NEWS: Half of computer users are Wi-Fi thieves

[John Navas]

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/15/stolen_wifi/>

More than half of computer users have illegally stolen Wi-Fi
connections, according to The Times - but only 11 alleged offenders
have been arrested in the UK, as the police seem to think those
deploying Wi-Fi should be more careful about securing their
connections.

The data was collected from a "Have Your Say" survey on the website
of security-specialist Sophos: apparently 54 per cent of the 560
people who responded admitted nicking bandwidth from insecure Wi-Fi
routers.

This might say more about Sophos customers than the general
population, and extrapolating the results to every computer user in
the country is probably a crime against statistics: so that's exactly
what The Times has done.

[MORE]

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

[Bill Kearney]

> The data was collected from a "Have Your Say" survey on the website
> of security-specialist Sophos: apparently 54 per cent of the 560
> people who responded admitted nicking bandwidth from insecure Wi-Fi
> routers.

You can only 'steal' what others don't want to let you share. This fails to
consider when someone sets up a wifi access point and deliberately leaves it
open with the intention to allow some freeloaders.

Of course then there's all the iPhone thieves.

[George]

Bill Kearney wrote:
>> The data was collected from a "Have Your Say" survey on the website
>> of security-specialist Sophos: apparently 54 per cent of the 560
>> people who responded admitted nicking bandwidth from insecure Wi-Fi
>> routers.
>
> You can only 'steal' what others don't want to let you share. This fails to
> consider when someone sets up a wifi access point and deliberately leaves it
> open with the intention to allow some freeloaders.
>
> Of course then there's all the iPhone thieves.
>

But I bet the great majority of open access points go something like
this. They go to the big box store and ask the experts for a wireless
"thing", bring it home, plug it in and when the laptop works out on the
deck success is declared.

[John Navas]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:50:08 -0500, "Bill Kearney"
<wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote in
<UsSdnT5-4LN8CaHanZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>:

>> The data was collected from a "Have Your Say" survey on the website
>> of security-specialist Sophos: apparently 54 per cent of the 560
>> people who responded admitted nicking bandwidth from insecure Wi-Fi
>> routers.
>
>You can only 'steal' what others don't want to let you share.

You actually 'steal' when you have no explicit permission to take it.

>This fails to
>consider when someone sets up a wifi access point and deliberately leaves it
>open with the intention to allow some freeloaders.

No way of knowing that unless (a) that's clearly signaled in the SSID or
(b) you've actually asked.

The more likely case is that it's been left open by ignorance or
accident.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

[Richard Johnson]

"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:CKydnfyTGdtCO6HanZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Bill Kearney wrote:
>>> The data was collected from a "Have Your Say" survey on the website
>>> of security-specialist Sophos: apparently 54 per cent of the 560
>>> people who responded admitted nicking bandwidth from insecure Wi-Fi
>>> routers.
>>
>> You can only 'steal' what others don't want to let you share. This fails
>> to
>> consider when someone sets up a wifi access point and deliberately leaves
>> it
>> open with the intention to allow some freeloaders.
>>
>> Of course then there's all the iPhone thieves.
>>
>
> But I bet the great majority of open access points go something like this.
> They go to the big box store and ask the experts for a wireless "thing",
> bring it home, plug it in and when the laptop works out on the deck
> success is declared.

I believe you are right there George. Most users are ...well...users. That
being said, it means that unless the outside person has specifically asked
to use their wireless device to access the Internet, that outside person
trespasses on private property when they connect to their wireless access
point. The second the outside person accesses the Internet through the
trespassed wireless access point they are stealing service. (The wireless
access point owner is the one that has paid for the Internet connection,
therefore it has value. It may be only pennies but it is still theft.)

I for one use WPA. At least that tells the outside person that they are not
welcome in my network. If I catch someone on my network, I will triangulate
on their location and let them know that they are not welcome on my network.
When I see a network up - unlocked - in my neighborhood, I triangulate on it
and contact that neighbor and let them know the risk they are taking, and
how to solve it. Just a neighborly thing to do.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <fhih0b01in5@news2.newsguy.com>,
"Richard Johnson" <richj@remove.this.tairedd.com> wrote:


> I believe you are right there George. Most users are ...well...users. That
> being said, it means that unless the outside person has specifically asked
> to use their wireless device to access the Internet, that outside person
> trespasses on private property when they connect to their wireless access
> point. The second the outside person accesses the Internet through the
> trespassed wireless access point they are stealing service. (The wireless
> access point owner is the one that has paid for the Internet connection,
> therefore it has value. It may be only pennies but it is still theft.)

I think this could get interesting. On the one hand, there is a
fairly well established string of cases and laws that says if something
is available from a public right of way or your own property, then it is
fair game. For instance, when I was a newsie, I could take pictures from
the sidewalk into someone's property but not actually enter the property
to go looking for it.
One the other hand, there is also a couple of laws floating around
that specifically states it is illegal to intercept private
conversations (like for instance when you used to be able to get cell or
cordless phone conversations over your police scanner).
Don't know yet of a case or specific law that addresses this, at
least in the US. Until then it is probably a toss up on what the law
really is.
>

[John Navas]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:29:12 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote in
<kurtullman-B7AF7D.18291215112007@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns.net>:

>In article <fhih0b01in5@news2.newsguy.com>,
> "Richard Johnson" <richj@remove.this.tairedd.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I believe you are right there George. Most users are ...well...users. That
>> being said, it means that unless the outside person has specifically asked
>> to use their wireless device to access the Internet, that outside person
>> trespasses on private property when they connect to their wireless access
>> point. The second the outside person accesses the Internet through the
>> trespassed wireless access point they are stealing service. (The wireless
>> access point owner is the one that has paid for the Internet connection,
>> therefore it has value. It may be only pennies but it is still theft.)
>
> I think this could get interesting. On the one hand, there is a
>fairly well established string of cases and laws that says if something
>is available from a public right of way or your own property, then it is
>fair game. For instance, when I was a newsie, I could take pictures from
>the sidewalk into someone's property but not actually enter the property
>to go looking for it.

