I somewhat agree with lowbat. They charged the guy and he plead guilty and got away with a little fine, but what if he had a good lawyer and heaps of cash? I don’t think it would have beentoo much of a stretch to argue that he wasn’t being charged correctly. I mean it wold have taken heaps of tech boffins to argue that he was accessing the dudes computer without permission. Did he have access to the computer itself? i doubt it, he was imply accessing the wifi which may have been a wireless router and therefore not the computer itself. Unless it was the computer on the other end of the router streaming out the broadband. There hasn’t really been a test case yet as this guy copped it and plead guilty, probably on advice as he would have been told he was getting a small fine, and it saves the tax payer heaps of cash by not having to fight a precedent setting case.
What if he had of said to the cop he was playing tetris? How would the cop have proved he was on the wireless? Afe they going to chew up that much man power on this?
[quote author=“Low Bat”]Yup, like I said, a lot of folks who feel absolutely positive this is a crime, but not one has yet been able to provide a code number. I like the one of the officer saying it’s specifically prohibited in the Calif. Penal Code and saying “it’s not yours and you’re taking it”. Taking what??? I’m waiting for the day when homes with solar collectors will be billed for using the suns rays by saying it’s not yours and you’re taking it.
In reference to the Illinois man, I suspect he did more then just simply access the wifi. He could have accessed child porn, sent threatening emails, accessed someone’s personal data, etc. The newspapers don’t always report accurately.
The closest we have to wifi access being a crime in California is penal code section 502. You can read it here if you click the box for penal code and type 502 in the search engine. The real barrier to wifi access being a crime has to do more with the FCC, who ruled long ago that whatever transmission you receive in your home (or place you are lawfully allowed to be at) is yours to freely receive. The gray area is that you’re receiving device is also a lawful transmitter, that is as long as it’s not transmitting anything, shall we say, malicious. We may yet see some California law enforcement agency try to charge a wifi only user with section 502. If so I could see this going up to the California Supreme Court for a ruling.
All I am going to say is you don’t have to have a specific code to be charged with something. You are using a service you are not paying for…
There are plenty of general things they can charge you for, for example, I had something on my car that was illegal but not specified in a statute…what did they charge me with? Unauthorized equipment violation. It’s a non-specific law that is a catch all. Same goes for stealing. You accessing something you are unauthorized to do. You can be charged via stealing from the cable company or from a private citizen. This no specific code BS will not hold up in any court system. Even ignorance of the law is not a defense.
[quote author=“tifosiv122”]All I am going to say is you don’t have to have a specific code to be charged with something. You are using a service you are not paying for…
There are plenty of general things they can charge you for, for example, I had something on my car that was illegal but not specified in a statute…what did they charge me with? Unauthorized equipment violation. It’s a non-specific law that is a catch all. Same goes for stealing. You accessing something you are unauthorized to do. You can be charged via stealing from the cable company or from a private citizen. This no specific code BS will not hold up in any court system. Even ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Erik
This is exactly my point. There is no such thing as breaking the law unless it violates a code section! Nobody gets charged with a crime or even gets as much as a parking ticket unless it lists the specific code section violated. Even “unauthorized equipment” would fall under a specific vehicle code section number that lists all the equipment that is considered unauthorized.
There is no crime I’m aware of called theft of service. Cable and satellite companies would like you to believe so, but reception of their signals is not a crime. Climbing up a telephone pole and hooking up a coax cable is illegal (trespassing - 602 P.C. for starters). Removing an inline filter from the cable line behind an apartment building is also illegal (burglary - 459 P.C.). Adding a descrambler box behind your TV set in your home is NOT illegal. If you pay for basic cable service and the cable company sends you extra channels into your home that are scrambled, you are not breaking the law by finding a way to descramble them. As far as satellite TV goes, you can freely receive any radio signal that is beamed into your home. Like sunshine, the radio airways are free, except you need to be in compliance with an FCC rule called Part 15, which you can read on the back of any radio device.
