Unsecured wifi networks

Moriarty

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

Makes me think... The number of people without encryption is astounding. I installed a new wireless router in my sister in laws, or at least I thought I did until I couldn't get the VOIP aTa set up. I spent ages on it witholut success so I brought wireless router and ata home. It was only then I realised that I was setting up port forwarding etc on the wireless router of one of their neghbours instead ( using wireless laptop).

It's the opposite where I live. 16 networks in range of my place, only 1 is unencrypted.. and that one has been secured in some other way. I was surprised by it too, I was expecting the majority to be wide open.

paulm17781

Moriarty wrote:

It's the opposite where I live. 16 networks in range of my place, only 1 is unencrypted.. and that one has been secured in some other way. I was surprised by it too, I was expecting the majority to be wide open.

I used to get 5 unsecured wireless networks and 2 secured from my apartment. My internet connection went down on Sunday and I needed to do something urgently so was left with no choice but to leach, I found 12 secured networks and 3 unsecured and I couldn't connect to the unsecured ones.


Note: I am aware leeching is wrong and have my own internet connection, this really was urgent.

JNive

either the unsecured ones are just ad-hoc points, or they could have MAC address limititation or Static IP setups.

thefinalstage

paulm17781 wrote:

I used to get 5 unsecured wireless networks and 2 secured from my apartment. My internet connection went down on Sunday and I needed to do something urgently so was left with no choice but to leach, I found 12 secured networks and 3 unsecured and I couldn't connect to the unsecured ones.


Note: I am aware leeching is wrong and have my own internet connection, this really was urgent.

Its only wrong if you get caught.

I set up both of my neighbors internet connection. I told them to type in passwords that I didn't see so as to resist temptation later.

thebman

Its basically someones own fault if they don't encrypt their network.

Its like putting up an apple tree in front of everyone and then saying please don't eat my apples. Someone is going to take an apple.

paulm17781

brim4brim wrote:

Its basically someones own fault if they don't encrypt their network.

Its like putting up an apple tree in front of everyone and then saying please don't eat my apples. Someone is going to take an apple.

Do you steal from shops if no one is looking? Would you steal a car if they keys were in it?

I see you point and mainly agree but it would be nice to live in a society where people didn't think "it's not looked so I'll take it."

landmonster

paulm17781 wrote:

Do you steal from shops if no one is looking? Would you steal a car if they keys were in it?

I see you point and mainly agree but it would be nice to live in a society where people didn't think "it's not looked so I'll take it."

Like that poxy ad in the cinema about "You wouldn't steal a bag. You wouldn't rob a car? So why rob films?"

Twats. I wasn't going to steal a car but you've made me so angry I'm going straight out to nick one.

thefinalstage

paulm17781 wrote:

Do you steal from shops if no one is looking? Would you steal a car if they keys were in it?

I see you point and mainly agree but it would be nice to live in a society where people didn't think "it's not looked so I'll take it."

No to the shop, yes to the car.

Its their own damn fault for leaving the keys there. The shop is business as usual.

AntiVirus

If someone is stupid enough have their wireless network open to the public thats there own fault if there bandwidth gets stolen. I bet they don't go to bed at night with there cars unlocked.

RangeR

AntiVirus wrote:

If someone is stupid enough have their wireless network open to the public thats there own fault if there bandwidth gets stolen. I bet they don't go to bed at night with there cars unlocked.

Is it so hard to imagine that the majority of people in Ireland are not computer literate?
They might not even KNOW that they can secure their wireless.
They might not know HOW to do it, even if they were aware.
They might not be aware of the pitfalls of not enabling security.

Just because a network is unsecured, an outside party getting onto that network is breaking the law.

Really, some peoples closed mindedness astounds me sometimes.

chopperbyrne

I have no idea about the other providers, but Eircoms netopia routers come with 128bit WEP turned on by default.

They may have changed over to WPA since I left them. They were very security conscious when I was there.

delop

IrishTLR wrote:

Is it so hard to imagine that the majority of people in Ireland are not computer literate?
They might not even KNOW that they can secure their wireless.
They might not know HOW to do it, even if they were aware.
They might not be aware of the pitfalls of not enabling security.

Just because a network is unsecured, an outside party getting onto that network is breaking the law.

Really, some peoples closed mindedness astounds me sometimes.

Well said! a shameful attitude above... What would Jebus do...

RangeR

delop wrote:

What would Jebus do...

Probably sack Matt Groening for creating it in the first place

thebman

IrishTLR wrote:

Is it so hard to imagine that the majority of people in Ireland are not computer literate?
They might not even KNOW that they can secure their wireless.
They might not know HOW to do it, even if they were aware.
They might not be aware of the pitfalls of not enabling security.

Just because a network is unsecured, an outside party getting onto that network is breaking the law.

Really, some peoples closed mindedness astounds me sometimes.

Its not other peoples fault that they are not computer literate.

In fact, wireless routers come with manuals too so you don't have to be computer literate, you just have to be literate.

There are numerous howto's online and there is also common sense. Hey if I can connect to it without wires, what stops my neighbour doing it? Magic??

edit----

Also can you quote me, where in law it says it is illegal because people can connect by accident using Windows with the connect to non-prefferred networks option enabled so I doubt it is illegal as your neighbour could be doing it without even knowing it.

JNive

if a router is left 'open', publicly broadcasting, and unencrypted, then it is open for public use, unless before or during connection, the user is advised that access is restricted for authorised users etc etc etc, which i dont think the average router has.

For example, if you log onto an FTP or SSH server you will often see such a message.

If you log into your work computer which is part of a domain, you will often see such a message.

So while a user may unintentionally leave it unencrypted there is technically nothing illegal about anyone connecting to it.

RangeR

brim4brim wrote:

In fact, wireless routers come with manuals too so you don't have to be computer literate, you just have to be literate.

There are numerous howto's online and there is also common sense. Hey if I can connect to it without wires, what stops my neighbour doing it? Magic??

I don't mean this in a bad way, but that's another closed minded attitude. The fact that an instruction manual comes with nearly every computer peripheral is irrelevant. If someone is not computer literate [and at the extreme end of the scale, are afraid to mess with computer parts or settings], they are not even going to read the manual as it "should just work". I'm generally talking about the more mature users [not necessarily OAP's].

Just because you know how to research something that you don't understand. Just because you have the confidence to perform those actions, even if they are spelled out for you, doesn't mean that 100% of the population can do it too.

Just on this one point

you just have to be literate.

There are many, many people in Ireland who are not literate. You would be surprised how many people there are like that out there. You may find it hard to believe but it's true.

However, we are getting way OT at this point.

edit----

Also can you quote me, where in law it says it is illegal

I'm not a lawyer and don't profess to be but I will try to get you a quote on this. It's not rocket science. You are "breaking and entering", whichever way you look at it.

because people can connect by accident using Windows with the connect to non-prefferred networks option enabled so I doubt it is illegal as your neighbour could be doing it without even knowing it.

That is a totally farcical analogy. Ignorance is no defence when breaking the law. Just because Windows allows you [depending on certain settings] to connect to any open access point doesn't mean it's not illegal. Even I know that.

Gran Hermano

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6565079.stm
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0418/wifi.html

Interesting story from the UK last month where 2 people were arrested
and cautioned over unauthorised wi-fi access.

My thoughts are that ignorance on behalf of the owner of the wi-fi router is
no excuse for not having WPA security up and running. ISPs supplying kit
have a responsibility for locking the kit down upon installation.

I suppose if NTL are supplying kit and not encrypting it'd be an interesting
case if they were to complain about usage caps. Surely they don't have
a leg to stand on if they don't prevent your neighbours from leeching.

Edited to add:
The warning was for 'dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services with intent to avoid payment'.
I believe it's similar to our fraud laws here.

paulm17781

I agree with IrishTLR my parents are in their late 60s, they are very computer literate for their age. There is no chance they would understand how to set up wireless security. People who do not understand this stuff are often afraid to mess with it in case they break it.

