MD Bill Would Criminalize Theft of Wireless Access

Pickens writes "A bill presented by Delegate LeRoy E. Myers Jr. to the Maryland House of Delegates would criminalize purposely surfing the Internet on someone else's wireless connection. The bill would make intentional unauthorized access to another person's computer, network, database, or software a misdemeanor with a penalty up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000. The Maryland public defender's office has submitted written testimony opposing the specific ban and penalty suggested in Myers' bill. Noting that wireless connections are becoming common in neighborhoods, the written testimony says: 'A more effective way to prevent unauthorized access would be for owners to secure their wireless networks with assistance where necessary from Internet service providers or vendors.'"

come here, sweetheart

[BorgCopyeditor]

You say "no," but your router says "yes."

Re:come here, sweetheart

[Richard_at_work]

You say "no", but your window says "yes" - please, do mankind a favour and shut your curtains next time you undress!

Re:come here, sweetheart

[drooling-dog]

You say "no," but your router says "yes."

You were modded "funny", but that's quite literally what is taking place. Nobody's "stealing" anything; your router is being asked for permission, and it's not only granting it, it's assisting by providing an IP address for you to use and telling you where you might find a good DNS server or two.

Now the owner of that router might say, "But I didn't know it was doing that on my behalf!" I suppose it's a little like coming home to find that your kid has been inviting people into your house who you'd rather not have there. But that's an issue to be settled between you and your errant kid, isn't it? Law enforcement generally isn't interested.

Since there is no groundswell of outrage from people who are providing bandwidth to their neighbors - unwittingly or not - you have to assume that the "victims" here are the ISPs: Comcast, Time-Warner and the like. That guy who checks his email or the weather using "free" wireless is, in their eyes, $50 a month in lost revenue. Not that they could possibly influence legislators in a state like Maryland, of course...

Re:come here, sweetheart

[apoc.famine]

Thank you. No, really. The more people who hear this and who actually understand it the better.

I will never, EVER understand how the following counts as "stealing wireless access":

1) I broadcast my SSID. (Here's a wireless connection world! LOOK OVER HERE FOR IT!!!)
2) User asks, "Can I connect?" (IP address requested.)
3) I say, "Sure you can connect." (IP address loaned.)
4) YOU STEAL MY WIRELESS!!!!!!!

Ok, I guess I should do it as a car analogy:

1) I put out a sign, "I will let you borrow my car."
2) You ask, "Can I borrow your car?"
3) I say, "Yes, and here are the keys."
4) YOU STOLE MY CAR!!!!!

There is no difference. If you think there is a difference, you are either stupid or ignorant, or trying to apologize for someone else who is either stupid or ignorant.

If someone hacked into my wireless and used it, that's a crime. If someone stole my car, that's a crime. If someone asked to borrow my wireless and I let them, or my car and I let them, that's not a crime. If I'm either so socially ignorant or technically ignorant that I don't understand what I'm doing, then I need to suck it up when people do what I am INVITING them to do. And the rest of society should backhand me for complaining about it.

Re:come here, sweetheart

[Lumpy]

Exactly. we have that kind of law here in Michigan. we recently had a man arrested for it and charged with a FELONY over checking his email OUTSIDE a coffee shop.

This man's life is now ruined because of an asshole cop in Sparta, Michigan is so much of a useless jerk he pushed the issue hard. The mans was sitting in his car in front of a coffee shop wher ethe sign in the window said "FREE WIFI" the state court ruled he ony is allowed to get the free WIFI if he went inside.

Anyone that does not fight this kind of law tooth and nail, and then does not try to burn the asshat that introduced it on a stake in the front of the capitol building deserved everything they get. The law is only there to protect cable, telco, and cellular company profits. it has no other use.

Honestly the politicians at the local, state, and federal level need to be scared to hell of the populace. Because only then will they do the right thing instead of bending over and passing laws for the companies that pay them to do so.

Re:come here, sweetheart

[Wingnut64]

The router is not sentient. It has no ability to judge, and despite the fact that it may invite some people in does not mean it is entitled to do so or that they are entitled to enter.

People are responsible for the consequences of machinery they operate. If you operate a router that is configured to provide access to anyone who asks, you have already given your consent to the requester. It doesn't matter if you are ignorant of this, could you imagine successfully arguing that you should not be held liable for damage you did with a bulldozer because you never bothered to read it's manual and just assumed it would work?

Re:

[grahamd0]

It's not trespassing.

What if I want people to be able access my network? Should I give them double secret permission?

As the ISPs are the only ones (potentially) harmed by a random person checking their email or surfing the web on an open wireless network, and this bill is clearly designed to protect them from perceived loss of revenue, perhaps the bill should create civil or criminal penalties for violating an ISP's terms of service. This would place the burden on people running open networks, which is, I

Re:Or maybe...

[toriver]

Good luck, you have to have defaults for setup purposes or a hardware reset.

Nah, just mandate that configuration is done through Ethernet or serial connection.

My Phillips wireless router came default with the wireless functionality switched off. That is also a good solution: You have to access the router to enable it, and the wizards you go through can advise you to turn on security.

Re:

[drooling-dog]

Somebody comes into your home and their defense is "Your dog invited me in!"

Well, if my dog could do that, I suppose I might worry!

The router is not sentient. It has no ability to judge, and despite the fact that it may invite some people in does not mean it is entitled to do so or that they are entitled to enter.

