Forum • Non-Gaming • Science & Technology

Would this be illegal? • Page 6

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

    Next
  • Dan234 7 Dec 2009 15:22:50 2,228 posts
    Seen 7 days ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    DaisyD wrote:
    Do you honestly believe most people who have open access are honestly doing so out of the kindness of their hearts for anyone to use?

    I doubt it.
    What you believe or doubt has nothing to do with it.
    DaisyD wrote:
    Insurance might not pay up, but the police would still crime it and investigate it because it is still a crime.
    If the law says it is, but it is still a legal grey area (see my first post in this thread).
    GoldLightan wrote:
    This is all very nice, but it assumes the guy with open wifi is on an unmetered, uncapped service.
    Assuming that he's not given permission. This is why the technical definition of permission is the best definition.
    DaisyD wrote:
    Police really don't have time for this when they're busy dealing with domestics, targeting car thieves and burglars etc.
    Really?
    DaisyD wrote:
    You are aware that the theft law of 1968 actually covers thefts of things that aren't physical things, right?
    The 1968 law defines theft as "With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". That would mean a denial of service attack or re-configuring the router so it doesn't connect to the Internet and changing the password so it can't be fixed. Neither is the case.
    DaisyD wrote:
    Of course all this brings us back to the Section 125 of the Communications Act 2003.
    Is it dishonest to connect to an open wi-fi router? Windows XP SP0 amongst others does it by default and on other versions of XP or Vista you're a click away from the same behaviour perhaps while you're trying to get your home-set up to work. If you don't circumvent security measures then you can argue you're being perfectly honest. And does the persion have the intention of avoiding payment of a charge for the provision of the service? Be interesting to see how you answer that one (probably with a simple "yes" as you did with a simple "wrong";).

    It's a little unsettling to see how the police make their case (it's "wrong" to to do this), then look for laws to support their case. Surely the police should look for laws which have been broken, then make their case.
  • Merlinho 7 Dec 2009 15:38:31 5,910 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I don't think anyone is arguing that if your neighbour says to you "feel free to use my wifi", that's a crime.

    Interested to know though, regarding the 1968 law, how will you give back the downloaded MB that you have deprived the individual of then?
  • DaisyD 8 Dec 2009 12:09:07 11,818 posts
    Seen 3 weeks ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Dan234 wrote:
    DaisyD wrote:
    Police really don't have time for this when they're busy dealing with domestics, targeting car thieves and burglars etc.
    Really?
    Do you do my job day and night? No. And what has that link got to do with piggybacking? Nothing.

    Dan234 wrote:
    DaisyD wrote:
    Of course all this brings us back to the Section 125 of the Communications Act 2003.
    Is it dishonest to connect to an open wi-fi router? Windows XP SP0 amongst others does it by default and on other versions of XP or Vista you're a click away from the same behaviour perhaps while you're trying to get your home-set up to work. If you don't circumvent security measures then you can argue you're being perfectly honest. And does the persion have the intention of avoiding payment of a charge for the provision of the service? Be interesting to see how you answer that one (probably with a simple "yes" as you did with a simple "wrong";).

    It's a little unsettling to see how the police make their case (it's "wrong" to to do this), then look for laws to support their case. Surely the police should look for laws which have been broken, then make their case.
    I'm not a windows user, being a Mac person, but I'm pretty sure you'd be able to set it to not search for an open access point in the same way I can ask my iPod Touch or my phone not scan for an open access point. Even if it did connect to something, it would notify you and you would be able to realise the mistake and disconnect. Nothing dishonest in that and you'd not be affecting their bandwidth.

    TBH you're now nit picking to try and justify something that is morally and legally wrong. If you want to piggyback, just ask the neighbour. No harm in asking! Mine is locked, but I still allowed my neighbour to have the password so she could use it on the occasional times she did.
  • Dan234 8 Dec 2009 13:01:39 2,228 posts
    Seen 7 days ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    DaisyD wrote:
    Do you do my job day and night? No.
    I'm confused. Does that mean you receive training in 802.11g as part of your job?
    And what has that link got to do with piggybacking? Nothing.
    Assuming "piggybacking" means using an open wi-fi connection when the investigating police officer decides it's wrong, it shows an example of another police technical misunderstanding, that someone was put in jail for typing something in a URL bar which is perfectly allowed.

    As for the last part of your post, your argument seems to be it's okay if people are technologically challenged enough not not know how to secure their open router but it's not okay if people are technologically challenged enough not to know how to tell their computer/phone/iPod to stop connecting automatically to open routers.

    By the way, Macs doesn't notify you about the network name when it connects to a network, the airport icon just changes from grey to black. You can therefore honestly use other people's bandwidth without the intention of avoiding payment.

    You would be affecting their bandwidth if the OS was downloading updates in the background was working in the background.

    Which sections of the laws you cited support this argument? You maintain it's legally wrong but so far neither the Theft Act, the Communications Act or the Computer Misuse Act cover it adequately. So it's a legal grey area, despite your argument that it's wrong.

