WIFI from neighbour and low!??

[Rip]

The Supreme Court deemed it illegal a while ago, IIRC. If your neighbor notices you stealing his bandwidth, he might sue you.

It was actually only a district court opinion and I understand the case is going to be appealed. Personally, I found decision strange. To me the correct analogy would be, "If your neighbor drops into your mailbox some of his tools, is it right for you to use them - especially if you don't cause them noticeable damage?"

I can't help feeling that the court that could not find sufficient evidence that the accused has committed the more serious crime of hacking into his ex-employer's computer system (a crime committed using that open WLAN network), just wanted to convict the guy of something.

http://www.tietokone.fi/uutta/uutinen.asp?news_id=33340

[Nuuskamuikenen]

Hei Sinikala,

Presumably you didn´t try Nokia PC Suite then? Not available for Macs AFAIK

Mac's have pre-installed software that configure the settings of Nokia handsets. This is the reason the PC Suite is only for Windows platform. Thankfully Bluetooth dispenses with the need to use cables also.

Not only can it be used for Skype... but also iPlayer and Slingbox. Being a Crapple fan, these are perhaps new terms to you.

iPlayer and slingbox work on Mac OS just the same as on your windows machine.

As for the rights and wrongs of stealing someone elses wifi im not sure. Probably not a good idea to start downloading films and slowing down your neighbours internet connection down too much!

[Tiwaz]

The Supreme Court deemed it illegal a while ago, IIRC. If your neighbor notices you stealing his bandwidth, he might sue you.

It was actually only a district court opinion and I understand the case is going to be appealed. Personally, I found decision strange. To me the correct analogy would be, "If your neighbor drops into your mailbox some of his tools, is it right for you to use them - especially if you don't cause them noticeable damage?"

I can't help feeling that the court that could not find sufficient evidence that the accused has committed the more serious crime of hacking into his ex-employer's computer system (a crime committed using that open WLAN network), just wanted to convict the guy of something.

http://www.tietokone.fi/uutta/uutinen.asp?news_id=33340

Bad analogy.

Let's do another analogy. Your neighbour has unlocked electrical outlet near your apartment. It is nicely hidden from his regular view, so you plug in your own powerhog to his outlet and use his electricity to save your own money.

You are causing damage, you are using his network and bandwith.

He pays for the bandwith, unless he has tagged it as public property you have no business in it.

Or, if another analogy sinks in better...

Your neighbor leaves his backdoor unlocked.
Yes, he is stupid.
No, you may not go in and take advantage of the contents of his house. Even if you do not cause permanent damage to any.
You have no business going there and cooking food in his kitchen, even if you bring your own food.

[jas_rho]

The Supreme Court deemed it illegal a while ago, IIRC. If your neighbor notices you stealing his bandwidth, he might sue you.

It was actually only a district court opinion and I understand the case is going to be appealed. Personally, I found decision strange. To me the correct analogy would be, "If your neighbor drops into your mailbox some of his tools, is it right for you to use them - especially if you don't cause them noticeable damage?"

I can't help feeling that the court that could not find sufficient evidence that the accused has committed the more serious crime of hacking into his ex-employer's computer system (a crime committed using that open WLAN network), just wanted to convict the guy of something.

http://www.tietokone.fi/uutta/uutinen.asp?news_id=33340

Bad analogy.

Let's do another analogy. Your neighbour has unlocked electrical outlet near your apartment. It is nicely hidden from his regular view, so you plug in your own powerhog to his outlet and use his electricity to save your own money.

You are causing damage, you are using his network and bandwith.

He pays for the bandwith, unless he has tagged it as public property you have no business in it.

Or, if another analogy sinks in better...

Your neighbor leaves his backdoor unlocked.
Yes, he is stupid.
No, you may not go in and take advantage of the contents of his house. Even if you do not cause permanent damage to any.
You have no business going there and cooking food in his kitchen, even if you bring your own food.

Very good examples! While I agree with you 100%, if he is stupid enough to do something like leave his stuff out in the open and unprotected, the only thing he should expect is for something to get stolen or used.

[Mook]

if he is stupid enough to do something like leave his stuff out in the open and unprotected, the only thing he should expect is for something to get stolen or used.

Of course, if you use his router, he gets to sniff all your traffic!

(and make sure you don't accept any self-signing certificates for your web bank...)

[jas_rho]

if he is stupid enough to do something like leave his stuff out in the open and unprotected, the only thing he should expect is for something to get stolen or used.

Of course, if you use his router, he gets to sniff all your traffic!

(and make sure you don't accept any self-signing certificates for your web bank...)

Yeah agreed If you use his stuff illegally, expect that he finds out the things you were doing with his stuff. I am not saying its right to steal.

[littlefrank]

It's only stealing if you go into your neighbours flat and use their bandwidth, the fact is that your neighbour is allowing their bandwidth to trespass on your property, there are various ways your neighbours can prevent this trespass. If my neigbours start pushing 20€ notes through my door I am not going to step over them thinking that they're not mine, so I cannot use them.

[Rip]

You are causing damage, you are using his network and bandwith.

If the usage is occasional and not very data intensive, it's hard to see any actual damage. It's highly unlikely he would not be charged a flat monthly fee and occasional light usage would probably not show any notable slowing of network for him. Downloading movies online would be something different.

He pays for the bandwith, unless he has tagged it as public property you have no business in it.

I'm not talking about hacking into encrypted networks. Considering how simple setting the encryption on is, I'd consider it possible to argue that unprotected equals public.

No, you may not go in and take advantage of the contents of his house.

