[OldManMac]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20060325/tc_cmp/183702832

In Illinois, riding piggyback on someone else's Wi-Fi could cost you some money.

David M. Kauchak, 32, pleaded guilty this week in Winnebago County to remotely accessing someone else's computer system without permission, the Rockford Register Star newspaper reported. A Winnebago County judge fined Kauchak $250 and sentenced him to one year of court supervision.

Kauchak has the dubious distinction of being the first person to face the charge in Winnebago County, and prosecutors say they're taking the crime seriously.

"We just want to get the word out that it is a crime. We are prosecuting it, and people need to take precautions," Assistant State's Attorney Tom Wartowski told the newspaper.

A police officer arrested Kauchak in January after spotting him sitting in a parked car with a computer. A chat with the suspect led to the arrest, Wartowski said.

[euchomai]

THIS IS STUPID. What a waste of freaking money prosecuting someone over this. Time and money wrapped up in someone's open network. I'm assuming that is the case right? He didn't hack it did he?

[Spliffdaddy]

So how are you supposed to determine which wireless networks are "public" and which ones are simply not secured?

I've decided that cops are dumbasses.

[alligator]

I say anything broadcast over the air is free to use, provided you are not violating any statutes or other laws.

[wdlove]

I would say that isn't a wise thing to do at all. Very stupid. Stealing is stealing.

[meelk]

Realistically, when you are sitting in a parked car with a laptop, you are likely committing a crime. Who knows what this guy was doing through this guys unsecured network. Downloading kiddie porn? Arranging to meet a minor to rape? Any huge number of deviant things?
True that the persons network should be secured, but its very obvious when you are sitting in a random residential neighborhood that you arent on a public wifi spot.

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by wdlove

I would say that isn't a wise thing to do at all. Very stupid. Stealing is stealing.

Are you serious? If I pull into an area and there is an OPEN NETWORK, I should have the right to jump on it. It is an OPEN NETWORK. Stealing would be hacking the password and logging on like that. Please explain how you deem it stealing?

[James L]

Originally Posted by euchomai

Are you serious? If I pull into an area and there is an OPEN NETWORK, I should have the right to jump on it. It is an OPEN NETWORK. Stealing would be hacking the password and logging on like that. Please explain how you deem it stealing?

Are you paying for it?

If you walk up to someone's house, and the door is unlocked, does that then give you the right to go in and take their possessions?

If you drive buy an auto repair facility at night, and they forgot to roll down a bay door, do you have the right to go in and clean out $10,000 in tools... simply because the door wasn't closed?

...in case you aren't sure, the answer to both is that you don't have the right. You would be a thief, in either example.

If I purchase a network, then that is MY network, and MY bandwidth. Whether I chose to protect it, or to leave it open, it is mine.... not yours.

If you take any of my bandwidth, you are stealing it.

Such a simple concept, really.

[OldManMac]

It may be a simple concept, but that won't prevent people from trying to justify thievery.

[Spliffdaddy]

one more time...

So how are you supposed to determine which wireless networks are "public" and which ones are simply not secured?

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by James L

Are you paying for it?

If you walk up to someone's house, and the door is unlocked, does that then give you the right to go in and take their possessions?

If you drive buy an auto repair facility at night, and they forgot to roll down a bay door, do you have the right to go in and clean out $10,000 in tools... simply because the door wasn't closed?

...in case you aren't sure, the answer to both is that you don't have the right. You would be a thief, in either example.

If I purchase a network, then that is MY network, and MY bandwidth. Whether I chose to protect it, or to leave it open, it is mine.... not yours.

If you take any of my bandwidth, you are stealing it.

Such a simple concept, really.

Classic Strawman right here.

Robbing someone and using their internet access are two totally different things. The concept of whether or not open access points are private property is something that needs to be discussed in great detail. It needs to be hashed out on the courts before hair-brain local officials start making laws.

And there is a flip side to this. Right now in my apartment there are 3 open wireless access points available to me. Now, if these transmissions are in fact private property, then are the owners violating my privacy by broadcasting them into my home without permission?

[OldManMac]

I would think it's rather easy. If it isn't your network, don't use it, unless you're 100% sure. People thinking they're entitled to something, just because it's in plain sight, doesn't make cops dumb asses. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by James L

Are you paying for it?

If you walk up to someone's house, and the door is unlocked, does that then give you the right to go in and take their possessions?

