Lots has been written about how to fetch and utilize a signal when you're
afloat. However, using WiFi, other than to paid or other unusual sites, may
well be illegal. I started a thread over in Google Plus, to which one of
our previously active members responded. Here it is:

Do you own a WiFi-enabled cell phone? Are you aware that you most likely
(unless you never leave your ISP-provided signal area in your home) break
the law, perhaps hundreds of times a day? You might be committing multiple
felonies if your iPhone jumps from network to network while you walk down
the street, for example.

Simply put, there are Federal laws against accessing an open WiFi signal -
sometimes, even with permission of the owner. It's part of why some areas
are enacting laws requiring all routers in use in the jurisdiction be
encrypted.

Don't believe it? Check out the cites below. You can probably ignore the
references to prosecutions which were years ago - in the computer world,
that's the dark ages. That doesn't change the law...

6 comments
Skip GundlachYesterday 3:37 PMEdit "Though using an open Wi-Fi network
doesn't
feel like hacking, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act sees things
differently. That 1986 law makes it a felony to access computer systems,
including routers, without authorization."

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/0...fi_squatting/?
Skip GundlachYesterday 3:37 PMEdit"Wi-Fi wireless technology simplifies the
sharing of network connections between multiple computers and people. Even
if you don't subscribe to Internet service, you can log on to public
hotspots or to a neighbor's wireless access point to get online. However,
using someone else's Internet service isn't always a good idea. It may even
be illegal. "

http://compnetworking.about.com/od/w...free_wifi.htm?
Dave SkolnickYesterday 5:58 PMSkip - Do you have a WiFi-enabled phone? If so
it works much differently than mine does. I only connect to a hotspot by
selecting one.?
Ed Kelly9:08 AMAs a former career federal prosecutor who prosecuted computer
crime and was involved for years nationally on enforcement and training
prosecutors in the Cybercrime area, I would not be concerned unless you
access a network knowingly using a code or password other than the default
code programed into the equipment, unless the other network is posted as not
open to the public... When units are not secured they are said to be in
"promiscuous mode". I am speaking only for myself as a private lawyer now
but would happily defend someone charged with such a violation.. but I
cannot imagine any prosecutor who would prosecute such a case. However we
are on yacht ANGEL LOUISE currently in our second year abroad, now in
Istanbul where we have cruised on our boat. I can also be found at Twitter
at @CaptEdKelly and on facebook as Ed Kelly. EdKelly at netins.net is my
spam protected email
?
Dave Skolnick10:47 AMEd - I certainly defer to you on the statistics. Does
not being caught, or if caught prosecuted, make something okay regardless of
the law? For SSCA members and particularly for Commodores does it constitute
a Clean Wake?

I return to my previous examples: leaving a home, boat, or car unlocked may
be stupid but it is not an open invitation to avail oneself of the contents
thereof. Particularly in the Out Islands of the Bahamas and most of the
Caribbean where people pay for access by the bit (unlike the "unlimited"
broadband in much of the United States) connecting to a private access point
without permission truly is theft of services (at least from this layman's
point of view). That a bar, restaurant, or private person CHOOSES to make an
access point available is their right (subject to contractual agreements in
their provider's TOS) but I do not think one can make the assumption that a
promiscuous access point is "open."?
Skip Gundlach10:50
AMEdithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

The law is a bit murky, as to ordinary citizens roaming with their WiFi
devices, according to this link. Of course, a wiki entry is not a legal
opinion, but it does shed some light on the discussion.

This (the wiki entry) isn't the chapter and verse on the Act (law), but it
appears (to me) to be aimed at protecting financial institutions, with the
specific citation of "protected computer" being the murky part, as you'll
see below.

It appears (to me) to protect only financial institutions or the US
government. Yet, the citations of various prosecutions include many which
aren't of either stripe. The law is being interpreted very broadly, ranging
far from US security and financial institutions, and broadly interpreting
the meaning of "protected computer" as well, as suggested from this citation
from the above link:

United States v. Neil Scott Kramer, 2011. Kramer was a court case where a
cellphone was used to coerce a minor into engaging sex with an adult.
Central to the case was whether a cellphone constituted a computer device.
Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found
that a cell phone can be considered a computer if "the phone perform[s]
arithmetic, logical, and storage functions," paving the way for harsher
consequences for criminals engaging with minors over cellphones. [25]

Yes, yes, I know this isn't directly related. However, it does show that
the Act is being interpreted very broadly (this involves neither financial
institutions nor the security of the US), and includes cell phones, now
defined as a computer.