Brim4brim, it must be wonderful to be as great as you. I hope all the people who are afraid to set up wireless security or do not understand how it works and why they need it suffer a slow painful death. They clearly deserve it for not being up to your superior literate standard. You are a wonderful person. :rolleyes:

RangeR

brim4brim wrote:

Also can you quote me, where in law it says it is illegal

An interesting read. I don't know how correct this is, though.

jor el

IrishTLR wrote:

The fact that an instruction manual comes with nearly every computer peripheral is irrelevant.

Then they could simply ask in the shop where they buy it. Most places will advise, or for a fee set it up for you.

I'm not a lawyer and don't profess to be but I will try to get you a quote on this. It's not rocket science. You are "breaking and entering", whichever way you look at it.

That's just plain wrong. It's nothing near breaking and entering and I'm doubtful that connecting to someone else's unsecured wireless network is against any law, civil or criminal. It is however immoral.

That is a totally farcical analogy.

So someone who knows nothing about wireless networks and ends up connecting to the wrong one is totally in the wrong, but another person who knows nothing about wireless networks and leaves the security completely open is totally in the right? How does that work?

Ignorance is no defence when breaking the law.

And yet it's perfectly acceptable for someone to use it as an excuse when their unsecured network is leeched from?

Just because Windows allows you [depending on certain settings] to connect to any open access point doesn't mean it's not illegal. Even I know that.

It's not illegal to connect to an open access point. That link just posted is interesting, but seems to relate to people obtaining illegal access to a Teleco, using a cloned SIM or hacking into the exchange/phoneline somehow.

All this really should be in a thread of it's own.

RangeR

And finally, the Irish Statute Book states in Section 9 of Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

9.—(1) A person who dishonestly, whether within or outside the State, operates or causes to be operated a computer within the State with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, is guilty of an offence.


(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

Now while this particular law maybe open to interpretation, it looks pretty clear to me. Up to 10 years imprisonment if found guilty :eek:

Is that ok, brim4brim?

ixoy

I've just moved into an appt and for reasons that are best left to my sanity, I'm going to opt for NTL.

When I scanned for nearby networks, I noticed both routers (an Eircom and an NTL) were using WEP. Do ISPs still use WEP by default? Also am I free to switch out NTL's NetGear router with my own Linksys?

watty

Yes you can use your own router, You just have to use the NTL modem.

AntiVirus

IrishTLR wrote:

Is it so hard to imagine that the majority of people in Ireland are not computer literate?
They might not even KNOW that they can secure their wireless.
They might not know HOW to do it, even if they were aware.
They might not be aware of the pitfalls of not enabling security.

Just because a network is unsecured, an outside party getting onto that network is breaking the law.

Really, some peoples closed mindedness astounds me sometimes.

:rolleyes:

Ignorance is not an excuse. Its called living it the real world. If they don't no what they're doing thats their problem. Don't come crying about. They should learn to RTM.

BobbyD10

Howdy folks,

I was trying to secure my router the last few days as I have just recently got the broadband in and was wondering if anyone knows how to go about doing this..

Ta.

dub45

ixoy wrote:

I've just moved into an appt and for reasons that are best left to my sanity, I'm going to opt for NTL.

When I scanned for nearby networks, I noticed both routers (an Eircom and an NTL) were using WEP. Do ISPs still use WEP by default? Also am I free to switch out NTL's NetGear router with my own Linksys?

Any Eircom modem/routers that I have come across seem to come with WEP set up by default - this baffles me as WPA is far easier to use and more secure.

The only explanation I can think off is, that as far as I know, the wireless 'b' standard did not seem to be able to accomodate WPA so maybe Eircom figure there is still a lot of 'b' stuff out there?

Moriarty

These are OT posts split off from this thread.

Moriarty

.. and just to add, it is a criminal offence to connect to any computer network without the owners explicit consent. That goes for wifi hotspots (secured or not) just like a cabled network in an office.