It's the job of the router to grant or deny permission to connect to the network. That's precisely what it's designed to do, and an entire protocol exists just for that purpose. When my laptop asks for permission to connect to your network and your router says, "Sure! Let me help you with that," how am I supposed to know (or even ask) your true feelings about it? Your router is your authorized agent in that case. It's not a difficult thing to choose a

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

It's the job of the router to grant or deny permission to connect to the network. That's precisely what it's designed to do, and an entire protocol exists just for that purpose. When my laptop asks for permission to connect to your network and your router says, "Sure! Let me help you with that," how am I supposed to know (or even ask) your true feelings about it? Your router is your authorized agent in that case. It's not a difficult thing to choose a password and turn encryption on.

Your router's job is suc

Re:

[GooberToo]

Secondly, such plain sight does not apply to routers, which generally are headless and incomprehensible to their owners; a reasonable person would not assume that the router's operator had specifically set the router the way it was currently set.

Your logic seems odd given it is in plain sight. When the user goes to connect to his AP and he did not have to authenticate, this is very much a "plain sight" issue. Furthermore, some computers will simply use the nearest, open AP, which means it will automatically

Re:come here, sweetheart

[tsm_sf]

It's worse than that...

Your router is constantly saying "Here I am! Connect to me! I am OPEN! I am AVAILABLE!"

This attempt at legislation actually goes against the default router settings provided by every single manufacturer. It attempts to genuinely legislate that up is down, that open is closed. That something similar passed in the UK only shows us that fools are not limited to our shores.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

A child can talk, and a child can invite somebody in. That doesn't stop it from being trespassing.

The reason I shied away from using children as an example is that they often maintain a different relationship in law with regard to trespassing than do adults.

(I am also unable to find any case-law dealing with invitations issued by individuals who have no authority to do so, and in any case, this case is not really comparable to trespassing for a variety of reasons.)

However, the issue basically, in my mind, b

Re:

[NeutronCowboy]

Again, wrong analogy. A house is designed to prevent access. As is a door. A router is designed to connect.

BTW, did you ask CmdrTaco if you're allowed to access his webserver? You didn't? How come you're posting? From a technological perspective, a web server responding to anonymous requests with data is the same as a router responding to anonymous requests with a connection. They are designed to operate that way.

Re:

[aix tom]

Simple. You ASK the owner of the wireless network.

Respect? When I choose to set my router in a way that allows net access to the people using the chairs and tables in the courtyard, I don't want them knocking on my door all the time asking me if they really are allowed to do that, especially at times when I'm already asleep or busy doing something else. That would be very disrespectfully.

The SSID IS the "sign" of the network. The only sign on a wireless network that has any chance of working can be a wireless signal on the network itself.

The only solution

Re:come here, sweetheart

[LunaticTippy]

I bought a router, plugged it in, and it starts broadcasting as Linksys. I go to my computer and there are 3 unsecured Linksys APs visible. How do I know which one is mine? If I pick the wrong one do I really need to go to jail?

I go visit my next door neighbor and he says "Yeah, I have an unsecured Linksys router. Go ahead and use it, that's what it's there for!" How do I tell which one of those 3 I have permission for? Again, if I pick the wrong one do I really need to go to jail?

Let's simplify. There is only one Linksys AP. I have permission from the owner. A 2nd person sets up an AP the same way - my computer will automatically connect, and will look the same to me. I will have absolutely no idea I'm using one I don't have permission to use. Do I now go to jail? For something someone else did?

Re:

[NeutronCowboy]

See above for someone else's thought that the SSID is not a sign. Here's another problem with this approach. Let's say I want to connect a specific Access Point. If everyone has to name their open access point the same, then there is no way for me to tell which one is the access point I want to connect to. Maybe we can configure the router into some general state that uses the SSID for identification, but where it also broadcasts information that anyone connect to it who so wishes. Oh wait - that's exactly

Re:come here, sweetheart

[Brian Gordon]

How is this criminal? This is like a perfect example of a civil offense.

Re:come here, sweetheart

[LabRat007]

3 years and $1000? I've seen people who have gotten less for rape of a minor. Does the punishment really need to be this severe?

Re:come here, sweetheart

[el_gordo101]

# voted against in-state tuition for illegal immigrants in 2007 (HB6)

If the guy doesn't want you to breath clean air, or teach illegal immigrants (after all, being literate obviously wouldn't help them at all..), then this seems pretty much par for the course.

The in-state tuition bill is not about keeping illegal immigrants out of school, it is about charging illegal immigrants the same tuition at State colleges that legal residents would pay.

Re:come here, sweetheart

[haystor]

Why would you go about discounting prices for illegal immigrants before discounting for legal residents? Sorry, you're from out of state, you have have to pay more than the out of country guys -- except the ones that applied properly -- of course.

Re:

[Moryath]

So, if these individuals are going to be in the state anyway

There's your first problem. They should NOT be in the state anyway. And as for evidence, do a quick search. There are umpteen studies on the matter and government officials (like the ones in Texas) have even been caught trying to doctor data.

Start here [fairus.org] and move forward.

Re:Stupid question time

[ElleyKitten]

You've obviously never been uninsured. The emergency rooms are only required to provide emergency care. Once you are stabilized (or sometimes if you're not [go.com]) they send you away. If you need prescriptions, further tests, or (ha!) physical therapy, you can forget about it. If you have severe asthma and you either need an inhaler or to go the emergency room every week, then you're going to the emergency room every week (they only have to provide emergency care, not preventative) until you either get the money for that inhaler or you have an asthma attack too far away from a hospital and die. If you have a degenerative spine disease, you can go to the emergency room for some lame painkillers and they'll tell you what kinds of tests and therapies they'd give you to keep you out of a wheelchair, if you had any money (this actually happened to a friend of mine). God only knows what would happen if you developed cancer or a terminal illness while uninsured. No other developed country lets its citizens go without health care.

