Wireless leeching?
Posted by Ray @ 7:49 pmSo a 17-year-old gets caught for piggy-backing on somebody’s open wireless network. Predictably, the local blogosphere explodes, with opinions ranging from “omg the man is so stupid to leave his wireless open” to “that doesn’t make it right” to “let’s teach everyone to use WEP”.
Stop and breathe.
I want to say that we don’t have enough facts to decide the issue either way, and everything we say now is just speculation.
Would your opinion change if:
1) The teen used the wireless to download pornography?
2) The teen used the wireless to download extreme pornography with bittorrent 24/7?
3) The teen used the wireless to study?
4) The teen used the wireless to download copyright-protected songs and the man got charged with copyright infringement?
5) The man was a miserly ignoramus who did not want to pay a technician to set up his wireless network?
6) The man was an IT genius who still didn’t bother to secure his wireless?
7) The man was an IT genius who discovered that not all his computers would connect to his wireless network when WEP/WPA was enabled, because the router he shelled out hard money for had inexplicable incompatibilities with Windows / Linux / Apple / Unix?
8) The man fully intended for his wireless to be open for the convenience of his neighbours, but the teen abused it with heavy traffic use?
9) The teen’s computer connects automatically to any open network?
10) The man knows somebody is stealing his wireless, and only thinks it’s the teen?
There are obviously many many more questions to ask, and I haven’t even started on the technical issues. For instance, a MAC address is quite easy to spoof (Mac users, man ifconfig), and is quite an unreliable method of establishing identity. And anyone who administers their own home networks can attest to how difficult it is to get all your computers to behave. It is a huge pain to set up everything with security and firewalls, even for a professional, and sometimes it’s just not possible because of some silly hardware incompatibility the manufacturer neglected to mention.
Don’t use false analogies.
Many people have likened piggy-backing to theft. This results in arguments like “if you leave your iPod lying around you deserve to have it stolen”, and “if you leave your door open and I enter your house and leave, nothing was stolen, so boo to you”.
First off, if you were careless and your iPod was stolen, it is theft. If the thief was caught and brought to court, do you think he can use the defence of stupidity? “Your honour, the victim was a dumbass, please release me k thx” will not fly in a court of law.
Second, piggy-backing is not like theft, piggy-backing is like trespass. The very fact that somebody has encroached onto something that is yours without your permission is the wrong. It does not matter that no harm was done; you have a right to say “get the hell off my property”.
Look at the law.
As for me, my criticisms are directed towards the law on the matter. Following from the trespass argument, I’d tentatively venture to say that piggy-backing should not be a crime, but a tort. If Mr. Neighbour wants to sue you for trespassing on his wireless network, he is free to do so. As a defence, you should be able to say Mr. Neighbour was contributorily negligent in leaving his wireless open, especially in this day and age. [My tort is rusty; is there such a defence in trespass? Or does the defendant have to argue some sort of licence or estoppel defence? Input would be much appreciated - Ray.]
Sadly for us, that is not the case in Singapore.
S. 6(1)(a) of the Computer Misuse Act, the offence under which the teen has been charged, states:
“[A]ny person who knowingly… secures access without authority to any computer for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, any computer service… shall be guilty of an offence.”
Thus the teen’s only way out is to argue that, in leaving a wireless network open, Mr. Neighbour has implicitly “authorized” Garyl to use his network. The question then becomes: can authority be implied?
There are many judicial opinions that answer that question in the affirmative in the context of agency and copyright law. But in the end, again, it all depends on the facts. For example, if Mr. Neighbour knew piggy-backing was happening, but let it go on, there is probably implied authorization (and thus Garyl gets off). On the other hand, just leaving the wireless network “open” may not amount to authorization if Mr. Neighbour is IT-ignorant, only notices his internet is “slowing down” and calls his IT-savvy friend who tells him “Dude, you have a leecher”.
So to reiterate my opening points, we simply don’t have enough facts. So stop speculating, and let’s wait and see what happens.
(Citizens may want to look at S. 16 of the Computer Misuse Act. It says:
“Any police officer may arrest without warrant any person reasonably suspected of committing an offence under this Act.”
So basically, if mata thinks you’re stealing, you’re screwed.)
References:
Dark secrets
Balderdash
Iz Reloaded (makes a good point - educate people about security, damnit!)
Decay On Net
Tinker, Tailor
2 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.squarebrain.net/2006-11/wireless-leeching/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
damn it. my laptop keeps on detecting my neighbor’s wireless because it’s unprotected! i’ve already set it to detect my own wireless (which is protected hur hur) but it still happens occasionally, and i only become aware of it when i’m overwhelmed by incredibly slow surfing speeds. why on earth would i wanna steal my neighbor’s measely broadband? pui!
Comment by iji — Sunday, November 26 2006 @ 10:40 am
Be a good neighbour. Go to him / her, tell them of the situation, offer to help. Tada, problem solved! (Of course you’re stuck with being Free Tech Support, so you’ll have to deal with that too)
Comment by Ray — Monday, November 27 2006 @ 1:45 am