I don't use it myself but I was talking to a friend yesterday who told me that her school age daughter had discovered that her laptop could pick up and use a connection without her having to have an ISP. I said that I thought that it was illegal to use another person's wireless broadband connection. However she said that she didn't think so because it was the fault of the other person. Their house is near an internet cafe and also a pub that offers wi-fi connections.
It's illegal to use a network without permission, Noreen, and people have been successfully prosecuted for doing so. It's no defence that the network is unsecured, it's akin to offering a defence to a burglary charge that the door wasn't locked.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/6565079.stm
Yep, as Rik says really. If you connect to an unsecured wireless network and get caught, you will be in trouble.
That's what I thought, Rik. I suppose that she has to be found out first, I don't know how that happens when she uses it in their house.
It isn't likely to, Noreen, though they may get spotted and barred.
Yep - peeps have been successfully prosecuted for doing the same thing - very naughty indeed :no:
When you think about it, it's akin to hacking into someone else's network - sure, not for malicious purposes, but it's still getting on to a network that you have no right to be on.
I must stress that it's not me doing this, I don't use wireless. I'll tell her next time I see her but you know what teenagers are like. :)
Someone who was very determined could probably track her down, but it's unlikely to happen. At most, her MAC could be noticed and barred.
Quote from: Noreen on Apr 13, 2008, 12:47:08
I must stress that it's not me doing this, I don't use wireless. I'll tell her next I see her but you know what teenagers are like. :)
Tis Ok Noreen - we know you'd never do anything like that :)
It does kind of raise the question, once again, of how society has changed, and how being dishonest in one way or another is increasingly acceptable. :(
I guess that a lot are not educated on the subject, and even those who are probably find it very difficult to resist. Maybe compulsory encryption is the answer. ::)
The point is, Mad, that she doesn't think it's criminal. She thinks that there is nothing wrong in taking advantage of another's stupidity. When I said that I thought that people had been prosecuted she said that she would plead ignorance, I'm sure that wouldn't work.
Better still, compulsory conscription .. ;D
:lol:
Quote from: Noreen on Apr 13, 2008, 12:58:38
The point is, Mad, that she doesn't think it's criminal. She thinks that there is nothing wrong in taking advantage of another's stupidity. When I said that I thought that people had been prosecuted she said that she would plead ignorance, I'm sure that wouldn't work.
It sums up the mentality of many people these days, Noreen, unfortunately. She probably thinks illegal downloads are fine too.
Don't get me wrong Sebby, I know peeps who do, and have done, this and it's obviously not the crime of the century, but it is still dishonest, and dishonesty to one degree or another is more prevalent, and a lot more acceptable than it used to be in our society. My point really is, where do you draw the line - how do you decide to what degree dishonesty is acceptable, and when it becomes unacceptable?
You can't, Mad. Something is either right or wrong. A legal system can vary the punishment according to the severity of the offence, but the verdict remains guilty or not guilty.
Quote from: Noreen on Apr 13, 2008, 12:58:38
The point is, Mad, that she doesn't think it's criminal. She thinks that there is nothing wrong in taking advantage of another's stupidity.
That's my point Noreen - she has convinced herself that she is doing nothing wrong, and a lot of society would agree. Unfortunately, dishonest is dishonest no matter what spin you put on it.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to be all high and mighty about this - we are all guilty to one degree or another.
Quote from: Rik on Apr 13, 2008, 13:09:35
but the verdict remains guilty or not guilty.
Except in Scotland. ;)
Very true. I was trying not to confuse things, though. :)
I think Noreen you should make it clear to her that connecting to someones WiFi without their permission is treated as theft and carries the same penalties as such Eg a criminal record, a hefty fine and possible confiscation of all her computer equipment plus costs and compensation. They also have the means to track you down whenever you connect. The question, is it worth it,? is for her alone.
or you could ask her how she would feel if she found out someone was using her connection and had been for months
Quote from: Noreen on Apr 13, 2008, 12:23:33
Their house is near an internet cafe and also a pub that offers wi-fi connections.
