Is it illegal to connect to an unsecured wi-fi?

Remove all ads!

Not much more to add. Just curious if anyone here knows whether or not it is illegal in the UK to connect to unsecured wireless networks? Or, is it the responsibility of the owner to make sure their network is encrypted?

I wouldn't imagine it is illegal, seeing as Vista automatically scans for local wireless networks, and sometimes automatically connects! It seems to me the 'perpetrator' could claim technological/IT ignorance.

 

Breaking the law by accident is still breaking the law as far as the police and the courts are concerned. I'm not aware of anyone being prosecuted as yet for this, but at the very least it's theft.

The fact that they are stupid enough to have an unsecured network is besides the point

 

Illegal in Finland. One case at least in which a person was fined for using his neighbor's wireless internet connection.

 

Well...that kind of hard to say. Schools, coffee shops, airports, and even busses have unsecured WiFi networks in my area so anyone can just connect without having to mess around with registering with a service provider...another thing to consider, is that in this day and age, if you're dumb enough to have an unsecured WiFi network at home, you're kind of asking for trouble. It’s like parking your car in the ghetto and then leaving the keys on the roof...

That being said, my new neighbors have an unsecured WiFi network...I haven't decided what I should do with it...but since I'm a good neighbor (usually), I'll probably go over and tell them....or I might alert them to the fact in a more creative way before someone more devious than me comes along.

 

If you tell them, they'll probably rope you into putting an encryption on it, then moan at your when they lose their password. I'd keep schtum, but then I don't have much faith in the human race!

 

It's illegal in the UK to access a private network without permission of the paying owner, public networks such as in cafés and universities are under different legislation and self governed by the owner generally.

Ignorance is not a pleadable defense in any court or legal situation, quite often pleading ignorance also discounts you from pleading innocent as well as you have already said "I didn't know what I did is wrong"

Personally people with unsecured networks are just asking for trouble what truly surprises me is the number of techies who remove the passwords from networks and routers when setting up a home networks to make their jobs easier so they don't need to keep a password log for customers!

 

Oh, I wouldn't mind...as long as they paid me. I'd charge $100 per hour with a 1 hour minimum, and an additional $50 for a password recovery.

No one ever said you can't make a profit off your neighboors.

 

I remember when we switched Service Providers, our net was shut off for about a week I could easily use my neighbours wireless however I felt guilty though and told him after a couple of days because you know, it's not very nice

Not sure if it's illegal here I guess since it's a form of stealing, it should be.

I think the fine was a bit harsh, IF it was an accident. Do you know how long he was using it for?

 

Iku-Turso: I'm going to have to ask for a citation. Cracking WEP and connecting is sometimes illegal (not always), but I haven't heard about just connecting to one without a password.

 

logically, for something to be private, it has to be secured. If you have a garden with no fence and you sunbath naked you will be arrested for indecent exposure. However if you have fences and someone looked over then, that is invasion of privacy, you have to show that you have taken measures to protect youself before you can scream at people.

If the signal is detectable from within your home then surely you have a right to it, otherwise the simple argument in court is "get your signal out of my house"

 

@Taza: Court imposes fine for unauthorised use of wireless Internet

I think it's pretty ridiculous...but then again, we're living in a police state...

The amount of the fines in euros is rather small though, they depend on the income of the person fined, the minimum amount being 6€ for one day fine...

 

Private network, privately owned. You can leave the garden gate open, doesn't mean you're inviting people into your garden

Quite simply the legal system doesn't really work on logic more on what they percieve is right and correct. The people who pass laws don't tend to be techies either, and neither are most people with unsecured networks.

There was an incident in the UK a while back where a man was pulling down a road to the side of a house and accessing questionable sites involving children from an unsecured network. The owner got one hell of a shock when the police barged into his house one day.

 

This is correct. Private = illegal. Now, if you go to a public place with an unsecured connection where one of the attractions of going there is internet access (in other words a public place) then it's legal.

 

Exactly. (On a side note, however, it's needless to emphasize that if you don't just connect to a public unsecured network but also steal someone's password, it's obviously a criminal offence.)

To answer the original question (generally, with common sense, as I don't know UK laws):

For private networks, the answer is yes to both questions, they aren't mutually exclusive. Using the private connection of someone else is illegal (it's like stealing) -- this is the legal aspect. On the other hand, the subscriber can't sue the ISP because someone stole important data via his unsecured home connection -- this is the responsibility aspect.

It's like telephony. There is the so-called demarcation point, which separates the part of the infrastructure that belongs to you from the part that belongs to the telecom company. If someone goes to your flat and adds a device to your phone that can tap your calls, you can't blame (sue) the telecom for that. Similarly, if your part of the network gets damaged (so e.g. in your flat) and the telephone isn't working, it's your responsibility. On the other hand, if the telecom's part gets damaged (that is, beyond the demarcation point) and the phone isn't working, it's their responsibility. (E.g., companies such as banks have strict SLAs with telecom companies, and they can sue for a lot of money if the service gets interrupted e.g. due to stolen wires.)

 

Actually not. You can only commit a crime by intent (whether it encompasses action or inaction) or, in special cases, by negligence - if you are under some obligation (criminal neglect, such as neglect in child care, neglect to keep buildings in a proper shape etc). You may, however, be obliged to reimburse the owner/paying user or the ISP, depending on the circumstances of the event and on the laws in place, if you acquired some benefit from it (merely staying connected doesn't count, but using the network, even by automatically scheduled tasks such as download managers, might). Further, depending on the law in place and the circumstances of the event, you might be obliged to pay damages for accidentally infecting someone's computer with a virus or exceeding his download quota, or generally causing him some damage.

Say, you have a laptop that auto-connects to your network when it detects it. You carry the laptop to your garden to play games offline. Boom, it auto-connects to your neighbour's network on detecting it. You commit no crime, there's no civil wrong and no damages to pay. But you should disconnect. If you don't, then you commit a tort by inaction or might even commit a crime by inaction (innocent of connecting, guilty of staying connected). If this sounds complicated, consider that if you are driving someone in your car and he wants out but you don't let him, you're committing unlawful imprisonment by inaction. No one makes it look as if you had brought the person into the car, but you have still committed the same kind of crime.

On the other hand, if the network got infected by a virus from you, or if your computer started downloading and it counted against the download quota, then you wouldn't normally commit a crime (again, some laws in place in some countries could probably surprise us here, but in no sane law would this count as vandalism or theft; it would be one of the crimes of negligence), but you could be liable for the damages, depending on the law of the place, whether in the form of proper damages or as some form of equitable duty arising from the action itself and/or the subjective circumstances of yours or the injured party's. Your negligence would be a primary factor in case of actual damages, of course, but in some laws, in some situations, even without negligence on your part, there might be some liability under equity if there is a link between your behaviour and the damage suffered by the other person and the circumstances merit that you should repair it (e.g. my native Polish law has this kind of equitable liability where you pay for someone's damages without being in any way legally guilty of it; examples include an insane person, who cannot legally contract guilt, still having to pay medical bills for wounds from an assault, even though there's no guilt on that person's part or any enrichment of the insane person). This way, say, a rich idiot with a million viruses on his system accidentally infecting the home network of a poor family and killing some hard drives as a result could be obliged to pay for new hard drives for them. A downloader clogging someone's download quota or getting him cut off by the ISP might be obliged to pay. This is a very complicated and delicate matter, which is probably different in every possible law to some degree, even if the wording of the relevant rule is similar (interpretations of similarly worded laws differ system per system). Without knowing the specifics of English law in the matter, I can't tell you what exactly actions and at which exact point would make you liable to what extent under what specific title. It's already hard enough to predict within one's very own native system, even if you are a lawyer, and even if you are a techie at the same time.

When you intentionally connect to someone's wireless network without his permission, however, it's a different matter. You are almost certainly committing some form of tort and I would expect the courts to be liberal with the claimant here. Invasion of the privacy of the private network, stealing the bandwidth he pays for, not paying your due to the ISP who only allows paying users to connect and you aren't one. It is also likely to be a crime, so long as cutting into facilities such as phone or electricity or TV/radio access is criminal. It doesn't intuitively have an equal footing with hacking, but some laws might well hold that as long as you aren't invited connecting with one click is the same as spending a night decrypting or overriding (cf. the difference between breaking into a house and merely trespassing).

Bottom line, one's sure: you don't connect if you aren't invited (unless the network is public), and you disconnect if you discover yourself connected where you shouldn't be.

By the way, the Finnish case ended in six day fines. While it's still criminal, it's a very petty misdemeanour. In some systems, those don't even count as crimes (e.g. in Poland they are summary infractions and you aren't a convict if you incur such punishment). They belong in league with traffic offences, not with arson or larceny. It also says the court didn't believe him it was by accident, not that the court believed it wasn't possible at all or that it didn't matter. I think we can reasonably presume that the court assessed the matter fairly, didn't accept the excuse that didn't seem right and came up with a small punishment for a petty offence.

 

I think that analogy doesnt really apply, were talking about something which is outsite the owners property, for example, Im sitting in my house and recieving someone elses signal which is inside my property, so its an unsecured signal being broadcasted into my property, if anyone can be found guilty of negligence surely its the signals owner for not taking the proper precautions. That signal is being broadcasted into my house violating my privacy.

 

You may as well complain when you recieve radio broadcasts you don't enjoy listening to then

If someone is indecently assulted by an internet signal, I shall reconsider my analogy. Until then you are still accessing a service you have no right to claim for free.

I have yet to hear of anybody complaining that an internet signal within the borders of their purchased property does not belong to them and they would like it to be removes poste haste.

That's the thing about this. It's completely intangible, you could of course be pedantic and go on to state about being able to touch the computer being affected by such a signal but that is hardly invasive.

 

Im actually not arguing about the legallity of accessing someone elses signal, im arguing that the signal shouldnt be there to access, and therefore no issue.

how do we know that the signal is harmless? we know for a fact that digital signals such as those used by mobile phones and digital TV are harmful, it could very well be harmful to small animals, especially rodents such as hamsters and mice. personally I wouldnt want to take the chance and so if someone is sending a signal into my property, that is an invasion.

 

We know for a fact the signals used by mobile phones and digital TV are harmful?

Really now?

I'm going to have to ask for reliable sources instead of "OMG MORAL PANIC MOBILE PHONES ARE KILLING OUR CHILDREN" - because as far as I know, that's been widely researched and there has been no proof that the signals at the levels we use them in non-protected areas are harmful in any way.

 

They are harmful to small animals, new scientist is a good publication to read, they covered an experiment, simulating the effects using a simplified mathematical model which investigated the effect of electromagnetic radiation in the field of 850 megahertz on blood cells.
850 megahertz is around the range used by some mobile phones, though different networks vary and some phones use around 1800 megahertz.
The molecules all ended up with their poles aligned in the same direction. The forces between the cells jumped by about 11 orders of magnitude.

though it was speculated that this may not be harmful to humans, it could very well be harmful to small animals.

though it was quickly shouted down as theory.
Scientists who support the theory have pointed out that it is only theory because there isnt a viable way to test it, though have stated it is early days.

I would speculate further based on the fact that all anti pest devices which use an electromagnetic field to repel rodents state that they must not be used if the house has rodents as pets as they are harmful to the small animals.

And regardless of whether or not there is evidence, if I believe that there is a possibility I have the right to not have that signal forced upon my home.