|
“The
Internet is a giant international network of
intelligent, informed computer enthusiasts, by
which I mean, ‘people without lives.’ We don't
care. We have each other...” -- Dave Barry
While
taking a short reprieve from politics after the
hotly contested primary elections, I came across
an article from InfoWorld. It reported the
first recorded arrest of a man for “hopping on
to a home Wi-Fi Network.”
For
the less technically inclined amongst us, Wi-Fi
(short for "wireless fidelity") is a
term for certain types of wireless local area
networks (WLAN). Many airports, hotels, and
fast-food facilities now offer public access to
Wi-Fi networks, commonly known as “hot spots.”
Wi-Fi
networks are becoming very popular. When I fire up
my laptop in the densely populated suburbs of
Northern Virginia and allow my wireless software
to scan for Wi-Fi networks, I can find several in
any given neighborhood. Most of these home Wi-Fi
networks are completely unsecured. Manufacturers
of Wireless Access Points (WAP) usually ship their
products with all security features disabled,
making it easier to provide technical support to
computer users who are not technically savvy. This
policy makes life easier for WAP manufacturers,
but leaves most consumers unprotected and
potentially vulnerable.
According
to InfoWorld, it seems that Benjamin Smith
III, 40, was arrested on April 21 outside the St.
Petersburg home of Richard Dinon and charged under
a Florida law that prohibits unauthorized access
to a computer or network. Dinon saw Smith sitting
in a parked sport-utility vehicle in front of his
house and wondered what he was doing there, then
saw he was using a notebook computer. Ironically,
Dinon wasn’t concerned about Smith accessing his
home Wi-Fi network—the thought probably never
entered his mind. But Dinon was concerned that
Smith might be casing his home.
Dinon
did what most responsible homeowners would do
under such circumstances: He called the police.
Smith eventually confessed to taking advantage of
Dinon’s unsecured Wi-Fi network. There was no
evidence that Smith had hacked into Dinon’s home
network. Presumably, he just used it to establish
an Internet connection to surf the Web or check
his email. In the end, the police arrested Smith
and confiscated his laptop.
With
Wi-Fi networks and hotspots popping up all over
the place, computer users may be unaware that they
are logged into someone else’s Wi-Fi network.
Because Wi-Fis operate on radio frequencies and
these frequencies are susceptible to interference,
Wi-Fi users may unwittingly lose the connection to
their home networks. In such instances, their
wireless connection software could scan the area
for other Wi-Fi networks and automatically connect
them to any other unsecured network. Thus, Wi-Fi
owners may—without their knowledge—become
Wi-Fi pirates.
That's
a far cry from mobile computer users who scan
neighborhoods looking for unsecured networks where
they can connect to surf the internet, a practice
referred to as “war driving.”
So,
how would Virginia law treat these Wi-Fi pirates?
Not very lovingly! Section 18.2-152.3 of the
Virginia State code, defines Computer Fraud as the
use of any computer or computer network without
authority. Obviously, this statute was written
long before anyone conceived of wireless networks.
No provisions currently exist to cover the
occasional use of someone else’s Wi-Fi network,
even if the connection to this network was totally
accidental or unintended.
This
statute could chill the adoption of an emerging
technology that may liberate us from being chained
(i.e., wired) to our networks.
Will
we see a day when the police give up their radar
guns and start using radio triangulation
techniques reminiscent of world War II when troops
tracked down users of shortwave radios? It appears
rather unlikely, but if someone can figure a
tax-raising angle in all of this, all bets are
off! After all, we now have the police using
mobile license-plate scanners to identify tax
scofflaws.
If
Virginia wants to maintain its reputation as the
Silicon Dominion, legislators had better start
revamping the State Code taking into consideration
new and emerging technologies. Otherwise, we stand
to make criminals out innocent high-tech users who
do not realize that they are violating some arcane
statute.
--
July 11, 2005
|
