Tinkerman's tags:
Tinkerman's most popular posts:
Tinkerman reads (16):
Who's reading Tinkerman (21):

Wireless Piggybacking

Tinkerman posted on Jan 23, 2007 | views: 267 | Tags: computer misuse act, Singapore, wireless, computers, Wi-Fi, network security, ethics
A 17 years old teenage boy has became the first person here to be charged and sentenced for Wi Fi mooching.  He was charged under the Computer Misuse Act which says anyone convicted of securing access without authority to a computer for the purpose of obtaining computer services is liable to up to three years in jail, a 10,000 dollar (USD6,490) fine, or both.
 
Reports on the case do not suggest the teenager intended to use the connection for any illegal or mischievous purpose.  His sentencing had somehow opened a can of worms as to whether mooching should be punishable by law.
 
Advances in technology often present challenges to the law; with questions about how the old wine of existing legislation should fit into the new bottles of modern activity.
 
Is it the intention of the authorities to eliminate mooching altogether, even though some WiFi owners may have no objections to it?  The more important issue may be the implicit message sent to WiFi owners that they are not expected to be accountable for securing their own networks.
 
By comparison, even assaults involving minor injuries are, understandably, sometimes not prosecuted by the authorities due to resource constraints. Isn't mooching less serious than assault?

A compromise position would be to treat mooching as criminal in similar circumstances to when trespass is considered criminal — that is, when the trespasser has a mischievous intent.

Notably, simply entering another person's property without consent is not a criminal offence (although it may be a civil wrong); there must be an accompanying mischievous intent.

Prosecution for mooching could similarly be limited to cases where there is such intent.
 
Here's an interesting comment by Kevin79 on Techdirt.
 
Any comments from Soulcast-ers?


send to a friend del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • Cyphonik said on Jan 23, 2007....
    I think this is completely dumb.  I mean they say it isn't there responsibility to secure there network however, if it is that easy for people to get on there service then I believe that a lot of other people will get on there also.  Not to include that a hacker can probably get on there with no problem.  The problem I have with this is they need to learn how to protect there network and then there wouldn't be this problem at all.  Then we wouldn't have to convict anyone.  Therefore I believe that people shouldn't be charged with something as minor as this is.
  • silverwhisper said on Jan 23, 2007....
    honestly, if you don't secure your network, you're just sending out an invitation and have nobody but yourself to blame, IMHO.

    ed
  • Dicconzane said on Jan 24, 2007....
    I disagree on this. That's akin to sayin if you don't lock your car you deserve to have your car stolen. Not true. I agree you're dumb for not doing so but really there shouldn't be a need to. So yes if you don't have security then you will be taken advantage of but that doesn't mean that the people taking advantage aren't in the wrong.
  • Tinkerman said on Jan 24, 2007....
    Diccon,
    If the car is stolen, it becomes a crime, no doubt.  But if someone just sit inside the unlock car, or hitch a ride behind a pick-up truck without consent of the driver, does it constitute a crime? Punishable by law?
     
    Isn't it a tad overkill?  Do we want the hand of the law to be omni present in every aspect of our life?

Comment on "Wireless Piggybacking"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously