RE: wardriving a crime in Florida?
http://www.wardrive.net/wardriving/faq My fellow wardrivers and I adhere to a relatively strict code of ethics that can be cooked down to the following: * Don't look. * Don't touch. * Don't play through. In other words, 1) don't examine the contents of a network; 2) don't add, delete, or change anything on the network, and 3) don't even use the network's Internet connection for Web surfing, email, chat, FTP, or anything else. Somebody else paid for the bandwidth, and if you don't have permission to use it, you're stealing it. Basically, unless you have permission, don't connect. Consider it a matter of personal honor, even when it's unlikely that you'll be caught. (If you get too used to feeling that you won't get caught, sooner or later you will get caught!)
--- Jeremy Fowler <JFowler@westrope.com> wrote:
http://www.wardrive.net/wardriving/faq
My fellow wardrivers and I adhere to a relatively strict code of ethics that can be cooked down to the following:
* Don't look. * Don't touch. * Don't play through.
In other words, 1) don't examine the contents of a network; 2) don't add, delete, or change anything on the network, and 3) don't even use the network's Internet connection for Web surfing, email, chat, FTP, or anything else. Somebody else paid for the bandwidth, and if you don't have permission to use it, you're stealing it. Basically, unless you have permission, don't connect. Consider it a matter of personal honor ... I agree with most of what you're saying here. While I certainly am not recommending that everyone go out and
connect to open access points in the neighborhood, I disagree that it is illegal. It may have some personal honor issues, but I don't see it as illegal. I would however generally recommend using only those that you find that you have explicit permission for. There are known free access points, and I would generally recommend them. However, were I in desperate need of getting access, say a server crashed and I needed to do some remote tasks from 1000 miles away, and there was no readily available connection except an open wi-fi connection; I would probably use it. <somewhat political and ot> In fact were I comfortable enough where I didn't need to work. I would engage in acts of civil disobedience in regards to some of the Stalinist laws that have been passed in recent years concerning IT, were it not for the Draconian penalties they have attached to those imbicilic laws. </somewhat ot> Brian JD __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Jeremy Fowler wrote:
Somebody else paid for the bandwidth, and if you don't have permission to use it, you're stealing it.
Well, gee. If I stick an open box on the internet with a service open, then can I prosecute sombody for "stealing my bandwidth" if they "access my network?" Maybe nobody's interested in my super-secret Rice Crispy Treats recipe or my fabulous comp-man lizard pictures on my web server, but if I have a box that allows access, then unless I'm a total idiot I should at least recognize that somebody might access it. An open proxy server is exactly the moral equivalent of an open wifi network, except that nobody needs the web proxy in an emergency, and there's no "scan for proxy" software enabled out of the box at CompUSA. If you're running squid open to the internet, people are going to find and use it. Duh. You can blame them and sue them, or you can blame yourself and secure your network access. It's not like the people utilizing your service haven't given you anything of value in return. They've given you an education, which has a great deal more appreciating value than the lousy bandwidth does. And anybody running an open internal wifi damned well NEEDS an education. Tangentially, running portscans and publishing the results is exactly the same as wardriving and publishing the results, at least that's my view of it. So, as to "moral high ground", I think it is more honorable to discover and harmlessly use an open wifi than to advertise its existence to those who may have dishonorable intent. I'm not necessarily anti-wardriving, anti-advertising results, anti-accessing open networks, or anti-exploiting open proxy servers. My view is that somebody or several somebodies are going to do it and anybody with a computer should realize this and take the proper precautions. If you are running open networks and relying on the deterrent capacity of local laws and gendarmes and the wonders of Microsoft Service Pack XXII to protect your data and reputation from the bad guys, it's well past time for a two-by-four style wake up call, which is probably coming post haste. I frankly don't see why wifi networks that advertise their existence and give out free IPs are viewed ANY differently than any other internet service that allows access. The only explanation that I can think of is that it all happens within one legal jurisdiction with wifi. Sort of like looking under the lamppost for the missing keys. The simple fact is that it IS a jungle out there and the actions of people who _do no harm_ are not the ones that you have to worry about. Considering the havoc that could be wreaked (I think that's a word) through an open internal IP, utilizing a bit of bandwidth falls under my definition of doing no harm. To review: Publicizing the existence of an open wifi network is potentially _exponentially_ more harmful to the network owner than checking your email through it is. However, one seems to be illegal, the other doesn't. One is against the "Wardriver's code of ethics", the other isn't. It makes as much sense as anything else, these days. Regards, -Don, who shouldn't respond to these things after a half bottle of wine.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:44:51PM -0500, Don Erickson wrote:
I frankly don't see why wifi networks that advertise their existence and give out free IPs are viewed ANY differently than any other internet service that allows access.
I think this goes in a direction opposite of what you're getting at, but I'd say the difference is that an internet service that *allows* access is doing a lot less to actively publicize its availability. An open wifi port ADVERTIZES its availability, it BROADCASTS it. It pretty much goes and and says "USE ME" and then when a DHCP client obliges with a request, it ACTIVELY fills that request with a lease. Sure, if someone has advertizing turned off, or has WAP or other security enabled, has DHCP turned off or has MAC filtering on, and someone spoofs or steals or guess and IP number to connect, that's a different thing. The intent of the AP operator is much more clear in that case.
The only explanation that I can think of is that it all happens within one legal jurisdiction with wifi. Sort of like looking under the lamppost for the missing keys.
A very cogent point. Network services like open web proxies or SMTP proxies or whatever can be accessed from just about anywhere in the Internetted world. The RF portion of an open Wi Fi is limited pretty much by the range of the radio. -- D. Joe http://www.etrumeus.com/~deejoe "DRM [...] is to copyright law as a machine gun on a motion detector is to real estate law" -- Don Marti
--- Don Erickson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Jeremy Fowler wrote:
Somebody else paid for the bandwidth, and if you don't have permission to use it, you're stealing it.
...
I frankly don't see why wifi networks that advertise their existence and give out free IPs are viewed ANY differently than any other internet service that allows access. The only explanation that I can think of is that it all happens within one legal jurisdiction with wifi. Sort of like looking under the lamppost for the missing keys. I have a what if. Let's roll the clock forward say 10 years. Let's say now that wifi has become ubuiquitous, and that 60% of homes have wifi (probably not an unrealistic scenario). The density of wifi now would be so dense that one home might be getting a connection from a home several houses down, and that house is in fact getting it's connection from several blocks away, etc. Now we are talking about being able to track the original source of the internt connection, which might very well be on the other end of the metropolitan region. In a place like New York or Dallas we could be talking a range of a 100 miles or more. So in the scenario put forward by Jeremy all the homes are filled with criminals. Or perhaps wifi illiterate people. And we all know that ignorance is no exceuse for breaking the law (actually that is more of an Urban Legend than an absolute truth, but that's another can or worms). Of course if wifi ever gets that kind of foothold, there'll be all kinds of new laws to prevent people from forming "local internets" and thus competing with ISPs/cable companies/Ma Bell.
Personally, I feel that wifi should come locked down and that anyone who wants to have wifi in their house needs to know enough to configure it. There are responsibilities that come along with anything useful in life. Computers are no different. If you are a reckless driver you will lose your license. If you leave a wifi open and some cracker uploads a worm that takes down the internet you should lose your right to have a computer. Plain and simple. Computers are important enough today that people need to be responsible for knowing how to use them and care for them. Just like with: guns, planes, cars, children, etc. Brian JD ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
participants (4)
-
D. Joe -
Don Erickson -
Jack -
Jeremy Fowler