Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: kawaiiryuko@*****.com (kawaii ryuko)
Subject: [OT] Re: Wireless Matrix
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:42:58 -0400
Apropos to our current discussion on Wireless Matrix...

------ Forwarded Message
From: David Farber <dave@******.net>
Reply-To: <dave@******.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:07:08 -0400
To: <ip@**.listbox.com>
Subject: [IP] Police target the hacker next door



Begin forwarded message:

From: Brian Randell <Brian.Randell@***.ac.uk>
Date: April 18, 2007 7:05:09 AM EDT
To: dave@******.net
Subject: Police target the hacker next door

Hi Dave:

This story has just broken here in the UK - first time I've heard of
anyone being prosecuted for taping into an unprotected hotspot.

Cheers

Brian


> Police target the hacker next door
>
> Lee Glendinning
> Wednesday April 18, 2007
> The Guardian
>
> They hunch over laptops in their cars on neighbourhood streets,
> tapping into other people's wireless broadband connections for some
> free time online, and are fast becoming criminals of the internet age.
>
> Wi-Fi theft leaves no fingerprints and keeps its distance, but
> thousands are at risk because they don't adequately password
> protect their wireless accounts.
>
> Using the strong broadband signal of the neighbours may seem
> relatively harmless but it can now result in a criminal record.
>
> In the past month two people have been arrested for using other
> people's wireless connections without permission in Worcestershire,
> in what are believed to be among the first cases of their kind. A
> man was spotted by residents using a laptop while parked in his car
> outside a house in Redditch. In an unconnected incident, a 29-year-
> old woman was arrested following a similar incident, also in
> Redditch, earlier in the month.
>
> They received a caution for dishonestly obtaining electronic
> communication services with intent to avoid payment. . .
>
> Full story at:
>
> http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2059773,00.html

--
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne,
NE1 7RU, UK
EMAIL = Brian.Randell@***.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923
FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~brian.randell/


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


------ End of Forwarded Message
Message no. 2
From: bulletraven@***********.com (Peter Mellett)
Subject: [OT] Re: Wireless Matrix
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:18:02 +0100
kawaii ryuko wrote:
> Apropos to our current discussion on Wireless Matrix...
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: David Farber <dave@******.net>
> Reply-To: <dave@******.net>
> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:07:08 -0400
> To: <ip@**.listbox.com>
> Subject: [IP] Police target the hacker next door
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Brian Randell <Brian.Randell@***.ac.uk>
> Date: April 18, 2007 7:05:09 AM EDT
> To: dave@******.net
> Subject: Police target the hacker next door
>
> Hi Dave:
>
> This story has just broken here in the UK - first time I've heard of
> anyone being prosecuted for taping into an unprotected hotspot.
>
> Cheers
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>> Police target the hacker next door
>>
>> Lee Glendinning
>> Wednesday April 18, 2007
>> The Guardian
>>
>> They hunch over laptops in their cars on neighbourhood streets,
>> tapping into other people's wireless broadband connections for some
>> free time online, and are fast becoming criminals of the internet age.
>>
>> Wi-Fi theft leaves no fingerprints and keeps its distance, but
>> thousands are at risk because they don't adequately password
>> protect their wireless accounts.
>>
>> Using the strong broadband signal of the neighbours may seem
>> relatively harmless but it can now result in a criminal record.
>>
>> In the past month two people have been arrested for using other
>> people's wireless connections without permission in Worcestershire,
>> in what are believed to be among the first cases of their kind. A
>> man was spotted by residents using a laptop while parked in his car
>> outside a house in Redditch. In an unconnected incident, a 29-year-
>> old woman was arrested following a similar incident, also in
>> Redditch, earlier in the month.
>>
>> They received a caution for dishonestly obtaining electronic
>> communication services with intent to avoid payment. . .
>>
>> Full story at:
>>
>> http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2059773,00.html
>>
>
>
This infuriates me, the responsibility to protect a wireless network
against unauthorised use should fall to the person who owns the
networking gear.

Since really what they're fretting about is people getting free internet
time, then perhaps that should be the focus.

The responsibility to protect unauthorised wireless access to an
internet connection should be the responsibility of the bill payer of
said internet connection.

I don't see how it should give you a criminal record for using what some
fool has left unprotected for no good reason.

As many law-based advertising campaigns insist: "Ignorance is not an
excuse." So why should ignorance about basic network security measures
be any different?

If you have a home installation of a wireless network by a company, then
it should be your initiative to ask them to set up wireless security
protocols and give you the pass key.

