Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

WiFi network of neighbour

Tags:
  • WiFi
  • Internet Connection
  • Wireless Networking
Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
May 21, 2004 5:06:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Hi,
I have got a WiFi internet connection in my room. I am new to UK so
I donno whether it is legal or not. How can I contact the owner of
this network just to inform him that it is dangerous, I used to check
my mails using this connection
regards
John

More about : wifi network neighbour

May 23, 2004 1:38:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

"John" <jobi_44s@sancharnet.in> wrote in message
news:95c6850c.0405210006.23ee4e38@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> I have got a WiFi internet connection in my room. I am new to UK so
> I donno whether it is legal or not.

I doubt you are breaking any laws. If someone is stupid enough to have an
unsecured wireless internet connection, that's their problem. Make the most
of it.
Anonymous
May 23, 2004 5:00:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In article <2h9s1mFafi0pU1@uni-berlin.de>, Silk <me@privacy.net> wrote:

:"John" <jobi_44s@sancharnet.in> wrote in message
:news:95c6850c.0405210006.23ee4e38@posting.google.com...

:> I have got a WiFi internet connection in my room. I am new to UK so
:> I donno whether it is legal or not.

:I doubt you are breaking any laws. If someone is stupid enough to have an
:unsecured wireless internet connection, that's their problem. Make the most
:o f it.

We've gone through this before several times.

In the UK, using someone else's WiFi without their permission would
likely be a contravention of the Data Protection Act.

I seem to recall that someone posted some exact citations before.

I have posted citations of the relevant Canadian law (which someone
has indeed been charged with), and I and others have posted relevant extracts
of US law and FCC regulations. [If I recall correctly, US law is such that
if the data is not encrypted and is being sent over the unlicensed
frequencies, then it is [usually] legal to -listen- to it -- but an
offence to -transmit- through the equipment without authorization.]
--
I've been working on a kernel
All the livelong night.
I've been working on a kernel
And it still won't work quite right. -- J. Benson & J. Doll
Related resources
Anonymous
May 23, 2004 8:00:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Using another's wireless access would be considered theft of service by the
entity proving he Internet service( Under USA laws). As important to you
wireless is a 2 way street...in other words without proper protection your
system is now open to others with the opportnuity of trojan programs etc.,
being set up in your computer.
"Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:c8ot3i$qjo$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> In article <2h9s1mFafi0pU1@uni-berlin.de>, Silk <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> :"John" <jobi_44s@sancharnet.in> wrote in message
> :news:95c6850c.0405210006.23ee4e38@posting.google.com...
>
> :> I have got a WiFi internet connection in my room. I am new to UK so
> :> I donno whether it is legal or not.
>
> :I doubt you are breaking any laws. If someone is stupid enough to have an
> :unsecured wireless internet connection, that's their problem. Make the
most
> :o f it.
>
> We've gone through this before several times.
>
> In the UK, using someone else's WiFi without their permission would
> likely be a contravention of the Data Protection Act.
>
> I seem to recall that someone posted some exact citations before.
>
> I have posted citations of the relevant Canadian law (which someone
> has indeed been charged with), and I and others have posted relevant
extracts
> of US law and FCC regulations. [If I recall correctly, US law is such that
> if the data is not encrypted and is being sent over the unlicensed
> frequencies, then it is [usually] legal to -listen- to it -- but an
> offence to -transmit- through the equipment without authorization.]
> --
> I've been working on a kernel
> All the livelong night.
> I've been working on a kernel
> And it still won't work quite right. -- J. Benson & J. Doll
Anonymous
May 23, 2004 9:43:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In article <cU3sc.27343$cz5.9231365@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
Michael D. Brooks <mikedb@panix.com> wrote:
:Using another's wireless access would be considered theft of service by the
:entity proving he Internet service( Under USA laws).

Not if you don't -transmit-. If you don't -transmit- then you fall
under FCC regulations that say that anyone can listen to unencrypted
data in the ISM band. I've posted citations and quotations in this
newsgroup in the past: if its in an unlicensed band and its unencrypted
then it does not qualify as a "protected" transmission.

It would be difficult to argue that there had been any 'theft of service'
of the provider for just snooping on unencrypted transmissions.
What service was stolen? The ISP is probably not even the entity
providing the wireless access: that's probably the consumer's own addition.