If you drive buy an auto repair facility at night, and they forgot to roll down a bay door, do you have the right to go in and clean out $10,000 in tools... simply because the door wasn't closed?

...in case you aren't sure, the answer to both is that you don't have the right. You would be a thief, in either example.

If I purchase a network, then that is MY network, and MY bandwidth. Whether I chose to protect it, or to leave it open, it is mine.... not yours.

If you take any of my bandwidth, you are stealing it.

Such a simple concept, really.

Not really. A lot of people leave their networks open so others can use them. I agree in this case, just because the guy drove into a neighborhood to use it. That's creepy. Either he's extremely cheap or was up to something. But they could probably get him for loitering or some other technicality. If a network is open, there's no way to know whether it's been left open purposely or not.

[CharlesS]

What we need to do is educate the public about why they should turn on the WEP encryption feature on their wireless routers. Too many people have no idea what that even means, or that there's a reason they should do it.

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Classic Strawman right here.
And there is a flip side to this. Right now in my apartment there are 3 open wireless access points available to me. Now, if these transmissions are in fact private property, then are the owners violating my privacy by broadcasting them into my home without permission?

Quoted for emphasis:

My neighbor is trespassing on my private property by having his signal in my home. Which cop should I call?

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by KarlG

I would think it's rather easy. If it isn't your network, don't use it, unless you're 100% sure. People thinking they're entitled to something, just because it's in plain sight, doesn't make cops dumb asses. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Well, what if Joe Blow, not knowing anything about networking or wireless routers, buys a Netgear wireless router so he can use his company laptop at home. He fires up a browser and bam, 10 other networks are there all named the default "NETGEAR," by similar people who don't have networking knowledge. Is Joe breaking the law if he chooses the wrong one?

This issue is just not as cut-n-dry as some seem to think. How do you differentiate between freely open and ignorantly open access points? How do you determine wrong doing from ignorance on the part of the wireless user? If open wireless networks are private property, are the owners trespassing by broadcasting them into others private property?

Like I said, this just needs to be hashed out more before we start taking people to court.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Well, what if Joe Blow, not knowing anything about networking or wireless routers, buys a Netgear wireless router so he can use his company laptop at home. He fires up a browser and bam, 10 other networks are there all named the default "NETGEAR," by similar people who don't have networking knowledge. Is Joe breaking the law if he chooses the wrong one?

No, Joe has simply made a simple mistake, which is explainable in a logical manner. The guy who is sitting in a car late at night who is then arrested because of his responses to police questioning is obviously up to no good.

I dont like people trying to justify illegal behavior through technicalities like half the people on this board do.

As for "how do you tell if its a public wifi spot or not", any professional setting up public wifi is likely to label it appropriately for the city, business, school, etc.
It should pop up with something like "Public Wifi" "University Free Wifi" etc. Generic wifi labels like "Netgear" are pretty damn obviously someones home network. Stop making excuses for people to engage in illegal behavior.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by meelk

No, Joe has simply made a simple mistake, which is explainable in a logical manner. The guy who is sitting in a car late at night who is then arrested because of his responses to police questioning is obviously up to no good.

I dont like people trying to justify illegal behavior through technicalities like half the people on this board do.

As for "how do you tell if its a public wifi spot or not", any professional setting up public wifi is likely to label it appropriately for the city, business, school, etc.
It should pop up with something like "Public Wifi" "University Free Wifi" etc. Generic wifi labels like "Netgear" are pretty damn obviously someones home network. Stop making excuses for people to engage in illegal behavior.

Wow great reading comprehension man. I'm not making excuses for illegal behavior. I have no idea where you got that from.

And I really don't feel like repeating myself.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Wow great reading comprehension man. I'm not making excuses for illegal behavior. I have no idea where you got that from.

And I really don't feel like repeating myself.

"like half the people on this board do"
I didn't specify you, did I genius? I quoted you to answer your 'Joe' Question.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by euchomai

Quoted for emphasis:

My neighbor is trespassing on my private property by having his signal in my home. Which cop should I call?

Exactly. This issue just isn't black and white enough to start making laws.

[James L]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Robbing someone and using their internet access are two totally different things.

Gotcha. So, just to recap. According to you:

OPTION A: Robbing someone.

and

OPTION B: Taking something from someone without their permission, that they have paid for and that you have not.

...are two totally different things.

