wardriving a crime in Florida?

[Don Erickson]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Jeremy Fowler wrote:

> Somebody else paid for the bandwidth, and if you don't 
> have permission to use it, you're stealing it.

Well, gee.  If I stick an open box on the internet with a service open, 
then can I prosecute sombody for "stealing my bandwidth" if they "access 
my network?"  Maybe nobody's interested in my super-secret Rice Crispy 
Treats recipe or my fabulous comp-man lizard pictures on my web server, 
but if I have a box that allows access, then unless I'm a total idiot I 
should at least recognize that somebody might access it.

An open proxy server is exactly the moral equivalent of an open wifi 
network, except that nobody needs the web proxy in an emergency, and 
there's no "scan for proxy" software enabled out of the box at CompUSA. 
If you're running squid open to the internet, people are going to find and 
use it.  Duh.  You can blame them and sue them, or you can blame yourself 
and secure your network access.  It's not like the people utilizing your 
service haven't given you anything of value in return.

They've given you an education, which has a great deal more appreciating 
value than the lousy bandwidth does.  And anybody running an open internal 
wifi damned well NEEDS an education.

Tangentially, running portscans and publishing the results is exactly the 
same as wardriving and publishing the results, at least that's my view of 
it.  So, as to "moral high ground", I think it is more honorable to 
discover and harmlessly use an open wifi than to advertise its existence 
to those who may have dishonorable intent.

I'm not necessarily anti-wardriving, anti-advertising results, 
anti-accessing open networks, or anti-exploiting open proxy servers.  My 
view is that somebody or several somebodies are going to do it and anybody 
with a computer should realize this and take the proper precautions.  If 
you are running open networks and relying on the deterrent capacity of 
local laws and gendarmes and the wonders of Microsoft Service Pack XXII to 
protect your data and reputation from the bad guys, it's well past time 
for a two-by-four style wake up call, which is probably coming post haste.

I frankly don't see why wifi networks that advertise their existence and 
give out free IPs are viewed ANY differently than any other internet 
service that allows access.  The only explanation that I can think of is 
that it all happens within one legal jurisdiction with wifi.  Sort of like 
looking under the lamppost for the missing keys.

The simple fact is that it IS a jungle out there and the actions of people 
who _do no harm_ are not the ones that you have to worry about.

Considering the havoc that could be wreaked (I think that's a word) 
through an open internal IP, utilizing a bit of bandwidth falls under my 
definition of doing no harm.

To review:  Publicizing the existence of an open wifi network is 
potentially _exponentially_ more harmful to the network owner than 
checking your email through it is.  However, one seems to be illegal, the 
other doesn't.  One is against the "Wardriver's code of ethics", the other 
isn't.

It makes as much sense as anything else, these days.

Regards,

-Don, who shouldn't respond to these things after a half bottle of wine.