The amount of unencrypted wireless networks I can detect sat at home is
ridiculous. Blaming someone for using without permission something that
doesn't even require special action to use is a little bit bizarre in my
opinion.

Further to this point, I have seen inexperienced computer users connect
to a neighbour's network instead of their own, because it was encrypted
and their operating system tried the first unencrypted one instead.

From the article at the link above:

"They received a caution for dishonestly obtaining electronic
communication services with intent to avoid payment."

Ok that's fair enough.

"PC Tony Humphreys, from West Mercia police, said: "Wireless networks
don't stop at the walls of your home - without the necessary protection,
neighbours or people in the road may be able to connect to your network.
This might slow down your service, or more importantly, your connection
could be used for unlawful purposes."

Most wireless networks are unsecured when first set up, but can be
configured to stop unauthorised users accessing them."

Sensible advice.

"Jason Lloyd from www.moneysupermarket.com
<http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/www.moneysupermarket.com>;
advised people to check their connections."This could be accessing your
connection to download obscene material or even steal your identity," he
said."

Steal your identity... OK... if you're keeping that kind of stuff saved
on a network drive then again you should be banned from any kind of
networking ever again. Also people can't magically steal your saved
passwords just because they share the same internet connection unless
you are again doing something stupid like transmitting passwords in
plain text (check those padlocks in your web browser, folks.)
Message no. 3
From: the_sarge@**********.de (MatthÀus_Cebulla)
Subject: [OT] Re: Wireless Matrix
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:41:34 +0200
> I don't see how it should give you a criminal record for using what some
> fool has left unprotected for no good reason.

Errr, ok. So the next time you let your wallet out for some reason, I'm
allowed to take it without being afraid of you filing charges?

The "ignorance is no excuse" clause is meant to address the criminals.
So that the "It wasn't protected so I thought it was free." defence
won't fly. ;)

Matthäus
Message no. 4
From: allen.versfeld@*****.com (Allen Versfeld)
Subject: [OT] Re: Wireless Matrix
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:42:56 +0200
On 4/18/07, Peter Mellett <bulletraven@***********.com> wrote:

> This infuriates me, the responsibility to protect a wireless network
> against unauthorised use should fall to the person who owns the
> networking gear.
>
> Since really what they're fretting about is people getting free internet
> time, then perhaps that should be the focus.
>
> The responsibility to protect unauthorised wireless access to an
> internet connection should be the responsibility of the bill payer of
> said internet connection.


<snip>

You're right, of course, in that the responsibility to secure the connection
lies with the consumer who is paying for it. But irresponsible behaviour
by one person does not exonerate criminal behaviour from somebody else.

Example 1: I buy a nice expensive new car. I drive it to a restaurant to
celebrate, and don't lock the doors. When I come back, it's been stolen.
If the police catch the thief, they will NOT say "It was unlocked? Oh...
sorry for the inconvenience, sir" and remove the handcuffs.

Example 2, closer to the fact: I own a house, and pay for electricity
useage on a monthly basis. One day I mow the lawn using my electric mower,
and when I am done I forget to roll up the extension cord. My neighbour
leans over the fence and drags it into his house, and uses it to power his
house. I was stupid to leave the cable out (and plugged in), but he's still
a thief for stealing my electricity. I have to pay for it, after all.

Example 3, relevant to SR: As a decker/hacker/whatever, you hack somebody's
cyber-nose, break into their host and rifle their datastore, whatever...
Sure, they're idiots for using such weak security, running a green host with
no ice to speak of, but you're still running unauthorised software on a
private system and are therefore a criminal and will get punished (if only
they can trace you...)
Message no. 5
From: bulletraven@***********.com (Peter Mellett)
Subject: [OT] Re: Wireless Matrix
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:25:19 +0100
Allen Versfeld wrote:
> On 4/18/07, Peter Mellett <bulletraven@***********.com> wrote:
>
>> This infuriates me, the responsibility to protect a wireless network
>> against unauthorised use should fall to the person who owns the
>> networking gear.
>>
>> Since really what they're fretting about is people getting free internet
>> time, then perhaps that should be the focus.
>>
>> The responsibility to protect unauthorised wireless access to an
>> internet connection should be the responsibility of the bill payer of
>> said internet connection.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> You're right, of course, in that the responsibility to secure the
> connection
> lies with the consumer who is paying for it. But irresponsible
> behaviour
> by one person does not exonerate criminal behaviour from somebody else.
>
> Example 1: I buy a nice expensive new car. I drive it to a
> restaurant to
> celebrate, and don't lock the doors. When I come back, it's been stolen.
> If the police catch the thief, they will NOT say "It was unlocked? Oh...
> sorry for the inconvenience, sir" and remove the handcuffs.
>
> Example 2, closer to the fact: I own a house, and pay for electricity
> useage on a monthly basis. One day I mow the lawn using my electric
> mower,
> and when I am done I forget to roll up the extension cord. My neighbour
> leans over the fence and drags it into his house, and uses it to power
> his
> house. I was stupid to leave the cable out (and plugged in), but he's
> still
> a thief for stealing my electricity. I have to pay for it, after all.
>
> Example 3, relevant to SR: As a decker/hacker/whatever, you hack
> somebody's
> cyber-nose, break into their host and rifle their datastore, whatever...
> Sure, they're idiots for using such weak security, running a green
> host with
> no ice to speak of, but you're still running unauthorised software on a
> private system and are therefore a criminal and will get punished (if
> only
> they can trace you...)
>
True.