It could be that either/both of these are offering free WiFi and she is connecting to one of those. Since they are likely to be open networks it may well be legal, or at the very least be in a grey area. EG she didn't make a purchase in the pub/cafe and therefore shouldn't be using the WiFi.
However if it is a domestic unsecured connection then as others have said it wouldn't be legal.
I don't think the mother really has a clue about wireless broadband. The daughter got her new laptop up and running and she found that she had a broadband connection much to her surprise and excitement. They didn't go looking for it. Of course I got all this secondhand as I wasn't there.
What annoys me is that wifi routers supplied have basic encryption set up these days but its generally wep, also if people read they would learn about network security just google it, I use a 64 hex character key with WPA2, and a 32 hex router SSID which is hidden, I also use mac filtering, I try the hardest to keep my connection secure. To be honest there really is no excuse to have unlocked connections now as most ISP's providers give their routers with some form of security, its generally people buying third party routers that don't bother it seems :(
More often than not, Gary, they simply don't know any better and we are headed back to our call for people to have to pass a basic competence test before being allowed online.
Quote from: Rik on Apr 14, 2008, 10:38:52
More often than not, Gary, they simply don't know any better and we are headed back to our call for people to have to pass a basic competence test before being allowed online.
This idea should really be pushed Rik, some kind of education has to be enforced before too long, or its just going to become such a mess
I agree. Persuading those who could implement it seems harder. :(
Quote from: Rik on Apr 14, 2008, 10:49:37
I agree. Persuading those who could implement it seems harder. :(
To be honest its like asking for a crossing on a busy road, it costs money, so therefore until some poor soul is killed they never take notice. Also there is no financial gain visible to the government, and maybe they don't want you knowing to much about how to be secure anyway Rik ;)
True enough, Gary. Cynical lot, aren't we.
Quote from: Rik on Apr 14, 2008, 10:59:23
True enough, Gary. Cynical lot, aren't we.
:whistle:
Quote from: Killhippie on Apr 14, 2008, 10:52:42
To be honest its like asking for a crossing on a busy road, it costs money, so therefore until some poor soul is killed they never take notice.
I remember talking about that sort of thing to a local government official once. I was amazed when she said that there is an official financial amount stated for a human life and until the total "cost" of deaths caused by something outweighs the the cost of actually doing whatever is required to rectify the situation it won't get done, even though it's as obvious to them as to everyone else that it should be done. This was years ago so I don't know if it still applies.
Almost certainly. :(
My conversation about this had started when I said that I was puzzled why, when the solution to a problem appeared to be very obvious to the layman, it didn't seem to be equally obvious to the authorities. Then she told me that of course it was, then she told me about this ratio.
I think the laws in this country still have a tendency to protect property above people, sadly. :(
I have only just found out that people were hooking upto my connection. I did have it secured but then my laptop was sent away to get repaired and i must of rebooted the router when it came back and left it unsecured. When i found out other people were using it i didn't think "how dare they, stealing my connection and bandwidth!" i thought "Stupid me, its my own fault for leaving it unsecured!"
Now if they had made me go over my bandwidth allocation that could've been a different story :rant2:
Well after i wrote that last sentence i thought "Actually i'd better check!"
Just checked now and i have been getting hammered! I'm going to have to watch my usage to make sure i don't go over now, i've used 24GB on a 30 limit when i've hardly used it!
Bloody liberty!
Do you get any clues in the router as to who's been using the bandwidth?
Quote from: Rik on Apr 16, 2008, 12:10:23
Do you get any clues in the router as to who's been using the bandwidth?
Yes, somebody who calls their computer "Betty"
I can also see their physical address what ever that is ???
So, now you have to go around shouting 'Betty' at the top of your voice and see if anyone answers. ;)
The physical address is the MAC, a six-digit pair hex number, eg 00-0E-A6-F1-D8-95.
Quote from: Rik on Apr 16, 2008, 13:08:11
So, now you have to go around shouting 'Betty' at the top of your voice and see if anyone answers. ;)
And those lovely men in white coats will come and give you a lift ;D
Quote from: Endgame on Apr 16, 2008, 13:03:47
Yes, somebody who calls their computer "Betty"
Queen Elizabeth's been at your broadband :eek4:
Quote from: Rik on Apr 16, 2008, 13:08:11
So, now you have to go around shouting 'Betty' at the top of your voice and see if anyone answers. ;)
All said in my best Frank Spencer impression of course :D
Of course. ;)
Pleading ignorance just isn't an excuse (bleedin' ignorance isn't either). As my dad (a barrister) used to say "Never confuse the Law with Justice". Plus I'd be surprised if a free wifi connection associated with a commercial premises was not clearly indicated as such.
As I understand it, a physical address MAC is just a unique hardware key and isn't associated with any user data. But would it be possible to identify the freeloader via their IP address or somesuch? Also, I guess in principle, you could capture all the information that user sent over your connection...
The IP address would be a LAN address on the piggy-backed network, though. Certainly, analysing the traffic could reveal the perpetrator.
if a user had not spoofed their mac address, there is a chance a company could track them down, however the network card/pc would need to have been paid for in an identifiable way. Beyond that as rik says you would have to look at the data.
and don't forget cctv
And, if all else fails, you could just go around breaking down doors until you find them. ;D
maybe of interest, stick in a mac address you want more info on and it will tell you the maker of the network card.
http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/index.shtml
Nice find. :thumb: :karma:
Interesting thread. I knew that using unsecured wireless networks was a problem, but hadn't realised quite how widespread it seems to be.
This is a pretty small and unscientific survey, but its results shocked me:
I live in a nice, fairly affluent area, with good schools, plenty of work and no real problem with youth misbehaviour, but there are areas of high density flats and houses that make using unsecured networks pretty easy. I have three late teenage children and speak regularly with many of their friends too. Discussing wireless network "theft" with them over the last few weeks, I've been astonished to find that nearly all know about it, and about 25% admit openly to regularly using unsecured networks that are not their own. Their reasons, and in some cases justifications, for so doing were varied:
"Dad will only pay for a capped service, so I use the neighbour's network for big downloads"
"Just moved out of home and am renting a flat. Can't afford to pay for broadband"
"This is 2008. Only idiots pay for bandwidth these days" !!!!! Not sure that I agree entirely with this one, but it's his opinion.
The general consensus was that society is polarising: those with technical knowledge v those without, and those without will be the ones who pay. These young adults are, with almost no exceptions, well educated, well behaved, from happy homes, willing to work to support themselves, generally law abiding citizens of the future, yet they fail to see bandwidth theft as "theft".
I wonder what it is that has made them think this way?
I suspect that part of their downloading habit will also be illegal material, which they won't see as theft either. It's the old 'victimless crime' syndrome. :(
There's the irony though Rik. One of the girls who uses an unsecured network also buys legitimate downloads from iTunes. It's that apparent confused way of thinking that I find so fascinating.
I know what you mean, morality seems to have become a very confused and grey area. Perhaps it reflects a confused an uncertain future for young people these days? :(
i hope they are not using remote connections for checking their email/banking/accounts etc, in built up areas you can have a field day with people logging onto your lan thinking they are being clever using your bandwidth, when in fact you are sniffing their traffic, the last laugh being on them.
Quote from: Dopamine on Apr 17, 2008, 18:45:03
There's the irony though Rik. One of the girls who uses an unsecured network also buys legitimate downloads from iTunes. It's that apparent confused way of thinking that I find so fascinating.
That really takes us back to my initial post doesn't it.
Quote from: Rik on Apr 17, 2008, 18:49:22
I know what you mean, morality seems to have become a very confused and grey area. Perhaps it reflects a confused an uncertain future for young people these days? :(
Illegal downloading (not BB theft) is a very moral gray area, yes it is theft, but the record / film companies are stealing of us, why are we paying double the US? Do two wrongs make a right, after all it's the record companies that started the ball rolling by stealing money from the public.
Victimless theft is usually regarded as theft from an organisation, MP3's, software, tax collectors etc, wireless theft is from an individual who will have to pay for the connection I dont think the two should be confused.
They shouldn't, Bob, but I suspect they are. I doubt people who do this think of the implications.