You are correct that ignorance of the law is not a defence. It is also correct to say that nothing is illegal unless there is a written law saying otherwise. Here is the definition of theft taken from the California Penal Code. See if you can find where accessing a wifi is considered theft.
484. (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry,
lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall
fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or
her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or
fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of
money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures
others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character
and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby
fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or
obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft. In
determining the value of the property obtained, for the purposes of
this section, the reasonable and fair market value shall be the test,
and in determining the value of services received the contract price
shall be the test. If there be no contract price, the reasonable
and going wage for the service rendered shall govern. For the
purposes of this section, any false or fraudulent representation or
pretense made shall be treated as continuing, so as to cover any
money, property or service received as a result thereof, and the
complaint, information or indictment may charge that the crime was
committed on any date during the particular period in question. The
hiring of any additional employee or employees without advising each
of them of every labor claim due and unpaid and every judgment that
the employer has been unable to meet shall be prima facie evidence of
intent to defraud.
look, if you neighbor is connected to a cable service, any cable service…it’s a CRIME…there is not a specific code, it’s called STEALING…every single cable carrier out there will prosecute for it…
do you think if you steal your neighbors cable and get caught that you will not be prosecuted ?
so, there doesn’t need to be a local, state, or federal code, a company can have you prosecuted for it just like the government can…but if you want to argue the semantics of that, then OK…
as to the walking in the door analogy, yea, if you accidently connect b/c your PC connects to ‘first available’, then OK, it’s in an honest mistake, but again, ignorance is not a defense in any case…try that w/ your taxes and see how far you get…either way, you’ll pay the taxes and the penalty if you get caught.
everybody has their opinion on this i guess…but everybody can’t be right…
[quote author=“hylton”]look, if you neighbor is connected to a cable service, any cable service…it’s a CRIME…there is not a specific code, it’s called STEALING…every single cable carrier out there will prosecute for it…
do you think if you steal your neighbors cable and get caught that you will not be prosecuted ?
so, there doesn’t need to be a local, state, or federal code, a company can have you prosecuted for it just like the government can…but if you want to argue the semantics of that, then OK…
as to the walking in the door analogy, yea, if you accidently connect b/c your PC connects to ‘first available’, then OK, it’s in an honest mistake, but again, ignorance is not a defense in any case…try that w/ your taxes and see how far you get…either way, you’ll pay the taxes and the penalty if you get caught.
everybody has their opinion on this i guess…but everybody can’t be right…
chris
I hope I’m not ruffling your feathers, but you are incorrect. There must be a code section violated for a crime to be committed; period. A person cannot be charged with an opinion.
[quote author=“Low Bat”]The closest we have to wifi access being a crime in California is penal code section 502. You can read it here if you click the box for penal code and type 502 in the search engine. The real barrier to wifi access being a crime has to do more with the FCC, who ruled long ago that whatever transmission you receive in your home (or place you are lawfully allowed to be at) is yours to freely receive. The gray area is that you’re receiving device is also a lawful transmitter, that is as long as it’s not transmitting anything, shall we say, malicious. We may yet see some California law enforcement agency try to charge a wifi only user with section 502. If so I could see this going up to the California Supreme Court for a ruling.
Section 502 subsection (c) paragraph (7) seems pretty clear about unauthorized network access being illegal. It also proscribes unauthorized usage of “computer services” and as defined in the section, “computer” would definitely include a network gateway router. Since the fine is set to be less than $250, I wonder if anyone would even bother to appeal this up to the Supreme Court.
[quote author=“low bat”]There is no crime I’m aware of called theft of service. Cable and satellite companies would like you to believe so, but reception of their signals is not a crime. Climbing up a telephone pole and hooking up a coax cable is illegal (trespassing - 602 P.C. for starters). Removing an inline filter from the cable line behind an apartment building is also illegal (burglary - 459 P.C.). Adding a descrambler box behind your TV set in your home is NOT illegal.
