Police collar kid for Wi-Fi pinching

@Igor Mozolevsky

"So the guy who nicked your stuff should get off too then?"

No.

Please show me where I said that.

The reason why that nicking stuff is irrelevant is because nothing was stolen. Nothing that could be told as yours and not the kids. The network shows the same internet and there's no nametag on the 1's and 0's.

So the "theft" part of real theft from your car or home is irrelevant.

re: so what's my redress if ...

A right and proper question.

What if the router logs what goes through. That's personal information there that this devious AP user has engineered to steal from him!

After all, if you site an AP closer to them than their own, use the same identifier, the computer will log in through YOUR AP. This is called "interception of telecommunications" and is illegal.

Then, having taken all the personal and private information needed, the nefarious AP owner then sets the ID back to the default and then claims the victim of theft and fraud (pretending to be your router so as to take your information) is illegally entering your system. Thereby ensuring that the victim cannot persue redress for the wrong done them!

A genius plan!

Primary job of the police.

I always thought that the primary job of the police was to prevent crime. Detecting crime is a secodary activity when they have failed.

I remember, many years ago, plod used to go around and check that shop doors and so on were locked at night. Maybe they could move with the times and have a number of cars outfitted with unsecured wifi detectors (not really very difficult to do). They could then track them down and tell the owners.

So that's why they say they need 42 days

As the 'expert witness' above says, they must have de-skilled considerably ...

But in the old series of Morse, Lewis could just walk over to a green-screen PC, clack on a few keys and locate hidden gold !

@ @Eponymous Cowherd

" But if you removed the encryption any devices the neighbour already had setup with encryption would all stop working, no?"

No. If you view the available WiFi networks on the laptop it will show as unencrypted, but it will still connect.

Burglar analogies wrong

But still from what we're told it's almost impossible that the yoof be guilty of anything. Three and only 3 possibilities:

-the wifi wasn't encrypted, and the router was broadcasting its name. In that case, the yoof axed permission and got the green light (that's how dhcp works). That's a no-case.

-the wifi was protected somehow (but still presumably broadcasting its ID, how stupid can you get?). Then we must assume that the lad was savvy enough to crack the encryption, and _disabled it_. We also then admit that he gained admin access. So he choosed to disable the encryption, knowing that it was completely useless at that point and that he'd lock the owner out of the wifi and thus be spotted right away. And he didn't attempt to cover his tracks or to completely lock the owner out as a prank. Who's going to believe that? Seriously?

-someone else cracked the neighbour's connection and disabled the security features, prior to the teen's "intrusion". Back to case one.

In any case, the fact that the connection owner needed the neighbour to tell him that an alien computer had connected to the wifi tends to indicate that he was not tech savvy enough to even check the router status on the web interface, let alone set up the security. This is consistent with him being stoopid enough to tell a load of incoherent lies and think it'll go unnoticed.

Also, remember that the yoof had his own connexion (I must admit it's not a valid point, as "illegal" downloading is so much safer when done from someone else's IP, but still.)

As a final note, I must say "teen+laptop+intarwebs" is a pretty explosive combination. Glad I don't have to analyse the laptop.

Also...

First, @ Anonymous John (@ @Eponymous Cowherd )

"No. If you view the available WiFi networks on the laptop it will show as unencrypted, but it will still connect."

Yours may, ta very much to the Fine Folks in Redmond. Mine will tell me that something smells fishy, and won't connect until I give it the green light (possibly after a wee bit of investigation). Think of it. It makes a lot of sense. Say I am the bad guy next door, I name my router as yours, tells it to broadcast the same essid, and spoof your AP's MAC (I reckon it would take 30 seconds)... now the odds are all your traffic will go through hardware I own. Hope you're not into Internet banking...

