Here is story that made me think.

Using free wireless at library described as theft


The police have confiscated Tanner's computer and are pondering charging him with "theft of services" for unauthorized use of the library internet access point after hours.

Many locations offer "free" WiFi access as a benefit to customers or guests. Many public libraries offer it as well, and obviously libraries are "free" to residents. Mexico city is considering going city-wide with free WiFi. I confess that I have used "free" WiFi found while staying in hi rise hotels, offices and even outside a Panera Bread(!)

Questions for debate

Is this stealing?

Would "stealing" WiFi from a private business be different from a library? How so?

Should Wi-Fi be free, like radio or television signals?

This seems like a misguided attempt to charge a man with something. Loitering would be a better charge I suspect.

You can take too many free samples and be asked to stop, and you should when asked. If you don't I'm not certain you can be arrested for continuing to take the free samples.

Using WiFi from a business that has gone to the trouble of securing it would certainly be criminal. Using WiFi that is being broadcast out without any protection is a problem the private business needs to address.

Nothing is free. WiFi certainly isn't. Connectivity has a cost, switching has a cost and certainly hooking to that switch and connectivity has a cost. WiFi isn't free even when it is. It may be no cost to you but it has a value. Something like X times Heads == Cost of Wifi. If 2 people use a WiFi connection that costs 100USD/mo then without getting into hardware, salaries, and whatnot WiFi cost 50USD/mo. Radio and Television signals are insanely expensive and that's why you do have a TV station! So no, WiFi should not be free.

Just to clarify, I can turn on my television and receive television stations for "free." I can turn on my radio and receive radio signals for "free." I can turn on my laptop, in my home, and often find WiFi signals that are unsecured, and thus "free." I wasn't referring to the broadcast of radio / TV signals, although i have been a supporter of pirate radio in the past.

But unsecured wifi signals are "free" in a very different way than TV and radio. Unsecured wifi signals are more akin to an unlocked house. It may be stupid of me to leave my door unlocked, but when you walk in and take my TV it's still stealing. Likewise it may be stupid for someone to broadcast an unsecure wifi signal, but by using it you are taking up bandwidth that they have paid for.

If a public library offers free broadband wifi, however, I don't see much difference between sitting in your car outside and sitting at a desk in the library. If the signal is free, then it is free to the boundaries of that signal. At least I would think so.

You're quite right. I suspect this guy was a PIA to the police and when they saw him there again they wanted to hit him with something more than a loitering ticket.

Most people pay a flat rate for their broadband, thus there is no "cost" associated with using bandwidth unless the owner of the WiFi is using it simultaneous and thus sees degraded access (unless, of course, they've added QOS profiles to prefer their internal IPs). Also, some people intentionally keep their WiFi unencrypted so that others can use it.

Finally, I don't think the analogy of using an open WiFi channel is like stealing (unless there's a real monetary loss associated with it). It's more like walking by someone's open window and hearing their conversation. Is that stealing? Is it even infringing?


Agreed. CW and BA are correct. The police were probably using it as an excuse to get this guy.

Sorry for the quick response here, but what about cable TV? What if I figure out a way to "tap in" to my neighbor's cable or satellite TV system? Again, my usage doesn't affect them - in fact much less so than with bandwidth. Would that be stealing?

Different situation. Cable TV is running across wires owned/managed by the Cable TV provider. The WiFi is on the public airwaves and is unencrypted.

As they would have said in Marconi's day, WiFi is "in the ether." I think that stealing cable is stealing. I'm honestly not 100% sure about WiFi.

I can understand that. So what about satellite? That beams through the air, right? Don't get me wrong; I generally come down on the "commons" side of these arguments. I am a user and supporter of the Creative Commons with my music.

But your making a distinction based on the medium of travel might be too wide of a door. What about recording and listening in to peoples' cell phone conversations? Is any signal that travels through the air public? I just want to see if we can find a common idea for a set of boundaries that respects privacy and ownership, while also promoting the commons, a vital component of a free society.

Two things:
1. Certain parts of the radio frequency spectrum are allocated to the "public". WiFi uses that spectrum. Satellites do not (with a couple of exceptions).
2. If the data is encrypted, then decrypting the data via "hacking" (even if it's in the public spectrum) is either illegal or in the legal gray area. However, if you already have the key, then that's a different matter.

The case cited in this debate uses WiFi in the public spectrum space. This person was either riding on an unencrypted channel OR had the decryption key. Either way, it's a perfectly legal use of the network. Unless the police (or library) can show real monetary damages associated with using this network AND can show why encrypting their network (or timing out their keys) is not reasonable, then there is no case.

sorry gentlemen the law is actually VERY clear IF you do not have the permission of the network administrator to be on the network and it is connected to the internet you are commiting a serious crime

you are violating 18 USC 1030

which states...

