First Conviction for Stealing Wi-Fi
Posted in News by Dan at 4:20 pm
This post was published 2 years 10 months 3 days ago and its content may not be valid anymore.In Singapore a 17 year old was sentenced to 18 months probation for stealing a neighbor’s Wi-Fi connection to the Internet, where ins Singapore the offense is punishable by jail time. The teen also must carry out community service after admitting to logging onto the open Wi-Fi connection without permission.
[The teen] earlier pleaded guilty to the charge under the Computer Misuse Act which says anyone convicted of securing access without authority to a computer for the purpose of obtaining computer services is liable to up to three years in jail, a 10,000 dollar (6,490 US) fine, or both.
Thoughts?
I’m Commenting about this post from a “stolen” WiFi connection…
LOL – Allegedly! (We’re in America!)
I read a story (maybe here?) about a guy in the US that was charged with “hacking onto” someones open wifi. Did anything ever come of that?
umm… WEP? In my opinion, the person who didn’t lock their wifi is at fault.
Okay, I’m in support of the kid, but Scott, that argument just reeks of hypocrisy to me (sorry that sounds a lot worse than i mean it) BUT for a moment i’ll play devil’s advocate; Are you saying that if someone breaks into your house because you left the back door unlocked and then take your tv, it’s your fault because you didn’t lock it?
I studied in Singapore and to be honest i piggybacked my neighbours wifi for 2 obvious reason.
1) Im too poor to pay for the broadband
2) My neighbor simply too lazy to secure their network
Who to blame ?
Emory, that is a very poor analogy. Wifi, or in this case, the internet, is not a material wealth that can be removed from a person’s possession. This is unlike any item which could be removed from the house thereby removing it from an individual. The data in question had no monetary value as far as I know.
Public networks with broadcasted SSIDs actually invite other people to use their networks. Many computers and devices will automatically connect to an open wifi access point. The range of 802.11 is also not just limited to one person’s house. A wireless access point projects itself into the dominion of other people. If many access points exist, it could create conflicts. It should be the responsibility of the owner, not anyone who connects, to be responsible.
It’s difficult to make a physical analogy based on something not physical. I don’t believe you need to. This person should not be jailed due to the negligence of another individual, and this is not hypocritical.
BTW, use WPA not WEP if you want to actually protect your network. WEP isn’t robust enough anymore for truly secure connections.
DogCow,
I completely agree, I just don’t agree with Scott’s reasoning. If nothing was “lost” then he shouuldn’t be tried. What harm did he do anyways?
He is PAYING for his own Internet, he paid for a wireless router and something to gain access to the Internet through (wireless NIC.) On top of that, he lost his privacy, and could have lost his identity. The breaking into the house was a decent analogy, someones pricavy has been invaded here, and that is why they are making an example. Most hijackers are probably not a threat but the damage someone COULD do is enough to need to send a message.
I like Singapore. An ideal society. No graffiti. Very clean. Reminds me of early America…okay not really, but close call. Without this, Singapore wouldn’t be so ideal.
I don’t think I’ll start worrying about using open WiFi quite yet, considering this is in Singapore, a place where the possession of CHEWING GUM is against the law.
The true criminals will never be caught. Passive listeners can catch anything in an open base station (like our listener) in raw text. This is private in no way. Every message is sent to any wireless card in range. He never lost privacy because he never actually had any. Sure, he could have lost his identity, but this would have been because of his own lack of responsibility.
He payed for his internet, but unless he was on a dataplan, the kid isn’t stealing anything which corresponds to a monetary value. In which case its like saying “you cant listen to my radio station.”
Someone could tap a phone line and eavesdrop, but you wouldn’t blame the phone line as the source of the problem. The same situation applies with the internet – punish those who are committing a crime.
This guy put something in public domain, and by leaving it unencrypted with out any kind of filtering or authentication he is essentially inviting people to use his access point.
I live in South Africa, I have a 2Gb capped line so yes I do steal Wi-Fi internet from my neighbor when the cap is up from time to time. Haven’t looked into the law here but I doubt he has a leg to stand on for keeping the connection open.
I have gone into great debate over this topic with some co workers in the past, and I live by a very logical analogy.
It is like your neighbor is watering his lawn with a sprinkler system and you are standing in your own yard and you catch some of his water in your mouth and drink it.
Are you stealing his water???
Logically no, the water is spraying everywhere! And therefore there was no trespass and no theft.
well someplaces like diedrich coffee they have an open wifi connection for free so thats chill (us)
i dont care if anyone uses my wifi as long as they dont hack me