Re:come here, sweetheart

[bendodge]

So this assumes they have the same level of wages? Because as far as I can tell, this is not usually the case.

I don't care what level of wages they have. The government can't save you. We need a public education campaign. It doesn't matter how sincere and compassionate a politician sounds, she has to get the money from somewhere. And that somewhere will either be your pocket or a printing press.

What happened to American independence? A few generations ago, people would rather live on beans and potatoes than accept money from the government. John Maynard Keynes and FDR have ruined the federal government. It happened to Rome, and it will happen to us. When people believe there is such thing as a free government lunch, we are ruined.

Re:

[Crazy Man on Fire]

The government can't save you. We need a public education campaign.

Um. Ok. So, the government can't save you, but the government's public education campaign can?

Re:

[Sancho]

I was clarifying why it's criminal rather than civil, not commenting on whether it should be legal in the first place.

Re:come here, sweetheart

[tattood]

It should only be a criminal offense if you "hack" into the wireless network. And by hack, I mean circumvent the owner's attempt to secure their wireless network. If you enable WEP/WPA on your wireless network, and someone cracks the keys and uses your wireless, that should be a criminal offense. If you buy a wireless router and don't put on the encryption, then it's your fault.

I partially agree with your statement, that it should be the responsibility of the wireless AP manufacturers to enable some security by default, even if it is only WEP. You should make the user have to disable WEP, if they want an open network.

The manufacturer's argument to that, would be that the common user probably does not know how to use WEP. This would therefore cause an increase in support calls when their new wireless router does not work. The manufacturer should have to deal with that, or make it extremely simple and obvious to the user how to use the security features.

Re:come here, sweetheart

[EdelFactor19]

I dont care how its done; the government has no place in telling us what to do with the internet access we pay for and on routers we pay for. If you don't want someone using your router thats your problem.. If they crack your encryption; obviously that falls into many already existing anti hacking laws (or make that the law)

adding any CRIMINAL or CIVIL law for someone connecting to your UNENCRYPTED access point only encourages stupidity, lack of reponsibility and negligence. If you left a hose running plugged into your house that extended to the driveway, and i was running by and was thirsty, I'd pick it up turn on the spiggot and drink some... if you dont want me to then do one of three things: turn the damn thing off at the end of your house; put the hose away; or waste money on some crazy lock on it lol. Suggesting that the government take on the problem is an exercise in futility; it will only waste our time and money and rights.

Furthermore suggesting that the "makers of the devices" do anything differently has a similar net result. It is not their problem; it is yours. Do with it what you want. If you are too unintelligent to push the "EZ Security" (re crappy unadjustable settings" button on a linksys; or follow the extremely basic guide in the instructions, and are also too unintelligent to either ask a friend for help, call tech support, or find help elsewhere then you have to deal with the consequences. There are a lot of reasons you probably dont want wep or name your security method enabled by default; namely setting the damn thing up. What do you do when your device is having a problem or you forget the password?

There are other interesting a better ways to go about the problem. MAC address filtering can work well, as can limiting the number of leases allowed.

The bottom line is that this is an area that the government has absolutely no business talking about, getting involved with, or passing laws regarding. Especially the federal government. They've got plenty of important things to waste their time on that ACTUALLY matter and should be decided by them. Lastly, how is being fined or sent to jail even remotely not get categorized as excessive punishment worse than the crime? If you pay anything at most it should be some factor of the cost of the fee for internet service paid by the place you stole it from.

Re:come here, sweetheart

[baboo_jackal]

It should only be a criminal offense if you "hack" into the wireless network. And by hack, I mean circumvent the owner's attempt to secure their wireless network.

Yeah, no doubt. Just yesterday, in fact, I unplugged my router for a sec to let it reboot and forgotten to plug it back in. I started my laptop (in the other room), started using the internet, and *boom!* there I was, "maliciously stealing" somebody else's wireless bandwidth because my computer automatically connected to their unsecured router!

OK, so I didn't read TFA. So I'm probably completely off base here. I mean, I get the idea behind the law - internet access is like any other consumable utility (gas, water, electric). But to contrast how different this is from that, when's the last time you turned on the shower and accidentally stolen water from your neighbor's water pipes?

This bill is specifically to exempt that behavior

[langelgjm]

OK, so I didn't read TFA. So I'm probably completely off base here. I mean, I get the idea behind the law - internet access is like any other consumable utility (gas, water, electric).

Don't waste time reading the article, which is completely misleading. Instead, read the actual bill. [state.md.us]

You don't at all get the idea behind the law. This bill is SPECIFICALLY designed to address what happened to you - when someone connects to a network without authorization, and without knowing that they were unauthorized. Ignore the /. groupthink, and read my other comment [slashdot.org] that explains the bill in detail. Ignore the summary, and the title. THEY ARE ALL WRONG. Unauthorized access to a network is ALREADY ILLEGAL, and this bill simply tries to add an exception for when that happens without you realizing that it is unauthorized.

Re:

[stephanruby]

If you get free internet from a neighbor, it is you moral duty to share the cost with the neighbor.

Not for me, I actually like and trust my neighbors. As long as they don't do p2p and keep the load light, I'm fine with sharing my connection, it's a fixed cost for me anyway. Sometimes, when I need my full bandwidth, I close it down completely as a precautionary measure, but most of the time I keep my connection open and unencrypted.

Of course, none of these pirates ever ask permission since they know the an

I don't like that word "purposely" in there...