    As for morally wrong, that depends again (see Wired article). Did I do something morally wrong (use a neighbour's open connection for 10 minutes to fix my connection)? Should I be arrested for it as the person who stuck /../../.. in the URL bar in the Tsunami website was arrested for it?

    Your answers show that it depends on the interpretation of whichever police officer who is investigating. Unfortunately this is a technical matter and you yourself have admitted that only "some" (your word) know about technology.
  • Merlinho 8 Dec 2009 13:08:07 5,910 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    This argument is going nowhere.

    Edit: oh and quote:
    Merlinho wrote:
    Interested to know though, regarding the 1968 law, how will you give back the downloaded MB that you have deprived the individual of then?
  • twelveways 8 Dec 2009 13:47:11 2,752 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    you would give back the monetary value or let them use yours.

    @Daisy, you say that piggybacking is immoral and illegal yet morals are a personal thing so I don't see how you can make that call and you have shown no proof that it is illegal.

    I really hope you are joking about your job as if you are the face of the police force then we are all fucked. how the fuck can they let a dyslexic work for them anyway?
  • Lukey__b 8 Dec 2009 13:47:18 3,725 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Merlinho wrote:
    Interested to know though, regarding the 1968 law, how will you give back the downloaded MB that you have deprived the individual of then?
    With the universally accepted currency of Microsoft Points of course.
    twelveways wrote:
    I really hope you are joking about your job as if you are the face of the police force then we are all fucked. how the fuck can they let a dyslexic work for them anyway?
    That's racist.

    'Sup, what's guanine?

  • Bigglesworth 8 Dec 2009 22:31:41 368 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @twelveways
    Take out the morality and you're still left with illegality, as has been shown numerous times throughout this one-sided argument, by someone who demonstrably knows a damned sight more about the law than you think you do. If you weren't so blinded by your shining sense of technological superiority you'd have got that on page 1 and saved us all some time.

    I really hope you're joking about your interpretation of this, as if you're the face of the society today then we're all fucked.

    edit: and that goes for Dan234 too =)
  • twelveways 9 Dec 2009 06:20:01 2,752 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It has not been proved to be illegal. If you take DaisyDs ramblings as gospel then you are more stupid than she is.

    the ONLY arrest related to this was because the guy was doing it in his car, with his windows boarded up, more a case of loitering than anything. There is nothing in any of our written laws that makes piggybacking illegal although, if you search and twist words you can make a law seem to say that.
  • Lukey__b 9 Dec 2009 09:46:51 3,725 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I've yet to see anyone prove it's illegal.

    I have seen people use other situations, such as stealing a car, to try and illustrate that it is illegal but all that serves to do is highlight the differences between the two and show what a grey area it possibly is. There have been references to the “Theft act of 1066” or what not but it sounds more like someone’s interpretation of it rather than a definitive answer to the question of it’s legality.

    I’d be very hesitant to trust the po po’s interpretation of law or morality.

    If it’s not illegal, it should be.

    'Sup, what's guanine?

  • Deleted user 9 December 2009 11:57:17
    I dont think this is really a proper crime, unfortunately the police have been deterred from following up proper crimes and encouraged to follow some absurd target based system the government has imposed.

    Its highly possible you could get done for nicking wi fi, if you admit to being guilty. Theres a bloke in North London who has a criminal record for over filling his bin by one inch after all.
  • Arrit 9 Dec 2009 12:27:55 406 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It'd be illegal under the communications act which says:

    Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services

    (1) A person who—

    (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and

    (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,

    is guilty of an offence.
  • twelveways 9 Dec 2009 12:36:44 2,752 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I argue that it is not dishonest if there is no password. an unprotected connection is a free and public connection, it is the owners responsibilty to make it a private connection. It is very easy to connect to the wrong device accidentally and you should not be held responsible if that should happen.
  • Lukey__b 9 Dec 2009 13:43:58 3,725 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    ^ ^ This ^ ^

    There are plenty of free wifi hotspots around, is it your responsibilty that you are using the right one.... or could the owner do the easy thing and protect it?

    'Sup, what's guanine?

  • Dan234 11 Dec 2009 17:46:18 2,228 posts
    Seen 7 days ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Merlinho wrote:
    This argument is going nowhere.

    Edit: oh and quote:
    Merlinho wrote:
    Interested to know though, regarding the 1968 law, how will you give back the downloaded MB that you have deprived the individual of then?
    If I use the Internet too much, does someone else somewhere in the world get booted off it?
    Bigglesworth wrote:
    edit: and that goes for Dan234 too =)
    Thanks. I'm just an amateur at this, other people are better than me.
    Arrit wrote:
    It'd be illegal under the communications act which says: (snip)
    Didn't I mention that above?

    And, see the link (not going to quote it as it's a few paragraphs).

    By the way, if you have an open wi-fi network without appropriate logging set up, you're also committing an offence under the same Communications Act. You might also have broken your ISP's T&Cs.

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

    Next
Log in or register to reply