Quote from: Malc on Apr 17, 2008, 22:40:22...the record / film companies are stealing of us, why are we paying double the US? Do two wrongs make a right, after all it's the record companies that started the ball rolling by stealing money from the public.
Not sure I follow... How are they stealing from the public? They may charge more than we'd like, but that's not theft. If we don't buy their product do they still have a way to get our money somehow?
Music CD's, Exact same product costs £5 in USA but £9.79 here, same materials, same artist, same packaging. Also cheaper in Europe.
Why? Can't be transport, look at the size of America compare to here.
Or VAT 17.5% ( I think US is 8%). Which would make them 9.5% dearer.
So, how can they justify charging us double? We're being ripped off.
Quote from: Malc on Apr 18, 2008, 13:39:18
Why? Can't be transport, look at the size of America compare to here.
Or VAT 17.5% ( I think US is 8%). Which would make them 9.5% dearer.
It varies from State to State Malc, some are as low as 6% I believe. ;)
Quote from: Malc on Apr 18, 2008, 13:39:18So, how can they justify charging us double? We're being ripped off.
As I understand it, they are not obliged to justify it to the customer. They charge what they feel the market will take. I think they're making a mistake, but it's perfectly legal. I totally agree with you that the prices are often extortionate for the product supplied, but it's up to you if you want to buy it, and if nobody bought, they'd bring their prices down. There's no theft or stealing involved. I think it's quite important to distinguish between illegal activities and legal ones - whether you agree with them or not doesn't change their legality.
So, the way I see it, it's time the gvmnt brought in some laws to govern what companies charge us for products?
Probably couldn't be done, Malc.
Quote from: Rik on Apr 19, 2008, 12:59:03
Probably couldn't be done, Malc.
Or they don't want to cos they loose some VAT.
It's funny how they can regulate some things (energy, phones, council tax) but not others.
Council tax they can control to an extent, energy and phones they don't have any effective control on - in the latter case, the regulator has, if anything pushed up prices. It would be nice, though, if they spent as much energy enquiring of the music industry why it's pricing is so biased as they do in making noises about illegal downloads.
itunes UK .79p, USA .49p.
You log onto a US server and it redirects to a UK site.
How can the exact same thing cost over 50% more here? :mad:
At the accountancy firm where I used to work I once overheard a Partner explaining how prices to customers by retail firms was calculated. It eventually boiled down to "the price that the market will bear" in other words the top price that customers are willing to pay.
Sounds like we're soft and the Americans aren't then.
Now we know who the wise ones are ;)
He was actually on the phone to a client who appeared to labour under the delusion that retail prices were something to do with the cost to the manufacturer plus a reasonable profit. He soon put them right. >:D
The interesting question, to me, is why have we allowed ourselves to be exploited in this way. I suspect the 'island' mentality has something to do with it.
I think it's a lot to do with this gvmnt as well.
Quote from: Rik on Apr 19, 2008, 14:56:21
I suspect the 'island' mentality has something to do with it.
Way is it the Philippines is made up of 7107 islands, and things are miles cheaper than here, even in relation to wages.
Possibly because they didn't start with an Empire and considerable unearned wealth, Malc?
Quote from: Malc on Apr 19, 2008, 15:37:20
Way is it the Philippines is made up of 7107 islands, and things are miles cheaper than here, even in relation to wages.
Except possibly rice Malc.. ;)
Not really a problem for a lot of families (inc Lani's) as a lot, especially in the provinces (countryside) have there own land and grow there own.
Just watch for the leeches :eek4:
GB can reach you in the Philippines too?? :eek4:
Quote from: Rik on Apr 19, 2008, 15:53:38
GB can reach you in the Philippines too?? :eek4:
:rofl:
Quote from: Malc on Apr 19, 2008, 12:57:11
So, the way I see it, it's time the gvmnt brought in some laws to govern what companies charge us for products?
As I understand it, there are a few ways some prices can be controlled (e.g. no price-fixing or colluding, & trimming of excessive profits & charges by essential utilities), but otherwise, as long as you tell people how much they're paying and what they're getting for their money, you can charge what you like. A free and competitive market. Unfortunately this doesn't always lead to the best value.