Not a valid analogy -- in the case of Wi-Fi, it's theft of a commercial
service.

> One the other hand, there is also a couple of laws floating around
>that specifically states it is illegal to intercept private
>conversations (like for instance when you used to be able to get cell or
>cordless phone conversations over your police scanner).
> Don't know yet of a case or specific law that addresses this, at
>least in the US. Until then it is probably a toss up on what the law
>really is.

<http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/technology/personaltech/internet_piracy/>
<http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/State/Wi_Fi_cloaks_a_new_br.shtml>
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276720,00.html>
<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6447.html>

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <33qpj3dbqdd0irnk9d2fl1oei31fhoc7oi@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:


> > I think this could get interesting. On the one hand, there is a
> >fairly well established string of cases and laws that says if something
> >is available from a public right of way or your own property, then it is
> >fair game. For instance, when I was a newsie, I could take pictures from
> >the sidewalk into someone's property but not actually enter the property
> >to go looking for it.
>
> Not a valid analogy -- in the case of Wi-Fi, it's theft of a commercial
> service.
Actually it is in this context. The theft is not of the WiFi signal
itself but of the service. It isn't between and the dude on the street,
but rather the ISP and dude. The original was wether it was illegal per
se to get on the Wifi (if I understood it).


>
> > One the other hand, there is also a couple of laws floating around
> >that specifically states it is illegal to intercept private
> >conversations (like for instance when you used to be able to get cell or
> >cordless phone conversations over your police scanner).
> > Don't know yet of a case or specific law that addresses this, at
> >least in the US. Until then it is probably a toss up on what the law
> >really is.
>
> <http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/technology/personaltech/internet_piracy/>

Which exactly made my point that the law is murky.

> <http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/State/Wi_Fi_cloaks_a_new_br.shtml>

This is better, although most of it had to do with stealing numbers, or
other things that are illegal no matter how you do it.

> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276720,00.html>
This is the most interesting although it addresses a state law so it's
usefulness in the other 49 is up in the air (so to speak). I think that
this one might have been much more interesting if the dude had had the
bucks to fight it. I find it hard to believe that something that is put
out there specificly for public use all of sudden becomes illegal
because of a few feet. Especially without a complaint from the owner.
This has "someone pissed off a cop" written all over it.

> <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6447.html>

Better article. But again, local. However, it does answer some of my
questions about specific laws, thanks.

[Gyzmologist]

What's the difference between a coffee house or other establishment
having an open access point for their customers versus an individual
having an open access point? If they don't want to share it with others
then they need to secure it. If they don't secure it then they are
implicitly sharing it, IMO. Remember, ignorance is no excuse.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <33qpj3dbqdd0irnk9d2fl1oei31fhoc7oi@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I think this could get interesting. On the one hand, there is a
>>> fairly well established string of cases and laws that says if something
>>> is available from a public right of way or your own property, then it is
>>> fair game. For instance, when I was a newsie, I could take pictures from
>>> the sidewalk into someone's property but not actually enter the property
>>> to go looking for it.
>> Not a valid analogy -- in the case of Wi-Fi, it's theft of a commercial
>> service.
> Actually it is in this context. The theft is not of the WiFi signal
> itself but of the service. It isn't between and the dude on the street,
> but rather the ISP and dude. The original was wether it was illegal per
> se to get on the Wifi (if I understood it).
>
>
>>> One the other hand, there is also a couple of laws floating around
>>> that specifically states it is illegal to intercept private
>>> conversations (like for instance when you used to be able to get cell or
>>> cordless phone conversations over your police scanner).
>>> Don't know yet of a case or specific law that addresses this, at
>>> least in the US. Until then it is probably a toss up on what the law
>>> really is.
>> <http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/technology/personaltech/internet_piracy/>
>
> Which exactly made my point that the law is murky.
>
>> <http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/State/Wi_Fi_cloaks_a_new_br.shtml>
>
> This is better, although most of it had to do with stealing numbers, or
> other things that are illegal no matter how you do it.
>
>> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276720,00.html>
> This is the most interesting although it addresses a state law so it's
> usefulness in the other 49 is up in the air (so to speak). I think that
> this one might have been much more interesting if the dude had had the
> bucks to fight it. I find it hard to believe that something that is put
> out there specificly for public use all of sudden becomes illegal
> because of a few feet. Especially without a complaint from the owner.
> This has "someone pissed off a cop" written all over it.
>
>> <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6447.html>
>
> Better article. But again, local. However, it does answer some of my
> questions about specific laws, thanks.


--
Gyz

Everyone thinks they know how to drive.
Everyone thinks they are good drivers.

