Why Lev Grossman of TIME Is Wrong About WiFi Theft

In yet another totally sensational and incorrect article by TIME Magazine, Confessions of a Wi-Fi Thief, Lev Grossman expounds on the illegality of accessing unprotected wireless networks. The mere concept of this being illegal absolutely enraged me. Enough so to actually do some real research on the subject.

First off, let’s actually read this law that Lev cites. Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47 of the United States Code, it doesn’t even to begin to cover wireless piggybacking. What it actually covers is the theft of data, whether it be personal or financial from government computers or other data that the government deems to be sensitive or a matter of national secuity. It does not in any way whatsoever make it illegal to piggyback off Internet connections.

This law is all about what data you access from a computer you aren’t authorized to use. So yes, if you piggyback on someone else’s wireless connection, and you actually steal private data, or attempt to extort that person or install a virus that causes damage, you are committing a crime, as to be expected. But if you just check your own email or surf the web for any publicly available data, you have NOT committed a crime. 

No wonder TIME and Lev didn’t bother to actually link to this law or cite how it applies. Instead Lev quickly moves on to the unethical nature of this activity. Let’s address the ethical issues later on.

So it’s definitely not theft. You aren’t depriving someone else of the use of their wireless router or signal. If anything, it’s trespassing, which is not theft. And frankly, WiFi Trespass isn’t nearly as sexy and sensational of a headline as the phrase WiFi Theft.

But let’s examine this trespass idea. Some will argue that accessing an unprotected network is like entering a house where the door is unlocked. I see it more as entering a piece of land that is private property, not a house per-say. 

In an article on Tech Dirt on the same subject, a fascinating discussion has been taking place. Readers have been arguing both sides of the issue with amazingly concise statements. An ‘Anonymous Coward’ wrote:

There are laws stating that if you want to enforce a “no trespassing” law on your property you must post highly visible signs all over the place.

This is totally correct. In order to enforce no trespassing, the landowner is the responsible party for clearly notifying a passerby of the landowner’s right to prevent that passerby’s access to said land. It is not the responsibility of the passerby to contact the landowner and find out if that land is open for public use. 

If you leave your wireless access point open and unprotected and allow it to freely broadcast it’s SSID, you are inviting people in.  And you are definitely not posting keep out / no-trespassing signs.

In my research, I was only able to discover one state, Michigan, where wireless piggybacking actually resulted in an arrest and successful prosecution, however, this was done under a Michigan law not a Federal law. The man, Sam Peterson II, charged and sentenced with this ‘crime’ received a fine and community service for the activity.  I also found a case of a 21 year old Alaskan man being arrested for wireless piggybacking, here, but I could not find any evidence that he was convicted of a crime.

The independent research Wood TV8 did after the Michigan man was charged uncovered this:

New York’s Westchester County is trying a different tack. Their local government said it’s up to WiFi subscribers to protect themselves against piggybackers

To date, no one has been successfully prosecuted for wireless piggybacking with the Federal law Lev cites. The example Lev uses is the one I linked to above in Michigan, though Lev incorrectly states it’s Cedar Springs, Mich, when it is really Sparta, Mich, or so I assume since the TIME article lacks even basic citation or links.

In Briton, at least one person have been successfully prosecuted for piggybacking on wireless connections. However, that is Briton, not the United States.

Now, onto the ethical implications of wireless piggybacking. I for one don’t find it in the least bit unethical. Many people I know intentionally leave their wireless access points open in order to ’share the love’ of Internet access. I personally choose not to keep my network open because of security and connection speed concerns. For many years, I left my wireless router open, but too many individuals piggybacking on my network caused it to slow to a crawl. The connection speed became so intolerably slow I was forced to close my network off from the public and neighbors. 

Whether your wireless access point is left open because you choose to share or your incapable of protecting it, it’s an open network and both strangers and friends should feel free to hop on your network and surf away.

Many thanks to Cornell for providing US Code and law online.

Published
by
gregory
on June 20, 2008
in General and Security
.

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Why are generation y always trying to convince themselves they have the right to do whatever they want with other people's stuff?

    Someone else's wifi is not yours, no court is going to believe you have some inherent right to secretly use someone's wireless network just because it's there and you're special.
    • ^
    • v
    @website design

    The responsibility of protecting your wireless network or your property lies squarely on the shoulders of the person who owns it. In many cases, people leave their wireless networks open because they want to share it. Just like in many cases people who own land in the country do not post no-trespassing signs because they allow anyone to camp and hunt on their land.

    Beyond that, TIME cites laws that don't apply to the matter and gets even basic facts wrong. Until the matter has firm legal precedence it's still up in the air on whether it's truly illegal. If you don't want people on your network than password-protect it.
    • ^
    • v
    Funny that anyone would argue about Time magazine's articles. Of course it's baloney, it's mainstream media, right? You might as well debate articles from the Onion.
    • ^
    • v
    I live in britain , so let me give you my take.As we all know the there can be dangerous unrestricted places on the web for kids.If someone is using wifi and it enters my house it does so without my consent,therefore there is a duty of care on the network owner to prevent it from potentially being harmful to my kids ,they are responsible for it.the default position must be to secure it,anything less is at best negligent.This changes the position of not choosing to secure to one of making a choice to not secure a network,this choice to make a network accessible implies consent to use the network.
    • ^
    • v
    Ah, I see your logic. So if I read you correctly, then if I leave my lawn mower in the front yard, you or the neighbors are free to take it and use it. I forget to lock my car, therefore I'm stupid and it's not theft if someone takes the car. Right. I didn't lock my front door, so it's OK to come in, get a snack from the fridge and watch some Dish because I didn't have a big NO TRESPASSING sign on the front door? I left my cigarettes on the dash with the window down - help your self. Oh wait, that's burglary of a motor vehicle. Theft is theft - it ain't yours, leave it alone. Geez, get real.
    • ^
    • v
    That's not the argument at all. wireless beams replace themselves. maybe if
    you threw your cigarettes through my window would be more accurate.
    regardless, as I said in the piece the laws quoted aren't accurate.
    • ^
    • v
    Sorry, but you are just trying to justify theft. WiFi theft (and it IS theft) does cause damage, it damages all the businesses who sell legitimate Wireless access.

    Theft is Theft, and no amount of justifying it will make it right. People will continue to do it, and very few will ever be prosecuted for it, but that doesn't make it right.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus