A Thread About The Legality of Using Others Bandwidth- Renamed From the Original

[muffin]

HAHA.... I know... nothing makes a girl hotter  HAHAHAHA

 

[armyvern]

HAHA.... I know... nothing makes a girl hotter  HAHAHAHA

You're awesome anyway!!

Did you know that I've now logged in to DNDLearn 3 times in the past week ... and I haven't gotten "revoked" yet!!

I'm only keeping a grip on myself this time to save you all that work that I usually create for you!  ;D

(And so that you can spend more time online here ... Mr Bobbitt should buy me a beer for that ...  >)

 

[garb811]

Piggybacking someones "open" wireless isn't commiting a crime as far as i know, it's called hotspotting. Anyone who owns a wireless a router can choose to run it open or locked. Internet cafe's and many other places are running a wireless hotspot providing people in range free i-net. If someone is running thier router wide open then it's thier own fault.

Justify it however you want, it's still Theft of Telecommunications and a Criminal Offence. If you found a wallet that had a bank card and PIN number in it, would it be ok to use the card to take money out of the owner's account??  After all, it was buddies fault because he not only lost his wallet but he was dumb enough to have his PIN in there too.

...using free i-net open to public access due to owner malfunction and lack of password is called a freebie. 

Or it could be someone who knows what they are doing and they're sniffing the freeloader's traffic for interesting stuff like user names, passwords, account numbers, personal info...

I don't know what your background is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't in the legal profession or law enforcement given your shaky understanding of the legality of what is being discussed so it might be wise not to be dispensing erroneous advice.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Justify it however you want, it's still Theft of Telecommunications and a Criminal Offence. If you found a wallet that had a bank card and PIN number in it, would it be ok to use the card to take money out of the owner's account??  After all, it was buddies fault because he not only lost his wallet but he was dumb enough to have his PIN in there too.
Or it could be someone who knows what they are doing and they're sniffing the freeloader's traffic for interesting stuff like user names, passwords, account numbers, personal info...

I don't know what your background is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't in the legal profession or law enforcement given your shaky understanding of the legality of what is being discussed so it might be wise not to be dispensing erroneous advice.

Justification on making use of ineternet access via free wireless is hardly "criminal". Like i already said HACKING the box or the host(the router or host computer) to gain that access would BE the cime. Making use of the free "access" is just making use of what the owner made availble aware or unaware. Ala "internet cafe hotspotting"

I'm not advocating anything nor am i advising anyone. i'm merely pointing out the "grey" area that people still have with regards to gaining free access via wireless wavelengths and lack of passswords and secure router setups that the OWNER is responsible for.

Cheers.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Justification on making use of ineternet access via free wireless is hardly "criminal". Like i already said HACKING the box or the host(the router or host computer) to gain that access would BE the cime. Making use of the free "access" is just making use of what the owner made availble aware or unaware. Ala "internet cafe hotspotting"

I'm not advocating anything nor am i advising anyone. i'm merely pointing out the "grey" area that people still have with regards to gaining free access via wireless wavelengths and lack of passswords and secure router setups that the OWNER is responsible for.

Cheers.

An internet cafe establishes a hot spot for the purpose of providing an open network.  Your neighbour hasn't.  Using that signal unauthorized is stealing his bandwidth, which he is paying for for his own use.  Your comparison to a cafe hotspot is not a valid comparison.

Would you wash your car with a random stanger's hose outlet simply because he didn't shut off the water, so it must be free for your use too?

 

[garb811]

Justification on making use of ineternet access via free wireless is hardly "criminal". Like i already said HACKING the box or the host(the router or host computer) to gain that access would BE the cime. Making use of the free "access" is just making use of what the owner made availble aware or unaware. Ala "internet cafe hotspotting"

I'm not advocating anything nor am i advising anyone. i'm merely pointing out the "grey" area that people still have with regards to gaining free access via wireless wavelengths and lack of passswords and secure router setups that the OWNER is responsible for.

Cheers.

A private individual failing to secure his WAP does not give you the legal right to piggyback upon that means for your own purposes without his permission anymore than someone failing to put up a fence around his yard gives you the legal right to use their real property for your own purposes without his permission.  The only reason it is a "grey" area is because there are people like you out there who think they know what they are talking about from a legal standpoint when they don't.