[Panaqqa]

...after all, who is to determine whether someone purposely accessed the wireless connection. I know I have been in neighbourhoods where there were many wireless connections, and while I thought I was connecting through my host's access point, it turned out to be someone else's.

So, who it going to determine whether the access was on purpose, or the more likely alternative, accidental?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[AvitarX]

Easy,

If you ask for permission (DHCP Request) and the equipment says (to paraphrase) "absolutley, come on 0:0c:fa:a8:gc:bb hear is where I keep the gateway to the internet, I will make sure to send you data that comes for you, and direct any data you send to the correct place.", than absolutely the have permission.

If you have to monkey around setting up static addressing, or finding keys or what not, than it enters a gray area.

Re:

[Danga]

Remember that when I come and run an extension cord from your outdoor plugin to my equipment. Yes hour honour, he did authorize me to use it since there was power to that plug. (Saw that analaogy somewhere else in this discussion and its the best one I've seen).

That analogy is flawed since electricity is metered and most internet access in the US (at least at the consumer level which this would affect the most) is not. Most "normal" internet usage such as checking email and browsing some websites would NOT

Re:

[gnasher719]

So, who it going to determine whether the access was on purpose, or the more likely alternative, accidental?

That would be a judge. I could think of some reasonable criteria: For example, if you have bought a wireless router at your home, then it is quite reasonable to think that you intended to use your router, and if you happened to use your neighbours router then this was likely to be by accident.

On the other hand, if you are fifty miles away from home in your car with your laptop, and you connect to some wireless network without having anyone's permission, then we can assume that you intentionally accessed

Re:

[trolltalk.com]

Read the summary - misdemeanor. In other words, if the prosecdution decides to ask for no more than 6 months jail time, or just for a fine, no right to a jury trial for you!

Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there...

[trolltalk.com]

How many people will be so intimidated by the whole process that they'll just accept whatever plea is offered?

Ditto those who don't have the several thousand dollars to hire a lawyer?

Ditto those who don't have the courage to tell the prosecutor "go fuck yourself - see you in court, numnuts - and you'd better have LOTS of proof ..."

Ditto those who don't want to "rock the boat"

Ditto those who can't afford to take time off work.

When a case goes to trial, even when you win, you usually end up losing. Its not like the other side has any "skin in the game." They still get paid, win or lose. Justice? Not for us.

Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there...

[plague3106]

If you CHOOSE to plead guilty, for whatever reason, that's your own problem. When charged with anything ALWAYS FIGHT.

Re:

[snarkh]

Why cannot I use services, which you make freely available to me?
If I use my computer in a coffee shop, every time I turn it on, I should make sure
I don't accidentally connect to your wireless router?

Re:

[TheGavster]

If you have a sign on the side of your house proclaiming "Bathroom within!" and placards giving directions to where in your house I might piss, then most certainly I would expect that this behavior is allowed. If you don't want people on your access point, either secure it (ie lock the door), or don't broadcast an SSID (ie don't put a giant sign out offering a service).

Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there...

[rudeboy1]

The problem here is that there is an ambiguity of intent. SOME people (and it doesn't even have to be a large number) keep their wireless connection open on purpose. To assume that it is automatically an unwelcome act to enter an unsecured network is flawed logic. As is to assume that either AP owners or laptop users are all ignorant or devious.
    While not the easiest solution to implement, the most logical solution would be to simply require AP manufacturers to default routers to a closed network. Either using a default WEP/WPA/Etc. key, or with a mandatory setup upon installation (a la the runonce screen you get in IE the first time you open it). This takes the ambiguity out of the equation and allows all users who do not want their networks open to lock them down, even in the face of computer illiteracy. Then, if a network is open, it is set that way by choice, and conversely, if a user logs on to a closed network without authorization, there is a clear intent to trespass.

Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there...

[rudeboy1]

Sounds like you need to take 2 minutes and put on a WEP key. I for one believe in sharing my connection (with the proper safety precautions in place of course). The problem with this law is that it assumes that if you access an OPEN network, you are nreaking a law. A law that makes more sense is one that states if you actively seek to break into an ENCRYPTED network, you are commiting a crime. Which is, as I understand, the way the law is already written. I don't think the guy who wrote this bill really has much of a technical background. More likely he is trying to make a name for himself by introducing new technical legislation, which is all the rage right now. It's an unfortunate state of current events. Most technical legislation is introduced by people who are either acting on behalf of lobbyists, or news blurbs on CNN/Fox. There are only a handful of lawmakers that have demonstrated that they have even a remote clue what they are talking about. It bothers me that these people are left to decide the fate of things they have no real grasp of.
I try to write letters to my elected officials any time something like this comes up for a vote. I've even made some phone calls when it's either highly technical or highly important.

A solution

[Benanov]

configure /etc/interfaces -- give an ssid to the wireless card. Will always try that one first.

Possibly slightly insecure if you forget you did it, but it is a quick setup.

abra-ca-de-ridiculous!

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

Yeah, and I suppose that sitting in someone else's light, or perhaps walking on their lawn should be criminalized too?

Yes, we pay for the internet, but if you don't secure your network, and the pedestrian use doesn't impair your surfing experience... no harm, no foul. At least, thats what I think - but I'm still not running the world *sigh*

Re:abra-ca-de-ridiculous!

[pilgrim23]

just rememeber: Like your life, your fortune and your sacred honor, Wirless is not yours to share. You cannot share what you do not own. What, you think this is a free country or somethin?

Re:

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

I'm not american. Where I live, it IS a free country.

Re:abra-ca-de-ridiculous!