Despite the assertions of former US Federal Computer Crime Prosecutors and
current Law professors, and likely hundreds of others, that they would
gladly defend someone brought up on charges of illegally accessing an open
signal, you do so at your own risk, whether or not the local prosecutor
would be likely to proceed on such charges. As to that likelihood, as a
friend pointed out to me, keeping up with traffic (analogous to being among
a horde of folks accessing an open WiFi signal) will not prevent you from
being stopped for speeding, nor prevail in a court case you were defending
against that speeding ticket.

The only "defendable" safe/legal access appears to be with your own service
provider. However, that provider may well have limitations in your TOS
(terms of service) as to whether you may provide access to others, as well,
which ALSO means that, on a practical level, whether or not the local law
requires it, that you must encrypt your signal to prevent access by others
than those you secifically allow, if you have a router or other device
providing access to your data, in order to avoid running afoul of either the
law or your provider's TOS, AND that you must never access an open WiFi
signal, knowingly or not, without having specific knowledge and permission
that the provider expects and encourages you to do so.

AND...

I can provide personal experience where the PERCEPTION that you may be doing
something illegal, even though entirely mistaken, can follow you around for
the rest of your life. Big brother is watching - and may well bite you where
you sit - even if he "sees" something which isn't happening .

I'm neither a lawyer, nor do I even play one on TV, but that's my take on
the realities of open WiFi signal use and propagation. Are there any lawyers
looking on who can clarify or otherwise contradict my interpretation??

L8R

Skip
--

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog
and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog

When a man comes to like a sea life, he is not fit to live on land.
- Dr. Samuel Johnson

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:28:46 -0400, "Flying Pig"
wrote:

I'm neither a lawyer, nor do I even play one on TV, but that's my take on
the realities of open WiFi signal use and propagation. Are there any lawyers
looking on who can clarify or otherwise contradict my interpretation??

===

It's clearly a case of where the letter of the law contradicts the
reality of the law, sort of like driving a few miles per hour over the
speed limit.

It's very easy to connect to the wrong access point accidently if the
AP uses a default SYSID and is unencrypted. It would be extremely
difficult to prove intent in a case like that. There are also gray
areas such as connecting to an encrypted AP which freely gives out
logon passwords to patrons. What if you are now outside the
establishment? Are you still a patron?

Some rocks are better left unturned.

If you are really paranoid you can always spoof the MAC address of
your PC or router but that might also establish intent if caught. It
would certainly muddy the evidence trail however.

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...

Ironic that you're posing this in Google Plus, considering the thousands
of wifi networks they stole info from via "Street View".

Did they steal info from them, or merely record their existence? I haven't
followed that story...

L8R

Skip

--

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog
and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog

When a man comes to like a sea life, he is not fit to live on land.
- Dr. Samuel Johnson

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:17:52 -0400, WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:35:20 -0400, "Flying Pig"
wrote:

"WaIIy" wrote in message
. ..

Ironic that you're posing this in Google Plus, considering the thousands
of wifi networks they stole info from via "Street View".

Did they steal info from them, or merely record their existence? I haven't
followed that story...

L8R

Skip

Steal

===

As always, it depends on who you talk to:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...le-streetview/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1464047.html

http://blogs.computerworld.com/20106/google_engineer_at_center_of_street_view_wi_fi_con troversy_authored_the_groundbreaking_netstumbler_a pp

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:15:00 -0400, WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:29:30 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:17:52 -0400, WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:35:20 -0400, "Flying Pig"
wrote:

"WaIIy" wrote in message
m...

Ironic that you're posing this in Google Plus, considering the thousands
of wifi networks they stole info from via "Street View".

Did they steal info from them, or merely record their existence? I haven't
followed that story...

L8R

Skip

Steal

===

As always, it depends on who you talk to:

They stole data. Period, no debate here.

One can't steal data via wifi snooping.
i.E. Take it, and deprive the intented user of that data..

You can copy it.. but not steal it..

In Google case... the data in question was being freely transmitted to the street at the
time they passed by.




http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...le-streetview/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1464047.html

http://blogs.computerworld.com/20106/google_engineer_at_center_of_street_view_wi_fi_con troversy_authored_the_groundbreaking_netstumbler_a pp

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:15:00 -0400, WaIIy wrote:

As always, it depends on who you talk to:

They stole data. Period, no debate here.