As Michael and others here have stated, there is a world of difference between an individual with an unsecured device and a business setting up a publicly accessible WAP, and advertising it as being a service they are providing for a client.  FYI, sitting outside the premises of a business which has set up a hotspot for the use of its clients and accessing that WAP is Theft of Telecommunications as well.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

An internet cafe establishes a hot spot for the purpose of providing an open network.  Your neighbour hasn't.  Using that signal unauthorized is stealing his bandwidth, which he is paying for for his own use.  Your comparison to a cafe hotspot is not a valid comparison.

Would you wash your car with a random stanger's hose outlet simply because he didn't shut off the water, so it must be free for your use too?

Anyone who buys a wireless router has the same options given to them as an Internet cafe, they also have the same protocols and software setups that "enable or disable" freeloaders from gaining access to that bandwidth. They also have the same user manuals and setup instructions mebbe even the same online tech support to hammer home the point. If the owner of that router is unable to setup or acknowledge the implications of having and owning that router then why should the people using that bandwidth be considered the bad party in this?

If the access is being used as intended without malicious intent to anyone and not breaking any laws then it's pretty much a lottery draw for bandwidth. The routher is NOT being compromised in any way nor is the host or any data on it. Free access does not mean the person making use of it are using it for malicious intent.

Speculate all you want but the fact is the HOST has something broadcasting "freely to the public" and the public is now able to use this freely. Blame not the public, blame the appropriate party.


Cheers.

 

[Michael OLeary]

So, if he leaves the keys in his car, you'd just use that too?

What about when his ISP starts charging for bandwidth, as some have, and he has extra charges because of your use of bandwidth?  Now you're stealing something he had no intention of paying for.

Just because his network is unsecure doesn't mean he left it open for you to use.

And you're playing semantic games to excuse the theft.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Oh i suppose fresh air would be considered stolen along with the bandwidth. jeez 


Good luck with the swim in the paper sea.

 

[garb811]

Anyone who buys a wireless router has the same options given to them as an Internet cafe, they also have the same protocols and software setups that "enable or disable" freeloaders from gaining access to that bandwidth. They also have the same user manuals and setup instructions mebbe even the same online tech support to hammer home the point. If the owner of that router is unable to setup or acknowledge the implications of having and owning that router then why should the people using that bandwidth be considered the bad party in this?

If the access is being used as intended without malicious intent to anyone and not breaking any laws then it's pretty much a lottery draw for bandwidth. The routher is NOT being compromised in any way nor is the host or any data on it. Free access does not mean the person making use of it are using it for malicious intent.

Speculate all you want but the fact is the HOST has something broadcasting "freely to the public" and the public is now able to use this freely. Blame not the public, blame the appropriate party.

Cheers.

The only person speculating here is you.  You have no idea what you are talking about from a legal standpoint and it is quite obvious you do not want to understand the issues.  At this point I'm starting to think the reason you're so firm in your belief that this isn't Theft of Telecommunications is because you are actively engaged in that act.

I work in law enforcement daily.  It is my job to research and interpret the appropriate legislation in order to determine on reasonable and probable grounds whether or not the elements ofr an offence have been met.  It is also my job to keep abreast of case law which impacts upon said legislation.  If Quag were to become the subject of an investigation, he would be facing charges.  Full stop, end of discussion.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

The only person speculating here is you.  You have no idea what you are talking about from a legal standpoint and it is quite obvious you do not want to understand the issues.  At this point I'm starting to think you're so firm in your belief that this isn't Theft of Telecommunications is because you are actively engaged in that act.

I work in law enforcement daily.  It is my job to research and interpret the appropriate legislation in order to determine on reasonable and probable grounds whether or not the elements ofr an offence have been met.  It is also my job to keep abreast of case law which impacts upon said legislation.  If Quag were to become the subject of an investigation, he would be facing charges.  Full stop, end of discussion.

How am i speculating? I am merely pointing out there is still "grey matter" regarding the guilty factor in getting something for free? If someone leaves it open for the public it's no longer theft. Otherwise ban the device and make IT illegal.

I live on this side of the fence, you on that side, you turn on a radio i get to listen for free.. no difference! no stealing involved no criminial intent. You goto Canada's Wonderland and they have a concert at Molson park, rather than pay an extra fee you simply wander close by and enjoy for free. Guilty? I guess they are next...make everyone deaf and blind too then so we can't steal sights and sounds...