[esocid]

I suppose if it were handled like trespassing then the owner of wireless LAN could request that you leave it, and call the "cyber police" if you don't. Wait, I guess they'd be calling the secret service? Or would it be the FBI?

Re:

[Itninja]

Yeah! When I leave my car unlocked & running on the side of the road (like an idiot), someone takes it, and then returns it later undamaged and with a full tank, the only reasonable response should be 'no harm no foul'. So what if they used it to commit a felony? No biggie...

Re:

[LWATCDR]

"perhaps walking on their lawn should be criminalized too?"
It is called trespassing.

Re:

[gnick]

Yeah, and I suppose that sitting in someone else's light, or perhaps walking on their lawn should be criminalized too?

Not really the same thing. This is more like, "I suppose that plugging my A/C into my neighbor's outdoor electrical outlet should be criminalized too? After all, he didn't put a lock-box over it."

I pay for and use my bandwidth. If you start stealing it, you would certainly inconvenience me.

Re:

[moderatorrater]

I pay for and use my bandwidth. If you start stealing it, you would certainly inconvenience me.

You're almost certainly paying a fixed rate for that internet and the amount you pay will be the same regardless of whether I plug into it or not. Neither of the analogies work well because they've each got a point. However, if you don't take a few trivial steps to secure your internet from illicit use, it's a very reasonable assumption for me to make that you're okay with me using it.

I suppose that plugging my A/C into my neighbor's outdoor electrical outlet should be criminalized too? After all, he didn't put a lock-box over it.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if my neighbor used my electrical outlet as long as he wasn't using heavily and constantly. I

Re:

[HTH NE1]

Yeah, and I suppose that sitting in someone else's light, or perhaps walking on their lawn should be criminalized too?

How about listening to someone else's radio? I'm sure you could get the RIAA behind that one. And the MPAA for watching someone's Pay-Per-View movie through a window.

They seem to go after the emitter if it can be received unaided but after the receiver if they have to take steps to see something invisible. You wear see-through clothing in public, you're arrested for indecent exposure. You use a night-vision camera to see through otherwise opaque clothing, you're arrested for being a peeping tom.

So the poin

Re:abra-ca-de-ridiculous!

[cayenne8]

"If you accept that most people would not want to share their internet access"

My guess is, most people wouldn't care whether you shared their internet access or not. Not unless you ran so much traffic over it 24/7 that you caused their access to be degraded. At that point I'd think they might want to kick you off.

Re:

[vtscott]

Stop calling it stealing and we'll stop calling you a troll. If your router is open, it is giving me its consent to connect to the internet through it. Don't like that? Then secure your router. Do you want to live in a world where you must get consent from a human before doing anything? Then you better stop reading any website. Oh, sure they send you the data when you send their webserver an http request, but so? A computer can't render consent in your bizarre world. You should first contact the own

Stupid rednecks!

[tjstork]

It's funny, because, the most pre-eminent security guy in the USA, Bruce Schneir, who wrote THE book on cryptography, actually leaves his home WAP open so that people can squat on it. He thinks that if we all had our own open WAPS, we could all sorta squat on each other's wans, be much more effective as a society overall. Really, what this law is is an attempt to criminalize a culture of sharing.

Re:

[bobs666]

I am betting its your friendly Phone Co. Monopoly Lobbing the House of Delegates, trying to make people pay them more cash.

Re:Stupid rednecks!

[gad_zuki!]

Bruce also know how to lock down his shares, build vlans, segment networks, build captive portals, monitor traffic, etc. Joe Shmoe doesnt. The best advice for non-techies is to use WPA on their wireless.

>Really, what this law is is an attempt to criminalize a culture of sharing.

Yeah, its a big conspiracy d00d! The other day I tried to give someone a hoho and a police man shot at me!

Re:Stupid rednecks!

[h3llfish]

>> Yeah, its a big conspiracy d00d!

Are you sure that it isn't? Ask yourself, why did the Maryland government feel a need to address this issue at all? Because they had been flooded by emails from constituents who were furious over their stolen bandwidth? Or because telcos/cablecos/ISPs realized how easy wireless makes it to share a connection with your neighbor? I can't say for sure either way, but I know which of the two groups has more pull with most politicians.

Re:

[ADRA]

There's a big difference between "open by personal preference" and "open by ignorance". If you want to distinguish the two, write a layer for the WAP negotiation which also negotiates based on the 'rights' granted by the access point. So, if I get a dummy linksys access point with a default installation, the point could still be unencrypted for 'dummy' users but declare itself to be non-public. This would mean ethical Wifi leeches would only use access points that are intended for public sharing.

This also m

Unsecured networks get connected to by default

[module0000]

...in pre-XP windows, and pre-SP1 installations of XP.

Yey, my OS breaks the law for me!

Re:Unsecured networks get connected to by default

[dgatwood]

You mean like DHCP?

Look, it's really simple. If you don't want other people using your wireless network, don't disable the encryption. Notice I said "don't disable". Most access points these days are shipping with encryption on by default, so the trend is moving towards the point where we'll be able to automatically assume that every unencrypted point was intentionally set that way. In ten years, the proposed law will be completely unnecessary and will just be a broken relic of days gone by.

Laws like this annoy the heck out of me, as they are caused by technological neanderthals trying to come up with ways to appear that they are doing something useful, all while creating a body of unnecessary laws that bog down the legal system. In any case, I can say right now that I won't be traveling to Maryland if this happens. Life's too short to put up with getting arrested for sitting in your car outside a hotel checking your email for a couple of minutes. The law is a blatant abuse of power, and ultimately, the FCC needs to put a stop to this by creating policy that trumps it. Unencrypted Wi-Fi should be considered free for public use, period, at least until the owner explicitly asks you to stop.

