2nd WIFI thief charged in court!
-
I think police close one eye if u hook for normal surfing
I've already managed to get into other ppl's Linksys config page and i can lock it from them if i want -
I hope to seeing your face on the papers soon. Imagine the headlines:"First Minor to be charged for WI-Fi Theft"Originally posted by ceecookie:I think police close one eye if u hook for normal surfing
I've already managed to get into other ppl's Linksys config page and i can lock it from them if i want -
Right now, the issue is knowing that it is private property but still infringing on it.Originally posted by hisoka:i would agree except that theres no private property sign. either oyu know its private property or you dont and are jsut using it thinking its free for all
Even if there is no visible signs on a piece of land, the owner can charge you for trespassing but it will be up to the court to decide how much water it holds. For example in the US an empty plot of land can be private property and the sign might be miles away.
I didn't read the case but if the person wilfully tried to look for an unsecured network (plots of land without fences) then he had the intention to abuse the system. Anyway sad to say in court, ignorance is not an excuse.
It is within my confines but you choose to wilfully step on itOriginally posted by ditzy:Then I prefer you keep your lalang grass within your confines, don't let it grow beyond where I might step onto it. 
-
Unfortunately I do not have any ready authority on the post I made. It was merely based on my attempt to apply the laws of chattels and property in this context.Originally posted by Icemoon:any ratio decidendi for that?
On the other hand, Section 6 of the Computer Misuse Act (Chapter 50A of Singapore) prohibits any unauthorised use or interception of computer service. There could be case laws on this particular legislation but I would defer that to any Singapore lawyer who is willing to assist on this aspect.
Basically Section 6 states that any person who knowingly secures access without authority to any computer for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, any computer service shall be guilty of an offence. "Computer service" is defined to include computer time, data processing and the storage or retrieval of data. Just by interpreting Section 6, I guess if you do know that the Centrino latches onto a recognised site automatically, it could be deemed to be an offence if the laptop subsequently taps into someone's network. -
At any one time when wireless signals in the air belongs to you, PM me.Originally posted by JLennon:No, just because the network is unsecured doesn't mean that it is free to use.
It is not like air in that sense. Whoever is tapping on an unsecured network is trespassing on the property of the owner. And the action of trespass is a wrong which should rightfully be punished. Not securing the network should not be misinterpreted as an invitation to others to use it. -
I don't believe that nobody here has cracked WEP or WPA, but most likely they aren't caught.Originally posted by LazerLordz:That's because you are applying the conventional sense of logic of property and location to a technology that transcends physical boundaries.
Take a course in Web Studies and you will know what I mean, the legalities for such occurances is still quite murky, and only we are stupid enough to lump it together with physical theft when the comparative point of breaking in, has not even happened here, i.e brute force cracking of the WPA/WEP, or physical theft of documents that provide the password or key to the network.
The whole problem here is that even by sharing my network, the system frowns on it because I have taken one potential customer away and provided for a direct challenge on the concept of paying for a service. This has much to do with the culture here as it has to do with a legal system that pays heed to the lettering and not to the spirit of the law. In fact, the first case was dealt pretty fine IMHO, and the judge was prudent to give him just a slap on the wrist, whereas the prosecution was screaming bloody murder et al.
What is needed is a differentiation to be made, but I believe the legal codes here are not attuned to the changing times of the Internet Age.
Side track a bit, our laws will probably never change. -
Wah, HWZ got so many Bao toh kia. And i tok sgforums will have more!
When our turn to get bao toh for Wifi ? -
You may have misunderstood me. I was referring to the wireless signals that your router transmits to your laptop or computer. You as the owner of the router and subscriber to the service would have proprietary rights over those wireless signals.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:At any one time when wireless signals in the air belongs to you, PM me. -
Windows does tell you whether the network is secured or not when it is connected. It will say (wireless network connected (unsecured). )Originally posted by Icemoon:But Windows does not tell you the network is unsecured when your notebook is connected .. right?
So where is the private property sign?
Also .. can your network be treated like private property? I'm not sure if there is any ratio decidendi for this.
There's no private property sign, as I've said, signals are free in the air. -
You are asking for trouble. Your ISP forbids you from doing so.Originally posted by Icemoon:Let's say I am a good person and want to share my bandwidth with my neighbours or anyone in the vicinity.
How am I gonna indicate my intention?
Rename my router to "free_for_all"? -
I agree. There may be something in your contract with the ISP forbidding you to do that.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:You are asking for trouble. Your ISP forbids you from doing so. -
If you use free wireless for surfing, it will be merely a Section 6.Originally posted by ceecookie:I think police close one eye if u hook for normal surfing
I've already managed to get into other ppl's Linksys config page and i can lock it from them if i want
If you went to their configuration page and lock them out, it won't be a Section 6. If my memory serves me well, it's Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act for hacking. -
I've misunderstood you.Originally posted by JLennon:You may have misunderstood me. I was referring to the wireless signals that your router transmits to your laptop or computer. You as the owner of the router and subscriber to the service would have proprietary rights over those wireless signals.
I apologize for that.
But propriety rights... much as I hate to say, I have to agree. That's the way the contract is spelled out. -
It could be Section 3 (Unauthorised access to computer material) or Section 7 (Unauthorised obstruction or use of computer). Not very sure....Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:If you use free wireless for surfing, it will be merely a Section 6.
If you went to their configuration page and lock them out, it won't be a Section 6. If my memory serves me well, it's Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act for hacking. -
No problem, my earlier post was not too clear.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I've misunderstood you.
I apologize for that.
But propriety rights... much as I hate to say, I have to agree. That's the way the contract is spelled out.
-
If there's such thing as combination...Originally posted by JLennon:It could be Section 3 (Unauthorised access to computer material) or Section 7 (Unauthorised obstruction or use of computer). Not very sure....
But most likely Section 3. The locking out doesn't obstruct them, resetting the router will solve everything (if the owners know) -
I see.... The penalty for Section 7 is higher though. I would imagine prosecutors gunning for Section 7.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:If there's such thing as combination...
But most likely Section 3. The locking out doesn't obstruct them, resetting the router will solve everything (if the owners know) -
Well .. you can disable it in the settings.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Windows does tell you whether the network is secured or not when it is connected. It will say (wireless network connected (unsecured). )
It is damn irritating with so many balloons on your tray. -
Line is blurry right? I can share in my house what ..Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:You are asking for trouble. Your ISP forbids you from doing so. -
If the owners proved to be computer idiots, prosecutors will push for Section 7.Originally posted by JLennon:I see.... The penalty for Section 7 is higher though. I would imagine prosecutors gunning for Section 7. -
Line isn't blurry... as long as it's proved that your definitions of "others" is your family members.Originally posted by Icemoon:Line is blurry right? I can share in my house what .. -
The scenario is quite common you know.
In the office you use wireless. Then surrounding you are other routers that are unsecured.
One day if your designated (first choice) router breaks down, your computer will automatically connects to the next in line, unsecured router.
Without any warning, nothing.
You only realize it when your file sharing suddenly cannot work. -
Thousands and thousands of people do that - use others' network, why only 2 get arrested??????
-
wah .. need to define family ah?Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Line isn't blurry... as long as it's proved that your definitions of "others" is your family members.
so friends come with their centrino cannot use? -
Because one owner is so evil, the other criminal is so dumb to post a bomb hoax.Originally posted by TehJarVu:Thousands and thousands of people do that - use others' network, why only 2 get arrested??????