Thanks for the clarification.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by James L

Gotcha. So, just to recap. According to you:

OPTION A: Robbing someone.

and

OPTION B: Using an open wireless network without malice or intent of wrongdoing through ignorance. Using an open wireless network broadcast into your home without permission.

...are two totally different things.

Thanks for the clarification.

Fixed, and your welcome.

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by greenamp

And there is a flip side to this. Right now in my apartment there are 3 open wireless access points available to me. Now, if these transmissions are in fact private property, then are the owners violating my privacy by broadcasting them into my home without permission?

and when your "closed" signal hits them?

and when your cellular signal passes through their homes to hit the tower perhaps they should charge you a fee?

and when the heat from your body raises the temperature in their apartment by 1/1000 of a degree perhaps they should knock on your door and ask you to cool down?

perhaps it comes to "damage". don't know that it can reasonably be argued that your neighbors' signal is harming you; however, using someone else's bandwith damages that person insomuch as you are potentially depriving him of his full service.

i'm with those who think some are needlessly complicating the matter.

be well.

laeth

[isao bered]

heh. "without malice or intent of wrongdoing"? and involuntary manslaughter is still a crime...

be well.

laeth

[James L]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Fixed, and your welcome.

Lame, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

[CharlesS]

The ISP I used to be on actually set a monthly bandwidth limit - you would get charged through the nose if you used more than 6 GB or whatever it was per month. The existence of such plans makes the possibility that you could be costing someone money very real.

With that said, people should just secure their $@#%ing routers to prevent this from happening.

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by James L

Lame, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

I sleep great at night knowing that my neighbor has an open network and I can surf for free from my bedroom. Great stuff and I feel fine about it. It is completely ignorant on your part to just make blanket statements about theft. If I went into my neighbor's house and use his computer I'd be doing something illegal. If I'm in my house and jump on the network I didn't trespass on any property at all. This is a valid point of discussion and to just be hardheaded about your point sounds odd. Did someone steal your bandwidth as a kid?

[krillbee]

Wow, that is BS.

Just because the router is in someone's home doesnt mean that its automatically private.
As someone else posted, there are people who want their network to be free for others to use, who live in residences. I agree there should be a system for knowing whether or not someone's bandwidth is private or public.

Also wouldnt the owner of the router have to press charges in order for it to count as theft?
I'm assuming the cop had to have charged him with theft, since I dont know of any other penalty that would have applied. Busting the man for loitering would not have worked since few loitering laws exist, and ones that are too vague are invalid under the constitution.
So unless the owner of the router gets involved I dont see how the man could have been convicted.

And I think the penalty was a little steep too, ARRESTING him??? Thats something you do to a person with a DWI not someone who is a wifi grabber.
And $250 is a steep fine for a little bandwidth. The amount of bandwidth that guy used is probably only worth pennies.

meelk, James L, wdlove, and KarlG all have a lot of growing up to do.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by krillbee

meelk, James L, wdlove, and KarlG all have a lot of growing up to do.

Yes. We believe theft is wrong, and the guy was potentially up to no good so that makes us idiots right?

Pull your head out of that dark crack its currently in. You'll see the people defending the practice are people like euchomai who are doing it.

I went and looked the story up at the Register:
http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...73239585658623

It stars with a statment that details EXACTLY what is occuring here:
"ROCKFORD — Just as pirating your neighbor’s cable service to watch premium movie channels is against the law, so too is surfing the Web using someone else’s wireless Internet access."

Just because you CAN steal something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by euchomai

Are you serious? If I pull into an area and there is an OPEN NETWORK, I should have the right to jump on it. It is an OPEN NETWORK. Stealing would be hacking the password and logging on like that. Please explain how you deem it stealing?

That is called justifying your actions.

If you didn't pay for the bandwidth you are using, you are stealing it.

Originally Posted by KarlG

I would think it's rather easy. If it isn't your network, don't use it, unless you're 100% sure. People thinking they're entitled to something, just because it's in plain sight, doesn't make cops dumb asses. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Indeed.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by krillbee

meelk, James L, wdlove, and KarlG all have a lot of growing up to do.

Um because they believe in taking responsibilities for their actions? Because they believe in not stealing bandwidth from people?

Sounds like YOU have some growing up to do.

Justifying bad actions or habits is the dealings of the immature.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by KarlG

A police officer arrested Kauchak in January after spotting him sitting in a parked car with a computer. A chat with the suspect led to the arrest, Wartowski said.

