RE: CRIME wireless case study URLs?

From: Anthony Kershaw (akershaw@rapid-tech.com)
Date: Tue Sep 21 2004 - 14:17:17 PDT


Given the scenario below, I would think that you are still stealing services
even though "Joe" has no intent one way or the other. Joe is irrelevant
since he is paying for his DSL/CABLE connection and you are not. The
services you are stealing are Comcast/Verizon/Qwest. It would be no
different than cutting into a next door neighbors cable box and stealing
cable as far as the law is concerned. That is until it addressed
specifically and tested in court. This is my humble opinion and does not
constitute a expert one since I am not a lawyer or in law enforcement.

Tony.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-crime@private [mailto:owner-crime@private] On Behalf Of
Crispin Cowan
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 12:56 PM
To: warren@private
Cc: Priscilla Oppenheimer; CRIME
Subject: Re: CRIME wireless case study URLs?

Warren Harrison wrote:

>> AFAIK, the law is rather untested on whether it is actually illegal 
>> to surf on an open wifi network. It seems to vary based on intent and 
>> activities, i.e. it likely is illegal under existing wiretap and 
>> computer break-in laws to use open wifi to break into someone's 
>> network. OTOH, there does not appear to be any law against connecting 
>> to someone's open wifi to just get some free Internet access.
>
> actually, there is an Oregon statue:
>
>
>      164.125 Theft of services. (1) A person commits the crime of 
> theft of services if:
>       (a) With intent to avoid payment therefor, the person obtains 
> services that are available only for compensation, by force, threat, 
> deception or other means to avoid payment for the services; or
>
>  ...
>
>       (2) As used in this section, "services" includes, but is not 
> limited to, labor, professional services, toll facilities, 
> transportation, communications service, entertainment, the supplying 
> of food, lodging or other accommodations in hotels, restaurants or 
> elsewhere, the supplying of equipment for use, and the supplying of 
> commodities of a public utility nature such as gas, electricity, steam 
> and water. "Communication service" includes, but is not limited to, 
> use of telephone, computer and cable television systems.
>
> ...
>
> note there is the issue of intent, so if you think
> you are connecting to your wifi access point, and
> inadvertently connect to your neighbors', you really
> aren't at risk.

Hmmm.  So it clearly is illegal to hack your way past the payment portal 
of a for-pay WAP like a T-Mobile.

But what if the "service" is *not* intended for pay? I.e. I'm hanging 
around some street corner, and my wifi picks up the WAP for "Joe's Auto 
Insurance" located above me on the 2nd floor. Joe clearly is not 
offering any WAP service for pay. It is ambiguous whether he intends to 
just share his connection for free, or if he meant to close it down and 
forgot. And really mucking the intent is if Joe didn't even know this 
was an issue, and thus had formed no actual intent either way.

Now is it a crime to use Joe's WAP to access Yahoo and eBay?

This is a real question in practice, as hacking past T-Mobile is not 
very easy, but war-driving to find someone like our hypothetical Joe is 
very easy. And in fact I know people who have not bothered to purchase 
Internet service for their apartment after they discovered that they can 
"share" a connection with one of their anonymous neighbors.

Crispin

-- 
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.  http://immunix.com/~crispin/
CTO, Immunix          http://immunix.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Sep 21 2004 - 14:56:30 PDT