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

[armyvern]

OK, if you guys arguing that it ISN'T Theft of Telecommunications are so sure, log onto one of the not advertised for public use, open networks in your neighbourhood, call up the local police and inform them of what you are doing.  Let us know how it goes for ya.   op:

Better yet, just walk around to your neighbours houses and let them know what you're doing.

Bet you there's no takers. I wonder why that is? If you "genuinely believe" that you are not "stealing" and that they are "inviting you to use their wifi", you shouldn't have any qualms about walking around until you locate owner of wifi that you're jacking to let them know you're doing it; after all you "genuinely believe" they won't have a problem with your use of it.

Double dawg dare you all --- go tell them ... and let us know what happens.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

If my neighbour opens the curtans, turns a light on and flops down and watches tv and then I use the light escaping into my yard to read by... am I stealing?  He is paying for that light, I am using it.  Without his permission, I am using his resources and I am not paying for my own. 

Most wireless networks connect to their ISP with an unlimited bandwidth agreements.  So if someone connects to a unsecured wireless network and uses bandwidth that would otherwise go unused? This could be a 'lack of harm'.

It is common for many OSs to connect automatically to wireless networks.  I've seen many labtops that will seek out and connect to a wireless network without the operators action. All that happens is msn suddenly signs in.  This could be a 'lack of intent'.  There are common law principles to consider,  such as if you don't put up a fence or a sign around your property you can't really be upset if someone walks across your property.  (there are many many cases where open door is treated like an invitation)

Now with new technology, terminology and the such and with the ... "speed" at which our laws keep up, our courts often have to rely on fundamental principles. Harm, intent, socail harmony and the such.  The crown would be VERY hard pressed to persue charges for something that has no meaningfull measure of harm.

Now breaking "password protected" wireless networks is easy to do,  but that is a completely different matter.  Picking the lock to someones house is VERY different than walking through an open door, sitting down and enjoying the sofa.

Now, as an aside.  If you connect to a wireless network - their server gets to see EVERYTHING you send or receive.  Encryption wont help,  they see what you see.  And since you're on their network,  likely they can see if they can poke around on your computer... feel free to do internet banking. 

 

[armyvern]

If my neighbour opens the curtans, turns a light on and flops down and watches tv and then I use the light escaping into my yard to read by... am I stealing?  He is paying for that light, I am using it.  Without his permission, I am using his resources and I am not paying for my own. 

His "stealing" of my light, does not alter any current etc running though my circuits, in your scenario above.

Most wireless networks connect to their ISP with an unlimited bandwidth agreements.  So if someone connects to a unsecured wireless network and uses bandwidth that would otherwise go unused? This could be a 'lack of harm'.

Some do. Some don't. How very ni-iiiice of him to presume that mine doesn't. Why can't he presume that mine "does"? Because that presumption does NOT benefit him - so he "chooses" to presume that option which "saves" him money instead. Very ethical. He is "presuming" a lack of harm, when he could very well presume that I do pay and therefore he could presuming that there is indeed "harm". Unlimited or not, MY money pays for that modem and bandwidth - not yours.

And, as per para one, his "stealing" of my bandwidth does cause change to my physical assets via the bandwidth increase, changes to my computer "system" (I'm quite sure that Canadian Law considers modems etc part of "the computer system), and possible charges to my account. He is making these changes within my system "without my colour of right" (without my knowledge or consent) ergo is potentially "harming" me.

It is common for many OSs to connect automatically to wireless networks.  I've seen many labtops that will seek out and connect to a wireless network without the operators action. All that happens is msn suddenly signs in.  This could be a 'lack of intent'.  There are common law principles to consider,  such as if you don't put up a fence or a sign around your property you can't really be upset if someone walks across your property.  (there are many many cases where open door is treated like an invitation)

There are also a great many cases where "No Trespassing" signs haven't been posted and people still found themselves convicted of such. The sign simply takes away the arguement that "you were naive and didn't know you shouldn't cut accross buddy back yard to go to the store". YOUR "naivity"
does not make your crime any less. Ignorance is no excuse --- and I guarantee your claim of such in this case is bogus ... you know the bandwidth isn't yours - that it is someone else's because that is EXACTLY the reason that you are using it; because it's someone else's, so won't cost you a dime.