What a dumba$$. Serves him well.
He must have basically told the police what he was doing.

-t

[torsoboy]

I don't think it is stealing, but whatever you guys want to think. Is hearing your neighbor's XM Radio blasting stealing when you enjoy the song that is on it? Is smelling your neighbor's bbq cooking stealing because it is their smells? Is putting a plant close to your fence because you know your neighbor's sprinkler always overshoots their lawn stealing? Is using the light shining from your neighbors window stealing when you use it to help you cross your lawn? Is eating an apple that falls on your lawn off of your neighbor's tree stealing? The list goes on and on... these things are not stealing. Get a grip people, using something that flows out of your neighbors house and into yours that does not cost your neighbor anything for you to use/smell/hear/see it is NOT stealing. Bandwidth fits that description (and if you pay per meg/gig/whatever, swicth providers). Same thing for in the car I think... if it flows into your car through nothing of your own doing, it is fair game to use.

[Chuckit]

If you don't want me using your Internet connection, don't broadcast it to me. With the logic employed in this thread, it sounds like some of you folk would walk around naked and then try to prosecute me for invasion of privacy. If all I have to do to "steal your property" is wake up my PowerBook, that property ain't as private as you're making it out to be.

[SeSawaya]

my Macs reception are lousy. My brother-in-law can easily access my neighbors broadband network. All I can get is my express...... AHHH for a stronger antenna.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by torsoboy

I don't think it is stealing, but whatever you guys want to think. Is hearing your neighbor's XM Radio blasting stealing when you enjoy the song that is on it? Is smelling your neighbor's bbq cooking stealing because it is their smells? Is putting a plant close to your fence because you know your neighbor's sprinkler always overshoots their lawn stealing? Is using the light shining from your neighbors window stealing when you use it to help you cross your lawn? Is eating an apple that falls on your lawn off of your neighbor's tree stealing? The list goes on and on... these things are not stealing. Get a grip people, using something that flows out of your neighbors house and into yours that does not cost your neighbor anything for you to use/smell/hear/see it is NOT stealing. Bandwidth fits that description (and if you pay per meg/gig/whatever, swicth providers). Same thing for in the car I think... if it flows into your car through nothing of your own doing, it is fair game to use.

the difference is that eating your neighbors apple is not going to get your neighbor arrested for uploading or downloading kiddie porn, using his net connection for that kind of activity will.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by meelk

the difference is that eating your neighbors apple is not going to get your neighbor arrested for uploading or downloading kiddie porn, using his net connection for that kind of activity will.

That's not at all what this thread was about. This whole thread is about some "stealing" someone's bandwidth, not what you do with it once you have it (as if you could *have* bandwidth). Some people like to talk about kiddie porn too much.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by torsoboy

That's not at all what this thread was about. This whole thread is about some "stealing" someone's bandwidth, not what you do with it once you have it (as if you could *have* bandwidth). Some people like to talk about kiddie porn too much.

I'm giving a realisitc answer as to why he was arrested. You can talk **** all you want, b****, it wont stop the fact that I've already stated a perfectly viable explanation as to what people could be doing with stolen bandwidth which would result in great harm to whoever they are stealing it from. Some idiot sitting in his car on his laptop at the wee hours of the morning on someone elses connection is up to no good, its that simple.

you dont like the kiddie porn angle, heres another for you: someone could be committing several forms of fraud from your connection, credit and otherwise. There are any huge number of evil things someone could do with your connect. If you dont believe it to be true, why dont you hand someone on the street your cell phone and walk away?

Dont try to hide behind crap like "This whole thread is about some "stealing" someone's bandwidth, not what you do with it once you have it"
it makes you look like a fool, as the OBVIOUS question in reality is what are you doing with that bandwidth?

[CharlesS]

Something to think about: Suppose your neighbor *wants* you to be able to access his cable TV connection. So, he hooks up a line splitter and runs a long cable over to your house. It's still cable theft, no? The terms of service he has agreed to do not allow him to provide cable service, or Internet service, to the entire neighborhood. So it seems to me that accessing the neighbor's wireless router is illegal whether he wants his network to be open or not.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by meelk

I'm giving a realisitc answer as to why he was arrested.

"Realistic" meaning "not suggested by the article" or what? Because the article says he was charged with accessing a computer system without permission.

[krillbee]

Originally Posted by meelk

Yes. We believe theft is wrong, and the guy was potentially up to no good so that makes us idiots right?