You might want to take a closer look at section 593d for crimes explicitly related to theft of cable service, or “intercepting, receiving, or using any program or other service carried by a multichannel video or information services provider that the person is not authorized by that provider to receive or use” if you prefer. You’re right about the descrambler, unless of course you’re using it to do the above…
Thank you Drachen for doing the reading. You pose a good arguement. It could also be argued that what is really being accessed is the internet, which is basically free. The means of getting to the internet is what is in question here. Can a wireless router fall under the definition of a computer system as defined in 502 (b)(5)? I’m guessing this hasn’t been challenged yet and we have no case law to go by.
593d P.C. is a good find. Notice it says “an unauthorized connection or connections, whether physically, electrically, electronically, or inductively, to any cable, wire, or other component”. Do you interprete this to include radio waves?
Thank you Drachen…I have no time to sit and look through the codes.
Low Bat - Drachen found one of the catch all’s I was talking about. Very broad, nothing to do specifically with WiFi but will still hold up in court. It doesn’t need to be specifically written for WiFi to work.
You are still using a service that is not for the public that is paid for by someone else without their permission. There is no defense you can put up, even if you didn’t realize you were on his network, you are still guilty (just like statutory rape, even if the girl claims to be over 18, even if she shows you a fake ID, you are still guilty and will still go to jail).
The fine does not seem to be a lot, but figure how much monthly internet costs…I pay $19.99 with my cable service, and now how many months could this guy have paid for to use someone elses service for 1 night?
talking about dollars here:
i had no cable/phone service (OTA HTDV + company cell phone instead). so when i finally couldn’t find free wifi spots in my new apt, i called the phone co and signed up under a faux student (9 months only) DSL accnt + phone line which costs us $35/month + tax. which is NOT bad you say…
what about when you’re outside? Verizon wifi costs $$. T-Mob wifi costs $$$. god forbid you end up in some dinky coffee shop w/ another wifi provider. then you’re screwed. granted, my company provides a t-mob data account for me, which is GREAT, but this was not prevoiusly avail. to me…
DSL/wifi access is overpriced in America, just ask the Koreans.
[quote author=“Low Bat”]Can a wireless router fall under the definition of a computer system as defined in 502 (b)(5)? I’m guessing this hasn’t been challenged yet and we have no case law to go by.
That’s an excellent question. I would guess it depends how tech-savvy the prosecutor was, but you could make an excellent case that it falls under the definition in 502 (b) (5). It’s programmable, contains computer programs and electronic instructions and it’s certainly capable of logic, arithmetic, communication and control.
Case law is always the rub. Considering the small amount of the fines, I don’t see that many people fighting this sort of thing. At this point is it seems mostly overzealous police (remember the cantenna idiocy a while back?) tagging people acting suspiciously. (sitting in a parked car working on a laptop is relatively suspicious behavior) I really wish the industry would step up to the plate and put the ability to broadcast an explicit “public access welcome” flag.
[quote author=“Low Bat”]593d P.C. is a good find. Notice it says “an unauthorized connection or connections, whether physically, electrically, electronically, or inductively, to any cable, wire, or other component”. Do you interprete this to include radio waves?
The statute explicitly does:
[quote author=“section 593d”](i) For the purposes of this section, a “multichannel video or information services provider” means a franchised or otherwise duly licensed cable television system, video dialtone system, Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service system, Direct Broadcast Satellite system, or other system providing video or information services that are distributed via cable, wire, radio frequency, or other media.
Problem solved IMHO. There are laws that cover it and so you can be charged and fined. Maybe this is not in every Country yet but in the more “WIFI advanced” ones I’m sure it is.
The issue that comes to my mind is the investigation/burden of proof type of stuff here. You could be legitimately working on the next days presentation in your car, or whipping up an invoice for the plumbing job you just finished or whatever. So when the Man comes up to your window you can tell him that and shutdown. It’d be pretty difficult to prove you were on the unsecured network and probably require more resources than the cops would be prepared to commit as their computer forensics dudes are probably busy doing things that actually matter.