[John Navas]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:02:35 -0700, Gyzmologist <ru-nuts@home.com> wrote
in <8uv%i.19846$4k.16841@newsfe11.phx>:

>What's the difference between a coffee house or other establishment
>having an open access point for their customers versus an individual
>having an open access point? If they don't want to share it with others
>then they need to secure it. If they don't secure it then they are
>implicitly sharing it, IMO.

That like saying it's OK to enter any house with an unlocked door.
Sorry, but that won't pass muster -- it's trespass.
You need actual permission to legitimately use Wi-Fi,
just as you need actual permission to enter the house without trespass.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <8uv%i.19846$4k.16841@newsfe11.phx>,
Gyzmologist <ru-nuts@home.com> wrote:

> What's the difference between a coffee house or other establishment
> having an open access point for their customers versus an individual
> having an open access point? If they don't want to share it with others
> then they need to secure it. If they don't secure it then they are
> implicitly sharing it, IMO. Remember, ignorance is no excuse.
>
>
One is done on purpose to further their commercial interests and the
other isn't. Ignorance is no excuse in not following the law (assuming
there is law on this area), but it hardly an excuse to allow law
breaking. If one leaves his or her door unlocked, that doesn't mean that
the burglar can't be convicted. Only that the cops will have all sorts
of comments about them back at the station.

[riggor]

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:8l6tj3hblfhq6efp4e1sklvh2upfnj7t73@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:02:35 -0700, Gyzmologist <ru-nuts@home.com> wrote
> in <8uv%i.19846$4k.16841@newsfe11.phx>:
>
>>What's the difference between a coffee house or other establishment
>>having an open access point for their customers versus an individual
>>having an open access point? If they don't want to share it with others
>>then they need to secure it. If they don't secure it then they are
>>implicitly sharing it, IMO.
>
> That like saying it's OK to enter any house with an unlocked door.
> Sorry, but that won't pass muster -- it's trespass.
> You need actual permission to legitimately use Wi-Fi,
> just as you need actual permission to enter the house without trespass.

No - it's like paying for cable TV (HBO), then putting my 50 inch plasma TV
on the front stoop, and point the TV to the street, and letting everyone
watch cable TV (HBO) for free.

People are not entering my house - I am broadcasting it outside of my house
/ property.

Same goes for sat. radio, paid music, paid TV etc that I am blaring it into
your house ... you are not entering mine.

[riggor]

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:j7hpj3lr3mlnujoo5updlg91qd2eivjavt@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:50:08 -0500, "Bill Kearney"
> <wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote in
> <UsSdnT5-4LN8CaHanZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>:
>
>>> The data was collected from a "Have Your Say" survey on the website
>>> of security-specialist Sophos: apparently 54 per cent of the 560
>>> people who responded admitted nicking bandwidth from insecure Wi-Fi
>>> routers.
>>
>>You can only 'steal' what others don't want to let you share.
>
> You actually 'steal' when you have no explicit permission to take it.

Not if it's being forced upon you in your own house. It's more like wifi
pollution.

This is very different thing than hacking or war driving, using software /
hardware to break encryption keys and passwords, and trying to access
networks that are clearly and purposefully secured.

>
>>This fails to
>>consider when someone sets up a wifi access point and deliberately leaves
>>it
>>open with the intention to allow some freeloaders.
>
> No way of knowing that unless (a) that's clearly signaled in the SSID or
> (b) you've actually asked.
>
> The more likely case is that it's been left open by ignorance or
> accident.

If I go to a park and find a loaf of bread or 5 dollars on a picnic table
.... I have no way of knowing if the person who left it - did so on purpose
or by mistake ... but my picking it up and taking it is not theft.

Take the same example and say the bread or 5 dollars was found on my front
porch. Left at the door steps of my house. I have no way of knowing if the
person who left it - did so on purpose or by mistake ... but my finding it
on my property, picking it up and taking it is not theft.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <beudneSU4JO1faPanZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"riggor" <riggor9999@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:


> No - it's like paying for cable TV (HBO), then putting my 50 inch plasma TV
> on the front stoop, and point the TV to the street, and letting everyone
> watch cable TV (HBO) for free.
>
> People are not entering my house - I am broadcasting it outside of my house
> / property.
But you are doing it on purpose (and probably violating civil law
since you don't have a license for public display). The better analogy
would be if you put it in your living room and people trample through
your bushes to see it.

[Steve B.]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:44:46 -0500, "riggor"
<riggor9999@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Take the same example and say the bread or 5 dollars was found on my front
>porch. Left at the door steps of my house. I have no way of knowing if the
>person who left it - did so on purpose or by mistake ... but my finding it
>on my property, picking it up and taking it is not theft.
>


If I find the wifi signal inside my house while sitting on my couch
then I just might use it. If I found the bread or the $5 in your
example sitting on my coffee table in my living room I'm going to
take it. Well the $5 dollar anyway. I'm not really in the habit of
eating unknown food I find laying around...

Steve B.

[Bill Kearney]

> No - it's like paying for cable TV (HBO), then putting my 50 inch plasma
TV
> on the front stoop, and point the TV to the street, and letting everyone
> watch cable TV (HBO) for free.

Not quite. If that were the case you'd have a problem with your cable
provider for hosting public rebroadcasts of their programming. But offering
a free wifi uplink isn't the same. With a TV you'd only be allowing the
abuse of ONE channel at a time. Free wifi would be akin to using all of the
channels at once, obviously a much greater problem.

[Bill Kearney]

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:8l6tj3hblfhq6efp4e1sklvh2upfnj7t73@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:02:35 -0700, Gyzmologist <ru-nuts@home.com> wrote
> in <8uv%i.19846$4k.16841@newsfe11.phx>:
>
> >What's the difference between a coffee house or other establishment
> >having an open access point for their customers versus an individual
> >having an open access point? If they don't want to share it with others
> >then they need to secure it. If they don't secure it then they are
> >implicitly sharing it, IMO.
>
> That like saying it's OK to enter any house with an unlocked door.
> Sorry, but that won't pass muster -- it's trespass.
> You need actual permission to legitimately use Wi-Fi,
> just as you need actual permission to enter the house without trespass.

That's an uselessly oversimplified argument. But then you're known for
that.

The only issue to consider is whether or not the person providing an open
WiFi signal has any sort of limitations from their ISP for doing that. Some
ISPs do, many don't.

Now, a great many naive users might setup their access points with no
security and actually have a contract with their ISP that specifically
prohibits such. This would indeed make it a violation of the subscriber's
contractual terms with their ISP. And someone leeching free service would
indeed be receiving services without compensating the provider, aka stealing
it. It gets somewhat more difficult to assign blame if the subscriber
offers the service knowing full well their ISP prohibits it. I'm rather
doubtful that too many ISPs have the time or interest in prosecuting such
"losses". The only time it'd be a likely problem would be in the event of
excessive use or proxying of criminal activities. The former being much
more of a likely risk to the subscriber than the latter. "Anything" is
possible, but not much is "likely".

If you've got WiFi gear and you're interested in sharing bandwidth then
educate yourself as to the risks and requirements. For many residential
users it's probably best to secure their connections.

At some point it would be useful if access points had a way to effectively
determine if they're intended for free access or not. It seems like it'd be
a simple thing to add to, say, a DHCP lease. A standardized indicator that
all access points DHCP servers could publish, and clients consume, would go
a long way toward eliminating the mystery.

-Bill Kearney

[riggor]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-6B2533.08052817112007@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns.net...
> In article <beudneSU4JO1faPanZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "riggor" <riggor9999@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> No - it's like paying for cable TV (HBO), then putting my 50 inch plasma
>> TV
>> on the front stoop, and point the TV to the street, and letting everyone
>> watch cable TV (HBO) for free.
>>
>> People are not entering my house - I am broadcasting it outside of my
>> house
>> / property.
> But you are doing it on purpose (and probably violating civil law
> since you don't have a license for public display). The better analogy
> would be if you put it in your living room and people trample through
> your bushes to see it.

I would leave the bushes out of the example - LOL - but basically we are
agreeing that there is a difference between entering my house to steal my
things or a service, versus me broadcasting a service I pay for to the
outside world to see/hear for free.

[riggor]

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote in message
news:JYKdnXM2xLGOlKLanZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> No - it's like paying for cable TV (HBO), then putting my 50 inch plasma
> TV
>> on the front stoop, and point the TV to the street, and letting everyone
>> watch cable TV (HBO) for free.
>
> Not quite. If that were the case you'd have a problem with your cable
> provider for hosting public rebroadcasts of their programming. But
> offering
> a free wifi uplink isn't the same. With a TV you'd only be allowing the
> abuse of ONE channel at a time. Free wifi would be akin to using all of
> the
> channels at once, obviously a much greater problem.

I disagree - since the free wifi link is also not allowed by my cable /
internet company either ... the TOA forbid both.

Bottom line - other people's wifi signals entering my house - unsecured and
available for me to use ... is not comparable to trespassing on his property
or hacking into his network.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <ZYadnVqw6LMalKLanZ2dnUVZ_rSrnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote:


> At some point it would be useful if access points had a way to effectively
> determine if they're intended for free access or not. It seems like it'd be
> a simple thing to add to, say, a DHCP lease. A standardized indicator that
> all access points DHCP servers could publish, and clients consume, would go
> a long way toward eliminating the mystery.
>
The default assumption SHOULD be that if there isn't an indication it
is open (maybe OPEN in the ID or where the Coffee shop or Pineras or
wherever says it is) then it ain't open.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <auKdneCyLqMql6LanZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"riggor" <riggor9999@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > But you are doing it on purpose (and probably violating civil law
> > since you don't have a license for public display). The better analogy
> > would be if you put it in your living room and people trample through
> > your bushes to see it.
>
> I would leave the bushes out of the example - LOL - but basically we are
> agreeing that there is a difference between entering my house to steal my
> things or a service, versus me broadcasting a service I pay for to the
> outside world to see/hear for free.

Yep, but I doubt we agree on where WiFi fits into that continuum. I
can live with that (g).

[Bill Kearney]

> Bottom line - other people's wifi signals entering my house - unsecured
and
> available for me to use ... is not comparable to trespassing on his
property
> or hacking into his network.

And you base this on what? You seem to be basing your argument on the fact
that a neighbor has an access point that overlaps your premises. It then
seems you're extending this logic to assume that since it's overlapping your
property there are some "rights" you have to it. Were this the case, and
I'm doubtful anything would support such logic, the presense of it would not
also include the ability to transit THROUGH it to an uplink provided under
subscription service from an ISP.

If you wanted to use such silly logic then you'd probably also assume that
if a neighbor had something like a voice activated telephone with a
microphone sensitive enough to hear you, then your use of it to make long
distance calls would be perfectly acceptable. I doubt anyone would support
that as a defense. Now it'd certainly be a problem for the owner of such a
hypothetical device when the bill came due...

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <i4WdnTlFb7neH6LanZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote:

> > Bottom line - other people's wifi signals entering my house - unsecured
> and
> > available for me to use ... is not comparable to trespassing on his
> property
> > or hacking into his network.
>
> And you base this on what? You seem to be basing your argument on the fact
> that a neighbor has an access point that overlaps your premises. It then
> seems you're extending this logic to assume that since it's overlapping your
> property there are some "rights" you have to it. Were this the case, and
> I'm doubtful anything would support such logic, the presense of it would not
> also include the ability to transit THROUGH it to an uplink provided under
> subscription service from an ISP.
>
> If you wanted to use such silly logic then you'd probably also assume that
> if a neighbor had something like a voice activated telephone with a
> microphone sensitive enough to hear you, then your use of it to make long
> distance calls would be perfectly acceptable. I doubt anyone would support
> that as a defense. Now it'd certainly be a problem for the owner of such a
> hypothetical device when the bill came due...

Well if a neighbor has an apple tree that comes over on your
yard, any apples that you pick up on your side of the property line
belongs to you.

[riggor]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-6860DC.00010418112007@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns.net...
> In article <i4WdnTlFb7neH6LanZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote:
>
>> > Bottom line - other people's wifi signals entering my house - unsecured
>> and
>> > available for me to use ... is not comparable to trespassing on his
>> property
>> > or hacking into his network.
>>
>> And you base this on what? You seem to be basing your argument on the
>> fact
>> that a neighbor has an access point that overlaps your premises. It then
>> seems you're extending this logic to assume that since it's overlapping
>> your
>> property there are some "rights" you have to it. Were this the case, and
>> I'm doubtful anything would support such logic, the presense of it would
>> not
>> also include the ability to transit THROUGH it to an uplink provided
>> under
>> subscription service from an ISP.
>>
>> If you wanted to use such silly logic then you'd probably also assume
>> that
>> if a neighbor had something like a voice activated telephone with a
>> microphone sensitive enough to hear you, then your use of it to make long
>> distance calls would be perfectly acceptable. I doubt anyone would
>> support
>> that as a defense. Now it'd certainly be a problem for the owner of such
>> a
>> hypothetical device when the bill came due...
>
> Well if a neighbor has an apple tree that comes over on your
> yard, any apples that you pick up on your side of the property line
> belongs to you.

BINGO!! simple and elegant and proven in court ....

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <w8udncVLF7xpNd3anZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"riggor" <riggor9999@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:


> > Well if a neighbor has an apple tree that comes over on your
> > yard, any apples that you pick up on your side of the property line
> > belongs to you.
>
> BINGO!! simple and elegant and proven in court ....

That would most likely apply to signal only, though. Since the actual
internet access doesn't belong to the neighbor, but to the ISP.
Depending on the wording of the TOS, someone might still be on the hook
legally for that part.

[riggor]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-1819F8.17031118112007@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns.net...
> In article <w8udncVLF7xpNd3anZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "riggor" <riggor9999@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > Well if a neighbor has an apple tree that comes over on your
>> > yard, any apples that you pick up on your side of the property line
>> > belongs to you.
>>
>> BINGO!! simple and elegant and proven in court ....
>
> That would most likely apply to signal only, though. Since the actual
> internet access doesn't belong to the neighbor, but to the ISP.
> Depending on the wording of the TOS, someone might still be on the hook
> legally for that part.

We are back to beginning which is ... is it theft to use an unencrypted,
open, accessible, unsecured wifi signal?

This question will always have people on both sides of the fence.

As far as cable ISP's go - well ... they do not regulate how many wired or
wireless computers within a house. So it's not a bandwidth issue ... it's a
money / revenue issue.

Example ..my house with 5 computers versus my neighbour with one, or my
other neighbour of one who let's his other neighbour use his wifi.

They are concerned about people re-selling service. I have not looked at my
Comcast TUS/EUA to see what it says about sharing or giving my service away
.... but I am sure they say that it's not allowed.

[Bill Kearney]

> > Well if a neighbor has an apple tree that comes over on your
> > yard, any apples that you pick up on your side of the property line
> > belongs to you.
>
> BINGO!! simple and elegant and proven in court ....

Hardly. It's not about the signal from the neighbor's wifi unit over to
another property. It's about the connection from THERE out to the internet.

But hey, you go with your inane analogies.

[Peter Pan]

riggor wrote:
>
> They are concerned about people re-selling service. I have not
> looked at my Comcast TUS/EUA to see what it says about sharing or
> giving my service away ... but I am sure they say that it's not
> allowed.

Sounds like you are ASSUMING....... Comcast (and many other providers) have
both residential and commercial accounts... While some residential accounts
may limit it, I have never heard of a single commercial account that does
(residential account are about $50 a month and may be limited, but
commercials, about $150 a month, are usually unlimited).

