March 24th, 2006
Wi-Fi Piggybacking? Watch Out for the Fine
By Michael Santo
Contributing Writer, RealTechNews
Apparently piggybacking off of someone’s unsecured wi-fi is illegal, at least in some parts of the country. I mean, I always figured it wasn’t the most moral thing … though after all, people should know enough to turn on WPA or WEP. But apparently in Winnebago County, Illinois, you can expect a fine for piggybacking.
David M. Kauchak, 32, a former Machesney Park resident, is the first person in Winnebago County to be charged with remotely accessing another computer system without the owner’s approval. He pleaded guilty Tuesday to the charge and was fined $250 and sentenced to one year of court supervision.
“We just want to get the word out that it is a crime. We are prosecuting it, and people need to take precautions,” Assistant State’s Attorney Tom Wartowski said.
Kauchak was arrested in January in Loves Park when local authorities learned he was accessing the Internet through a nonprofit agency’s computer. Source: Rockford Register Star
We Say: So they saw him with a laptop in his car and put 2 and 2 together, eh? I tend to think the fine is going overboard. It’s interesting that I can 4 - 5 networks around me sometimes in my neighborhood. I don’t understand why they even broadcast their SSID, but at least they use WPA or WEP on all of them. Personally, if someone doesn’t lock down their wi-fi network … they’re just asking for freeloaders.
Mike says:
Well here goes…
“though after all, people should know enough to turn on WPA or WEP” - that is the most snot nosed thing i have heard in a while, but it fits the computer industry as a whole.
First - how many places that sell you these great wireless connections tell you to use encryption?
Second - How can people KNOW, if even the manuals dont tell you, you HAVE to turn it on?
Third - Why dont the manufacturers turn it on by default with a unique key for each device that is randomly generated?
I think the fins should have been ALOT more.
If you know what you are doing well enough to steal a signal, you could have helped those peopel to close it, rather than become a thief. I have helped people in my neighborhood set them up properly when I find them on my wireless system, I dont just use their bandwidth because I can.
People into computers have to realise that most people that are buying these neat devices for computers are NEW to it, and have NO ida what it is about!! Wireless devices or even Linux are NOT new user friendly. I had a heck of a time setting my first one up, but I just forced my way through it and finally got it right ( I hope ).
Mike
No offense is intended to you Mr Santo, I just do not like it when everyone who knows computers likes to blame the user for everything, when some of it can be dealt with before it even gets in the users hands.
March 25th, 2006 at 3:14 am
Deadeye says:
Well said Mike. For most end users, a PC is simply a tool and they have no desire to know more than how to turn it on, get e-mail, write letters, etc. Expecting an end user to know more is simply wrong.
March 25th, 2006 at 5:18 am
Mumblix Grumph says:
I’ve only done this one time. I was on the road and didn’t have the right driver for my USB GPS receiver on my laptop.
I was parked and the “wireless network detected” notice popped up…I checked it out, found that it was unsecured…connected and went to the GPS website and got the driver. I disconnected, installed the driver, the GPS worked, and I was gone. Mission accomplished.
I felt like Jack Bauer. Just then, a squad of Neo-Nazi terrorists began chasing my car…
March 25th, 2006 at 6:56 am
Kathy says:
Theft is theft. You are taking services that you aren’t entitled to.
If someone left their car doors open, that’s not an invitation for you to take it, or even to sit in it, and play the radio.
Sheesh. The morals on some people.
March 25th, 2006 at 7:32 am
Charles says:
I for one logon to any open network I find. If you broadcast your SSID leave the wireless network it is an open invitation. Why? Because people are going to do it, and law enforcement has much more important things to be concerned with than a virtual victemless crime.
It’s a wireless network that transports your personal information, not a microwave warming up your dinner. Yes it is a tool, but a tool that requires a greater understanding of how to use it.
Why should everything in life be designed (as if it could) to operate as simple as a blender right out of the box? It’s just unreasoable.
I’ve seen the instructionl foldout ‘map’ that Linksys was providing 3 years ago and it’s quite good at walking someone through it.
March 25th, 2006 at 7:33 am
Rob says:
“For most end users, a PC is simply a tool and they have no desire to know more than how to turn it on, get e-mail, write letters, etc. Expecting an end user to know more is simply wrong.”
For most end users, a car is simply a tool and they have no desire to know mor than how to turn it on and get from point A to point B. Expecing an end user to know how to check the oil and put air in the tires is simply wrong.