Non sequitur

[Palinchron]

The bill would make intentional unauthorized access to another person's computer, network, database, or software a misdemeanor with a penalty up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000.

And how does purposely surfing the Internet on someone else's wireless connection match that definition? After all, the open wireless access point I use to surf the internet explicitly authorized my access when I asked him about it.

Yeesh

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Given how silently Windows is able to connect to a wireless network, I don't see how this law would last. Computer novices with brand new laptops will just turn them on and start surfing the net without having a clue about what an ISP is, how the internet work, or even how they are connecting to the internet. They know there is this thing called the "internet" and that when they click on the big blue "e", they are accessing the internet. Where do you draw the line between the innocent bystander and the criminal?

Re:

[gnick]

That's a really sticky point. But, that's the difference between "intentional unauthorized access" and "unintentional unauthorized access". So, the law does address that. The trick is, how do you determine intent?

Re:

[compro01]

and how do you define "unauthorized access" even? network is open and allows you connect, so does that qualify as "authorized access" or not?

Re:

[wizardforce]

Where do you draw the line between the innocent bystander and the criminal?

you can't look into people's heads so legally, I don't think there is a way to tell the difference. but really at what point are people obligated to actually learn about basic computing skills and stop being shielded because of their willful ignorance? it seems to be a common defense- but but I don't know that! could you imagine how that would work anywhere else? driving? work? taxes?

i agree with the public defender

[suck_burners_rice]

The public defender is absolutely right. If you don't want other people surfing on your connection, it takes seriously five seconds to click a checkbox and enter a password on your router. If you leave your router open to all connections, that should legally mean that you desire to share your connection with others, since that is what will inevitably occur with such a setup. Leaving your router open like this is akin to bringing a box of donuts to work and leaving it open on the lunchroom tables.

Draco would be proud

[explosivejared]

I was searching for the humor in this, and then I got to the part about three years imprisonment . I guess that's funny in a sort "your grandmother just died, but when she did her false teeth exploded into the air, what a hoot" sort of dark way.

"Purposely" is the key

[floorpirate]

It's only a crime if they can prove you used the neighbor's wireless intentionally. My laptop loves to connect to random wireless connections instead of my own - hell, it tries to connect to wireless connections that aren't even there (such as the wireless at my workplace) instead of connecting to my home wireless first. How do you prove it wasn't intentional? How do they prove it was?

Re:

[vux984]

If its got any security at all, even WEP, or even if broadcast ssid is off and you are on it, I can reasonably allege that you did it on purpose.

Whoever tagged this humor...

[tmosley]

I don't think it's that funny. This is another example of an Orwellian society attempting to make everyone a criminal. I mean come on, THREE YEARS for doing something fairly innocent?

This is outrageous.

Xohm?

[vigmeister]

Not that I agree with the bill, but given that Sprint's WiMax is hitting Baltimore and DC, maybe Sprint has a vested interest in this bill being passed?

http://www.xohm.com/ [xohm.com]

Cheers!

Sounds reasonable

[peipas]

While they're at it, they should criminalize unauthorized looking at hotties, although accidental looking is fine. It is an important issue, because if too many people crowd around to look at the hottie it will not be able to move.

Ridiculous bill

[esocid]

What a ridiculous premise. If people are stupid enough to leave their wireless routers open, then it's their fault if someone uses it. Secure your router or don't complain when someone hops onto it. The other ridiculous part of this bill is that it classifies accessing someone's computer a misdemeanor.

According to the bill, intentional unauthorized access to another person's computer, network, database or software is a misdemeanor.

But then goes on to say this:

He said he didn't want unintentional use like that to be prosecuted the same as computer hacking.

Doesn't computer hacking including unauthorized access to someone's computer? Sorry, but you lost me.

Proportional punishment to the crime

[jandrese]

Stealing someone's internet bandwidth (their porn came down slower than usual!) is now worth up to three years in the slammer? I always thought wardriving was a silly little crime like jaywalking, not something on the order of grand theft auto. Why is the punishment so steep in that bill?

Re:

[tgd]

The moral of the story is, make sure your iPhone is turned off while you're stealing cars... otherwise you might end up doing some real hard time.

what about my network?

[netsavior]

My SSID is broadcasted as "FreeInternet" It is firewalled from my real network and unless it gets in the way of my gaming, I have no problem with whoever using my broadband. I have a "click here" to accept that you are not going to do anything illegal (via DNS intercept), mac addresses are logged, and most known methods of p2p are blocked... but if you need to check your google groups and you are near my house, why the heck would I care if you do so? It took like 2 hours to set that up. So would it still be illegal to knowingly use my "FreeInternet" network?

Re:what about my network?

[BlowHole666]

So what your saying is if the child molester outside looks at the kiddie porn in his car and he gets traced. Your fucked. All you have is a mac address, all the District attorney will say is you threw the computer out. There are things worse then p2p.

Re:what about my network?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does stuff like this get modded up? If someone downloads illegal material over your link, so what? The parent has already said that they block most p2p programs so the chance of this happening is pretty low. Besides, unless I'm wrong (IANAL) posession of said material is what is against the law. Does AT&T get charged with a crime when someone downloads illegal material over their network?

This'll be great fun with my home webserver

[roystgnr]

I just keep a few files there for friends and family, and I certainly never explicitly authorized anyone else to use it, but nothing stopped Google from scanning and indexing it too. Be careful of which search results you click on; you never know if I'm the kind of guy who would send some curious websurfer to jail for looking at pictures of my cat without my direct permission.

