Is it illegal to take advantage of another's wifi by parking nearby without their permission?

Question

I can pick up a neighbor's wifi from my front room. Is it prohibitted to use it to get on line to check my e-mail or surf, etc?

Answer 1

Yes, it is illegal. And when someone compared it to leaving your door open to your house.. If you come into the house weather the door is open or not, it is considered breaking and entering and will land you in jail.

Answer 2

Yes. It is called "theft of services" and can get you a fine or even a prison term. I work in the IT security field, and see people charged for that on a daily basis. It is illegal.

Answer 3

It is semi-illegal, but I doubt you'll get caught. And it is the owner's job to firewall the system. I steal from a nearby town office.

Answer 4

it is illegal to use someone elses wifi without their permission, i know two people have been taken to court for this so beware, it may not have security enabled but it is considered theft to use it

Answer 5

It's part illegal and Part Legal if the other user which your using their internet off doesn't have a succurity lock or password it's not illegal.

Answer 6

not illegal - in so far as using it goes, but if he has to pay for it, maybe stealing. depends tricky one.
id just use it and hope he doesn't click.
after all, security is his responsibility with WEP

Answer 7

If they are not going to run WEP or encryption, it would be fare game...it's like leaving the front door open and you're not at home.

Answer 8

Hi. Security is up to the owner. WEP at least.

Answer 9

Legality

United States
The legality of wardriving in the United States is not clearly defined. There has never been any conviction for wardriving, and there is the untested argument that the 802.11 and DHCP protocols operate on behalf of the owner giving consent to use the network, but not if the user has other reason to know that there is no consent.

A New Hampshire bill which would clarify that the duty to secure the wireless network lies with the network owner has not passed yet, due to concerns that it may create a loophole for criminal activity. The specific laws, in any case, vary from state to state. A Florida man was arrested and charged with unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony in the state of Florida, after wirelessly connecting to and hacking into a computer network. It is important to note here that the crime was piggybacking, not wardriving

Australia
It appears that Wardriving in itself is not an offence under Australian Law, but "unauthorised access, modification or impairment" of data held in a computer system is a federal offence under the Cybercrime Act 2001. The act refers specifically to data as opposed to network resources (connection), so it would appear that the mere act of Piggybacking is not an offense, although a clever lawyer might argue that the unauthorized usage of a network causing high internet traffic might be construed as impairment.

Both Wardriving and Piggybacking are yet to be tested in Australian Courts.


[edit] United Kingdom
Piggybacking is illegal in the United Kingdom through several pieces of legislation, as evidenced by several arrests[1] and one conviction[2]. No case law has been made regarding the legality of wardriving (where this is understood to mean merely detecting the presence of networks), and no Act of Parliament has specifically legislated against it. A broad interpretation of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 could be applied, as section 1 reads:

"1.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if— (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer; (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case."

However, Wardrivers' advocates argue that they do not use services without authorization and may not even transmit a signal at all if using passive mode software (e.g. Kismet or KisMAC) instead of active mode software (e.g. Netstumbler).


[edit] Ethical considerations
Wardriving is frequently cited as an example of a questionable activity. However, from a technical viewpoint, everything is working as designed: Access points broadcast identifying data accessible to anyone with a suitable receiver by necessity. The use of listen-only software, such as Kismet, for wardriving can be likened to listening to a radio station that happens to be broadcasting in your area. But again, this may differ in other countries. For example, in the UK it is illegal to listen on some radio frequencies or to some transmissions (such as those used by the police or armed forces).

With other types of software, such as NetStumbler, the wardriver sends probes, and the access point responds per design. Most access points, when using default settings, are intended to provide wireless access to all who request it. Some argue that those who set up access points without adding security measures are offering their connection, sometimes unintentionally, to the community. Others argue that this reasoning is akin to stating that people who leave their doors unlocked are asking people to take what they like. In fact, when people unfamiliar to wardriving see how many open access points there are and how easy it is to find them, they sometimes want to secure their own access points. Some wardrivers go to the extent of informing the access point's administrator about their insecurity and offer steps to correct it. However, it has largely become etiquette to leave access points open for others to use just as someone expects to find open access points while on the road. This free sharing of bandwidth is also the basis of wireless community networks which are often considered the future of the internet.
===========================================

this also applyes to Piggybacking
Piggybacking is a term used to refer to obtaining a wireless internet connection by bringing one's own computer within the range of another's wireless connection without that subscriber's permission or knowledge. It is a legally and ethically controversial practice that in some places has been outlawed.

Piggybacking does not refer to the authorized use of the Internet by a customer of a hotspot providing this service, such as a hotel or cafe. Many such locations provide wireless Internet access as a courtesy to their patrons, either with or without an extra charge.

==============================================
Court cases
An Illinois man was fined for piggybacking on a Wi-Fi System after being warned repeatedly by the owner of the system. David M. Kauchak, 32, pleaded guilty in Winnebago County to remotely accessing someone else's computer system without permission, the Rockford Register Star newspaper reported. A Winnebago County judge fined Kauchak $250 and sentenced him to one year of court supervision. Kauchak has the dubious distinction of being the first person to face the charge in Winnebago County, and prosecutors say they're taking the crime seriously. "We just want to get the word out that it is a crime. We are prosecuting it, and people need to take precautions," Assistant State's Attorney Tom Wartowski told the newspaper. A police officer arrested Kauchak in January after spotting him sitting in a parked car with a computer. A chat with the suspect led to the arrest, Wartowski said.[1]

In Toronto, a man was arrested with a WiFi-enabled laptop in his car - and his pants down. He was tapping into unprotected wireless networks. Ultimately, however, he was charged not for that, but for the child pornography he was in the process of downloading.[2]

In both of the above cases the individual was not charged with wardriving, but for a different activity - e.g., possession of child pornography or cracking into a local computer network.

In London, Gregory Straszkiewicz was the first person to be convicted of piggy-backing in 2005. He was fined 500 pounds and give a 12-month conditional discharge. In early 2006, two other individuals were arrested and received an official caution for "dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services with intent to avoid payment

========================================

Computer Hacking and Unauthorized Access Laws
Hacking is breaking into computer systems, frequently with intentions to alter or modify existing settings. Sometimes malicious in nature, these break-ins may cause damage or disruption to computer systems or networks. People with malevolent intent are often referred to as "crackers"--as in "cracking" into computers.
"Unauthorized access" entails approaching, trespassing within, communicating with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise intercepting and changing computer resources without consent. These laws relate to either or both, or any other actions that interfere with computers, systems, programs or networks.