===

I think stealing is probably the wrong word. As far as anyone knows
they did not use the data for any sort of criminal purpose. I agree
that it was wrong to collect it however, even though it was
unencrypted.

Suppose someone drives down your street and makes a log of your
address, house color, type of driveway and number of front facing
windows. Is that stealing data?

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:15:00 -0400, WaIIy wrote:

As always, it depends on who you talk to:

They stole data. Period, no debate here.

===

I think stealing is probably the wrong word. As far as anyone knows
they did not use the data for any sort of criminal purpose. I agree
that it was wrong to collect it however, even though it was
unencrypted.

Suppose someone drives down your street and makes a log of your
address, house color, type of driveway and number of front facing
windows. Is that stealing data?




Does one 'steal data' when one listens to an NFL football game on the AM or FM
radio?

NOT!

So if somebody's wi-fi router/transceiver is broadcasting a microwave signal
(wi-fi) and your computer's or phone's wi-fi transceiver logs onto that "open"
broadcast on the public airways is that stealing?

NOT!

An inanimate object like a computer or a cell phone that has a wi-fi
transceiver can and does 'automatically' log onto open wi-fi networks. All a
user has to do is turn the machine on. What the machine does after an owner
turns it on is not the owner intending to 'steal' data. In many cases an owner
might be completely unaware that a connection has been made.



Wilbur Hubbard

"Free Willy" wrote in message
...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:15:00 -0400, WaIIy wrote:

As always, it depends on who you talk to:

They stole data. Period, no debate here.

===

I think stealing is probably the wrong word. As far as anyone knows
they did not use the data for any sort of criminal purpose. I agree
that it was wrong to collect it however, even though it was
unencrypted.

Suppose someone drives down your street and makes a log of your
address, house color, type of driveway and number of front facing
windows. Is that stealing data?




Does one 'steal data' when one listens to an NFL football game on the AM or
FM radio?

NOT!

So if somebody's wi-fi router/transceiver is broadcasting a microwave signal
(wi-fi) and your computer's or phone's wi-fi transceiver logs onto that
"open" broadcast on the public airways is that stealing?

NOT!

An inanimate object like a computer or a cell phone that has a wi-fi
transceiver can and does 'automatically' log onto open wi-fi networks. All a
user has to do is turn the machine on. What the machine does after an owner
turns it on is not the owner intending to 'steal' data. In many cases an
owner might be completely unaware that a connection has been made.



Wilbur Hubbard




Forgery!!!!

I'm going to address just one snippet - and hope that the google discussion goes off somewhere else, as, while it, too, is important, this discussion will get lost in the trash if it doesn't...


On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:09:12 PM UTC-4, Free Willy wrote:


An inanimate object like a computer or a cell phone that has a wi-fi

transceiver can and does 'automatically' log onto open wi-fi networks. All a

user has to do is turn the machine on. What the machine does after an owner

turns it on is not the owner intending to 'steal' data. In many cases an owner

might be completely unaware that a connection has been made.







Wilbur Hubbard

That premise was what I got out of one of my cited articles. Yet the learned Dave Skolnick says that's patently untrue - that, unlike a cell connection, WiFi enabled devices require specific input from the user before a connection will be made.

Those with a different experience could do me a favor by logging into either the G+ or the FB conversation thread on the subject and disabuse him of that notion, because, not owning such a device myself, I can't, at least with any authority. He asserts that Wired has its head up its ass and is mistaken. That would be surprising to me, given that it's a techie publication, BICBW...

The preceding, clipped, discussion about theft is left out here; as seen in my original, there's some conflict about it. However, Dave Skolnick is on a mighty charger, let alone a horse, to say that it's WRONG - JUST WRONG - to log onto any open signal to which you personally have not been specifically invited by the owner...

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 04:26:27 -0700 (PDT), Flying Pig
wrote:

Dave Skolnick is on a mighty charger, let alone a horse, to say that it's WRONG - JUST WRONG - to log onto any open signal
to which you personally have not been specifically invited by the owner...

====

Perhaps so, but it can easily happen by accident/happenstance. Most
of my PCs are set up to automatically log onto my home or boat network
when they boot up, no specific action required. If my home network
had a SYSID of "linksys", "netgear" or one of the other popular
defaults, they would connect to any unencrypted network they found
with that same ID. People who choose to leave their router set to a
default SYSID for one reason or another will generally not use a
password or encryption either.