[John Navas]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:32:22 -0500, "Bill Kearney"
<wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote in
<ZYadnVqw6LMalKLanZ2dnUVZ_rSrnZ2d@speakeasy.net>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:8l6tj3hblfhq6efp4e1sklvh2upfnj7t73@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:02:35 -0700, Gyzmologist <ru-nuts@home.com> wrote
>> in <8uv%i.19846$4k.16841@newsfe11.phx>:
>>
>> >What's the difference between a coffee house or other establishment
>> >having an open access point for their customers versus an individual
>> >having an open access point? If they don't want to share it with others
>> >then they need to secure it. If they don't secure it then they are
>> >implicitly sharing it, IMO.
>>
>> That like saying it's OK to enter any house with an unlocked door.
>> Sorry, but that won't pass muster -- it's trespass.
>> You need actual permission to legitimately use Wi-Fi,
>> just as you need actual permission to enter the house without trespass.
>
>That's an uselessly oversimplified argument.

It'a actually a valid analogy.

>But then you're known for
>that.

Always the insult. But then you're known for that.

>The only issue to consider is whether or not the person providing an open
>WiFi signal has any sort of limitations from their ISP for doing that. Some
>ISPs do, many don't.

The relevant issue is that the user of the Internet service is paying
for that service, and that use that service without permission is theft
of service.

>At some point it would be useful if access points had a way to effectively
>determine if they're intended for free access or not. ...

Permission to share can easily be advertised with the SSID. Lack of
such permission is thus a prima facie evidence of theft of service.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

[John Navas]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:35:55 -0500, "riggor"
<riggor9999@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote in
<beudneSU4JO1faPanZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com>:

>
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:8l6tj3hblfhq6efp4e1sklvh2upfnj7t73@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:02:35 -0700, Gyzmologist <ru-nuts@home.com> wrote
>> in <8uv%i.19846$4k.16841@newsfe11.phx>:
>>
>>>What's the difference between a coffee house or other establishment
>>>having an open access point for their customers versus an individual
>>>having an open access point? If they don't want to share it with others
>>>then they need to secure it. If they don't secure it then they are
>>>implicitly sharing it, IMO.
>>
>> That like saying it's OK to enter any house with an unlocked door.
>> Sorry, but that won't pass muster -- it's trespass.
>> You need actual permission to legitimately use Wi-Fi,
>> just as you need actual permission to enter the house without trespass.
>
>No - it's like paying for cable TV (HBO), then putting my 50 inch plasma TV
>on the front stoop, and point the TV to the street, and letting everyone
>watch cable TV (HBO) for free.

Not a valid analogy, since Internet speeds are limited, whereas TV is
not. Public exhibition would nonetheless violate copyright.

>People are not entering my house - I am broadcasting it outside of my house
>/ property.

Wi-Fi is not broadcast -- it's 2-way transmission.

>Same goes for sat. radio, paid music, paid TV etc that I am blaring it into
>your house ... you are not entering mine.

That theory has already been tried and failed by those stealing
broadcast transmissions.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

[dold@66.usenet.us.com]

riggor <riggor9999@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:

> I disagree - since the free wifi link is also not allowed by my cable /
> internet company either ... the TOA forbid both.

Are you sure? I see prohibitions in my TOA against reselling the
connection, but nothing about sharing it for free.

Next door neighbor using my "security light" to light his driveway?
Channeling water running off my over-watered lawn into his garden?
Listening to my stereo?

Categorizing any use of a WiFi connection without permission as stealing is
pushing too far. Many people simply don't care if their signal is being
shared. It's difficult to steal what is being given away.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

[Neill Massello]

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> That like saying it's OK to enter any house with an unlocked door.
> Sorry, but that won't pass muster -- it's trespass.
> You need actual permission to legitimately use Wi-Fi,
> just as you need actual permission to enter the house without trespass.

The trespass analogy hasn't really worked since EM spectrum was formally
appropriated by the government decades ago. You don't really own the
"ether" above your land, any more than you own the airspace above it.
Both are, by law and hence custom, defined as common property that is
now effectively owned by the government, which permits others to enter
these spaces so long as they comply with the regulations.

In any case, the only self-help permitted to victims of trespass is
non-violent exclusion, not counter-trespass against the offender. If you
don't want Wi-Fi signals invading your space, the only legal remedy is
to put up an RF shield.

I don't think any of the cases dealing with wireless use have done so on
the basis of some kind of trespass, but on grounds such as unauthorized
connection to a computer network. As with the discussion of intellectual
property rights, importing concepts and language ("thieves", "pirates",
etc) from the world of tangible property into that of wireless
networking serves mostly to cast aspersions but not much light.

[riggor]

<SNIP>
>
>>Same goes for sat. radio, paid music, paid TV etc that I am blaring it
>>into
>>your house ... you are not entering mine.
>
> That theory has already been tried and failed by those stealing
> broadcast transmissions.
>

You are incorrectly putting the two in the same group.

You are intentionally ignoring the key difference ... which is those hacking
into wifi / networks, hacking into cards, sat dishes, cable boxes, etc ...
are truly trying to get a paid service that has blocks in place to prevent
theft. We all agree that is stealing.

Coffee shops, hotels, airports, etc., often have and advertise Free WiFi ...
so we all agree that using a service marked Free is not theft.

What we do not agree on is if an un-secure, un-encrypted wifi signal is
found by turning on your laptop in your house, or on a park bench, etc ...
and is used to surf the internet, check emails, etc - that it is theft of
service ... since we do not know if it is free intentionally or by mistake.

You are defaulting theft, while others are defaulting to not theft.

[Bill Kearney]

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:iea3k3h4lbtljdm57ggiea05sm2mgr1mgn@4ax.com...
> Lack of such permission is thus a prima facie evidence of theft of
service.