Excuse me, who is talking anything about going to my neighbors home? In my scenario I'm am sitting in my living room (either bought or validly rented) and it is my neighbor who decides without my permission, request or wish to push his radio network to my home and without even bothering mark it as private.

Do I have to use dark classes outdoors in the evening, if I go out and my neighbors outdoor lighting system is strong enough to lit my garden pathway too (so I would not steal 'his' light)?

[Upphew]

Excuse me, who is talking anything about going to my neighbors home? In my scenario I'm am sitting in my living room (either bought or validly rented) and it is my neighbor who decides without my permission, request or wish to push his radio network to my home and without even bothering mark it as private.

http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/Naap ... 5235577447
"Kyseessä on tiettävästi ensimmäinen kerta, kun Suomessa on todettu, että avoimeksi jätetyn wlan-yhteyden luvaton käyttö on rikos."
och samma på other kotimainen
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Court+ ... 5235591615
"The use of a neighbour's wireless Internet connection without permission is illegal, according a recent decision by Salo District Court. "

[Rip]

Excuse me, who is talking anything about going to my neighbors home? In my scenario I'm am sitting in my living room (either bought or validly rented) and it is my neighbor who decides without my permission, request or wish to push his radio network to my home and without even bothering mark it as private.

http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/Naap ... 5235577447
"Kyseessä on tiettävästi ensimmäinen kerta, kun Suomessa on todettu, että avoimeksi jätetyn wlan-yhteyden luvaton käyttö on rikos."
och samma på other kotimainen
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Court+ ... 5235591615
"The use of a neighbour's wireless Internet connection without permission is illegal, according a recent decision by Salo District Court. "

Did you read any of the previous posts? Like my first one in this thread where I provided a link to the same case already?

[Tiwaz]

If the usage is occasional and not very data intensive, it's hard to see any actual damage. It's highly unlikely he would not be charged a flat monthly fee and occasional light usage would probably not show any notable slowing of network for him. Downloading movies online would be something different.

Irrelevant, you are using his bandwith. You may only use small part, but he is paying for ALL of it. You none of it. Go shovel cash to him for him to agree to share.

I'm not talking about hacking into encrypted networks. Considering how simple setting the encryption on is, I'd consider it possible to argue that unprotected equals public.

You would consider it possible.

Except nobody gives a crap about your considerations. Welcome to Finland, we have this thing called LAW. And law says your argument is load of !"#¤%.

Excuse me, who is talking anything about going to my neighbors home? In my scenario I'm am sitting in my living room (either bought or validly rented) and it is my neighbor who decides without my permission, request or wish to push his radio network to my home and without even bothering mark it as private.

Do I have to use dark classes outdoors in the evening, if I go out and my neighbors outdoor lighting system is strong enough to lit my garden pathway too (so I would not steal 'his' light)?

So? Your neighbor has no means to bend laws of physics. What he has coming out of his WLAN box is not limited by his whims.

As for the light.

Let's give you yet another analogy.

Your neighbors live in their house, do their stuff inside. Their every action reflects light, which you can detect outside. That does not mean you may use this light, which acceptably is not property of your neighbor, for example to film whatever your neighbor does in his house. Despite this light having traveled to your adobe.

You may wish to read Finnish LAW (as opposed to your opinions). Start with Rikoslaki 24 section.

[Rip]

I'm not talking about hacking into encrypted networks. Considering how simple setting the encryption on is, I'd consider it possible to argue that unprotected equals public.

You would consider it possible.

Except nobody gives a crap about your considerations. Welcome to Finland, we have this thing called LAW. And law says your argument is load of !"#¤%.

You right about the first part (nobody gives a crap about my considerations). If you'd be as perceptive as you are strong in your opinions you might have noticed that the courts whose opinion actually matters (the higher level courts) are known often not give a crap of the opinion of the district courts either. We have one district court that has given its judgment in a certain kind of case where the law has never been applied before. Loud proclamation that THIS IS THE LAW might wait until we have an appeals court decision or possibly even one from the supreme court.

As for the light.

Let's give you yet another analogy.

Your neighbors live in their house, do their stuff inside. Their every action reflects light, which you can detect outside. That does not mean you may use this light, which acceptably is not property of your neighbor, for example to film whatever your neighbor does in his house. Despite this light having traveled to your adobe.

You may wish to read Finnish LAW (as opposed to your opinions). Start with Rikoslaki 24 section.

It is not very impressive that after making so bold assertions about the law(tm) you quote both by example and reference the wrong part it. No court has claimed this has anything to do with privacy (section 24). If any crime has been committed in these kind of cases then it is a violation against section 28 (unauthorized use).

[jas_rho]

After all this fighting about it being wrong and blah blah blah.... what would happen to someone if they stole someone else's wlan bandwidth? Would they go to jail for 10 years, would they get fined? Or would they just be told they are bad and to stop?

[Rip]

After all this fighting about it being wrong and blah blah blah.... what would happen to someone if they stole someone else's wlan bandwidth? Would they go to jail for 10 years, would they get fined? Or would they just be told they are bad and to stop?

In so far as the opinion of the Salo court is concerned: 8 day-fines for "Petty unauthorised use". The guy in question was obviously pretty much without income as he is supposed to pay (assuming the decision is not successfully appealed) only 8*6€ = 48€ .

Court decision (in Finnish):
http://www.kolumbus.fi/sidewinder/Salon_KO_R_08-10.txt


Finally question with a simple answer

[Upphew]

Did you read any of the previous posts? Like my first one in this thread where I provided a link to the same case already?

Yup, I read it, then I forgot it, then someone bumped the tread, then you implied that using someones wlan is not illegal if you do it at your own home, then I posted some links that say otherwise and now I know how I remembered that it was in news...