Oh wait…
March 25th, 2006 at 7:37 am
Charles says:
Kathy,
Understand that there are a great number of wireless advocates that create open wireless networks to provide connectivity to the general public.
Also understand that setting up an open wireless network is how hundreds of coffee shops attract customers.
So before you go looking down on other people with your high morals, understand that it is not the same situation as an unlocked car.
Sheesh, the self-rightiousness of some people.
March 25th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Ron Ingram says:
I beleive that if you are going to try something new, you should research it out. You would not buy a car without knowing something about it first, would you? How about a house? You do have a inspector inspect it first so you know what’s wrong with it, don’t you?If you don’t then you are the one that is responsible for the aftermath, but that is only an opinion.
March 25th, 2006 at 7:50 am
Jasper says:
My WiFY is open take as much as you want, if you are in Vietnam, I don’t mind sharing, I believe that the gov keep track, but that’s just fine, it not all who has fiber 50mbit to play with, btw it looks like 2-3 around my house think the same no WEP or anything, default password on admin,
March 25th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Johan says:
If my neighbor drags his garden hose from his yard over to my house and waters my lawn, whether I want him to or not, should I be fined for “stealing his water”???
March 25th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Your WiFi is my WiFi if not secured says:
If my neighbor turns his yard lights on and the beams of light stray onto my property, should I put up a barrier or be arrested because I am benefiting from “his” light as I walk up to my door? It’s just wavelengths. Please get off the moral high horse folks.
March 25th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Tom says:
It’s illegal everywhere, you just have to know to call it “”theft of services” instead of calling it piggy-backing or bare-backing or whatever.
March 25th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Tom says:
since you logged on to his network instead of your own a better analogy for the garden hose would be that you disconnected your water main and instead hooked it up to the garden hose that he left running in your yard. and the light analogy completely fails since your observing the spilled light doesn’t load the service he’s paying for.
March 25th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Ian says:
Interesting reading the comments. One mentions ‘blaming the user’ as a bad thing. Hmmm. As a ‘user’ shouldn’t one know how to ‘use’ whatever hardware they buy?
Couldn’t that argument be used if someone crashes a car into something? Blame the user because they didn’t know about brakes. Bottom line. Selling a pc like a tv is asking for trouble, but then, if that didn’t happen millions of phone monkeys would be out of work.
An aside, I have a PDA and when I go through my neighnborhood I have to turn off the wireless function because of all the networks popping up on it…sheesh
March 25th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Paul says:
I have been on both sides of this one. At work an employee deactived the encryption on the wireless router near his desk. He had a new PDA that could communicate wirelessly, but he couldn’t understand why he couldn’t access the network with it. After resetting the Linksys router repeatedly, he somehow disabled the WEP. It wasn’t until months later that we discovered and corrected the situation. In the mean time, our neighbors had been using our wireless to web surf. They actually complained when we re-encrypted it.
On the flip side - my family was recently temporarily relocated to an apartment after a house fire. Because the whole area had been devistated by Hurricane Wilma, BellSouth could not hook up either new landline phone service or DSL for 6+ weeks. Imagine my surprise when my notebook detected over 12 wireless networks in range with over half of them unsecured! I didn’t have cable (TV or Web), I didn’t have telephone, but I could access the web and still get my e-mail, which became my primary source of communication with the insurance company and utility companies! If it wasn’t for the idiots, I would have been screwed.
I would guess that one thing that needs to be considered is how the idiot allowing the free ride is paying for their access. If it is flat fee with unlimited access, no harm no foul. If they pay by the byte, then you are definitely stealing. If you use the access to otherwise legally surf the web, no problem. If you use the access to intrude onto his personal system or computers, that should be treated like trespassing.
March 25th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Charles says:
Is someone that maintains an open wireless network necessarily an ‘idiot’? Security issues aside, maybe some poeple want to keep their network open. I don’t think that’s the majority, but it happens.
Also, I’ve never seen a broadband provider offer metered service. Maybe there is one out there, but it’s usually unlimited with a flat fee.
Generally I think it is bad form to logon to someone’s personal wireless network, but to say it is criminal is a bit much I think. We’ve all had those situations where an open WiFi network saved us in some way. Technically, the ‘crime’ is against the broadband provider, and not the individual with the network (assuming un-metered access).
Open networks are for everyone I say. If you don’t like it, then enable WEP/WPA security on your network and call it a day. Simple as that.