This Is Rapidly Becoming Less And Less Of An Issue

[Odiumjunkie]

Here in Toronto, Bell is already sending out wireless dsl routers with 128 bit WPA-PSK pre-configured, and the key printed on the base of the router. Hopefully, that'll soon be the norm everywhere.

Once everyone is using WPA, this is a non-issue. Even if an exploit is discovered that makes cracking WPA trivial, breaking encryption on someone else's network is clearly illegal, and it will be safe to assume that any unencrypted network is intended for public access.

I, for one, will not mourn the passing of a thousand light/water/keyhole/car-left-with-keys-in-ignition/radio/tv-through-window analogies.

Anyone but government officials and their lackeys

[Mr Pippin]

Yet, warrantless searches of my laptop is still perfectly reasonable, right?

And it is also okay if a private company did something like this if government directed, too, right?

MS to Fix

[Himring]

Hi,

Microsoft is fixing unsecured wireless access just like they did viruses and spam.

Thank you

Criminalizing benefits big Telco's

[Anonymous Coward]

Telecommunications companies are asking for this bill because by criminalizing squatting, ppl are more likely to pay $$$ for their own connection.

This benefits the very people who are demanding retroactive immunity for illegal domestic spying.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I'm glad someone gets it

[Duncan Blackthorne]

At least the public defender's office mentioned understands something of the nature of the thing. Unsecured WiFI APs are the "VCR flashing 12:00" for the 21st century, and the other half of the equation is how any WiFi interface will by default connect to the first AP it can do so with regardless of who ows it. Also how are they planning on differentiating between businesses and individuals that purposefully leave their APs open for customers or neighbors to use at will, are they planning to make them criminals as well? Stupid.

Actual text of the bill

[Archonoid]

Caps as in the original bill, emphasis mine.

"A person may not intentionally, willfully, and without
authorization access, attempt to access, cause to be accessed, or exceed the person's
authorized access to all or part of a computer network, computer control language,
computer, computer software, computer system, computer services OTHER THAN
WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE, or computer database."

"A PERSON MAY NOT INTENTIONALLY, WILLFULLY, AND
WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION ACCESS, ATTEMPT TO ACCESS, CAUSE TO BE
ACCESSED, OR EXCEED THE PERSON'S AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO WIRELESS
INTERNET SERVICE WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACCESS IS UNAUTHORIZED
AND PROHIBITED BY LAW."

As I'm reading this, it seems like the most reasonable interpretation of the bill is: 1. You need authorization EXCEPT for wireless internet service, 2. When using wireless internet service, you may not access the service if you know that it's unauthorized and prohibited by law. It doesn't actually prohibit the access itself, it provides the fines for doing so if another law has made that access illegal.

Can any lawyers comment on this reading? Because it seems actually to be somewhat counter to the headline and summary, and actually somewhat benign.

Re:

[Harin_Teb]

not a lawyer, but as a law student I'll give it a go:

It seems to me that the second bolded portion "with knowledge..." requires what is known as specific knowledge. In this case what it means is not that you have to know you are accessing another persons wireless internet even though you are unauthorized, but you also have to know that it is illegal to do so. This would require actual knowledge of the law, and not constructive knowledge. Since actual knowledge is pretty damn hard to prove I would guess th

MOD PARENT UP: READ BILL & BEAT the GROUPTHINK

[langelgjm]

IANAL, but I have been looking at this bill I have just come to the same realization that you have. Practically every post in this discussion has COMPLETELY misunderstood the bill.

First, people need to read the actual proposed bill, which they can do here (NB: PDF). [state.md.us] Note that the CAPITAL parts are being ADDED to the existing law.

Next, people need to understand that under existing Maryland law unauthorized access to a computer network is already illegal. This clearly includes wireless networks. This means that your iPhone / XP / Vista / whatever that automatically connects to an insecure network is technically breaking EXISTING law. The current law reads:

A person may not intentionally, willfully, and without authorization access, attempt to access, cause to be accessed, or exceed the person's authorized access to all or part of a computer network, computer control language, computer, computer software, computer system, computer services, or computer database.

This delegate wants to amend that section to exclude wireless internet access. It would instead read:

A person may not intentionally, willfully, and without authorization access, attempt to access, cause to be accessed, or exceed the person's authorized access to all or part of a computer network, computer control language, computer, computer software, computer system, computer services OTHER THAN WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE, or computer database.

This would mean that your device that automatically connects to an insecure network would no longer be breaking the law. But in order to keep purposeful, intentional access to a wireless network (or "wireless internet service") illegal, they have added this section to the bill:

(4) A PERSON MAY NOT INTENTIONALLY, WILLFULLY, AND WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION ACCESS, ATTEMPT TO ACCESS, CAUSE TO BE ACCESSED, OR EXCEED THE PERSON'S AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACCESS IS UNAUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED BY LAW.

THIS PROPOSED BILL MAKES FEWER THINGS ILLEGAL. Now I know a lot of people think that unauthorized access to an insecure network, even when purposeful and intentional, shouldn't be illegal, but it already is. This bill would simply decriminalize unintentional unauthorized access.

PLEASE, SOMEONE BEAT THE /. GROUPTHINK AND MOD THE PARENT POST UP, OR THIS ONE.

The story from MI is far scarier

[pedrop357]

FTA:
A Fox News story says the man parked his truck in front of the shop during lunch breaks and checked his e-mail on his laptop computer.