The speculation I am doing it IS completely wrong, i however had a wireless a router and used it to gain access through my landlords broadband hookup which he allowed me to do. I also learned that other people in my "range" also had networks open and available to connect to.

 

[garb811]

There's no additional cost incurred for anyone if you overhear a public radio broadcast, nor is there any additional cost incurred by anyone for you to take advantage of the fact that Canada's Wonderland has decided it is more beneficial for them to hold concerts where they can be overheard by those in the vicinity who aren't paying customers than it is to hold them in a manner so as to exclude non-paying listeners.  Nor are there any laws in effect (probably) which specifically prohibit those activites.

On the other hand, there is a law which specifically prohibits the Theft of Telecommunications, which you obviously haven't bothered to read and/or understand even though I posted the link for you.  Additionally, there are costs involved in your piggybacking on someones unsecured WAP.  It costs money to provide bandwidth, somebody is paying for it somewhere upstream of that WAP.  Even though the owner of the WAP may not be billed for the amount of traffic if he has an all you can use deal, the ISP IS being billed for theirs.  Additionally by piggybacking on his WAP, you are denying him access to the full bandwidth he has paid for. ie.  If he has paid for a 1 MB/s connection and there are 2 users, 1 of which does not have his permission to use the WAP, a simplistic estimate is he only will have access to 500 KB/s of his 1 MB/s at any given time...you are effectively stealing 500 kb/s of the bandwidth he is buying from his ISP.  So, piggybacking on an unsecured WAP is not a "victimless crime" which causes no harm to anyone like you seem to think.  That is why there is a specific law in place forbidding that activity, understand?

Anyways, it's been tedious, yet somewhat fun, but since you have no wish to really understand the issue, I'm outta here in relation to any further posts from you.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Snafu-Bar,......it is illegal and its not a "grey" area.

Bottom line is you are WRONG, yet once again you continue to argue like some sad troll.
You are on your last breathes on this site.

Bruce
Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Niteshade]

I have looked over this thread with some interest and I am noticing that not one of you guys have thought of the theory:

"Maybe the owner of the router deliberately left it open so others can use it for free".

Food for thought. However:

The requirement is on the router user to obtain permission to use the router.

Not on the owner of the router to DISALLOW permission first.

That is what is most reasonable in this case.

There is no legal precedence that I can find on www.canlii.org that goes one way or the other.

Nites

 

[Edward Campbell]

Snafu-Bar,......it is illegal and its not a "grey" area.
...
Bruce
Milnet.ca Staff

There are many provisions in all manner of laws and regulations, including the Criminal Code, that are outdated or ill conceived and unenforceable.

The Radiocommunication Act regulates all use of the RF spectrum. It sidesteps interception because some radio signals (the broadcast band, for example) are intended to be intercepted. Others are not, but the Act requires those who do not intend their signals to be intercepted to encode – not the same as encrypt - them. Encoding, for the moment, can be as simple as digitizing – but that may change; my guess is that it will change, sooner rather than later.

The arrival of ‘pay’ broadcast services complicated the issue. The Industry Department reacted by making it illegal to decode signals in Canada that are not authorized in Canada – thus one commits an offence by buying a so called grey market service and decoder box in the USA and then receiving/viewing a US satellite service in Canada.

The problem is getting more complex as technology makes new encoding and interception techniques available. Thus, while (a few years ago) Industry Canada forbade selling scanners that could ‘decode’ digital signals – thus ‘protecting’ some important public safety services and all new generation cellular (PCS) services – they did not make it illegal to build and use a digital scanner. The law, therefore, failed to address the real problem: city, provincial and the national government are too cheap to encrypt their radios, they want the law to ‘protect’ them. It ‘punished’ a hobby community even as it shied away from calling criminals to account for using technology to support their crimes. That regulation will have to be changed – as soon as governments wake up to heir responsibilities.

One of the reasons, I believe that we have seen so few enforcement actions, much less prosecutions, on things like piggybacking on a radio signal or digital scanning, is that very, very few lawyers, including very few Crown Prosecutors are confident that a case can be made, in law.

I think Snafu-Bar is closer to the truth than is garb811. The ‘law’ may be there, in the Criminal Code, but it may not be a useful, enforceable law. A law the Crown will not enforce is in a grey area.

