Using Kindle WI-FI could get YOU Arrested!

[sirmaru]

Originally Posted by trekchick

Karen is right. Kindle Help page states: "Free Access at AT&T Hotspots
Enjoy free Wi-Fi access at AT&T hotspots across the U.S. for shopping and downloading Kindle content--no AT&T registration, sign-in, or password required."

That must include Wikipedia, too.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...540&#setupwifi

You are correct. I missed that. I didn't see it in the User Guide and never read the Amazon Kindle Help page.

That's a relief. My ATT password is BIG and difficult to remember. I had been practicing remembering it in case I needed it away from home. Now that is unecessary. Amazon must have paid ATT for that privelege maybe as part of their 3G access agreement.

[karthwyne]

Originally Posted by sirmaru

Amazon must have paid ATT for that privelege maybe as part of their 3G access agreement.

More likely AT&T requested it to keep traffic off the 3G network and put it on a wired network that is cheaper.

[ricsmania]

Originally Posted by koland

But, if they leave a TV playing out on the lawn, I feel free to sit there, on my side of the grass, and watch it to my heart's content.

When they move it inside and close the window, that's another matter, entirely, of course.

Great point, I agree with you. I also think the unprotected wifi would be similar to a TV on the lawn, that is if you don't want other people to use it, just lock it (or bring the TV inside).

[sirmaru]

Originally Posted by ricsmania

Great point, I agree with you. I also think the unprotected wifi would be similar to a TV on the lawn, that is if you don't want other people to use it, just lock it (or bring the TV inside).

Anti-hacking laws affecting computer hardware, software and communications do NOT apply to TV's.

Breaking into computer networks is a Federal crime in the USA. Watching someone else's TV through a window is not the same. Maybe the latter would be covered by local evesdropping laws.

[ricsmania]

Originally Posted by sirmaru

Anti-hacking laws affecting computer hardware, software and communications do NOT apply to TV's.

Breaking into computer networks is a Federal crime in the USA. Watching someone else's TV through a window is not the same. Maybe the latter would be covered by local evesdropping laws.

I don't think using an unsecured wifi hotspot is "breaking in", because people use it to browse the web, not steal information. And it has no security, so they don't exactly "break in" to use it, they just connect.

The TV story was just an analogy, that doesn't mean it has the same laws.

Of course this is just my opinion, because the terms used on the law are relative and can be interpreted either way.

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by ricsmania

I don't think using an unsecured wifi hotspot is "breaking in", because people use it to browse the web, not steal information. And it has no security, so they don't exactly "break in" to use it, they just connect.

The TV story was just an analogy, that doesn't mean it has the same laws.

Of course this is just my opinion, because the terms used on the law are relative and can be interpreted either way.

USC Title 18 Part 1 Chap. 47 Para. 1030.

U.S. legal precedent has consistently shown a network to be similarly defined.

It's illegal in the U.S., whether anyone wants it to be or not. How about if, instead of popping off with ill-informed opinion, someone (other than me) shows actual law.

I don't even pretend to understand how the law works in the U.K. (though ours is loosely based on it), but in the U.S. the unlocked-house analogy is valid, no matter which state you live in or which mountain you live on.

[karthwyne]

Err, I did not study the law, just skimmed, but it seems to indicate that using usecured wireless IS LEGAL. (my emphasis added)

S1030 (A) (4)
Whoever knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;

I didn't see anything pertaining specifically to a wireless network, only accessing information that one shouldn't, or accessing a computer - NOT a network.

[Elfwreck]

Fascinating discussion.

I agree that taking access to someone's wifi without permission is wrong, and probably some level of crime. (I'm in the US; it's unclear whether it's my responsibility to get permission or the owner's responsibility to restrict access.) OTOH, when I am surrounded by 8 valid wifi signals, how do I tell which ones belong to individuals, and which ones belong to coffee shops offering free wifi to the public? They don't all demand "customers only"--they're happy to have students hang out on their benches during off-peak hours. And the public libraries have wifi that extends past their doors.

I work in downtown San Francisco. The area is *blanketed* by wifi, some free, some requiring access codes. Some are neatly named to indicate free public use; some aren't.

I think it's unreasonable to demand that people identify whether wifi is freely offered, if there's a reasonable expectation that it could be free. If a dozen storefronts have free sample foods on display, a person who wants her private picnic display to remain private will need to somehow mark it as off limits.

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by karthwyne

Err, I did not study the law, just skimmed, but it seems to indicate that using usecured wireless IS LEGAL. (my emphasis added)



I didn't see anything pertaining specifically to a wireless network, only accessing information that one shouldn't, or accessing a computer - NOT a network.

"Protected computer" refers to pretty much any device connected to the Internet (I'll post precedent on that when I get home from work). Further, a router qualifies and to access a network you must first get past a network device.

[DiapDealer]

I'll post precedent on that when I get home from work

Don't bother.
Just post the number of US citizens that have been prosecuted for making use of an unsecured wireless network (that they didn't have to trespass to access) which didn't belong to them... and how many were convicted... and what the average length of incarceration was for the ones that were convicted.

That would be more informative than legalese that's subject to interpretation and overlapping/ever-changing precedent.

[carld]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I really don't care to argue the legality of hypotheticals, I just get a chuckle out of people who go to such great lengths to "protect" their wireless network. All you're achieving is keeping the harmless "meddler" from getting themselves in trouble. Just like locking your door will only protect you against the casual thief. "Secure Wireless" is an oxymoron.

