When you're driving the law (in the UK) says you have to wear a seatbelt. Even though some people don't like them and your car will start even if your not wearing one.
When you're driving (or are in an area where you don't know you can have legal wifi access ) you may have to turn your Wifi off...
__________________
You'd have thought that someone would have put a sig here To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Pay close attention to the paragraph entitled 'Lax Security' - and maybe you won't feel so benevolent about letting others use your network.
In simple terms: No security = full liability
whereas: Security = zero liability (although I'm not sure which form of security would be considered as 'security' in the eyes of the law - turning off SSID broadcast is a security measure? You tell me. WEP should to all intents and purposes be considered security - even if it is easy to circumvent)
I'm sure many wardrivers are not out to make a buck or to send naughty photos, but, and this is the problem, you never know. There is no little pop-up window to tell you that porn is being sent over your radio waves - but if they catch the person doing this - YOU as the network admin (sounds good - but many of us are this nowadays (I'm often calling myself to ask about technical probs!!))- can be charged by the boys in blue.
....therefore my PDA gets hundreds of connections on a short 10 mile drive here in Orlando. My PDA is set to connect automatically to unknown access points. So I'm breaking the law at least a hundred times a day? That's BIG BULLSHIT.
I'm not trying to be a prick, but you think it's BS that even though you have configured your device to automatically "break the law", you can get in trouble for it?
It's illegal to point a gun at someone. If I stick a gun out the side of my car window (even if I'm not pointing it at anyone) it's going to point at a lot of people. Would this be my fault? Or should I considering changing the configuration (or position) of the gun?
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
Let's try some legal interpretation and see where it gets us.
One word (or variant thereof) is reiterated throughout ss. 125-127 CA 2003: dishonesty. Aside from the intent to avoid payment, this seems the main indicator of intention, of mens rea. There is no suggestion that the offence can be committed recklessly (either the subjective or old [Caldwell] objective type). So what does dishonesty mean here?
The Communications Act, however, doesn't define dishonesty. Consequently, we must be guided by our flagship statute on offences involving property and services: the Theft Act 1968 (as amended.) Within this, there are several layers of dishonesty that can be applied. The definition of dishonesty in theft, for instance, is different to that of the definition used in the offence of obtaining services by deception. The definition found in the latter offence, and those within the same grouping (i.e. the deception offences) are unlikely to be of use; there must be a deception that causes the victim to provide the services on the understanding that he will be paid. Such a situation is not analagous to the practice of wardriving. Instead, the meaning of dishonesty within the offence of theft may yield greater answers.
Theft Act 1968, s. 2, provides for a partial definition of dishonesty:
‘Dishonestly’(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest-
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representa-tive) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.
S.2(1)(a) allows a person who genuinely believes he has a legal right to the property to be regarded as honest, irrespective of the reasonableness of that belief. However, this relates only to mistakes in civil law, not criminal law (as ignorance is no defence.) It would be difficult to argue in court that you believed you had a legal civil right to that person's internet service.
S.2(1)(b) deals with belief in consent. Again, this is unlikely to help wardrivers. It is unlikely that they have asked to use the service, or have had any indictors that it can be used as such; in this respect, the argument that, as the network is open, the defendant believed that he had implied consent to obtain the service, cannot be maintained.
The other subsections have little relevance to the current problem, although it is worth noting that, under s.2(2), a willingness to pay does not necessarily mean the defendant is not dishonest. It must be assumed that s.125(1)(b) Communications Act 2003 nullifies the effect of s.2(2) by providing that there must be an intent to avoid payment, although evidentially it will be hard to prove that you intended to pay.
Otherwise, dishonesty is defined by the "standards of ordinary an
decent people" (R v Feely [1973].) It is unnecessary to go into a long analysis of such a standard here; of greater significance (as can be seen in this thread) is what happens when a defendant, whose actions might be regarded as dishonest by the jury applying their standards, insists that, according to his system of values, he was acting honestly? In essence, that the defendant thought he was honest in accessing someone's open network whilst driving down the street. This conflict of values has come before the Court of Appeal before, in R v Ghosh [1982].) The court held that, to answer the question, there must be a two-fold enquiry:
1) The jury, applying their own standards, must judge D's actions and beliefs and decide whether he was honest or dishonest.
2) If the jury find he was dishonest, they must then establish whether D knew that ordinary people would regard such conduct as dishonest. (my emphasis added)
Some commentators have argued that to leave such decisions to a jury is ridiculous; society in today's world are living in a moral vacuum and have lost all standards of right and wrong, regualarly stealing from their employer, fiddling the books, etc. One can answer this by saying that those people, though choosing to condct themselves thus, still know perfectly well that their conduct is dishonest.
And so we come to the crux of it; does the ordinary and decent person know that accessing an open network to check email/surf the net, etc, is dishonest? Additionally, would a defendant know that ordinary people regard such conduct as dishonest? As we can see from the threads here, opinion is deeply divided. As a result, there is a good arguable case for saying that the Ghosh dishonesty requirements will not be met in every case; certainly, if I was defending someone like the gentleman in this case, I would present the question to the court.
Sorry for being long-winded...law often is! :)
__________________
Newest To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.2(1)(b) deals with belief in consent. Again, this is unlikely to help wardrivers. It is unlikely that they have asked to use the service, or have had any indictors that it can be used as such; in this respect, the argument that, as the network is open, the defendant believed that he had implied consent to obtain the service, cannot be maintained.