Is an unsecured wireless network tantamount to giving permission? If not, then why not? If the network is secured but you already have a key, then is that tantamount to giving permission? If not, then why not? Moreover, in this case, the person was using the wireless network provided by a public library.

So, no, the law is not clear on this at all.

No the law is VERY clear. just becuase it is a publicly funded entity does not mean it is open to public access....


the law basicly states it is illegal without specified permission.

Is an unsecured wireless network tantamount to giving permission?

no, it about the same as you saying because the front door to my house is unlocked you have "tacit" permission to enter my home.

If the network is secured but you already have a key, then is that tantamount to giving permission?

No, most certainly not..... there are many ways to get a WEP or WPA key without permission.

if you have the key and are allowed access by the admin to the system then it is not illegal.

edited for clarity.

How does surfing an unsecured WiFi connection meet A B or C?
a - no financial records accessed, just a connection to the 'net
b - no department or agency accessed, unless you're suggesting that visiting their websites over this connection would qualify? Doubt it.
c - really really vague, but the library was in the same town, let alone the same state and country.

The law you cite appears very clearly to address hacking into websites of agencies, banks and foreign sites. Applying it to a WiFi signal in a public library is a huge leap in my opinion.

If the library had a closed network in that it required people to sign in and use a network pass to access the free public network, then it would be a crime. From what I can see, this wasn't the case, however.

While it is a pain to have people leeching Wi-Fi, it isn't nor should it be a crime unless someone has gained unauthorized access... this means hacking in. If it is free and unsecured, it isn't a crime - nor should it be.

The "home" analogy doesn't fit. There is an expectation by the library that people will access its Wi-Fi connection without its specific knowledge (unless, as I stated, there is some sign-in process or it is a closed network).

Recently, my girlfriend and I noticed that our Wi-Fi connection was ludicrously slow. At first, I thought someone was leeching, but I realized that the number of Wi-Fi connections in my area were extremely high and might be interfering with one another. I changed the channel and, just in case, turned off the SSID broadcast. It's been fine ever since.

Is this stealing?

I agree with CarlitosWhey here. Using an unsecured network at a public facility (while it was closed) doesn't seem to constitute stealing. However, doing so after being specifically told not to? Seems like trespassing might be a good analogy. Do I need a fence and locked gate on my yard if I have specifically told you to stay off the grass? In general, there seems to be more to this story. Why did the police car suddenly show up? Seems like somebody called something in. Also, this person had been doing this regularly at this and other facilities. Seems like if just access was what he wanted, he could get his own hi speed connection cheaper than driving around to all these locations. So, why is he doing it, then? The issue goes beyond mere bandwidth theft...it is essentially impersonation as well. If you access the Internet via someone else's WiFi...then whatever you do will be tracked to them, not you. Which is also why everyone should secure their WiFi.

Would "stealing" WiFi from a private business be different from a library? How so?

Yes...access to more critical information. The public libraries financial information is probably public info anyway...whereas company financial data isn't. However, that would require an attempt to access it, I think, not merely using the network.

Should Wi-Fi be free, like radio or television signals?

No. Radio and TV are not free, they are paid for by advertising. Does anyone want their internet connection cut off every 15 minutes while an ad is streamed to their computer? I doubt it. If a community or business decides, as many have, to offer free WiFi on their own, that is fine. But I'd rather pay for it than suffer the consequences of it being 'free'.

(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
( information from any department or agency of the United States; or
( C ) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;



interstate or foreign communication.

THE INTERNET

you seem to be forgetting you are taking services from the ISP.


just because it does nto affect the first tier does not mean that it is a victimless crime.


the library was closed as such it was no longer open to public access.... therefore this 'tard should just keep walkin'



absolutely it does. because in the end i think we are talking about people stealing services from unsecured home APs as well ... most ISPs have TOSes that would be violated if somone outside the home accessed the WAP

here why dont you bring that weak arguement to people who will explain it to you ...


once such tard at the Netstumbler forums.


it is real simple if you connect to a network connected to the internet and access any information (note:getting an IP address = getting information) you have commited a federal felony if they wish to push it.

So, you must believe then that if someone were to walk by an open window and were to overhear a conversation, it could be construed as unpermitted thus illegal access.

no this would be akin to someone using a wireless phone like yours to access your phone line ....


which is also theft of service.

I agree about the 'accessing it' part.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but how does surfing on someone's wifi connection give me access to their financial information? Other files? I would have no idea how to do this.

1 - You see the "available" WiFi connection in your windows or mac window. It just appears, you don't even have to search.
2 - You click "connect."
2.5 - it asks for a key, and you don't have one. Stop right here.

Or...

3 - It connects.
4 - You start a web browser. You are now surfing on someone else's WiFi, whether public or private.

How would you get financial information without some kind of hacking (which I'd have no idea how to do)?

GuardianAngel, I am sure that someone can argue the points you are arguing in court, I just am not buying it, nor would a judge in my opinion. If you have a precedent case to show us where someone has successfully been prosecuted and convicted for stealing bandwidth (not hacking financials or whatever) under 18 USC 1030, please do. Apparently, it has happened in Singapore, but not here to my knowledge. And not under 18 USC 1030.


The FCC has very very strict regulations about phone standards and service. Do they have these for WiFi access? Are the penalties felonies just like phone service theft?

yes they do this guy was charged with theft of service just like a phone thief.

plus this and i have many more.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/arti...x?storyid=13482

http://rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI.../103230036/1011

“Likewise, our residents need to know that it is a crime, punishable by up to a year in jail, to access someone else’s computer, wireless system or Internet connection without that person’s approval.”

This is a dubious comparison:

1. Wireless phone service is encrypted. Non-permitted decryption of the phone service is indeed illegal.
2. The WiFi is unencrypted and uses standard protocols, such as DHCP.
3. Unless I see evidence otherwise, the library's broadband (like almost everywhere else) is a flat rate meaning there is no cost for the library for after-hours usage.

The front door analogy fails because the front-door is on private property. If the front door were not on private property (like in the middle of the street), then it would be difficult to justify restricting someone's right to open it.

The wireless phone conversation analogy fails because wireless phones are encrypted. Also, phone service is typically not on a flat rate schedule.

The proper analogy is listening to someone's conversation while walking by their open window. Their words are not encrypted. And there no cost over and above what has already been paid when "listening in".

Your second link didn't work, but reading the first, it seem that you agree with me since this guy was charged under local and state laws, not federal offenses. Unless you are going to post cases where the feds charged bandwidth thieves under the US code you referenced.

In any case, I'm actually glad to see that shadowy bandwidth-surfers in parked cars would be prosecuted for stealing wifi from private citizen's computers. I can understand that. As for the public library, maybe tresspass or something else is more appropriate.

Hey- not YET ANOTHR Alaskan sticking it to the man and getting busted and seeing if we can hear it before the SCOTUS - first "bong hits for jesus", now, stealin' wifi!

I won't enter the debate- but I must give you some "local flavor" BTW- pretty much a non-issue up here. Palmer police are well known to be jerks, and you have a VERY independent citizen up here, and confronting thier AUTHORITY (big letters, big voice)- well, it seems to be a past time lately.

Expect to see lots and lots of stories like these in the future, as the state grows in population, and slides more and more into libertarian politics (vs traditional right wing religious affiliations that have been so powerful up here for so long) .

There are about three more cases regarding freedom, public use of public resources, and eminent domain that will be kicking up in the news I think,

but I NEVER expected THIS one on the national scene!

All charges have been dropped, BTW.

that is more a matter of resources,

it is not only a violation of federal, but also state and local laws...

but the feds aren't going to send time enforcing them for the part time net thief.

Is this stealing?

This happens here in the UK too. The general consensus, from what I've read, and from the people who use or supply wi-fi (I don't have the kit, so I have no direct experience), is that if you don't want anyone to use your wi-fi connection without your permission, you need to set up encryption. Otherwise, it's fair game.

An reader of a newspaper recently asked their technical Q&A column "What if a passer by used my open wi-fi connection to access restricted* content? Would I be liable?" This is where things got muddy, rather than on simple ownership of the wi-fi channel.

(*Depending on local legislation, this might include child pornography, terrorist plots or even just online gambling)

Would "stealing" WiFi from a private business be different from a library? How so?

If it were stealing from a library, then it would also be stealing from a private business. But if it were not for one, it would not be for the other.

Should Wi-Fi be free, like radio or television signals?

Many local councils ("municipalities" in Americanese) are planning to set up freely available Wi-Fi networks covering their whole districts, so I think the networks will indeed become freely accessible. Encrypted wi-fi solely for a particular person or business will then, in effect, equate to private networks. Whether they will be free of cost is another matter.

Arguably, they should not be, since those who do not use Wi-FI would be subsidising those that do. That's not an argument I would make myself, as not everyone uses social security or even the armed forces (not all the time), but we all have to pay for them in our taxes.

maybe you should check out this one in the UK

WiFi Hijacking == Got to Jail

Interestingly, here is New York State's definition of "uses a computer or computer service without authorization":


New York Penal Code


This means that the owner or lessor must either secure their network or go out of their way to inform users of the limits of authorized access. Now, New York Library, according to its website, only allows Wi-Fi access during business hours. I don't know if they secure the network or if the network is disabled after closing. But, assuming that they do neither, how would the New York State Library comply with the law? They could create a Wi-Fi portal of sorts... before being allowed access, you are forced to a particular page that gives you the rules regarding access. Fine. But, if they don't do this... and the Wi-Fi signal goes beyond the walls of the library, how is the individual surfing outside supposed to know that the access is unauthorized?

you act as if the WAP is the only computer network being accessed...


the ISP DOES post such information.

Really? At what point is that information given to the user accessing the network? Last time I was at a public library, I just opened my iBook and used the service... nothing came up giving me authorization to use the network or telling me what the restrictions were on my use of the network. It was just there. No message from the ISP, nothing. So, where do they post this information? Do you have an image of such a posting?

they are called terms of service.

do you like argueing with me for the sake of arguement?

It is my job to know this particular thing...

send me an email if you dont believe me

EDIT

ent... i just read the link you posted what do you think this is




class e felony... i am assuming this is what we would class a third degree felony, ( lowest grade) but still a felony...


theft of service is theft of service...


Edited to remove personal information in accordance with forum Rules - Jaime

sorry Jaime i did not realize that my own information was part of that ...

Fantastic... we have a resident expert on internet law.

At what point are the Terms of Service provided to the individual outside of the library accessing the network as required in order for it to be a felony under New York law?

And are the libraries violating the terms of service by allowing free public access to their internet connection? I know that if I allowed people free access to my internet connection, I would be violating my TOS. And with all the links you've provided and comparisons you've been making, you seem to be saying that the library's service is the same as mine.

I agree that accessing a private network that may be unsecure is theft of service. But is accessing a public network that is unsecure and intended for public use theft of service? Do these public access terms of service agreements with the ISP include an after hours clause?

the way the law reads it is prohibitive, meaning that you must be granted permission first...



everything prior to or is prohibitive....

No. That is not what the law states.

As the law defines the phrase, "uses a computer or computer service without authorization," the user must be informed that they do not have permission...

"use of a computer or computer service without permission... after notice to that effect to the user of the computer or computer service has been given..."

The user must be informed that they do not have permission before it is a crime. If the owner or lessor does not inform the user that they do not have permission, then no crime has been committed. And if there is a limit to the permission granted, that limit must also be known to the user.

For example, if you go to a bookstore - say, Barnes and Nobles - and you see one of their lone information desks with a computer on it that says "for employees only," a non-employee's use of that computer would be a felony unless the company gave that user explicit permission. If there is a sign posted outside the library saying Wi-Fi use is limited to within the building itself during business hours, then anyone using the Wi-Fi service outside the library or after business hours would be committing a felony. But the lack of permission must first be established and known to the user. That is what the law states.

So, how does someone sitting outside a library that offers free public internet access know the limitations of that access?

HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!


oh wait you were serious.....


this is not a negative permission model

laws are not written in the " you must first disallow " model. if that were the case noone could be charged with burglary or rape which assume you do not have permission until expressly granted it.

this is written the same way.

All laws define the terms used in them.

Just curious, but if it's implied that you need permission, why do most gateways do a WiFi portal screen that reminds you of the TOS? I mean, if it's already implied and all.

I know that you're an expert and all...but the A B and C are crystal clear that you must have been given notice that you needed permission.

Could you just lower yourself to our level for a second and explain why the law would bother listing how I MUST be given permission as the "user" given the way the law reads. We're well aware that the law defines terms. This law defines a user in violation as one who has been notified by one of the 3 methods listed in A B and C.

Well. This law defines "uses a computer or computer service without permission" as use after knowing permission was restricted or denied. That is how that law defines the term. As such, an individual is not "using a computer or computer without permission" unless they do so after having been given notice that use of the computer or computer service is not authorized by the lessor or owner of the computer or computer service. If the owner or lessor does not inform them in some way that they do not have permission, then the user doesn't fit the definition under the law... and the law does not apply.

This way, if you go into a library that has free public Wi-Fi, as I have done, and open up your computer and start surfing the web, you can't be charged with theft of service because nobody told you access to that Wi-Fi was restricted. If an establishment advertises free access to a Wi-Fi network, how can one be breaking the law by accessing it for free?

If someone is giving away free lemonade, can I go back for as much lemonade as I want as long as the lemonade is being offered? What about if they put up a sign or tell me that it is free, but only one per customer? Obviously, I can't demand lemonade after the lemonade is no longer being offered. And, I think a seller is within their rights to tell me that I can only have a limited amount of free lemonade... but unless they tell me I can only have a limited amount, I'm not stealing lemonade as long as they are offering it.

And if, for some reason, they leave the lemonade stand and there is still lemonade there with a sign saying free lemonade. Am I stealing if I take some lemonade? The sign said it was free. If I brought my own pitcher and emptied the pitcher of lemonade into it and left the person's empty pitcher there - taking only the lemonade... would it be stealing?

How can you steal something that is being given away freely, as long as it is being offered?

Is that something of value?

is that something of value being given to you by the OWNER? (this is a serious sticking point.)

do you have a REASONABLE belief that, that something is being given freely?


1) Yes Internet service is something of value

2) The ISP is the owner of the service

3) this is the point of contention. The library was closed, as such it is NOT reasonable to consider it as being purposefully given freely.

this is also akin to receiving stolen property even if it was paid for by you it was not the sellers to give.

the Terms of Service of ALL but a very few specialized ISPs specificly set up for subletting or allowing third party client access, strictly forbid it.

The oenus of permission is on the person accessing the network, not the network admin, they are the one taking the thing of value.

in your example if i left a pitcher of lemonade on my porch you should be able to come and take it because i did not put a sign up stating you couldn't.

If the access point is "CONNECT_TO_ME" or "FREE_INET" or something of the like then you could say you had a reasonable expectation of use,

just because it is unencrypted does not give a reasonable expectation of use.



Actually,

Those are the three ways you can be granted permission, most commonly falling under A or B.

either the librarian telling him it is OK to access the network, or a sign when you come in stating that an open AP is available.

In many places such as starbucks you will see a sign on the door telling you wireless access is available, and in many cases what the SSID is.

BTW how did he know that the SSID he was connecting to was the library and not a residential AP.

Yes the service has value just as the lemonade has value.

It is being given to the lessor who is giving access to the public for free. I doubt the end user is aware of the arrangement between the library and its ISP.

And is it okay to sit in the parking lot or on the street while the library is open and use the service? Or is that theft of service as well?



Only if you accept my argument that the user must know or believe that what he is doing is unauthorized.



Which begs the question yet again... is the library violating its terms of service by allowing free public access to its internet connection?



Not according to the NY law I cited.



Your porch is private property... an entirely different situation.



Yes.



But the library advertises that it has free Wi-Fi. And, according to the library director in Alaska, this person did not break any library rules.

Anchorage Daily News



Apparently, the library normally turns off the wireless connection at night. He happened across it when they happened to leave it on.



Actually, many places broadcast the SSID and make the location clear in that ID... like PUB_LIB... and it appears this person has used the wireless connection when the library was open which is how he would recognize the library's SSID.

What this guy did do was violate a city ordinance for parking in the library after hours... he was not charged with that, however.

Are you replying or just repeating what I said?

I don't quite understand your response.

Crud...

I had responded but it took all of it out ...

okhere goes...




If the Library is violating it's TOS with it's ISP I cannot say but if the network admin allows it that is between the library and the ISP the user is in the clear.



you do not have to know the property was stolen to be in violation ... sorry just the way it is.



possibly but that is between the ISP and the library if the net admin allows after hours access...



I wont argue this with you because you refuse to understand ...



so you should be able to steal from city hall because it is public property?





at least on this we agree...



then he did not violate the law , but would have if the ADMIN had deemed it intrusion.



when the police told him to move on they were acting as agents of the city and as such he violated the law.

and for whatever reason my quoter was broken... but now it is fixed.

Sorry, but it isn't.

Answers.com




FreeAdvice.com



Kenneth Vercammen & Associates



I could quote more, but I'll stop there.

That is "just the way it is." You are wrong.



... and the user would have no idea of the arrangement between the library and the ISP.



I would argue that it is you who refuses to understand. Here is an article that also interprets the NY law:

The Register - The Wi-Fi User as Felon



And here is a university law journal that also interprets the law.

Ohio State Law Journal - Policing the Wireless World: Access Liability in the Open Wi-Fi Era



Of course, these people might also just be refusing to understand what the law clearly states. Is that your contention? Perhaps you could provide some support for your interpretation?



And now begins the manipulation of the argument.

I made an argument about a lemonade stand with a sign saying "free lemonade." In your challenge to that argument you make it an unmarked pitcher of lemonade on your porch. There is a difference between the two.

Your response assumes my acceptance of your belief that using free, public access Wi-Fi on public property is theft of service. I do not.

Maybe the police were just trying to protect the guy...you know, for the children...


I hope the tinfoil hat protects me.