You're certainly no attorney. That and don't go tossing around legal terms
without case law to back them up.

[John Navas]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:46:23 -0500, "riggor"
<riggor9999@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote in
<2bKdnYduy8OHa9zanZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@comcast.com>:

>What we do not agree on is if an un-secure, un-encrypted wifi signal is
>found by turning on your laptop in your house, or on a park bench, etc ...
>and is used to surf the internet, check emails, etc - that it is theft of
>service ... since we do not know if it is free intentionally or by mistake.

We actually do know, since free is easily advertised with SSID, and thus
absence of such in SSID is strong evidence of theft if the Wi-Fi used.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

[John Navas]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:51:31 -0700, massello@newsguy.com (Neill
Massello) wrote in <1i7tp89.95041s15mhjd6N%massello@newsguy.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> That like saying it's OK to enter any house with an unlocked door.
>> Sorry, but that won't pass muster -- it's trespass.
>> You need actual permission to legitimately use Wi-Fi,
>> just as you need actual permission to enter the house without trespass.
>
>The trespass analogy hasn't really worked since EM spectrum was formally
>appropriated by the government decades ago. You don't really own the
>"ether" above your land, any more than you own the airspace above it.
>Both are, by law and hence custom, defined as common property that is
>now effectively owned by the government, which permits others to enter
>these spaces so long as they comply with the regulations.

I do own my network, and by entering my network, you are effectively
trespassing.

>In any case, the only self-help permitted to victims of trespass is
>non-violent exclusion, not counter-trespass against the offender. If you
>don't want Wi-Fi signals invading your space, the only legal remedy is
>to put up an RF shield.

Sorry, but that doesn't follow. My remedy is legal action against you.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

[John Navas]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:13:31 +0000 (UTC), dold@66.usenet.us.com wrote in
<fhsjob$2je$1@blue.rahul.net>:

>Categorizing any use of a WiFi connection without permission as stealing is
>pushing too far. Many people simply don't care if their signal is being
>shared. It's difficult to steal what is being given away.

You can't presume away the strong possibility. The burden of proof is
on the uninvited user.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

[DTC]

John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:46:23 -0500, "riggor"
>> What we do not agree on is if an un-secure, un-encrypted wifi signal is
>> found by turning on your laptop in your house, or on a park bench, etc ...
>> and is used to surf the internet, check emails, etc - that it is theft of
>> service ... since we do not know if it is free intentionally or by mistake.
>
> We actually do know, since free is easily advertised with SSID, and thus
> absence of such in SSID is strong evidence of theft if the Wi-Fi used.
>

and

> You can't presume away the strong possibility. The burden of proof is
> on the uninvited user.

Not to argue the point, but simply to point out this may not always be
true. I know of small town that has four open access points.

SSID on one says "Free WiFi" - Ok, THAT could most likely be assumed to
be a free and open network.

SSID on two is name of a pizza place and fast food place that
intentional put in open networks - Those are open and free, but not
blatantly advertised via SSID as free, i.e. there's no strong evidence
they are free.

SSID on another is a company name that I've mentioned several times the
problems of an open network and they didn't care if it was - That's
stupidity.

SSID of cellular company franchise that is national known to offer WiFi
has their internal biz network with SSID of the company name. I know for
a fact that they do not want anyone using their internal netowrk's WiFi.
But to the public that knows that company has WiFi, it could be assumed
it is indeed an open and free network.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <dta1j.19147$4V6.3825@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> John Navas wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:46:23 -0500, "riggor"
> >> What we do not agree on is if an un-secure, un-encrypted wifi signal is
> >> found by turning on your laptop in your house, or on a park bench, etc ...
> >> and is used to surf the internet, check emails, etc - that it is theft of
> >> service ... since we do not know if it is free intentionally or by mistake.
> >
> > We actually do know, since free is easily advertised with SSID, and thus
> > absence of such in SSID is strong evidence of theft if the Wi-Fi used.
> >
>
> and
>
> > You can't presume away the strong possibility. The burden of proof is
> > on the uninvited user.
>
> Not to argue the point, but simply to point out this may not always be
> true. I know of small town that has four open access points.
>
> SSID on one says "Free WiFi" - Ok, THAT could most likely be assumed to
> be a free and open network.
>
> SSID on two is name of a pizza place and fast food place that
> intentional put in open networks - Those are open and free, but not
> blatantly advertised via SSID as free, i.e. there's no strong evidence
> they are free.

Of course there is. There is advertising or signage or brochures that
say it is free, staff tell people it is, etc. He was saying that absence
of free in the SSID is strong proof when the intentions of the owner are
not known.

>
> SSID on another is a company name that I've mentioned several times the
> problems of an open network and they didn't care if it was - That's
> stupidity.
Didn't care could still be construed as unauthorized. I am not sure
what the other indicators are.
>
> SSID of cellular company franchise that is national known to offer WiFi
> has their internal biz network with SSID of the company name. I know for
> a fact that they do not want anyone using their internal netowrk's WiFi.
> But to the public that knows that company has WiFi, it could be assumed
> it is indeed an open and free network.
Which is why there needs to be worked out legally something
about what the default or assumption should be. Also, does the company
offer FREE WiFi? If not then the discussion is moot since it is theft of
service.

[DTC]

DTC wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:46:23 -0500, "riggor"
>>> What we do not agree on is if an un-secure, un-encrypted wifi signal
>>> is found by turning on your laptop in your house, or on a park bench,
>>> etc ... and is used to surf the internet, check emails, etc - that
>>> it is theft of service ... since we do not know if it is free
>>> intentionally or by mistake.
>>
>> We actually do know, since free is easily advertised with SSID, and thus
>> absence of such in SSID is strong evidence of theft if the Wi-Fi used.
>>
>
> and
>
> > You can't presume away the strong possibility. The burden of proof is
> > on the uninvited user.
>
> Not to argue the point, but simply to point out this may not always be
> true. I know of small town that has four open access points.
>
> SSID on one says "Free WiFi" - Ok, THAT could most likely be assumed to
> be a free and open network.
>
> SSID on two is name of a pizza place and fast food place that
> intentional put in open networks - Those are open and free, but not
> blatantly advertised via SSID as free, i.e. there's no strong evidence
> they are free.
>
> SSID on another is a company name that I've mentioned several times the
> problems of an open network and they didn't care if it was - That's
> stupidity.
>
> SSID of cellular company franchise that is national known to offer WiFi
> has their internal biz network with SSID of the company name. I know for
> a fact that they do not want anyone using their internal netowrk's WiFi.
> But to the public that knows that company has WiFi, it could be assumed
> it is indeed an open and free network.

[Neill Massello]

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> I do own my network, and by entering my network, you are effectively
> trespassing.

No, I am doing something I'm not entitled to do, but I'm not
"trespassing". My point was that using the word "trespass" is unhelpful
when talking about radio signals. Adding a weasel-word like
"effectively" doesn't improve things.


> Sorry, but that doesn't follow. My remedy is legal action against you.

That's not a self-help remedy. In any case, it wouldn't succeed, as
there's no general legal right to require me to prevent my lawful radio
signals from "invading" your property. That was one of the main
consequences of nationalizing the EM spectrum in the 1930s. If radio
signals constituted a form of trespass, the courts would be clogged with
suits against radio and television stations, satellite companies, cell
phone providers, ham operators -- you name it.

[Richard Johnson]

"Neill Massello" <massello@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:1i7zd2x.e2ccdi1ukqkx7N%massello@newsguy.com...
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> I do own my network, and by entering my network, you are effectively
>> trespassing.
>
> No, I am doing something I'm not entitled to do, but I'm not
> "trespassing". My point was that using the word "trespass" is unhelpful
> when talking about radio signals. Adding a weasel-word like
> "effectively" doesn't improve things.
>
>
>> Sorry, but that doesn't follow. My remedy is legal action against you.
>
> That's not a self-help remedy. In any case, it wouldn't succeed, as
> there's no general legal right to require me to prevent my lawful radio
> signals from "invading" your property. That was one of the main
> consequences of nationalizing the EM spectrum in the 1930s. If radio
> signals constituted a form of trespass, the courts would be clogged with
> suits against radio and television stations, satellite companies, cell
> phone providers, ham operators -- you name it.
>
The "airwaves belong to the public" argument. It was designed for
broadcasting, and in the U.S.A. is only defended for broadcast radio and
television stations. It does not apply to point to point communications.
That has been decided upon in many court cases. As an example, lets say
your house lies within the path of a microwave communications link. You put
up an antenna and intercept the signals. (Your interception has very little
effect upon the link itself.) You can be put in jail and fined for doing
that. I believe that the FCC and the law applied to the wireless signals is
the point to point situation. It depends upon the intent of the station's
owner. If it was indeed free access, meant for general use by the public,
it would be OK to access it. If it was a private home, meant for the
private home owners use to connect the computers in his house, use by
someone not given permission would be considered an illegal act. This case
can be enhanced if the unauthorized user is using a directional antenna
array from a distance outside of the low power range (as determined by the
FCC).

By the way, even in the broadcast exception, revealing content to someone
else by the person intercepting the signal is illegal too. The second you
send someone's internal IP address back to a web site, you have revealed
content.

[NotMe]

"Richard Johnson".
| >
| The "airwaves belong to the public" argument. It was designed for
| broadcasting, and in the U.S.A. is only defended for broadcast radio and
| television stations. It does not apply to point to point communications.
| That has been decided upon in many court cases. As an example, lets say
| your house lies within the path of a microwave communications link. You
put
| up an antenna and intercept the signals. (Your interception has very
little
| effect upon the link itself.) You can be put in jail and fined for doing
| that. I believe that the FCC and the law applied to the wireless signals
is
| the point to point situation. It depends upon the intent of the station's
| owner. If it was indeed free access, meant for general use by the public,
| it would be OK to access it. If it was a private home, meant for the
| private home owners use to connect the computers in his house, use by
| someone not given permission would be considered an illegal act. This
case
| can be enhanced if the unauthorized user is using a directional antenna
| array from a distance outside of the low power range (as determined by the
| FCC).

FWIW the fine comes into play ONLY if you divulge the content of the
intercept or use the data for personal gain.

I don't have access to the cites (and don't have the inclination to search)
but the failure to secure the connect has been used to mitigate the
'offense'. Ex unsecured cordless phones are afforded no protection
especially from law enforcement/wives-husbands/ girl-boy friends and nosey
neighbors.

Unsecured audio/video from baby monitors have proven to be equally
embarrassing and amusing.

[Bill Kearney]

> Unsecured audio/video from baby monitors have proven to be equally
> embarrassing and amusing.

Just as embarrassing as people pretending at being lawyers.