The only way i can see this being defendable is if the SSID of the wireless network being used by war drivers ic called "please use my wireless connection" or "you have consent to use my wireless connection" and to be honost i doubt this is realistic.
i think i have interpruted the above correctly but if im wrong please point it out.
The only way i can see this being defendable is if the SSID of the wireless network being used by war drivers ic called "please use my wireless connection" or "you have consent to use my wireless connection" and to be honost i doubt this is realistic.
i think i have interpruted the above correctly but if im wrong please point it out.
Indeed; I did think of this when writing my post above, but in the ordinary situation (as you have pointed out), this is highly unlikely to be the case.
__________________
Newest To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This is BullShit. When I'm driving around with my pda and have my bluetooth GPS going usually my WiFi is open too, therefore my PDA gets hundreds of connections on a short 10 mile drive here in Orlando. My PDA is set to connect automatically to unknown access points. So I'm breaking the law at least a hundred times a day? That's BIG BULLSHIT.
There is a difference of what stealing actually is.
Did I knowingly break into some dumbasses unsecured network to look at data on their computer? Or did I use some dumbasses unsecured network to browse the net?
My network at home is unsecured so neighbors and visitors can browse all they want. My individual computers are firewalled. However my Network at the office is Secured.
If you don't like it, then you have two options. Pay for a service that you can log onto through your cell phone or something to enable you to surf the web without relying on open networks OR continue to do what you are doing and hope you don't get caught.
I have WEP enabled on my network and I don't have a wireless device other than my laptop. I think times are changing and things like this will need to be addressed. I don't think the fine for the man mentioned above was very stiff.
It seems like the fault (legally) will fall on the person using the unsecured network, not the owner. So it is up to the wardriver to decide what they want to do knowing that consequences are set in place for their actions.
I agree that open netowrks that are intended for use by all should be labeled "free to use" that way anyone using it knows they aren't uninvited.
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it;
S.2(1)(b) deals with belief in consent. Again, this is unlikely to help wardrivers. It is unlikely that they have asked to use the service, or have had any indictors that it can be used as such; in this respect, the argument that, as the network is open, the defendant believed that he had implied consent to obtain the service, cannot be maintained.
Very nice interpretation with regard to how wardrivers can expect to be treated in court. :)
Just to pick holes a little with regard to S.2(1)(b). Is the owner of the wifi network who does not implement some kind of security non effectively granting permission for its use? The 'asking' in this case is done not physically, but electronically. You scan, find an open network and ask to connect by clicking on 'connect'. Once you have a connection you could possibly argue that you are not being dishonest because the owner must be aware that by not implementing security is the same as giving permission and if the owner of the network could be made to say this in court, if he were someone such as aleks 75 for example, then the wardriver may have an effective defence.
Who in these cases is able to bring charges? The Crown or only the aggrieved party?
This is similar to RHC-NET point, but that no friendly ssid would be necessary. Of course, the wardriver is always taking a chance....
Alexim; you are absolutely right. If I share my connection and someone else is stealing/wardriving/borowing (whatever you want to call it) then not the person who logged into my network is stealing it, i was sharing it! I am responsible! Why do we suddenly have a wave of people all around 1st world countries going to jail or paying fines for stealing wifi.
It's like money out on the street. You just should not have left it there. I think that people do it on purpose. At my office not only do I run Encryption but I also have Mac Address Filtering enabled. All this took me 3 minutes. I took me longer to install the router itself. So to the question of who's responsible?
The guy who shares it and is caught should pay the fine, not the person that uses it. In most other countries this would be also called entrapment if I leave a connection open for someone else to take it and then call the cops on him. Like I said before BULLSHIT!!!
Well, you may be right, but what if they take the right away for us to wardrive? Maybe they gonna fine us in the future for wardriving radio stations. The way the FCC is going we actully might be going that way!
Explain, please, how wifi is different from radio. Is radio not a form of network?
There are some significant differences.
Radio -
* 1 way communication.
* An open signal intentionally sent out for mass distribution.
* No contention exists. No matter how many users listen to the radio there is never any degradation in the transmission of the signal.
Wifi -
* 2 way communication between 2 or more nodes resulting in a virtually meshed or virtually hob/spoke topology (depending how it's deployed).
* Typically deployed for personal use of the owner. Not a mass service open to the world.
* Contention exists. While one node is transmitting, other nodes cannot.
Although wifi signals use radio as the carrier, that's where the similarity ends.
I'm sure there are many other differences that we can come up with, but fundamentally they're not the same at all. No offense intended to you or anyone else on the thread, but typically the "wifi is free for all" brigade typically show a significant lack of understanding of how wifi works and how the Internet works.
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
Explain, please, how wifi is different from radio. Is radio not a form of network?
Radio is a multicasting system.. and under the broadcasting act (now the communications act) is regulated by the government using certain frequencies. The Comunications act also allows people the right to listen to it legally. If I set up my own private radio station then I am breaking the law.
There are specific rules and regulations that apply to radio broadcasts... and those laws are inforced too (it's just that most people don't realise)
__________________
You'd have thought that someone would have put a sig here To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