I wasn't trying to develop a balanced argument for and against, and more
just venting frustration.

I'm not saying that you should let them off from the charges or
anything, they're still stealing bandwidth and stuff.

However I do think it should be viewed in the same light as your
examples: If you leave something an easy target then people are going to
take that chance because the reward outweighs the effort to get it.

Left your car unlocked? Goodbye CDs in the glove box or Stereo or even
the whole thing.

Left a plugged in extension cable and someone plugs their stuff into it
is far-fetched but I appreciate the sentiment. It's true enough that the
person actually doing the taking is in the wrong but it's important that
people take responsibility for their own property.

I'm undoubtedly wrong but I view a connection or service different to an
actual object. You can steal a car and that's theft. but if someone
leaves a water pipe sticking out into the street with a tap on the end
that you can use anywhere within 100m of their house then are you going
to think twice about using it to fill a bowl for a dog or something?
Seems harmless enough; if you weren't meant to use the tap, then it
wouldn't be there in the street.

Or something. I have no idea what I'm talking about :)
Message no. 6
From: jon.gilmour@*****.com (Jon Gilmour)
Subject: [OT] Re: Wireless Matrix
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:48:02 -0400
> I'm undoubtedly wrong but I view a connection or service different to an
> actual object. You can steal a car and that's theft. but if someone
> leaves a water pipe sticking out into the street with a tap on the end
> that you can use anywhere within 100m of their house then are you going
> to think twice about using it to fill a bowl for a dog or something?
> Seems harmless enough; if you weren't meant to use the tap, then it
> wouldn't be there in the street.



I agree with you. There was an excellent article I read titled "How I hacked
your linksys router which you probably bought at Best
Buy<http://www.shandyking.com/2007/02/18/hijack-hacked-linksys-wireless-router/>";
in which a guy accidently Hijacks his neighbors router. I mean, did he mean
to steal it? No. Seems alot different then hopping in someones car and drive
off with it.
When I recently moved, I leeched off my neighbors wifi for a week until the
cable company got to my house to hook me up. I know I was stealing, and I
could have went and located the source of the internet and asked nicely, but
they left it open. RTF if you don't want people jacking your shit.
I leave my wifi open, and just monitor its useage. I don't care if some
neighborhood kid hopes on it to play their DS. Shit.. thats why I don't lock
it down because I don't want to mess with keys and other crap. Besides. I
know plenty well that if someone wants on, they will get on.
Message no. 7
From: toast.in.the.machine@*****.com (Mark)
Subject: [OT] Re: Wireless Matrix
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:01:16 -0700
On 4/18/07, Peter Mellett <bulletraven@***********.com> wrote:
> This infuriates me, the responsibility to protect a wireless network
> against unauthorised use should fall to the person who owns the
> networking gear.

I have a suspicion that these warnings have more to do with spending a
lot of time parked outside someone's house than the actual use of
wireless.

Mark
Message no. 8
From: allen.versfeld@*****.com (Allen Versfeld)
Subject: [OT] Re: Wireless Matrix
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:33:36 +0200
On 4/18/07, Peter Mellett <bulletraven@***********.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm undoubtedly wrong but I view a connection or service different to an
> actual object. You can steal a car and that's theft. but if someone
> leaves a water pipe sticking out into the street with a tap on the end
> that you can use anywhere within 100m of their house then are you going
> to think twice about using it to fill a bowl for a dog or something?
> Seems harmless enough; if you weren't meant to use the tap, then it
> wouldn't be there in the street.
>
> Or something. I have no idea what I'm talking about :)


The electricity example was an exaggerated version of what happens regularly
in the poorer areas of my country. Only thing I changed was who they're
stealing from :)

Of course, there's also the difference between Legal wrong and Moral wrong.
For example, certain popular sex acts are illegal in many US states, but
nobody actually feels guilty for doing it. You leached off my bandwidth
that I paid for? Legally it's stealing, and I could prosecute, but if I
haven't noticed the degradation in service then I haven't lost anything. My
internet still works, I haven't been hurt.

getting off-topic but... It's why I hate it when the copyright lobbyists
call downloading a song "Stealing". It's not stealing, it's copyright
infringement. It's illegal, sure, but call a spade a spade. How can it be
called theft when the supposedly stolen article is still safe and secure in
the posession of the owner? To say that anything has been lost is to assume
that something phantom (The hypothetical sales that *might* have made
if nobody was able to infringe copyright )actually exists .
Message no. 9
From: bulletraven@***********.com (Peter Mellett)
Subject: [OT] Re: Wireless Matrix
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:00:02 +0100
Allen Versfeld wrote:
> On 4/18/07, Peter Mellett <bulletraven@***********.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm undoubtedly wrong but I view a connection or service different to an
>> actual object. You can steal a car and that's theft. but if someone
>> leaves a water pipe sticking out into the street with a tap on the end
>> that you can use anywhere within 100m of their house then are you going
>> to think twice about using it to fill a bowl for a dog or something?
>> Seems harmless enough; if you weren't meant to use the tap, then it
>> wouldn't be there in the street.
>>
>> Or something. I have no idea what I'm talking about :)
>
>
> The electricity example was an exaggerated version of what happens
> regularly
> in the poorer areas of my country. Only thing I changed was who they're
> stealing from :)
>
> Of course, there's also the difference between Legal wrong and Moral
> wrong.
> For example, certain popular sex acts are illegal in many US states, but
> nobody actually feels guilty for doing it. You leached off my bandwidth
> that I paid for? Legally it's stealing, and I could prosecute, but if I
> haven't noticed the degradation in service then I haven't lost
> anything. My
> internet still works, I haven't been hurt.
>
> getting off-topic but... It's why I hate it when the copyright lobbyists
> call downloading a song "Stealing". It's not stealing, it's copyright
> infringement. It's illegal, sure, but call a spade a spade. How can
> it be
> called theft when the supposedly stolen article is still safe and
> secure in
> the posession of the owner? To say that anything has been lost is to
> assume
> that something phantom (The hypothetical sales that *might* have made
> if nobody was able to infringe copyright )actually exists .
>
I always chuckle at the story of the napster user who downloaded a song,
only to see a message pop up saying "Hey, give that back!" from the
other user.
Message no. 10
From: bulletraven@***********.com (Peter Mellett)
Subject: [OT] Re: Wireless Matrix
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:01:38 +0100
Mark wrote:
> On 4/18/07, Peter Mellett <bulletraven@***********.com> wrote:
>> This infuriates me, the responsibility to protect a wireless network
>> against unauthorised use should fall to the person who owns the
>> networking gear.
>
> I have a suspicion that these warnings have more to do with spending a
> lot of time parked outside someone's house than the actual use of
> wireless.
>
> Mark
>
That's the impression I got, how do you phone the police and say
"There's a guy stealing my internets!" I expect that they phoned and
said "There's been a guy sitting in his car outside our house for 3 hours."

Of course when the police arrived they realised what was going on and
decided to arrest him for that. Fair enough.
Message no. 11
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: [OT] Re: Wireless Matrix
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:46:07 +0200
According to Jon Gilmour, on 18-4-07 22:48 the word on the street was...

> I leave my wifi open, and just monitor its useage. I don't care if some
> neighborhood kid hopes on it to play their DS. Shit.. thats why I don't
> lock
> it down because I don't want to mess with keys and other crap.

It's your choice, of course, but what if someone decides to use your
open connection to do illegal things, like breaking into systems or
download child porn? Very likely, you'll be the one the police will come
for, even if your defense is "It was someone else using my unsecured
WiFi router."

> Besides. I
> know plenty well that if someone wants on, they will get on.

So you also leave the doors and windows of your house open when you
leave? Because burglars will get in if they want to ... (never mind that
the majority of burglaries take place because the thief accidentally
comes across a way in, and takes the opportunity).

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Wij komen van Ertvelde.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Re: Wireless Matrix, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!