When a nearby business owner got suspicious, police talked to the man and ruled out that he was spying or stalking someone. However, a prosecutor filed the charge of stealing the wireless connection, the story says.

The charge was a felony punishable by up to five years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.

His other choice was a jail diversion program, which involved paying a $400 fine, doing 40 hours of community service and being on probation for six months.

Combining idiotic laws with the proliferation of access points, how can I prove that I'm using the (paid for) T-mobile access point at the Starbucks and not the business next door? The guy in the article may have admitted using the coffee shops inet access, but that doesn't show that there's not a bigger problem with laws like this.

Before my laptop self destructed (heat issue), I had a Verizon phone card that I used all the time. In fact a few times when on-call, I would pull in to the nearest parking lot and do what I needed to do.
If I had chosen to park in the parking lot near a coffee shop like this and the owner called the cops, how can I prove that I was using my own internet connection and not hijacking his? The few people who saw my Verizon card assumed it was a wifi card and had to be explained in depth how this wasn't wifi and would generally operate anywhere you could get a cell phone signal. I can only imagine explaining this to a cop.

The Locked Door Test

[dpilot]

We need an equivalent of the locked door test for this. IIRC, criminal responsibility for intrusion changes based on whether or not the door is closed, and whether or not it is locked.

In other words, if the door is open, it's reasonable to expect that perhaps the general public was invited in.
If the door is closed, but not locked, it's still possible that the general public is invited in, they're just trying to keep the heat in or the flies out.
If the door is closed and locked, clearly the general public is not invited in.

As for the "default router settings are open" argument, that's kind of like saying "newly installed doors are unlocked." As for the "flashing 12:00:00" argument, if you aren't competent to lock your front door, there's a problem. Manufacturers of wireless equipment need to do a better job of explaining this. They need a BIG RED PAGE when you open the box, explaining how to do the basic security, and how if you don't, you could have legal problems because you're responsible for ALL access through that wireless connection. As far as I can see, the directions are very little past, "insert the Windows driver disk."

By the way, so the instructions tell you as a minimum key to use your name, address, and phone number, and the street address for the SSID. Ain't much of a lock, is it? But it's is still most definitely a lock, and it takes deliberate action to open. No default-configured computer from anywhere will automatically crack even a trivial key and automatically make a connection.

Everyone with an iPhone would be a criminal

[techmuse]

iPhones automagically associate with open wifi access points. This would make everyone with an iPhone a criminal. How do you know which access points are intended for open use and which are not? Around here, many restaurants specifically offer free wifi to attract customers!

My wireless is free to anyone... is that illegal?

[urbanriot]

I live downtown with a high capacity internet connection that I typically don't use to its full extent, so I've QoS'd everything to allow excess bandwidth I'm not using to be available to anyone who wants to connect to my wide open wireless internet. Many people use this, and I've also had some students and neighbors thank me for it... I've also heard of others doing the same and I've been to many coffee shops and other such places where they freely offer wireless internet.

That being said, how will the end users know which networks are free to use, and which are ignorant people who can't configure technology (that they should know how to configure if they're going to try to use it)?

This sounds more like large ISP's paying someone kickbacks to the people in charge to prevent people from using 'free' internet, than it does protecting the children.

THEFT of Wireless

[scubamage]

To me theft of wireless means that you're sitting there, snorting traffic and running a decryption utility to process packets and ascertain a WEP or WPA key. Not really hard to do, but still akin to breaking and entering since the owners have obviously chosen to close off the network. I don't see a problem with breaking into such a thing a crime.

BUT if someone gets pressed for using an open wireless access point the owners are going to have to prove malicious intent especially since windows doesn't mind hopping from access point to access point.

Accidental?

[just_forget_it]

In my apartment, I pick up 11 wireless networks (even though there are only 8 apartments surrounding me), two of which apparently were set up by numbskulls (i.e. not set up at all. They just plugged the router in and left their network name at the default "linksys") and were left unsecured. My Windows Vista laptop will automatically connect to one of those networks if my router happens to puke and lose connection. If I'm away from the computer when this happens, I don't even know what went on while I was away, and I could surf for hours using someone else's connection. If "hijacking" someone else's wireless is made a crime, buying a Windows Vista machine will be like buying a car that automatically robs bank vaults while you're away at work.

This bill turns people into unwitting criminals because some people are idiotic enough not to protect their router, and Vista will automatically connect to these routers without asking. So, if it gets passed, the one question here is: if Vista forces me to break the law by automatically "hijacking" an unsecured wireless network, can Steve Ballmer be charged as an accessory to the crime?

Tresspassing signal!

[pecosdave]

I would argue that my neighbors Wi-Fi signal was tresspassing into my home, therefore it was mine to use as it was on my property. If my neighbor had an apple tree haning over my fence any apples that fell on my side of the fence would be my fair game as well.

The problem is fixing itself

[bamwham]

A year ago 3 of 6 Wi-Fi setups I could get from my house were unsecured and could be used, although only one of them had a strong enough signal to be reliably useful. Now 1 of 10 are unsecured. I live in a poor neighborhood with many retired renters, it seems like if they are figuring out (or stumbling across) how to secure their router than anyone can.

open routers authorize

[Russ Nelson]

If somebody has enabled their router to be open to all connections, THAT IS ALL THE AUTHORIZATION NEEDED. If my handheld sends a request for association with their router, and their router accepts my request, THAT IS ALL THE AUTHORIZATION NEEDED. If somebody leaves the door of their store open, I should expect to be able to enter the store. If they lock the door, then, that lets me know that I shouldn't enter.