Now with new technology, terminology and the such and with the ... "speed" at which our laws keep up, our courts often have to rely on fundamental principles. Harm, intent, socail harmony and the such.  The crown would be VERY hard pressed to persue charges for something that has no meaningfull measure of harm.

Now breaking "password protected" wireless networks is easy to do,  but that is a completely different matter.  Picking the lock to someones house is VERY different than walking through an open door, sitting down and enjoying the sofa.

Now, as an aside.  If you connect to a wireless network - their server gets to see EVERYTHING you send or receive.  Encryption wont help,  they see what you see.  And since you're on their network,  likely they can see if they can poke around on your computer... feel free to do internet banking. 

Lawyer for the defence??

How nice of you to all "presume" that there is no harm to me. If having wifi is not going to cause any harm ... then go get your own and pay for it yourself. What's the harm?

Oh ... yeah ... if you got your own wifi - YOUR bank account would be harmed, not mine instead.  :

"Why pay for something that I can get for free because you're paying for it instead?" <--- Seems to be an admission that there is INDEED a benefit to you ... and "harm" to me in your making that choice.

 

[the 48th regulator]

It is covered under Section 342.1 and 342.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Unauthorized use of computer

342.1 (1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,

(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service,

(b) by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system,

(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system, or

(d) uses, possesses, traffics in or permits another person to have access to a computer password that would enable a person to commit an offence under paragraph (a), (b) or (c)

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Definitions

(2) In this section,
"computer password"
«mot de passe »
"computer password" means any data by which a computer service or computer system is capable of being obtained or used;

"computer program"
«programme d’ordinateur »
"computer program" means data representing instructions or statements that, when executed in a computer system, causes the computer system to perform a function;

"computer service"
«service d’ordinateur »
"computer service" includes data processing and the storage or retrieval of data;

"computer system"
«ordinateur »
"computer system" means a device that, or a group of interconnected or related devices one or more of which,

(a) contains computer programs or other data, and

(b) pursuant to computer programs,

(i) performs logic and control, and

(ii) may perform any other function;


"data"
«données »
"data" means representations of information or of concepts that are being prepared or have been prepared in a form suitable for use in a computer system;

"electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device"
«dispositif électromagnétique, acoustique, mécanique ou autre »
"electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device" means any device or apparatus that is used or is capable of being used to intercept any function of a computer system, but does not include a hearing aid used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to not better than normal hearing;

"function"
«fonction »
"function" includes logic, control, arithmetic, deletion, storage and retrieval and communication or telecommunication to, from or within a computer system;

"intercept"
«intercepter »
"intercept" includes listen to or record a function of a computer system, or acquire the substance, meaning or purport thereof;

"traffic"
«trafic »
"traffic" means, in respect of a computer password, to sell, export from or import into Canada, distribute or deal with in any other way.

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 45; 1997, c. 18, s. 18.

342.2 (1) Every person who, without lawful justification or excuse, makes, possesses, sells, offers for sale or distributes any instrument or device or any component thereof, the design of which renders it primarily useful for committing an offence under section 342.1, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument, device or component has been used or is or was intended to be used to commit an offence contrary to that section,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Forfeiture

(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), any instrument or device, in relation to which the offence was committed or the possession of which constituted the offence, may, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed, be ordered forfeited to Her Majesty, whereupon it may be disposed of as the Attorney General directs.
Limitation

(3) No order of forfeiture may be made under subsection (2) in respect of any thing that is the property of a person who was not a party to the offence under subsection (1).
1997, c. 18, s. 19.




As grey as the areas can be, if one is proven to be doing the act of "Piggybacking", then they are guilty of breaking the law.

dileas

tess

 

[muffin]

HOLY SMOKES! This just kept going after I left work yesterday! I'd have checked on it last night, but I was out and I only had my portable internet tablet with me... and I wasn't sure who's net's I was seeing

I have posed the question to a member of our local police force... I will let you know if/when I receive a "formal response"

muffin

 

[the 48th regulator]

HOLY SMOKES! This just kept going after I left work yesterday! I'd have checked on it last night, but I was out and I only had my portable internet tablet with me... and I wasn't sure who's net's I was seeing

I have posed the question to a member of our local police force... I will let you know if/when I receive a "formal response"

muffin

Read my post right before yours, it is illegal.

dileas

tess

 

[George Wallace]

If my neighbour opens the curtans, turns a light on and flops down and watches tv and then I use the light escaping into my yard to read by... am I stealing?  He is paying for that light, I am using it.  Without his permission, I am using his resources and I am not paying for my own. 