So, Deny, Deny, Deny I think and you’ll get away free. Firstly the cop will probably just move you on, or kick in your tail light and give you a ticket :D If you rock up to the smallers courts and say I wasn’t on the Wifi Sir, how is the prosecuter going to prove it definitively?
Maybe some community minded person should drive around in a van and put a note in the letterboxes of any unsecured networks he finds.
lowbat, no feathers ruffled here…like i said, everybody has an opinion…
to further expand on my point, i agree…there hasn’t been any specific law/code written on wifi theft, and you may well be able to get away w/ it over DSL or some other delivery mechanism, I’m not familiar w/ telco service agreements and laws…
but, i spoke speficially to cable and generically referred to it as ‘stealing’...if you’d like the specific federal law one would violate by hopping on a neighbors wifi connection…see below.
Notice is says ‘unauthorized interception’ and ‘any communication service offered by a cable system’...I’d say the internet is a communication service, wouldn’t you ? ? ?
UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED
TITLE 47. TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS
CHAPTER 5—WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION
SUBCHAPTER V-A—CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
PART IV—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
553. Unauthorized reception of cable service
(a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service; “assist in intercepting or receiving” defined
(1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.
(2) For the purpose of this section, the term “assist in intercepting or receiving” shall include the manufacture or distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or distributor (as the case may be) for unauthorized reception of any communications service offered over a cable system in violation of subparagraph (1).
You can search on the code above for more info on the penalties…
If one thinks they could not be prosecuted under this, I’d recommend checking w/ an attorney before you jump on someone’s wifi ! ! !
Again, to each his own opinion…somebody is wrong here…I’m betting on the laws on the books…not guess work as to what may or may not apply.
[quote author=“hylton”]lto further expand on my point, i agree…there hasn’t been any specific law/code written on wifi theft, and you may well be able to get away w/ it over DSL or some other delivery mechanism, I’m not familiar w/ telco service agreements and laws…
Since I enjoy it, let’s further murky the waters. How does one konw one is on a public AP in an unauthorized fashion? The “knowingly” part of the law is actually important. Many APs are provided by private citizens with the intention to make them publically available. How would an authority know? Hell, how do I know? On a good day, I can see over 20 APs whlie sitting in my apartment. The one called “Kathy” with 64-bit WEP is pretty obviously private, but what about 04Z29853453? It’s unencrypted and I can get a DHCP lease and get out to the Net on it. I know the one called wifiNY.net is public, but only because I’ve been to their site and I’ve heard of it before. Besides, who would find me here at home sipping a cocktail in my jammies? The only reason the guy in the first story got caught is because he sat in his car fiddling with his computer, which is generally suspcious behavior. That’s why I like the “public access welcome” broadcast flag idea. Authorization is pretty unambiguous.
You bring up a good point about the service agreements. They are just contracts. You agree to their terms and they agree to sell you service. Anything that violates the contract usually allows the service provider to terminate the contact and then prosecute you if you did break the law. I konw that most large providers like Time Warner Cable and Verizon don’t like it when you have a public AP. Smaller ones, particularly Speakeasy DSL are pretty amenable to it and in some cases promote it.
Drachen, I like your idea of a public access welcome flag to clear up the confusion. When you think about it, what constitutes an unauthorized connection? If somebody knowingly uses a nearby unencrypted wifi connection could it be interpreted as “help yourself”? The lack of a physical barrier clouds the issue. I really would like to see a case run through the courts.
On the issue of cable/satellite TV, I see the ball is back in my court again. I need to do a little research to find that F.C.C. ruling about free airways where anything broadcast into your home is yours to receive. I think it was part of the communications act of 1934 but I could be wrong.
Could i throw in here that anyone foolish enough to just plug and play their wireless router (like my ‘default’ neighbour) is probably not savvy enough to even know that anyone is pilfering their wireless… 8)
