You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, download files, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
If you have been using WiFiFoFum or any of the other Pocket PC Wifi locators, you may want to take a look at this latest WiFi theft arrest. Police have arrested a man for using someone else's wireless Internet network in one of the first criminal cases involving this fairly common practice.
Benjamin Smith III, 41, faces a pretrial hearing this month following his April arrest on charges of unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony.
Police say Smith admitted using the Wi-Fi signal from the home of Richard Dinon, who had noticed Smith sitting in an SUV outside Dinon's house using a laptop computer.
If you have a WiFi network at home, don't forget to check out my tips on How to encrypt your home Wifi NetworkPart 1 and Part 2 So what punishment should your average "War Driver" get if he/she gets caught leeching off your network?
So what punishment should your average "War Driver" get if he/she gets caught leeching off your network?
Well. . . Considering the guy that stabbed his wife 112 times got six years. . . http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...682065,00.html
. . .I think the average War Driver should be sentenced to at least watching Paris Hilton's show for a couple hours. Then again. . . that could be considered "cruel and unusual".
I thought this provision of the so called Patriot Act would get war drivers in trouble. Seems a pity.
I think the owner of the network should have some responsibility to lock down his network. He's broadcasting over the air and not encrypting. Last I heard there were no restrictions on receiving open broadcasts.
Bill B.
This guy should have protected his wifi. If is not protected it means anybody can use it. It's like having your home's front door open so anyone can come in. In my case my WiFi it's encrypted and firewalled! The police should not get involved, they got some other things to do more important than that. But that's USA... thanks god I live in one of the Banana Republic countries!!! Let's hope our Colombian President does not see this, cause it will call it "terrorism" he's Mr. Bush's latin copy cat. JaJaJa
While I agree that this should not be a police matter where someone doesn't lock down their AP, it is not because it is analogous to leaving your front door open. I can leave my door open and it is illegal for someone to enter my home without my permission.
However, it is more analogous to my opening my front door and cranking my stereo. Nobody could argue that someone standing in front of my house should be arrested for overhearing the music.
However, it is more analogous to my opening my front door and cranking my stereo. Nobody could argue that someone standing in front of my house should be arrested for overhearing the music.
While I agree that this should not be a police matter where someone doesn't lock down their AP, it is not because it is analogous to leaving your front door open. I can leave my door open and it is illegal for someone to enter my home without my permission.
However, it is more analogous to my opening my front door and cranking my stereo. Nobody could argue that someone standing in front of my house should be arrested for overhearing the music.
That was true until [insert computer network law here] came around making it illegal to access networks without permission.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out. If the "accused" can prove a precident for people purposely leaving their WiFi connection open for "war drivers" they might be able to make the point that no one would be able to tell a purposely open connection from a private one if the owner didn't do something to protect it.
If on the other hand, the "accused" can be shown to have accessed files on the WiFi owner's network, he's probably sunk.
Bill B.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out. If the "accused" can prove a precident for people purposely leaving their WiFi connection open for "war drivers" they might be able to make the point that no one would be able to tell a purposely open connection from a private one if the owner didn't do something to protect it.
Interesting argument. Have you seen where someone has used that argument to win a case? After all, how would you know a free surf zone from a "go away" zone?
I practice technology law in New York's Capital District (Albany). New York has a statute almost identical to that of Florida on this issue. I've been advocating, and will continue to do so, to amend the law to create a presumption of permissive use where the owner of the access point fails to take even the most minimal steps to secure the access point (i.e., 64 bit WEP and/or disable SSID broadcast).
It may be that the FL court, if presented with this position by competent counsel, reads the presumption into the law from the Bench. We can cross our fingers that his defense counsel asserts appropriate arguments to help properly frame this discussion and influence judical mindset, but my guess is that the defendant takes a plea and the issue and arguments never see the light of day. On the otherhand, this is just the kind of sexy case that a DA with political aspirations will take "to the mattresses" to get headlines.
Linear Mode