Second, @ all the burglary analogists, will you please go clue-picking on the icebanks in the nude (preferably with a couple rabid wolves gnawing on your genitals)? If your neighbour forcibly broadcasts his open network into YOUR house, you hardly need to break into HIS house to connect I suppose. I have a much better analogy: if the neighbour turns the TV sound all the way up, can he prosecute you for illegally listening to his pricey sports channel? I thought not.

another anonymous

Well, this guy can allow his wifi transmission to bleed into his neighbors house and the father can't do anything. Too bad the father can't sue him for trespassing. Wish they would get this right. Someones unencrypted signal can come into my house and I can't tap into it? If my neighbors water hose leaked into my yard I could do what I wanted with it. Sounds like the neighbor had it out for him in the first place. What kind of neighbor is that!

@Steve

Ignorance as to the law - that using someone else's Wifi is illegal - is indeed no defence. Ignorance as to *fact* - i.e. thinking the icon one is clicking is for one's own network, is. Moreover, as well as _actus rea_ a criminal offense requires _mens rea_ - the conscious intent to commit an offence.

you can hack stuff without understanding it

You don't have to know anything to hack a router. There are computer enthusiast websites with detailed step by step instructions, youtube video's ......

I read several of these tutorials and none of them mentioned anything about what types of evidence gets left behind on the Router or your own computer or how to remove it.

I still think more likely than not the router was just accidentally left unprotected.

Just saying breaking is a lot easier than understanding the technology enough to cover your tracks.

I can understand the neighbor.

I can understand why the neighbor called in the coppers. Imagine yourself unable to secure your own wireless network and unable to determine where the bandwidth is going. Next imagine your tech-savvy friend alerts you that someone has hacked into your network. You might have sensitive documents, credit card numbers, private pictures and who knows what else that the neighbor boy now has. Remember that someone who can't secure their own network may also have lax security protecting their sensitive data so the fellow may've wanted police to investigate whether the lad had any data and examine the laptop, not just give the lad's father a warning and ask him to stop without knowing to what extent he had been compromised.

Lastly, consider that if the internet connection had enough traffic that the slowness was noticable, perhaps the lad had been using P2P filesharing and the account owner did not want that traced back to his account if anti-piracy agents took notice, the account owner would then want a record of the fact that the lad had been using his account which isn't going to happen if it merely notifies the lad's father without getting police involved.

Couple of questions please ...

- how do you refuse a caution ?

- since he accessed the router, which last time I looked isn't a computer, how come it's "computer misuse"

Next thing is ringing a wrong number is computer misuse because some phones are about as clever as routers these days

@Igor Mozolevsky

"So you'll be happy for anyone to use your land line, your electricity line, your gas supply, let anyone dump their cr*p into your sewer, gladly watch them put their rubbish into your bins?.."

No, but they wouldn't call it computer trespass either.

They'd also be happy to change their ways if their wireless access point was being used and they didn't know.

@Igor Mozolevsky

"I suggest you revisit the definition of 'burglary' - you can easily draw parallels between that and hooking into someone else's WLAN."

I suggest you look at the laws against trespass. You can draw parallels between that and sending wireless signals into someone else's property.

I suggest you look at the noise abatement laws. You can draw parallels between that and sending wireless signals into someone else's property.

(Which the WAP is doing)

I suggest you stop taking "analogy" and making it mean "equals".

Retard.

But...

He could of stolen the neighbours usage allowance???

If neighbour gets upto 20GB a month and teenager used 15GB, then as the neighbour can no longer use his full 20, then it could be classed as theft? Couldn't it?

open wifi

AC wrote:

"If its locked with any form of encryption (however weak or strong) its private and any access is against the law, if it is left open then its public it is up to the owner to secure it."

But let's not misunderstand that accessing an unsecured wifi intentionally is illegal.

My mother lives in a old people's town (predominantly old people anyway!), and there are no internet cafes there, when I went to visit her, I drove around the town looking for an unsecured wifi, I found one, pulled up and checked my emails. Shortly after that came the prosecution of the guy that was using his laptop sitting on a wall, piggybacking of someone's wi-fi, noticed by a couple of dumb plastic PCSOs.

The town still suffers from a lack of public internet access so when I go on holiday there, I'm screwed.

I must admit it felt quite satisfying to jump on to someone else's connection, but in reality, checking a few emails isn't going to have any adverse affect on the owner's use of their data connection and it's certainly not costing the owner any extra money. Perfectly harmless.

The law should be changed to permit access to open wifi connections if the duration of access is limited to say 1 hour and the volume of traffic is limited to say 5MB, or rather, not prosecute if someone piggy backs off an open wifi with these conditions.

You've got a law that results in prosecuting people when there is no harmful effect whatsoever.

And any muppet that doesn't have a secure wifi, well, tough mate.

Nameless Faceless Computer User

"Personally, I check my wireless connections from time to time and simply boot anyone who may have connected for some reason. It's hardly an act which requires the police to be called."

The guy managed to figure out that another address had been assigned by the DHCP server? Sounds fairly computer literate to me. Yet, he discovers his connection is being used by someone else, simply secure it and leave it at that, recognise he made a balls up by not activating the encryption in the first place.

Makes me wonder why he really did call the police, just to cause trouble for someone else I wonder? Revenge? if you ask me, he's wasting their time.

Makes me wonder what a bunch of muppets the coppers are, they should have used their descretion and say to him "silly boy, you should have activated encryption in the first place, activate it, and the problem is solved, no need to for us to spend (waste) our time investigating this". And a little clip around the ear.

I don't know, the coppers these days, discretion seems to have gone out the window. It all seems to be about investigating, criminalising anything just so they can claim they've solved another crime for the crime stats.

The father was right not to accept the caution, that would be an admission the boy did something wrong.

@William Old

Well, the US just told the UK government that McKinnon did $5,000 damage to each of the 98 computers he logged on, where all they had proof of was that he'd got on there. That's trespass.

And it was enough to kick the "he has to be extradited for his crimes" meme. Note the "crimes".

And to the AC who said

"But let's not misunderstand that accessing an unsecured wifi intentionally is illegal."

No, it is not necessarily legal.

Like riding on a pavement on a bike. Not illegal but you have no right to cycle there.

And then you have to prove the kid DID intentionally access the WAP.

Which hasn't been done.

re: But...

And if the end of the month comes around and the 250GB limit has not been reached, nothing is lost.

What about when a system problem at the DSLAM causes the connection to be lost. Is the ISP now stealing his access? My ISP refuses to pay back any money whatsoever for their inability to keep a network going 100% yet get REALLY shirty if I don't pay 100% of the time.

Car analogies

I wonder, what analogy would we use if the neighbour left the wifi open with DHCP enabled, and configured the router such that all the HTTP requests were redirected to some dodgy site?

Perhaps it is a little like leaving the car unlocked with the engine running and the brakes cut.

@mark - I like your noise abatement analogy

>> I suggest you stop taking "analogy" and making it mean "equals".

That is a very valid point, analogies are just that - i.e. similar in some respects, not identical in all.

Finally, I have to say that the father in this case was the hero of the hour. Many parents would be tricked by the police into taking the (seemingly) easy option. I think you could probably draw many parallels between a police caution and a forced confession.

@Arclight

"Why is everyone assuming that the neighbour hadn't gone round to complain, and that the father told me fug off?"

And why did you just make that accusation?

Why are you not assuming that this fellow is a KP enthusiast and setting himself up to be pardoned "'cos that horny teenager done it"? If we're going to make shit up, why not go hog wild?

Arclight, please engage brain.

"To me this story smacks more of the manufacturers needing to make this stuff easier for the masses to set up."

You mean, like a self-explanatory web interface? Plus a bundled wiz-on-a-disk? There's no way to make it easier without implanting probes directly in the user's brain (provided you can find it). No, the guy was just dumb as fuck. Just like about half the comments on this story.

I'm off, need to crank the volume up and sue my neighbour for eavesdropping.

Not sure now..

I was reading this thinking, if something like that happened I would just go round to the neighbours and say stop it please. However, thinking about it, getting the cops involved isn't such a bad idea. What if the neighbour had been surfing kiddie porn, you go round and say stop it, They stop it. Next week plod comes and arrests you for viewing kiddie porn on-line. You say it was next door, they ask next door who say - no - not me - got my own WiFi here. At least this way, if the someone has been surfing for KP on your connection, then you have a police record that peeps next door have also been using the Wifi.

Just me 2p