Florida man charged with felony for wardriving

[Technoid]

If you've been planning on doing some wardriving in Florida, think again. Benjamin Smith III was arrested and charged with unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony in the state of Florida. It's not clear, however, whether Smith was attempting to access a computer on the network or just browsing the web and checking e-mail. According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, this is likely the first arrest of its kind in the state.

Smith was observed accessing an unsecured wireless network from his SUV by the network's owner, Richard Dinon. Upon realizing he'd been spotted, Smith closed his laptop. Dinon observed him using the laptop later that same evening, and decided to call the police who arrested him. Dinon didn't bother enabling any of the security features of his wireless access point, although he knew how to do it, because most of his neighbors "are older." (And we all know "old people" are technologically illiterate.)

Link

I dont know whatever to laugh or just sigh

[rylan]

I still think thats pretty stupid. If the guy wasn't doing anything illegal while using the open, unencrypted wireless network, then he shouldn't be charged. The guy pressing charges is a real dick in my opinion. I dont see how it can be hacking when the network is left wide open.

[Gurm]

I still think thats pretty stupid. If the guy wasn't doing anything illegal while using the open, unencrypted wireless network, then he shouldn't be charged. The guy pressing charges is a real dick in my opinion. I dont see how it can be hacking when the network is left wide open.

Pretty much.

[Jessterw]

Oh but that sort of reasoning would require some common sense and personal responsibility. While I can understand the uneducated fear behind this sort of knee-jerk reaction, I disagree with the extent that the individual who is being prosecuted is being done so. If there was some degree of security implemented by the owner of the wi-fi network that the aforementioned individual had to breach, then all would be well and good. However, the owner is pressing charges for what has likely amounted to innocent usage -- a result, and only possible because, of his inaction in securing his network.

What this tells me is that we need better and farther reaching consumer education on wi-fi and general network security, network products that are secure by default, and far less paranoid reaction by individuals and law enforcement (government) on usage of open wi-fi networks.

[Gurm]

Oh but that sort of reasoning would require some common sense and personal responsibility. While I can understand the uneducated fear behind this sort of knee-jerk reaction, I disagree with the extent that the individual who is being prosecuted is being done so. If there was some degree of security implemented by the owner of the wi-fi network that the aforementioned individual had to breach, then all would be well and good. However, the owner is pressing charges for what has likely amounted to innocent usage -- a result, and only possible because, of his inaction in securing his network.

What this tells me is that we need better and farther reaching consumer education on wi-fi and general network security, network products that are secure by default, and far less paranoid reaction by individuals and law enforcement (government) on usage of open wi-fi networks.

Plus, this is really akin to someone having the fellow sued for smelling their flowers.

If you're broadcasting it into the air, it's just SITTING there. Kinda like your flowerbed, your Ferrari in the driveway (sorry, people WILL ogle it), and your girlfriend sunbathing topless in the backyard with no fence. You can't sue people for looking at you.

[rylan]

Hmm.. I wonder if some sort of entrapment defense would work. Maybe the guy can countersue for the wireless owner was purposely setting up a trap to lure people into using his network (wireless systems will automatically scan and connect to the best signal in the area).

[bsdgeek]

Plus, this is really akin to someone having the fellow sued for smelling their flowers.

If you're broadcasting it into the air, it's just SITTING there. Kinda like your flowerbed, your Ferrari in the driveway (sorry, people WILL ogle it), and your girlfriend sunbathing topless in the backyard with no fence. You can't sue people for looking at you.

I would think it's more like somebody left the keys in their car with the door open and someone else decides to take it for a spin. Sure, the owner is a moron, but what the other guy did is still wrong.

In this case though, it's probably not wrong to the tune of 5 years in prison and a $5000 fine.

[Gurm]

I would think it's more like somebody left the keys in their car with the door open and someone else decides to take it for a spin. Sure, the owner is a moron, but what the other guy did is still wrong.

In this case though, it's probably not wrong to the tune of 5 years in prison and a $5000 fine.

No. It's like you have your TV on a pay channel and someone looks in through the window and watches it. It's rude, but if they're not ON your lawn when doing it, it's not a crime. Pull your damn shades.

[Jessterw]

Well the case could be made that by tapping into an open wireless network and using the Internet access available through said network, one could be seen as 'stealing' that access. It's debatable how much of a crime that is, given no actual laws were broken (at least that I know of) -- no hacking was involved as per the released details of the case, since the network was simply open and unsecured, and as we know, most computers equipped with wireless capabilities will automatically connect to an available network.

[rylan]

I've been thinking about this some more, and I think the guy 'stealing' the internet access should be made to pay the owner $1.50.
Assuming the monthly access is about 40, and adding a little for tax etc, its about a buck fifty per day.

[bsdgeek]

I've been thinking about this some more, and I think the guy 'stealing' the internet access should be made to pay the owner $1.50.
Assuming the monthly access is about 40, and adding a little for tax etc, its about a buck fifty per day.

I like that.

[schmosef]

Back when cable internet was first available in Toronto the network was wide open with no security. They used to require that you put your computer on their workgroup and assign it a name that they provided. You could browse network neighbourhood on your PC and see hundreds of other computers. If any of them had print/file sharing turned on you could get at their shares too.

The official docs from the cable company said not to enable file and print sharing but many people did or didn't know how to turn it off, etc. Also, back then they were practically forcing you to get a tech to do the setup (instead of allowing a self install) and many of the techs were leaving the security messed up too.

A guy I know who was one of the first people in TO to get the service wiped out someone's MS Office install (stupid I know, we were dumb kids back then) and then did it again after he saw that it was reinstalled a few days later. Once, he printed some porn on someone else's printer. Another time, there was this computer store that had their MS Access customer database sitting in the wide open. He knew I was trying to learn Access back then so he copied it for me to check it out. It really wasn't anything special.

Within a few months the cable company started blocking the traffic. In retrospect, I'm surprised that there wasn't some big scandal.

[GNEP]

Hey! nice to see you around bsdgeek