Theft of wireless internet

Our man in Havana

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pocketli/20070823/ttc-man-arrested-for-wi-fi-theft-in-lond-57dbc65.html

Has there been anything similar in Ireland? Is there any similar offences on the books?

Tom Young

Section 9, CJ (Theft and Fraud Offences) 2001.

Criminal Damage Act 1991, S.5.

Someone wrote a note on this recently. I can't remember if its as enforceable here. If I can find the note or link I'll post it. It might have been on IOFFL - Ireland Off Line.

Tom

9.—(1) A person who dishonestly, whether within or outside the State, operates or causes to be operated a computer within the State with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

ircoha

Bond-007 wrote:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pocketli/20070823/ttc-man-arrested-for-wi-fi-theft-in-lond-57dbc65.html

Has there been anything similar in Ireland? Is there any similar offences on the books?

from the link
[The man, who was using his laptop sat on a garden wall ...]:D

A more serious issue here is that the owner could get wrongly accused of downloading porn/ music/bertie aherns speeches/ etc as the beauty of a laptop is that the IP address cannot be easily traced so they settle on the IP address of the router. While you may argue that they need to find the pc, it can be embarrasing as the SWAT team will arrive assuming the pc is in the same house as the router.

Unsecured wifi is asking for trouble.

Tom Young

There is something about property law and constitutional rights 40.5, 43 and 40.3 in Ireland that may mean that bringing charges on foot of signals that maybe coming over a persons property could be an issue.

Tom Young

http://www.cearta.ie/2007/04/no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch-even-at-barcamp/

« I remember this one time, at BarCampXenophobic European Bloggers Beware »28

04

2007
No such thing as a free lunch, even at BarCamp
Posted by: Eoin, in Media and Communications, Irish Law, Irish Society, Blogging
Over coffee at BarCamp last Saturday with Marie Boran (of Silicon Republic) and Antoin Ó Lachtnáin, conversation turned to last week’s news reports (BBC | OUT-LAW.com | The Register) that two people (let’s call them the leeches) were arrested in the UK and cautioned for using other people’s (let’s call them the routers’) wifi without permission. There are interesting questions of legal liability here, both for the leech and for the router, and they came up again in the context of Antoin’s presentation later that day about fon. That’s Antoin preaching the fon gospel in the photo on the left. Here, I want to discuss some of the legal issues, before turning to Antoin’s presentation.

Let’s look first at the liability of the leech. Last week’s case, and another similar one two years ago (BBC | OUT-LAW.com | The Register) in which a leech was fined £500, concerned section 125 of the Communications Act 2003, relating to dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services. Section 125(1) provides

A person who-
(a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
(b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
is guilty of an offence.

This seems clear enough; unfortunately, however, Irish law on the point isn’t as lucid. In an idle moment, I emailed a few lawyers asked them for their opinions. TJ McIntyre pointed to section 99(1) of the Postal and Telecommunications Act, 1983 (also here) which provides:

A person who wilfully causes the company to suffer loss in respect of any rental, fee or charge properly payable for the use of the telecommunications system or any part of the system or who by any false statement or misrepresentation or otherwise with intent to defraud avoids or attempts to avoid payment of any such rental, fee or charge shall be guilty of an offence.

and

Of course, according to section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Act, 1997 (also here):

Any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried and punished as a principal offender.

But the cases establish that this secondary liability depends on knowledge by the accessory not only that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed, but also that his or her action assisted in its preparation, commission, or aftermath. It it therefore only where the leech knows that the router wishes to use the wifi for criminal purposes that the router will also be liable under section 7(1) for the leech’s criminal offence.

Our man in Havana

It must put the providers of free wifi, garages cafes in deep trouble if a leecher uses their router to commit offences?

Tom Young

Would do I guess. We also have a Someone Else Did It, defence here from operation amethist. Far as I know.

Rhonda9000

Perhaps (!) the providers of free wifi may be viewed by the courts as being more akin to ISP's? I.e. as pipes through which information flows, no responsibility for what users choose to do with said pipes. However an ISP can trace which customer did what etc. in the case of anything naughty. Are free wifi hotspots commonly available without getting a free login code from e.g. the person behind the counter?? (I dont know).

Our man in Havana

Yep. Just turn on the laptop and away you go.

Rhonda9000

I see. Perhaps they go to lengths to filter sites / restrict behaviour like networks at work etc.? Someone must have realised potential liability problems with this surely?

Our man in Havana

Some do and some don't. The good ones block anything dodgy. Even Paddypower is blocked by some.

Some other places the router is wide open, you can work away and do what you want.

Carawaystick

What does the OP mean by the question?
I see two meanings
1) using an ISP's service without ( anyone)paying for it like Irish Broadband or a satelite link
2) connecting to a wireless lan that is connected to the Internet

If a network is accepting connections, I'd imagine it's like a www server replying when asked. If you don't DOS it then, use the service away.

Tom Young

The question in my mind is one of liability. The original article speaks of person being charged with use of someones ISP service via a Skype phone. That effectively is stealing.

tuxy

If only isp's would have WPA then this wouldn't be such a problem.

Tom Young

True, but then again sometimes its the Users fault. I assume you mean Wifi Protected Access - WPA? Even PSK - Pre Shared Key, would provide some form of blockage.

tuxy

Tom Young wrote:

True, but then again sometimes its the Users fault. I assume you mean Wifi Protected Access - WPA? Even PSK - Pre Shared Key, would provide some form of blockage.

Well a secure WPA key is practically uncrackable right now. But most isp's have their wireless routers setup for WEP, which is easy to crack. And some people use not encryption at all.

No encryption is like leaving your front door open, WEP is like closing your door but leaving it unlocked.
The stupid thing is WPA is just as easy to setup as WEP.

dermot_sheehan

Interesting piece here about the position in Irish law:
http://www.lexferenda.com/24042007/a-wifi-odyssey/

Tom Young

The comments section is most interesting

Duffman

Rhonda9000 wrote:

I see. Perhaps they go to lengths to filter sites / restrict behaviour like networks at work etc.? Someone must have realised potential liability problems with this surely?

That's a tricky one actually. The "mere conduit" defence for ISPs that you mentioned only applies if there are just delivering an internet connection.

Once they actively try to filter or monitor anything then they're in danger of crossing the line from ISP to content provider. The defence is a very narrow one.

Take boards, for example. The fact it has active mods probably means it can't claim to merely host user-created content.

the_syco

Well, how do you term "unsecured"? Without any type of security, with WEP, or with WPA? The first is open, the second may as well be open, and the third, with some time, can be opened.

Also, how about if you use a pringles can, and get the connection from a street away to hack into the English MoD's database?

As in the old days, unless it's switched off, and locked behind a closed door, which has been welded shut, people will be able to access and use it, if they so wish.