You are missing the part of the argument that we are saying is the illegal part.  You and he have no control over light waves.  You will RECEIVE and that is not the argument.  It is when you go and take control of his light switch or curtains to get that light that is now illegal.  In all, you light analogy is also flawed because it is not a two way motion.  Light is going out, but you are not transmitting anything back.  What would happen say if you created a powerful reflection that would reflect back into your neighbours house?  Would he become upset and perhaps call the police?

Most wireless networks connect to their ISP with an unlimited bandwidth agreements.  So if someone connects to a unsecured wireless network and uses bandwidth that would otherwise go unused? This could be a 'lack of harm'.

Again, receiving is not the illegal part.  Using; as in now transmitting to and using the equipment that belongs to another person, ie. the router rented by a customer of a Internet Provider, is the part we are arguing about.

It is common for many OSs to connect automatically to wireless networks.  I've seen many labtops that will seek out and connect to a wireless network without the operators action. All that happens is msn suddenly signs in.  This could be a 'lack of intent'.  There are common law principles to consider,  such as if you don't put up a fence or a sign around your property you can't really be upset if someone walks across your property.  (there are many many cases where open door is treated like an invitation)

One may argue that you had criminal intent having this knowledge and not setting security protocols on your laptop to prevent it from seeking out and connecting automatically to the first strong, free source.  This would make you a "knowing" participant in a criminal activity.

 

[RCR Grunt]

Even if the law says that this is illegal, there's no way to enforce it.  There is no hard evidence to convict someone, you literally have to have the cops catch them still connected to your network, and even then they can claim "Ooops, I didn't know..."

Its a law that will never convict anyone, thus a useless law.

Its wrong, its immoral, its stealing ... but prove it.

There's locks on your front door.  There's locks on your car.  You have to lock up your bike.  Why?  Because there's bad people out there.

There's an option to encrypt and password protect your wireless network, use it.  If you don't want to, or don't know how, prepare to have your bike stolen.

I can't believe this thread has gone on for 11 some pages.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I can't believe this thread has gone on for 11 some pages.

It has because, as you pointed out, even though it is a law, it is one that is almost impossible [now] to enforce. The problem I'm having pulling out of this thread is that we seem to have those who think if you DON'T lock up your bike, car, house then that means your stuff is free game for the taking. 

Now after 19 years in Corrections I might know a thing or two about "bad people" but some of these posters are your present, and future, coworkers whom are thinking like this................

 

[garb811]

Let's try this analogy to get the point home.

You buy a house.  It has a driveway which is 20 m long and 10 m wide.  You do not own a car.  The driveway is easily accessible to the public in that it connects directly to the heavily traveled public street, there are no signs posted saying it is not for public use, there is no gate and you do not have any other indicators to show that you do not want the public using your driveway.

Your neighbour, on the other hand, didn't want to pay for a driveway so he was parking on the street.  The city is a high snowfall area and there have been continual problems with getting people to move their cars off the street to allow snow clearance so the city has followed all of the legal steps required to ban parking on the street between the months of Nov and Mar so that their crews have immediate and ready access to the busy street to keep traffic flowing.  Your neighbour is aware of the no parking ban, checks with a company and finds out it is going to cost him $2500 to have a driveway built (which will also spoil his petunia garden), aware that you do not have a car and notes you have a huge driveway that will easily accommodate his car without inconveniencing you, so he parks his car in your driveway without asking you. 

Does that mean when you call the police that they'll tell you that the parking issue is a grey area and your neighbour has not committed an offence, it is your fault for leaving your driveway easily open for the public to access and use for their own means and you should install a gate at the end of the driveway to keep him out?  Or will they tell you that either a) they will come over and ticket and tow said vehicle or b) you are within your rights to call a tow company on your own and have it removed? 

 

[RCR Grunt]

Now imagine your neighbour has an invisible car that leaves no tracks and no evidence that it is actually there... only you know it is, only you can see it.

Put up a gate.

 

[George Wallace]

Now imagine your neighbour has an invisible car that leaves no tracks and no evidence that it is actually there... only you know it is, only you can see it.

:

If you walk down your driveway, will this invisible car block your way?  Could you receive a serious injury should you bump into this invisible car?

Does someone piggybacking your Service degrade your use if that Service?  Could their using your Service, cause you injury; ie. Legal liability?

 

[RCR Grunt]

:

If you walk down your driveway, will this invisible car block your way?  Could you receive a serious injury should you bump into this invisible car?

Does someone piggybacking your Service degrade your use if that Service?  Could their using your Service, cause you injury; ie. Legal liability?

I absolutely agree with you ... but call a tow truck company or the cops and tell them there is an invisible car in your driveway you'd like towed away.

Piggybacking is stealing, but it is difficult to prove its happening to an extent where someone can be held accountable.

 

[CountDC]

Now imagine your neighbour has an invisible car that leaves no tracks and no evidence that it is actually there... only you know it is, only you can see it.

Put up a gate.

now imagine that when one piggybacks on your bandwidth it does leave tracks and evidence - my network tells me which computers are connected - thus I have the name of every computer accessing it and if I check the records it will tell me how long they were connected for and amount of data transferred. Tracks and evidence. That is how I know my son was using his PSP to download crap from utube when he was supposed to be asleep and put a stop to it - 26% of my bandwidth used for utube.

Before you all jump - yes my network is secured and I gave him access on his PSP for playing his online games.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Now imagine your neighbour has an invisible car that leaves no tracks and no evidence that it is actually there... only you know it is, only you can see it.

Put up a gate.

Now imagine that this person just used your monthly bandwidth allotment downloading my box set so that when you download it it costs you $80 in overage fees. 

Now imagine someone coming in your room and taking 4 twenties out of your wallet.

No gate so I guess your OK with both.............

 

[RCR Grunt]

A simple "Oh, I didn't know..." turns that persons misuse of your bandwidth from malicious to unintentional.

Oh, and there are ways to change your MAC address as well, so throw that out.

If someone wanted to, they could do it and leave you with no real hard evidence.  You would have to have the authorities catch the piggybacker still connected to your network, and conducting malicious activities, and admit to knowingly connecting to a network that he was not authourized to access.  Good luck.

Bruce...

Someone cannot come into my house and take 4 twenties from my wallet because I HAVE THE FRICKIN' DOOR LOCKED!

Pay attention ... I'm on your side.

Piggybacking is stealing.  Its wrong.  Its immoral.  Its bad ju-ju.  Its bad karma.  Its naughty.  Its taboo.  Its a no-no.  You shouldn't do it. 

But you will have a hard time gettng a charge to stick to someone.  Your best bet is to encrypt your network.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Your best bet is to encrypt your network.

Agreed, this sums up everything right here. 
[though I should stop being so stupid and figure out how to do it  :-[  ]


Its killing me that, even though I have said I would probably run a quick check of army.ca and/or my e-mails if I had the chance, I would make no bones about the fact that I was committing an illegal/ immoral act........albeit comparing it being slightly over the speed limit type illegal/immoral. :-\

There are those whom are perfectly down with it..............

 

[CountDC]

Agreed, this sums up everything right here. 
[though I should stop being so stupid and figure out how to do it  :-[  ]


Its killing me that, even though I have said I would probably run a quick check of army.ca and/or my e-mails if I had the chance, I would make no bones about the fact that I was committing an illegal/ immoral act........albeit comparing it being slightly over the speed limit type illegal/immoral. :-\

There are those whom are perfectly down with it..............

at least you realize and admit it is illegal/immoral instead of assuming it is free for your use and nothing wrong with it.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

at least you realize and admit it is illegal/immoral instead of assuming it is free for your use and nothing wrong with it.

Thats what I was trying to get across, I just sucked at it.

I hate the fact we have those on here that see NOTHING wrong with it. [I'm just a bag of hammers this morning]

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Bruce I think we have really :deadhorse: to a pink stain on the ground now.

I think there is always gonna be two camps on this issue.