities looking to draw economic revenue by adding services to the vicinity of their area to draw tourists and other consumers.
So now with this all thrown in the mix, how am I to know which WiFi is left unsecured because they want me to connect to it, and which are users too lazy to read a 5 page pictographic pamphlet on a piece of equipment that is mandated to play nice with me.
You can call it theft if you want, but it isn't. You are providing public access to your bandwidth by not securing your network and the onus is on you to know the rules and to set your equipment up properly.
40below said:That is different. The cable is on his property from the drop, so you committed trespass to access it unless he had given you permission. You also caused physical damage to his lines with the splice and to top it off, the physical presence of your cable on his property is an encumbrance, the same as if one day you decided to build a fence on his land.
Now if he had spliced it himself, ran 100 feet of cable from his house and into your living room and left it with a cable jack on the end next to your TV, you could reasonably argue he was implicitly allowing you to plug it in, which is the same as the wireless analogy.
40below said:With the proviso that I Am Not A Lawyer, yes.
The trouble with sweeping moral statements like that is they're moral and they're sweeping. First off, if I use an unsecured network to check my web mail or surf for 15 minutes to kill time, I'm not going to exhaust their bandwidth. I have better things to do than stand on a sidewalk for eight hours downloading torrents, and people might get suspicious. As to your second point, it's a sweet sentiment but not exactly a bright-line rule. Ever been to a Goodwill or a garage sale, or eBay of Craigslist for that matter, and bought something that you knew was worth a lot more than it cost, because you had skills and knowledge that the seller didn't? Ever went back and gave your profit after you resold it to the person you "took advantage of?" Me either.
Adamant said:I would imagine they would say Yes. But really thats one reason some people in Urban centres leave their routers open, easy access to peoples personal information, via packets sent or by going through the folders on their computer.
kratz said:Most legitimate hotspots have a warning not to use passwords, credit card or other sensitive information prior to using their access. So if someone was to use other unsecured WAP access, I would assume the same risks and take appropriate action on my part.