 

[George Wallace]

The requirement is on the router user to obtain permission to use the router.

Not on the owner of the router to DISALLOW permission first.

:  Is there a "Shake your head in disbelief" epicon?

The owner of the router should be smart enough to DISALLOW permission to their router when they purchase and activate it (properly).  They should PASSWORD protect their router and/or modem.  If they want, they then give permission to access that router, to whomever they please.

There are already cases of Child Porn that have been laid against people who have left their wireless routers unsecured.  Of course some of those charges were dropped after a proper investigation and their computers were found to be 'clean', but it is an example of what can be done.  Right now, someone could be surfing Kiddie Porn on your UNSECURED router, and all traces will come back to you.  So, YES the owner of a properly secured router does have the rights to control access to their router, and allow or disallow permissions to use it.  They are the ones paying for it financially and legally.  

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

There are many provisions in all manner of laws and regulations, including the Criminal Code, that are outdated or ill conceived and unenforceable.

The Radiocommunication Act regulates all use of the RF spectrum. It sidesteps interception because some radio signals (the broadcast band, for example) are intended to be intercepted. Others are not, but the Act requires those who do not intend their signals to be intercepted to encode – not the same as encrypt - them. Encoding, for the moment, can be as simple as digitizing – but that may change; my guess is that it will change, sooner rather than later.

The arrival of ‘pay’ broadcast services complicated the issue. The Industry Department reacted by making it illegal to decode signals in Canada that are not authorized in Canada – thus one commits an offence by buying a so called grey market service and decoder box in the USA and then receiving/viewing a US satellite service in Canada.

The problem is getting more complex as technology makes new encoding and interception techniques available. Thus, while (a few years ago) Industry Canada forbade selling scanners that could ‘decode’ digital signals – thus ‘protecting’ some important public safety services and all new generation cellular (PCS) services – they did not make it illegal to build and use a digital scanner. The law, therefore, failed to address the real problem: city, provincial and the national government are too cheap to encrypt their radios, they want the law to ‘protect’ them. It ‘punished’ a hobby community even as it shied away from calling criminals to account for using technology to support their crimes. That regulation will have to be changed – as soon as governments wake up to heir responsibilities.

One of the reasons, I believe that we have seen so few enforcement actions, much less prosecutions, on things like piggybacking on a radio signal or digital scanning, is that very, very few lawyers, including very few Crown Prosecutors are confident that a case can be made, in law.

I think Snafu-Bar is closer to the truth than is garb811. The ‘law’ may be there, in the Criminal Code, but it may not be a useful, enforceable law. A law the Crown will not enforce is in a grey area.

I disagree,.....a law the Crown will not enforce is not 'grey', its just not worth the effort to try and convict someone whilst we have murderer's, rapists and all sorts of other scum running around free.

Enforcing costs big bucks..........just because the Crown thinks spending your tax dollars on a certain law isn't worth it fiscally DOES NOT make it any less legal.
Its theft,...the unauthorized use of someone else's bandwidth without their permission.

Edward, next time I visit just leave the liquor cabinet open and we can philosophise about the 'grey' area of leaving the sweet nectar unlocked, so therefore.....


EDIT: added the yellow highlighted words

 

[Nfld Sapper]

All manufactures of routers recommend the following:

It is recommended to enable encryption on your wireless router before your wireless network adapters

So we I think we are just  :deadhorse:

 

[George Wallace]

Edward, next time I visit just leave the liquor cabinet open and we can philosophise about the 'grey' area of leaving the sweet nectar unlocked, so therefore.....

Sort of like them leaving the Beer Store doors unlocked at the end of the day.......How many cases of beer did you want?

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Its theft,...the unauthorized use of someone else's bandwidth without their permission.
...

Not so.

That is why some of my friends are working so hard on IEEE Standard 802.22. They need to find ways to use the 'white spaces' in spectrum that is (in national and international law) allocated on an exclusive basis to e.g. broadcast services, despite the 'wishes' of the 'owner' (licence holder) of the spectrum. Unauthorized use is ongoing, now, (some of it 'approved' (despite written laws) by governments) and it is unprosecutable because a legally sufficient case cannot be made, not because prosecutors are being financially responsible.

The law belongs to the people, through their legislators, judges and lawyers; they, not policemen, decide what is and is not 'lawful.'