Now sending packets out, such that they traverse the ISP's equipment
without authorization -- *that* would be theft of service.
--
"Mathematics? I speak it like a native." -- Spike Milligan
May 23, 2004 11:20:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

What you say is true as far as federal law is concerned. But federal law
does not prevent state law from being more restrictive.
Take a look at:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/CIP/surveillance.htm

14 states have privacy laws that specifically prohibit monitoring of cell
phones. Nevada prohibits unauthorized interception of "radio
communications", which is defined to to include "wireless methods".

According to http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs2-wire.htm, in California, it
is

"... illegal to intentionally record or maliciously intercept telephone
conversations without the consent of all parties. This includes cordless and
cellular calls. (California Penal Code 632.5-632.7) To violate the law, the
interception of your cordless or cellular phone conversations must be done
with malicious intent."

New York also prohibits recording (not interception) of cordless phone
calls:

"The New York law, unlike the federal law, prohibits unauthorized recording
of conversations over cordless phones even though users have no expectation
of privacy."
(http://www.nysba.org/Content/NavigationMenu/News/Legal_...
rnalists/chapter19.pdf)

I mention these because they specifically include cordless phone calls,
which are unencrypted transmissions in an ISM band. Obviously, they are
written to let the unintentional eavesdropper off the hook. But they
establish that state law can and does prohibit what federal law does not.

You will almost certainly never be detected or caught if you merely monitor
other's transmissions (unless you post them to the net). But it would be
incorrect to imply that everyone has a free legal pass to eavesdrop at will,
merely because the transmissions are plaintext in an ISM band.
I'll grant that probably none of the existing state law has been used in
court in a wifi context, and there's no guarantee that it would hold up. But
state laws could be modified to include wifi specifically, if eavesdropping
comes to be perceived as a problem.

"Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:c8qnrj$fpv$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> In article <cU3sc.27343$cz5.9231365@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> Michael D. Brooks <mikedb@panix.com> wrote:
> :Using another's wireless access would be considered theft of service by
the
> :entity proving he Internet service( Under USA laws).
>
> Not if you don't -transmit-. If you don't -transmit- then you fall
> under FCC regulations that say that anyone can listen to unencrypted
> data in the ISM band. I've posted citations and quotations in this
> newsgroup in the past: if its in an unlicensed band and its unencrypted
> then it does not qualify as a "protected" transmission.
>
> It would be difficult to argue that there had been any 'theft of service'
> of the provider for just snooping on unencrypted transmissions.
> What service was stolen? The ISP is probably not even the entity
> providing the wireless access: that's probably the consumer's own
addition.
>
> Now sending packets out, such that they traverse the ISP's equipment
> without authorization -- *that* would be theft of service.
> --
> "Mathematics? I speak it like a native." -- Spike Milligan
May 24, 2004 1:26:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

John schreef:
> Hi,
> I have got a WiFi internet connection in my room. I am new to UK so
> I donno whether it is legal or not. How can I contact the owner of
> this network just to inform him that it is dangerous, I used to check
> my mails using this connection
> regards
> John
easy way to let the ownoer know his connection is "open" is find his
printer (should be easy if he shares his/her resources) and send
printout to this printer with your roomnr. This will very likely make
him/her knock on your door within seconds after the print is completed!!

Anyway: if someone enables an internet connection through a wireless
connection, it is the responsibility of this person to take sufficient
prcautionary measures to protect the connection, not the 'listner'.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 10:15:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In article <OP6sc.3626$BL1.764@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
gary <pleasenospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
:14 states have privacy laws that specifically prohibit monitoring of cell
:p hones.

Though probably not one of those classifies that monitoring as
"theft of service".
--
Would you buy a used bit from this man??
May 24, 2004 7:37:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Nope, clearly theft of service requires transmission of bits over the ISP
connection. I'm just trying to correct the impression that some have left,
in previous threads on this subject, that federal law is the only law that
regulates monitoring and interception of ISM signals. Most privacy law is on
state, not federal, books.

"Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:c8s3up$fhu$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> In article <OP6sc.3626$BL1.764@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
> gary <pleasenospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> :14 states have privacy laws that specifically prohibit monitoring of cell
> :p hones.
>
> Though probably not one of those classifies that monitoring as
> "theft of service".
> --
> Would you buy a used bit from this man??
!