You may not like it, but that's what the law says.

AntiVirus

BobbyD10 wrote:

Howdy folks,

I was trying to secure my router the last few days as I have just recently got the broadband in and was wondering if anyone knows how to go about doing this..

Ta.

This link here should help you out. Find your modem/router and click on the link and follow the instructions.

http://www.portforward.com/english/routers/wireless/routerindex.htm

Dankoozy

I use unsecured networks all the time . i don't even secure my own but i live in the middle of nowhere. mostly when I use someone elses its just for checking my email, ssh into my server from my phone

unless you use up so much bandwidth that you push someone over their monthly limit causing them to get a higher bill you havn't stolen anything from them. I use maybe a few kilobytes - a MB or two at the very most

at the end of the day, the law is slightly out of date - you don't take anything , just send a signal through their equipment. they could stop it but don't even take the basic steps not to.

the way the law is now basically means that even if the wifi hotspot says "Free bandwidth" and you use it you could still get in trouble. I have actually seen purposely set up free wifi and it had a name like linksys or something. there was a sign up saying free wifi somewhere but the only AP was that one

cast_iron

Dankoozy wrote:

unless you use up so much bandwidth that you push someone over their monthly limit causing them to get a higher bill you havn't stolen anything from them.

WRONG. You have taken a portion of their download capacity for your own gain without their permission, and that IS ILLEGAL.

Dankoozy wrote:

the law is slightly out of date - you don't take anything , just send a signal through their equipment.

WRONG. You have taken a portion of their download capacity for your own gain without their permission, and that IS ILLEGAL.

Dankoozy wrote:

the way the law is now basically means that even if the wifi hotspot says "Free bandwidth" and you use it you could still get in trouble.

WRONG. You have taken a portion of their download capacity for your own gain WITH their permission, and that IS LEGAL.

optiplexgx270

Mine is unsecured by choice (my DVD player has issues connecting to the wireless when wep is on even though it supports it i just lost the patients getting it to work) but have a MAC filter in place. Which is better? i don't do any on-line trans on the wireless that involves credit cards etc.. So i don't mind ppl "seeing" my data just dont want them using my bandwidth.

watty

A Mac filter is no security.
An existing MAC can be cloned and used when the traffic for it stops.

WEP is also supposed to no longer be secure but there is a slight difference between shared (better) and open (worse).

Obvoiusly the best value of MAC filter or WEP is to prevent the accidental connection and demonstrate that the network is not public.

no SSID does not work either. You could put Private or Public in the SSID name to indicate use. I've seen SSIDs such as "Public connection" for ones intended to be freely used.

Even WAP is only secure really with a Radius server. The non-Radius version used SOHO is not secure.

If you are really concerned don't use WiFi or use a router that implements PPPoE/VPN and requires then the WiFi users to use VPN/PPPoE logon to connect at all.

thebman

cast_iron wrote:

WRONG. You have taken a portion of their download capacity for your own gain without their permission, and that IS ILLEGAL.

WRONG. You have taken a portion of their download capacity for your own gain without their permission, and that IS ILLEGAL.

WRONG. You have taken a portion of their download capacity for your own gain WITH their permission, and that IS LEGAL.

How do you know you don't have their permission when the router is publicly broadcasting its SSID, the network doesn't have any encryption and it hands out IP addresses to anyone?

That is the same as saying come on in! There is no keep out, private network notice so for all you know it is a public access point. If anyone actually got taken to court for it, they would most likely win especially if the network was being broadcast into their house.

To say its wrong under all circumstances is fantasy. Anyway since many providers don't actually charge for going over the download the limit, the person wouldn't be out anything depending on the network they use.

ixoy

Again on the issue of security - my router (LinkSys 54GL) had a number of options regarding WPA. Now I chose WPA - Personnal but noticed there was also WPA - Business, WPA2 - Personnal/Business.