March 25th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Paul says:
I’ll conceed that many leave their networks open intentionally. Many though are just too lazy to read the manual and that crosses them into “idiot” territory IMHO.
Our T-1 provider at work charged us if we exceeded our allotted byte-count. It was the fact that we did exceed that count that prompted us to look for the source of excessive bandwidth use. That search led us to the unsecured wireless network. While not the main source of the problem (that was a Trojan horse running on a couple of computers where the users had disabled the anti-virus protection) it did cost us money.
Where I grew up there were no implicit “No Trespassing” laws for private property. If it wasn’t clearly posted as “No Trespassing” you could be on the property without fear of prosecution. If you were asked to leave by the owner directly, and you didn’t, then you were trespassing.
Security on wireless networks should be viewed in a similar vein. Enabling WEP/WPA should be looked at as the WIFI equivalent putting up a “No Trespassing” sign. No WEP/WPA means that you are welcome as long as you behave yourself.
As for the manufactures of WIFI equipment; they should either enable security by default or make enabling security part of the “Easy Set Up” sheet they always include. Most users never go deeper than that sheet anyway.
March 26th, 2006 at 5:56 am
Mikey says:
I’m a bit paranoid about this. I USED to have a wireless router, but then disabled the wireless and wired all four of my house comps to rj45. Thats right, I went backward. In all fairness, those who -have- to use wireless will continue to do so from any access point that any other STUPID user makes available. Range with the new 802.11xx routers is increasing, the g and n variants are capable of seeing unsecured connections from miles away- no lie.
How do you wanna deal with a (semi)hacker today? The only way, deny, deny, deny.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Mart says:
If you read the newspaper story you’ll note “a Loves Park police officer was on patrol in the wee hours of the morning when he saw Kauchak sitting in a car with a computer.” . The officer wasn’t going to arrest someone checking his email real quick by hopping on an open WiFi. I would suspect that this gentleman (using the term loosly) was doing a bit more than that.
I won’t get into details (there are women and children reading this
) but I can give you an educated guess as to other charges that were dropped in exchange for a guilty plea to a municipal ordinance violation.
March 26th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Charles says:
A standard off-the-shelf 802.11g router seeing open connections MILES away?
Ummm, no. Now if you are talking about using special modified antennaes and what not, then maybe. Still very far fetched.
Honestly people, hackers are not lurking around every corner. Do you really think someone is going to randomly target your wireless network and crack it? Very likely they will be parked outside your house or apartment.
With so many open wireless networks around, where are all the stories of people’s identities being stolen and losing money? I personally worry much more about carrying my wallet around (driver’s license, credit card) with me than my WEP enabled wireless network.
March 26th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Robert says:
>First - how many places that sell you these great wireless connections tell you to use encryption?
Some do, some don’t. It’s irrelevant beyond providing good customer service.
>Second - How can people KNOW, if even the manuals dont tell you, you HAVE to turn it on?
The manuals indeed DO urge one to turn on encryption.
>Third - Why dont the manufacturers turn it on by default with a unique key for each device that is randomly generated?
It’s not simply a matter of the router having a key; the PC’s each need to have that key set up in their network connection. eople would still need to set this up in their PC’s, and if they didn’t, then they couldn’t connect to the router.
People need to take personal responsibility in society, Mike. Your attitude is endemic of a “nanny state” mentality where you assume that “you” smart people need to take care of “the dumb people”. It’s an attitude that is helping to dumb down our country.
RTFM. IF you can’t understand TFM, the call tech support; they’ll be happy to talk you thrugh the setup. If you’re too stupid or lazy to understand what you’re buying (a somewhat sophisticated piece of communications equipment), then you deserve getting your wifi scammed.
Quit whining.
March 26th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Dustin says:
Gotcha great blog going on here.
March 26th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Mike says:
Oh brother…
First - I am not whining, I know enough about computers to muddle through anything.
Second - watering a neighbors lawn? driving a car? come on people, you can grasp at straws only so far.
As to the car analogy, you have to have a license to drive, and instruction on HOW to drive…so therefore you are saying everyone should have the same to use a computer properly - WAY TO GO!!! that is my point exactly!!!
as for my “morals” - so you are saying you are a thief Kathy? that is just sad. Stealing is stealing! If I can steal your wireless connection if you are too “stupid” to have WEP on, then why couldnt I walk into your house and take that tv because you were too “stupid” to have a better lock on your front door so I couldnt break in? What is the difference?
Society as a whole as come down so far it is unbelievable.
Robert - yes America is getting dumber and dumber, but without help, it will never change.
Mike
Oh - if the Manuf would turn wep on and generate a key, they could have it in the MANUAL what the key code is, and how to put it on the computer. I would also suggest to have it NOT be able to be turned off.
March 27th, 2006 at 3:38 am
Rick says:
1st off the fine is too low?!?!!? Hell it should have been $2500 not $250.
I guess this is the same guy who thinks its ok for people on the internet to put spyware on your computer without you knowing about it? Oh and what if the guy using your bandwidth was also looking at your secured credit card transactions? Is that still ok…?
I think anyone that messes with your computer system without you knowing about it should be dealt with harshly!!
I also think that there should be warnings on all wireless products in regards to what could happen if you don’t have proper security in place.
Because lets be honest here, 7 out of every 10 wireless routers are being bought by people that have no clue how to secure these devices.
March 27th, 2006 at 5:33 am
Sergio Pereira says:
First, let me try to differentiate someone in his/her own home finding and open wifi network from the neighbors and someone that actually roams in his car looking for “free” internet over wifi.
I obviously do not agree with the second case, but I tend to think that “the air” is public domain. Radio frequencies invade our homes and if you don’t bother encrypting it I don’t think you have enough of a case to complain that someone is taking advantage of it.
Let’s look at this from the other perspective, shall we? What if I was one of those tinfoil hat folks, uncomfortable with all this extra electromagnetic field pollution in my own home? Would I have the right to sue my neighbors for producing wifi signals (encrypted or not) that went beyond their walls ?
I don’t think it is fair to campare the wifi piggybacking with stealing a car. If you park you car with the doors open inside someone else’s garage, you betcha they’ll at least get into it, and you shouldn’t be complaining about it.
March 27th, 2006 at 5:40 am
Al Cohol says:
hahahahahhahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha, ROFLMAO, What a maroon!
March 27th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Wayne says:
I work for a financial services company. We are audited all the time and can be fined big bucks if our systems are not up to date as far as encryption and keeping our customer data safe. So let’s assume…
Goober #1 has $100,000 dollars that he keeps hidden in his mattress because he does not trust banks. Let’s say he gets robbed and the thief takes off with his $100K. The so called good guys don’t catch the thief and Goober #1 is out $100K. Who is to blame? The thief is the obvious choice but what about Goober #1? Isn’t he as much to blame as the thief? Why didn’t he keep it in the bank where his $100K would have been insured by the FDIC?
I think the guy stealing the WiFi was in the wrong but he wasn’t doing anything malicious to the WiFi owners network. He was just surfing the Net.
IMHO…both parties are in the wrong. The guy stealing the WiFi should have been let off with a warning and the non-profit organization’s IT guy or whomever put in the wireless network should be told to secure it…chalk it up to a lesson learned.
March 27th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Bill M says:
Blame the victim mentality is the basis for most crime — “they didn’t watch out, so they got what they deserved”. Theft of use of a wireless Internet connection does not have the same impact as stealing an unattended car with the motor running — but there is no ethical difference. It is not yours, you do not have the owner’s permission, anything else is just self deception to justify your actions.
Just because there is a sucker born every minute does not give me the right to swindle them.
March 27th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Charles says:
Blame the victim mentality is not the basis for most crime. I’m not even sure what you meant by your original statement. The basis for crime is getting something for nothing. Blaming the victim is a way to rationalize it.
I login to someone’s open network and I cause two things:
1. The person with the network is experiencing slower speeds.
2. I am probably breaking a stipulation in the person’s broadband contract. Given that most broadband providers give free wireless routers away, it may not be as much of a concern to them.
I don’t blame the victim. I know I’m doing something that is questionable, so I don’t make a habit of it and use it for emergency situations.
If my car overheats close by someone’s gardone hose and nobody’s there to ask, then I’ll use it. If I’m lost at night with a map, I’ll use someone’s porch light to read the map. And if I absolutely need to check my email RIGHT NOW, or look up directions on Google RIGHT NOW, I’ll login to their open network too.
People, for heaven’s sake, where has the community spirit gone?? Don’t get all bent out of shape if someone logs into your precious WiFi network, and don’t abuse the bandwidth of someone’s open network.
And I will repeat again, where are the stories of people getting their computer’s hi-jacked by WarDriving miscreants?!
Oh, and enough with the lame-ass analogies to describe logging in to a WiFi network. They’re pointless.
March 27th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Nick says:
Idiots
Blame the Victim only happens in the case where there is an identifiable victim. In this case, the victim would the the service provider.
The person who has an open wireless network is not a victim. Nothing is being stolen from him. The guy who was arrested was using a wireless network that was most likely not currently in use. Anyone with high speed internet knows you generally pay by the time period, not by the byte, even in the mega, kilo, or giga varieties.
All of you who think we should “crack down on wireless internet piracy” are the same idiots who file frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit because you can get money out of someone.
Why dont you take some responsiblity about your lives and protect YOURSELF or else just decide you dont care and stop whining.
April 4th, 2006 at 9:31 am
John says:
Look people, here’s how DHCP works: the laptop sends out a REQUEST to be ALLOWED on to the network. If the router authenticates that request, then you have been ALLOWED on to the network. You didn’t hack your way in, you ASKED to be allowed in. It’s not like breaking into someone’s house, it’s more like going up to the door, asking if you can be let in, and coming in. The fact that the router and not the owner is doing the “allowing” is one level removed from the responsibility of piggy-backer.
April 4th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
ClapekDodki says:
lesbe
July 16th, 2007 at 6:04 am
ClapekDodki says:
piccole poppe
July 17th, 2007 at 2:56 am
WiFi Take over says:
Hey my motto is: If it’s in the air it’s free as the wind. Like satelite tv. So what the signal is encrypted! Because someone is smart enough to get around it and obtain access then, hey more power to them. I build wifi Satelite dishes to obtain further range and to pull those weak signals in, so I guess im breaking the law. I took an old microwave apart and after several projects and different methods I manged to make an amplifier that really pumps out wifi further and screwed up peoples satelite receptions if you point the dish at theres. It’s funny. I do see it being Illegal interupting peoples satelite reception but people should know that little label from the fcc that this digital blah blah is to fcc standars and this device may receive interfearence even if it causes undesired operation. So how should it be illegal with a label like that?
August 7th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Don says:
The airwaves flow freely across each one of our backyards so it seems strange that you would have to pay a company to use a free natural resource that was free to begin with. There should be a price for the technology to access the resource but to impose a fee for continued access to this free resource is the real theft!
September 20th, 2007 at 6:19 am
Laurel Lee says:
Is the following a repetition?
Perhaps the most fundamental US law is the golden rule. All other law is a variation on it, if it is good law.
How does the golden rule apply to wifi piggybacking?
The superficial application would be that trespass on private property is a grievable offense, and using somebody else’s private access is trespass.
However, a person who pays for wifi access at home may need to access it unexpectedly (or expectedly) away from home.
Do peole who complain about piggybacking already piggyback.
Will people who contemplate suing piggybackers discover a need to piggyback themselves?
I think so.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:26 am
me2 says:
When you log on to any network you don’t get access if that router says no. Essentially if it does say yes, I’d say thats authorized access. You should be responsible for the security. Someone surfing the web unless their doing something illegal shouldn’t be a crime. Though I agree its not open invitation to hack into their computer and go through their files. But were talking internet here. As long as it wasn’t for doing illegal things then I wouldn’t care. I doubt it costs less if I don’t use it or more if I do. In my opinion using the internet which should be a free resource for all anyway cause they make money from advertising not ISP’s is fine. In other words your cable bill isn’t cheaper cause you didn’t watch 170 out of 200 channels. Same difference.
My advice protect yourself. Your name could be ruined if a hacker gets on and looks up child pornography or does something illegal. You might get cleared you might not. Not to mention the identity theft.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
翻译公司 says:
the pilot cried: Wenchuan has become hell on earth because of the serious road fracture Ta, the aftershocks continue, 阳光房the Chengdu Military Region of the vanguard force can not be rushed Wenchuan County city.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Al says:
I’d like to piggy back if I am presented with such opportunity. Most people, idiots or not, would not like other people accessing their wifis, even if access speed is not affected.
Therefore, piggybacking, over time should be a fully defined cyber crime.
Manufacturers of wifi routers should be able to simplify network security to the next level. They should also be required to contain an advisory that tech idiots should refer to social idiots (geeks) when installing such devices beyond their comprehension.
Still, if tech idiots continue to disregard this notice, then it must be assumed that people leave their wifi might actually be geeks trying to make money via settlement of a law suit or just want to share what they have out of generosity.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:08 pm