Pull your head out of that dark crack its currently in. You'll see the people defending the practice are people like euchomai who are doing it.

just because they are defending it and using it doesnt make it wrong.

Just because you CAN steal something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

its not being stolen if its being freely given! If you leave something by the curb, people will assume you dont want it, and if its useful they'll take it. Likewise if you leave your internet open for the whole neighborhood to use, its your fault if they use it and you didnt want them to, not theirs! Because leaving your router open suggests that it is open to the public.

Originally Posted by Kevin

That is called justifying your actions.
If you didn't pay for the bandwidth you are using, you are stealing it.

according to that logic, using the internet at the library would be considered stealing.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Um because they believe in taking responsibilities for their actions? Because they believe in not stealing bandwidth from people?

Um, how about, because they blame people (on this forum and the guy in the article) without thinking about what they are saying.
Also, taking responsibility could also mean protecting your router by putting a frickin password on it!
And it would also mean that power hungry cops would quit trying to make up crimes and step outside of their authority!

Originally Posted by meelk

the difference is that eating your neighbors apple is not going to get your neighbor arrested for uploading or downloading kiddie porn, using his net connection for that kind of activity will.

the problem there lies within our judicial system. people shouldnt get arrested if they have a wireless router and someone uses their internet to commit a crime. Thats that whole guilty until proven innocent thing. If having your router open was a crime, then maybe penalties would be considered fair, but as of now that isnt the case.

Some idiot sitting in his car on his laptop at the wee hours of the morning on someone elses connection is up to no good, its that simple

I got an idea! lets arrest all people who use computers from their cars during the night! Nevermind the endless possibilities of harmless things this guy could have been doing, (ex: checking directions for a place by using mapquest, checking his email/anything - perhaps he doesnt have internet at his house)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by euchomai

Quoted for emphasis:

My neighbor is trespassing on my private property by having his signal in my home. Which cop should I call?

So is your local radio station, tv station, cell phone provider. Dumbass!

[James L]

Originally Posted by krillbee

its not being stolen if its being freely given!

The only way it is being freely given is if the person who is paying for the bandwidth and internet connection GAVE permission.

Otherwise, it is NOT being freely given.

If you leave something by the curb, people will assume you dont want it, and if its useful they'll take it. Likewise if you leave your internet open for the whole neighborhood to use, its your fault if they use it and you didnt want them to, not theirs! Because leaving your router open suggests that it is open to the public.

An owner of something does not have to take steps to protect it before it becomes theft to take it from him.

You can justify the theft anyway you want, and a classic way of doing it is by saying "it is the owner's fault for not protecting what they have".

Say Bob rides his bike to the mall, places it in the bike rack, but forgets to lock it up. He goes inside, and someone comes along and takes it.

Was it stolen? Of course it was! The fact that Bob did not take steps to protect his bike does not mean it is free for anyone to take. It is still his possession, that he paid for. Being stupid by not protecting it does not give anyone permission to steal it.

In the case of euchomai:

I sleep great at night knowing that my neighbor has an open network and I can surf for free from my bedroom. Great stuff and I feel fine about it.

There really are only a few options:

1) The neighbor has given permission for euchomai to surf on their network.

2) euchomai is stealing their network bandwidth, and should stop being so cheap, man up, and pay for his own (or her) own signal.

I will give euchomai the benefit of the doubt and say it is number one.

[demibob]

Originally Posted by krillbee

Wow, that is BS.
Just because the router is in someone's home doesnt mean that its automatically private.
As someone else posted, there are people who want their network to be free for others to use, who live in residences. I agree there should be a system for knowing whether or not someone's bandwidth is private or public.

Isnt that what WEP encryption is for.
If its not prottected id say its kinda public and he shouldnt be fined $250 for such a minor offence.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by torsoboy

Get a grip people, using something that flows out of your neighbors house and into yours that does not cost your neighbor anything for you to use/smell/hear/see it is NOT stealing. Bandwidth fits that description (and if you pay per meg/gig/whatever, swicth providers).

Everyone pays for their monthly bandwidth. Unless you know of some ISPs who give away internet connections for free. So, bandwidth DOES cost your neighbor something.


But what is more interesting to me is the fact that you are using a strictly experiential frame of reference for gauging value. Your points of reference for determining whether or not something is valuable all come from the physical senses (use/smell/hear/see). It's interesting because it would seem you have yet to fully embrace the concept of logical virtuality (a world where logical concepts apply to items with no physical correlate). You are still employing concepts of physicality to describe a world of virtuality. Just because you can't see/touch/hear/smell something does not mean it does not exists and cannot be valued and regulated and protected.

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

So is your local radio station, tv station, cell phone provider. Dumbass!

You just don't get the point so you resort to name calling? Your IQ seems pretty low right now, try to understand my point here then reply with a valid argument back.

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by James L

The only way it is being freely given is if the person who is paying for the bandwidth and internet connection GAVE permission.

Otherwise, it is NOT being freely given.



An owner of something does not have to take steps to protect it before it becomes theft to take it from him.

You can justify the theft anyway you want, and a classic way of doing it is by saying "it is the owner's fault for not protecting what they have".

Say Bob rides his bike to the mall, places it in the bike rack, but forgets to lock it up. He goes inside, and someone comes along and takes it.

Was it stolen? Of course it was! The fact that Bob did not take steps to protect his bike does not mean it is free for anyone to take. It is still his possession, that he paid for. Being stupid by not protecting it does not give anyone permission to steal it.

In the case of euchomai:



There really are only a few options:

1) The neighbor has given permission for euchomai to surf on their network.

2) euchomai is stealing their network bandwidth, and should stop being so cheap, man up, and pay for his own (or her) own signal.

I will give euchomai the benefit of the doubt and say it is number one.

I actually was just using that argument as an example. My Airport is password protected, if I didn't apply a password I would EXPECT that people would be on my network and it would not be a big deal. With the password up though I EXPECT that no one but people I give the password to will be on my network.

[euchomai]

Take a step back for a second people and relax, why is this causing you people yelling "THIEF, THIEF" so much anxiety? It's like the people that yell about Homosexuality because they are dealing with those feelings themselves. What is causing your anger? Can we just discuss our points here? Or just yell?

An open network could be anywhere, in Chicago, downtown, I opened up my powerbook in a park. There were tons of open networks, I jumped on one. An open network, no password and broadcasting for all to see.

Honestly all the posts about stealing bikes, breaking into houses just don't match up to what we are talking about. OPEN Network, the definition is built into the word. OPEN. I didn't go into a person's house and I didn't ride their bike, I opened my computer in my home.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by krillbee

its not being stolen if its being freely given!

No, no one is GIVING you anything. You are taking it without their knowledge. There you go again with your bizarro rationalizations.

If you leave something by the curb, people will assume you dont want it, and if its useful they'll take it. Likewise if you leave your internet open for the whole neighborhood to use, its your fault if they use it and you didnt want them to, not theirs! Because leaving your router open suggests that it is open to the public.

Again, silly rationalizations. How old are you? 14? Sounds like an argument my 14 year old nephew would give.

Again sounds like you have stolen bandwidth and are now trying to justify it as you being ok. It's not. That would make you a theif. No matter how you justify it in your head to make you sleep better at night.

according to that logic, using the internet at the library would be considered stealing.

Of course not. That is what those computers and internet are there for. What a HORRIBLE comparison. You aren't using it without their knowledge or consent.

Um, how about, because they blame people (on this forum and the guy in the article) without thinking about what they are saying.

How do you know they aren't thinking what they are saying? Again, how bizarre. They ARE thinking. Just because they don't agree with your bizarre rationalizations doesn't mean they aren't thinking. It mean the OPPOSITE.


Sorry, you lose. Not one good reason, not one justifiable excuse.

Try again.

[vmarks]

This area of law is not new, despite the newness of wi-fi.

In the early 1980s satellite dish tv became available to the consumer in the US.

People bought dishes to tune the service that other people were paying monthly fees for.

The argument these people used in court was 'they're beaming it to my house, why isn't it mine to see? They're trespassing!'

And these people lost. The provider owns the signal and is giving permission to the subscriber to view it. The people with the dishes that weren't paying the monthly fee were found by the courts to be stealing.

If you need to view it another way, imagine pull up to a house and they have an electricity outlet on the outside of their home. You plug in your extension cord and power a TV and Stereo off of that plug. You are stealing electricity, a crime in most places. So it's not electricity, but instead a network jack and you run 100' ft of ethernet cable. Oh wait, it's now wi-fi. The fact of the matter is that the medium doesn't matter, you're still breaking established law, both legislated and settled by the courts.