From what I can make out, WPA2 is the finalized version of WPA and thus that margin better. The business version is more complex in both cases to set up but apparently more secure (to what degree I couldn't easily determine).

I would imagine then that if you implemented WPA2 - Personnal, non-SSID broadcasting, and filtered by MAC address you'd be more than secure in the sense that anyone bothering to hack into wireless a/cs would choose the 95%+ of wireless networks that would be easier to crack (no figures for that, but I imagine most are less secure).

Incidentally NTL's NetGear router - is it a modem/router or just a router? If it's the former, does it support WPA2 and is it easy to bridge these devices to setup my own router instead?

AlmightyCushion

chopperbyrne wrote:

I have no idea about the other providers, but Eircoms netopia routers come with 128bit WEP turned on by default.

They may have changed over to WPA since I left them. They were very security conscious when I was there.

Yes it is turned on by default but I think they all use the same password. So it's still very unsecure.

cast_iron

brim4brim wrote:

How do you know you don't have their permission when the router is publicly broadcasting its SSID, the network doesn't have any encryption and it hands out IP addresses to anyone?

I don't know any such thing. What I said was, if you don't have permission, it's illegal. Just because it's there, doesn't mean you have permission.

brim4brim wrote:

That is the same as saying come on in! There is no keep out, private network notice so for all you know it is a public access point.

It's the same as someone leaving the keys in the car and door open for someone to take. Very foolish, but that doesn't make stealing it okay.

brim4brim wrote:

To say its wrong under all circumstances is fantasy. Anyway since many providers don't actually charge for going over the download the limit, the person wouldn't be out anything depending on the network they use.

That's not the point. However, you are taking some of the real time bandwidth, so while someone is illgally using it, it will be slower for the owner.

chopperbyrne

AlmightyCushion wrote:

Yes it is turned on by default but I think they all use the same password. So it's still very unsecure.

No each router has a different WEP key.

Unless you've mistakenly been sent a router with the same Serial No as someone else.

I'd suggest switching over to WPA with MAC filtering too if you do use your home connection for purposes that would require a secure connection.

In general, WEP is fine for home use though.

JNive

It's the same as someone leaving the keys in the car and door open for someone to take. Very foolish, but that doesn't make stealing it okay.

Dont confuse it with accessing something and physically taking away from the owner.

With regards to open wifi etc, its far more equivalent to a person leaving the car doors open, and parking the car on the street, and a stranger sitting into, listening to the radio for a bit and then leaving it as it was and walking away.

He didnt 'break and enter', he didnt operate the car or move it, he just temporarily entered the vehicle which was publicly accessible on a public highway.

lol.

AlmightyCushion

chopperbyrne wrote:

No each router has a different WEP key.

Unless you've mistakenly been sent a router with the same Serial No as someone else.

I'd suggest switching over to WPA with MAC filtering too if you do use your home connection for purposes that would require a secure connection.

In general, WEP is fine for home use though.

I remeber reading somewhere that the eircom netopia routers used the same default key.

chopperbyrne

I worked there for close to two years. I tested those routers a lot. They all have different WEP keys.

Eircom uses the same PPPoE username/password for every user.

thebman

cast_iron wrote:

I don't know any such thing. What I said was, if you don't have permission, it's illegal. Just because it's there, doesn't mean you have permission.

It's the same as someone leaving the keys in the car and door open for someone to take. Very foolish, but that doesn't make stealing it okay.

That's not the point. However, you are taking some of the real time bandwidth, so while someone is illgally using it, it will be slower for the owner.

I'm not illegally connecting to someones network. They left it open for me to connect to. Therefore it was not dishonest. Its not like I'm hiding my presence, they can check which IP addresses and computer names are on their router. I've made no dishonest attempt to connect to the router. I simply connected to it because it was there and open for anyone to use. If they don't want me on it, all they have to do is secure it or ask me to stop using it.

cast_iron wrote:

I don't know any such thing. What I said was, if you don't have permission, it's illegal. Just because it's there, doesn't mean you have permission.

