Is it wrong to hijack your neighbours router?

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Chris T

A completely false distinction....

Trespass is a key feature in many laws.

... You can't pick up and discard analogies simply based on whether they fit your argument or not....

Is this a Forum rule?

...If, for the sake of argument, you were daft enough to write down your online banking details and then leave the paper behind in an internet cafe, would I be justified in law if I were to empty your bank account, arguing that your carelessness amounted to a reasonable belief of implied consent?

Your analogy involves passwords which, by their very nature, cannot assume implied consent.

A better analogy would be a bowl of sweets in the internet cafe with a sign saying "Please help yourself".

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Is this a Forum rule?

Come the revolution, my friend.

Your analogy involves passwords which, by their very nature, cannot assume implied consent.

A better analogy would be a bowl of sweets in the internet cafe with a sign saying "Please help yourself".

I don't agree. In both cases the service is effectively 'unlocked' by deliberate action of the owner. If the existence of a password in one case makes it different to the lack of a password in another, then your analogy fails because while the bowl of sweets has a sign saying 'please help yourself', an unsecured wireless network does not have any such sign.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Chris T

...I don't agree. In both cases the service is effectively 'unlocked' by deliberate action of the owner. ...

No, you implied the bank account details were left in the cafe by mistake, not deliberately.

...If the existence of a password in one case makes it different to the lack of a password in another, then your analogy fails because while the bowl of sweets has a sign saying 'please help yourself', an unsecured wireless network does not have any such sign.

I think we've reached the crux (or one of the cruxes) of the matter. I would say that the unsecured wireless network has such a sign by implication - after all, it doesn't take much effort to hide or secure the signal. I suppose you might say "what if the sign on the bowl of sweets went missing, does this still imply that the sweets are free?" - I hope you don't ask this, as it would be tricky to answer...

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Indeed, but now you're talking about degrees of wrongness and the appropriate sanction to be taken against them - whereas you started out asking whether it was simply right or wrong.

You are debating a different question.

I clarified my question in post 99. I know it's illegal, but is it wrong(in your personal view, not the black and white view of the law)?


You are the one comparing different crimes to state your case, even although the crimes being compared are at completely different levels.

[Druchii]

If the wireless SSID was "OpenToAll" or "FreeBroadband" or "FreeloadersWelcome" would that change anything?

Originally Posted by TheNorm

No, you implied the bank account details were left in the cafe by mistake, not deliberately.

I didn't imply any such thing. Not that it makes any difference. The key thing for your argument is what the person taking the service (or the cash) reasonably believed he was doing - taking something he had implicit permission to take, or stealing.

In the absence of a sign saying 'I left my bank details here deliberately' or perhaps 'My wireless network is open for all comers', what is reasonable?

I think we've reached the crux (or one of the cruxes) of the matter. I would say that the unsecured wireless network has such a sign by implication - after all, it doesn't take much effort to hide or secure the signal. I suppose you might say "what if the sign on the bowl of sweets went missing, does this still imply that the sweets are free?" - I hope you don't ask this, as it would be tricky to answer...

Well, go on then ...

While you're thinking about the answer to that, let me contest your assertion that it's easy to secure your network. I usually offer my mother in law as an example in these sorts of situations. Her enthusiasm for technology is several decades ahead of her ability to understand how to use it properly.

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

I clarified my question in post 99. I know it's illegal, but is it wrong(in your personal view, not the black and white view of the law)?

You are the one comparing different crimes to state your case, even although the crimes being compared are at completely different levels.

The point is, I don't think levels are relevant. Something is either right or it's wrong. Sanctions taken against something that is wrong may vary according to the damage caused by doing the wrong, but that doesn't alter the essential black-or-white nature of either the Law or your original question. Right or wrong? I say wrong.

I am indeed using legal examples, because in our society there is a reasonably good correlation between what people generally consider to be right and wrong, and what the law says is right and wrong.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Chris T

...In the absence of a sign saying 'I left my bank details here deliberately' or perhaps 'My wireless network is open for all comers', what is reasonable?...

How about this:

Originally Posted by Druchii

If the wireless SSID was "OpenToAll" or "FreeBroadband" or "FreeloadersWelcome" would that change anything?

... I usually offer my mother in law as an example in these sorts of situations. Her enthusiasm for technology is several decades ahead of her ability to understand how to use it properly...

"Take my mother-in-law... please (boom boom)"

Changing the password from "admin" (or whatever) to "pussycat" is a lot easier than setting up an online bank account. Can't her son-in-law help?

...The point is, I don't think levels are relevant. Something is either right or it's wrong. Sanctions taken against something that is wrong may vary according to the damage caused by doing the wrong, but that doesn't alter the essential black-or-white nature of either the Law or your original question. Right or wrong? I say wrong....

So, using Mr Jackson's example, would you lock up children (or their parents) who "pee at the side of the road on a long car journey"?

...I am indeed using legal examples, because in our society there is a reasonably good correlation between what people generally consider to be right and wrong, and what the law says is right and wrong.

Morality and the law are two distinct issues. I think the opening post was designed to discuss the former.

[gadge]

Mind me please im new to all this wireless stuff so how would you know if someone was useing your network.my settings are wpa-personel (aes).

The points in question I believe are people accessing unsecured wireless connections. You should be ok

To answer AJ's original question - my personal view is that it is wrong.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

To answer AJ's original question ...

Well, now that he has been permanently banned, I doubt if he cares a great deal.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Well, now that he has been permanently banned, I doubt if he cares a great deal.

AJ banned? what for? his posts always made me laugh

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

AJ banned? what for? his posts always made me laugh

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34289773-post18.html

Is all I could find. Plus it was suggested he had been banned before. Must not say more. I'm probably breaking forum rules here and deserve an infraction

[dilli-theclaw]

Can we return to the topic please.

[Alien]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

Someone managed to hack into my router this morning, even though it was WEP protected, and disable the admin password AND all security! Luckily I was online when they did it and able to take immediate action.

Originally Posted by Gareth

FWIW, use WPA rather than WEP, if your Wireless NIC supports it.

Originally Posted by Matt D

Use WPA - it's much stronger than WEP.

Apparently WEP's about as useful as a chocolate teapot.