Well, of course, as the old axiom goes, locks are there to keep out the honest people. A determined thief will get in regardless.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

USC Title 18 Part 1 Chap. 47 Para. 1030.

U.S. legal precedent has consistently shown a network to be similarly defined.

It's illegal in the U.S., whether anyone wants it to be or not. How about if, instead of popping off with ill-informed opinion, someone (other than me) shows actual law.

I don't even pretend to understand how the law works in the U.K. (though ours is loosely based on it), but in the U.S. the unlocked-house analogy is valid, no matter which state you live in or which mountain you live on.

Speaking as a US lawyer, my "curbstone opinion" is that this law does not cover what we are talking about here, which I understand to be "unauthorized access to an unprotected wireless network for non-criminal purposes." But a little bit of net surfing should convince most people that there are plenty of states with laws that do cover it. It has convinced me, at any rate.

The legal question at the bottom is whether maintaining a completely open network amounts to "implied consent" by the network owner to the free use of the network. I would certainly look into raising that as a defense if I had a client charged with a criminal violation based on nothing more than hopping on an open network. Depending on the exact facts, that might be successful, but based on my sense of the general drift of the law, it's not the way to bet.

The truth is, most people who do this won't get caught, and those that do probably won't be prosecuted without there being some other factor involved.

My personal opinion is that if the network is completely open, anyone should be able to use it so long as it's just being used as a portal to the internet. But in general, that does not seem to be the law.

[carld]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Don't bother.
Just post the number of US citizens that have been prosecuted for making use of an unsecured wireless network (that they didn't have to trespass to access) which didn't belong to them... and how many were convicted... and what the average length of incarceration was for the ones that were convicted.

That would be more informative than legalese that's subject to interpretation and overlapping/ever-changing precedent.

It does happen. This article reports on a Michigan man arrested for leeching wi-fi, and mentions several other cases, though there isn't a lot of information given.

This is not the first time someone has been arrested for piggybacking on a WiFi connection. In 2005, a Florida man was arrested and hit with a third-degree felony for surfing an open WiFi network from his SUV. Similarly, an Illinois man was arrested in 2006 for, again, using an unsecured WiFi network from his car. He pleaded guilty to the charges and was given one year's court supervision and a $250 fine. A Washington man was also arrested in 2006 for parking outside of a coffee shop and using the open WiFi connection without purchasing anything. And just earlier this year, an Alaska man was arrested for using the WiFi network from the public library after hours to play games from—you guessed it—his car in the parking lot.

[Kumabjorn]

@Harmon
So what you are saying is that there is a huge discrepancy between the letter of the law and how it is practiced in the real world?

IANAL only a simple law-abiding citizen, I would imagine that people's respect for the law will become "hollowed out" when the law says one thing and court decisions something else.

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Speaking as a US lawyer, my "curbstone opinion" is that this law does not cover what we are talking about here, which I understand to be "unauthorized access to an unprotected wireless network for non-criminal purposes." But a little bit of net surfing should convince most people that there are plenty of states with laws that do cover it. It has convinced me, at any rate.

A network is defined as 2 (or more) devices connected to each other, be it by copper, fiber, or a wireless signal. In order to join a network, you must by definition access at least one other device. At that point, you're violating the cited code, aren't you?

Originally Posted by Harmon

The legal question at the bottom is whether maintaining a completely open network amounts to "implied consent" by the network owner to the free use of the network. I would certainly look into raising that as a defense if I had a client charged with a criminal violation based on nothing more than hopping on an open network. Depending on the exact facts, that might be successful, but based on my sense of the general drift of the law, it's not the way to bet.

That defense would hinge on whether the network provider intentionally left it open. If the defense could show a history of the network provider intentionally providing free network access (e.g. advertising free WiFi, prior verbal agreements with others etc) then that argument would hold water. If not, (a)(2)(C) says,

"...intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected computer..."

I've been a network admin, and if someone accesses a network, there will be a virtual paper-trail (unless of course said access was deliberately obfuscated, which is a different matter entirely) and on some level it can be argued that information was taken; whether the information was of any use (or the network trespasser knew about it) is irrelevant. History & the courts have not been kind to those who get caught, unless you're talking about Kevin Mittnick.

On top of everything else, there's the matter of theft-of-services, i.e. illegally obtaining internet access without permission. The owner of the access-point might not legally pursue it but I could think of a few large American ISPs who would.

Originally Posted by Harmon

The truth is, most people who do this won't get caught, and those that do probably won't be prosecuted without there being some other factor involved.

Yes, and it's unfortunate. People are slowly learning however.

Originally Posted by Harmon

My personal opinion is that if the network is completely open, anyone should be able to use it so long as it's just being used as a portal to the internet. But in general, that does not seem to be the law.

I sincerely hope you don't apply that line of thinking to your home internet, or one day it might be you who needs to retain counsel. It amazes me how many people think "I have nothing to worry about, no one would bother with my wireless", or "they'll get in anyway, why bother". Network hackers prey on those people first: The ones who leave the default password, don't enable encryption, etc. While it's true that the only safe computer is the one locked in a vault and not plugged in, WPA2 encryption with a nice strong passphrase will keep a hacker busy for a few decades.