People leave routers open intentionally so other people can use their connection. Why would I assume they don't want me to connect? Since it is possible to secure a router, it is reasonable to assume that they don't mind me accessing it.

Their action of leaving a wireless connection broadcasting into my house with no security on it implies that they don't mind me accessing it. If they really don't want me to use it they should stop sending wireless signals into my house or secure it or set up an alert for new users on the network to tell me that I'm not allowed use the network or specify the Mac addresses that can connect to the router. If they do any of that, I have no excuse if I'm on the network. As it is, there is no protection so I don't know. They can even ask me to stop accessing the network and I'll stop because they've reqeuested me to.

Saying someone is guilty for it is like saying if your neighbour is listening to music loud enough that you can hear it then you owe the artist money for listening to their IP. I mean you could have gone into a room in the house where you can't hear it or plugged your ears or ask your neighbour to turn it down so you can't hear it but its reasonable to assume the artist and your neighbour don't mind that your overhearing the music.

It's the same as someone leaving the keys in the car and door open for someone to take. Very foolish, but that doesn't make stealing it okay.

That's not the point. However, you are taking some of the real time bandwidth, so while someone is illgally using it, it will be slower for the owner.

Not really. If they are just browsing the web and I'm just browsing the web on a 1-2Mb connection, they will notice little to no difference so it doesn't harm them in any way. It is unlikely that we will both be even using the connection at the same time, similar to how contention ratios work when signed up to any broadband supplier.

Anyway, since in most cases, the person that knows nothing about wireless security doesn't know someone is using their connection then it obviously isn't effecting them or they'd ask someone why their connection is so slow (a friend who knows about wireless, the operator, read the manual, type it into google etc..).

Moriarty

Unless you have explicit permission from the access point owner, you are breaking the law if you connect to it. Whether it's secured in any way or not is entirely irrelevant in the eyes of the law. There's a reason for that too. Connecting to other peoples networks (for whatever reason) can not be justified. It's not yours to use, so don't use it.

If you want to dream up poor excuses for yourself, work away, but it doesn't change the facts.

thebman

Moriarty wrote:

Unless you have explicit permission from the access point owner, you are breaking the law if you connect to it. Whether it's secured in any way or not is entirely irrelevant in the eyes of the law. There's a reason for that too. Connecting to other peoples networks (for whatever reason) can not be justified. It's not yours to use, so don't use it.

If you want to dream up poor excuses for yourself, work away, but it doesn't change the facts.

Then the law protects idiots at the expense of idiots and is wrong and needs to be changed.

As windows connects to non-preferred access points by default and users are too stupid to setup their security, the law has set it up so the majority of people break the law at some point or another without even knowing it. It needs reform.

Besides I pay for my broadband so I'm not trying to justify anything.

Cabaal

moved to wireless

Dankoozy

By the same law it would be illegal to ping somebody from the internet. you would need explicit permission before looking at a person's self-hosted website, or access any other public service they are running off their server.

After all you are accessing their system, using up their bandwidth for your own benefit, eating up their montly allowance and possibly slowing them down. When you are using up someone elses wifi you are doing the same thing, but in reverse. the overall effect is the same on their end.

If someone logged into my anonymous FTP and downloaded a file do I get to sue them for the bandwidth they stole from me because I was too lazy to set up a password? the FTP server doesn't even actively broadcast it's presence like an open wifi AP does

If there is any encryption or password at all involved it is a different story but if a person chooses to run a public AP, let them. but don't let them come to the gards because someone stole their precious 5kb of bandwidth

Even with the law saying what it says I highly doubt the gards would give a ****. We had knackers parked outside the gate here for months at a time, they did a lot worse than stealing bandwidth. They even took physical goods and trampled on the yard while there was nobody home and the gards did nothing about it - they just said something like "tell them to go away" and couldnt really be arsed with the problem. They would rather hide in the bushes to collect fines from people speeding so why would they jump out for some poor innocent who had a few bits of bandwidth taken from them?

Nobody in ireland has got into trouble for it yet, and if it stays like this for long enough then the law have its effect anymore. this happens to lots of laws that are no longer relevant in certain situations.

thejetset

Moriarty wrote: »

Unless you have explicit permission from the access point owner, you are breaking the law if you connect to it. Whether it's secured in any way or not is entirely irrelevant in the eyes of the law. There's a reason for that too. Connecting to other peoples networks (for whatever reason) can not be justified. It's not yours to use, so don't use it.

If you want to dream up poor excuses for yourself, work away, but it doesn't change the facts.

If that was the case we would have to stop assuming brochures were free unless explicitly marked so. We wouldn't be able to use soap in a hotel bathroom unless you were given explicit permission. That would be a ridiculous world. I leave my network open for people to use and they can connect as they like, I do make it clear on a splash page all actions are logged. The splash page does mean I give them explicit permission but how would they know until they connected? I am not dreaming up poor excuses for myself and I would love if people weren't afraid to connect to open wifi networks. If I didn't want them to use it, I would secure it. Simple as that. I know, perhaps I'll ring ahead to the library to make sure I have explicit permission to enter tomorrow!

EDIT: If I secured my network and people connected to it by hacking into it I would be annoyed but it is still not as bad as breaking and entering.

RangeR

thejetset wrote: »

If that was the case we would have to stop assuming brochures were free unless explicitly marked so. We wouldn't be able to use soap in a hotel bathroom unless you were given explicit permission. That would be a ridiculous world. I leave my network open for people to use and they can connect as they like, I do make it clear on a splash page all actions are logged. The splash page does mean I give them explicit permission but how would they know until they connected? I am not dreaming up poor excuses for myself and I would love if people weren't afraid to connect to open wifi networks. If I didn't want them to use it, I would secure it. Simple as that. I know, perhaps I'll ring ahead to the library to make sure I have explicit permission to enter tomorrow!

EDIT: If I secured my network and people connected to it by hacking into it I would be annoyed but it is still not as bad as breaking and entering.

Regardless of what YOU think or how YOU justify it for yourself, it's still illegal. It IS the, as you say, breaking and entering in the computer world.

And your point of your open wifi doesn't hold water. For those people that know how to make their wifi open with a splash screen.... They know what they are doing and usually name their hotspot accordingly.

Most hotspots that are "open" by accident usually have their default AP name [NETGEAR, LINKSYS, EIRCOM9768723 etc.]. To be honest, you can nearly always tell if a hotspot if a legitimate open spot or not.

Moriarty said it best, so I'll quote him, "If you want to dream up poor excuses for yourself, work away, but it doesn't change the facts.". It's breaking the law.

syklops

First off, slightyl OT, I had the great pleasure, last year of meeting the person who brought about the introduction of the Computer Misuse Act 1984(HMG).
And when I said brought it about I dont mean helped pass the act....

Anyhoo, IrishLTR has made some very valid points. Irish Law is very vague on this topic, however sentences in Ireland for computer crime is one of the strictest in europe. I don't have the figures to hand, but if you get convicted of computer crime in Ireland, you can pretty much bank on about 10 years inside. In this crazy world we live in, you will spend less time in prison for murdering someone then you will for hacking offenses. That is not the end of it though, for computer crimes against government systems, whatever it may be, can be classed as treason, and until 1990 still carried the Death Penalty. Now the sentencing for treason, carries a sentence no less than 40 years.

If you are in a hospital/library/Airport, and use their internet without permission, it can be classed as treason, as it is a government system, and as a result of people not generally understanding the ins and outs of the technology, a judge will most likely stick to the laws that are there rather than use his own common sense when deciding verdict.

Until a law comes in that leaves the responsibility up to the network owner, I would avoid using any access points other than your own. However for me, the reason I choose not to use open AP's is due to my own security rather than theirs. That open AP you find may have a packet sniffer connected to it, and it could be saving all your usernames and passwords, banking information, credit card information, and personal information, while you surf for free.