Is it illegal to wi-fi squatting in Ontario or Canada?

[jedi1648]

According to the FBI in the US, it isn’t a federal offense to squat, as long as the squatter doesn’t use the connection to do anything illegal. Wi-Fi squatting is against the law in some states.

Just to use the "free" internet check emails or checking stock prices...

[l69norm]

According to the FBI in the US, it isn’t a federal offense to squat, as long as the squatter doesn’t use the connection to do anything illegal. Wi-Fi squatting is against the law in some states.

Just to use the "free" internet check emails or checking stock prices...

Yes, it's illegal in Canada. It's an offense in the Canadian Criminal Code (section 326) punishable by up to 2 years in jail and $5000 fine per occurrence.

It's a special section too in that you have the onus to prove yourself innocent (i.e. you have explicit permission to use the access point). The crown does not have to prove that you didn't have permission .

[Oversized Rooster]

A couple of years ago it was easy to do because most people just plugged in their routers and pressed the "easy setup" button.

Nowadays most connections are WPA or WEP encrypted and you'll simply draw too much attention while you try to find an open network. Not worth the risk.

It's a better idea to get one of those "Ovation MC 950D" USB modems from Rogers. Then you can have internet anywhere where there's a cell phone signal.

You can get a simple $25 plan which will give you 0.5GB of monthly bandwidth. This is enough to "stay connected" with web sites and e-mail. Obviously, one shouldn't try to download a torrent while they're on the road.

I know it's expensive, but it's VERY cool to have internet ANYWHERE. For instance, some people have inbuilt picoATX computers in their cars and use their NAV screen as the display. For such people, it would be possible to access the Web anywhere on the road. How cool is that?!

[l69norm]

..i can see it being illegal if u break through any security, but I dont see it the same if its open....

The way the law was written, it's a reverse onus so you are "guilty till you prove yourself innocent". The squatter must prove he had explicit permission from the owner. All the crown needs to prove is that you were connected to an access point that's not your own.

As far as I know, the charge has been laid at least twice and I think there was at least 1 successful conviction.

http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00109.html

Cops Urge Computer Users to Protect Wireless Lap Tops
Josh Pringle
Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:38 PM

Ontario Provincial Police charged a 25-year-old man last week under
Section 326 of the Criminal Code - "Theft of Communications."

The OPP allege the man was using his lap top computer to steal a
wireless Internet connection in Morrisburg.

Ottawa Police Hi-Tech Crimes Detective Marty DomPierre says "war
driving" is becoming popular. He says computer enthusiasts drive around
in their car with a computer open trying to locate an unprotected
wireless network to use.

[kayman18]

Nowadays most connections are WPA or WEP encrypted and you'll simply draw too much attention while you try to find an open network. Not worth the risk.

its my understanding the WEP is hackable i thought i read a article about a good hacker being able to break WEP encryptions in like less then 10 seconds, i think WPA is the more secure way to go atm.

Kayman

[ah802]

^^
even if the wifi is open

i can see it being illegal if u break through any security, but I dont see it the same if its open.

Chances r if ur dumb enough to not set up any security over ur connect, then u will be too dumb to know if someone is using ur wifi.

Now, if ur just a prick leaving it open on purpose to make someone using it, then try and charge them, then u should go F*** urself!

In the UK they're going to make it illegal to have an unencrypted WiFi signal.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/10...r-wifi-theft/1

[srg83]

Just to play devil's advocate here, couldn't you argue that they are giving you permission to connect to your network by leaving it unsecured?

For instance, for a long time I left my network at home unsecured - I realized people might try to connect to it. So I wouldn't be able to win a case if I had someone charged for connecting to it, because I knew it was open to connect. It's secured now, so obviously if someone connects now I didn't intend for them to use it.

Just saying that simply being aware that the network is unsecured could be argued as extending permission to connect to it.

[kayman18]

Just to play devil's advocate here, couldn't you argue that they are giving you permission to connect to your network by leaving it unsecured?

For instance, for a long time I left my network at home unsecured - I realized people might try to connect to it. So I wouldn't be able to win a case if I had someone charged for connecting to it, because I knew it was open to connect. It's secured now, so obviously if someone connects now I didn't intend for them to use it.

Just saying that simply being aware that the network is unsecured could be argued as extending permission to connect to it.

i remeber a law example from my classes about a scenerio like this

say you have a swimming pool in your backyard wich has no fence (unencrypted wifi) around it (also illegal) and some one gets hurt using the pool with out your permission like just some random stranger. he could sue you for getting hurt in your pool.

but if you have a fence up (encrypted wifi), you can argue that you took every precaution to make sure people dont have acess to your pool, so any injury that happens is from people circomventing your fence, so you are technically not liable.

[rfd_lurker]

Just to play devil's advocate here, couldn't you argue that they are giving you permission to connect to your network by leaving it unsecured?

For instance, for a long time I left my network at home unsecured - I realized people might try to connect to it. So I wouldn't be able to win a case if I had someone charged for connecting to it, because I knew it was open to connect. It's secured now, so obviously if someone connects now I didn't intend for them to use it.

Just saying that simply being aware that the network is unsecured could be argued as extending permission to connect to it.

So you leave your front door open for the summer months during the days. Does that mean every Tom, Dick and Harry can come strolling into your home?

[Oversized Rooster]

So you leave your front door open for the summer months during the days. Does that mean every Tom, Dick and Harry can come strolling into your home?

Well there was a case where a thief tried to enter a home, but fell down the stairs and hurt himself. And then he sued the owners of the home for his injuries even though he was a thief. There are some really "sick" things about our law system here which defy common sense.

[srg83]

So you leave your front door open for the summer months during the days. Does that mean every Tom, Dick and Harry can come strolling into your home?

I wouldn't leave the door open without a screen door. And the door that is open is the door to the backyard which is fenced in...so I would say that is NOT openly inviting anybody to come in.

And even if it was the front door, there is still a barrier to entry; while it is not as secure as a locked door, it's still a barrier to entry.

But I'm not sure that comparison is valid; it's a different situation. And while I like the example of the pool, it's not exactly the same situation either (and aren't you required by law to have a fence anyway?).

Please don't misunderstand; I know that with bandwidth caps etc. in place nowadays (and I think some providers charge you extra if you go over a download limit), using someone else's wi-fi can lead to costing someone else a lot of money.

I was just wondering if being aware that your network is unsecured and being aware that people would be able to connect to your network, you are giving permission to connect to it. Now, most people with unsecured networks likely don't know the consequences, so this arguement would not fly in court.

But let's say I got charged an extra $50 because someone connecting to my network put me over my monthly limit. I take him to court. They ask me, "were you aware that your network is unsecured?" I say yes. "Are you aware that it means other people can use your connection for free?" I say yes. It becomes a little harder for me to win the case, does it not?

I may not have intended to provide free wireless access, but I left my wireless network unsecured knowing full-well that someone else could access it.

[kayman18]

considing if you can find the person heh, if hes war chalking unless he is caught in the act there is almost no way to trace were this person is, to bring charges on him

just answering yes i knew it was unsecured wont get you off the hook, you would need to supply proof, ie logs of ips showing how much traffic you used, and how much traffic the other ips used. you will still be required to pay the extra 50 bucks unless you can proove you didnt yourself use the extra b/w in question, and technically it still could be you on a laptop that you own but arent admitting you own it

unless you supply your isp with a list of mac address (before the incident occurs) of all your computers so they can verify upon a charge like this, that yes a mac address that doesnt correspond with this owners account acessed his wireless connection

[srg83]

considing if you can find the person heh, if hes war chalking unless he is caught in the act there is almost no way to trace were this person is, to bring charges on him

just answering yes i knew it was unsecured wont get you off the hook, you would need to supply proof, ie logs of ips showing how much traffic you used, and how much traffic the other ips used. you will still be required to pay the extra 50 bucks unless you can proove you didnt yourself use the extra b/w in question, and technically it still could be you on a laptop that you own but arent admitting you own it

unless you supply your isp with a list of mac address (before the incident occurs) of all your computers so they can verify upon a charge like this, that yes a mac address that doesnt correspond with this owners account acessed his wireless connection

I don't think you get my point...

[kayman18]

if your point was that you would have a less chance to win, you would have a 0% chance of winning

[l69norm]

....considing if you can find the person heh, if hes war chalking unless he is caught in the act there is almost no way to trace were this person is, to bring charges on him...

The way the law is written, it's the reverse that's a problem. The crown doesn't have to supply a victim. Suppose you get pulled over with an open laptop. The onus is on you to "prove" how you are connected to the Internet. The police doesn't have to figure out who/how you are connected to. The mere fact that you are connected and that you couldn't supply explicit permission is enough to get you charged.

The analogy would be as follows:
You get pulled over driving your brother's car. The mere fact that you don't own the car is enough to get you arrested for auto theft. The onus is on you to "prove" that you had permission to drive the car.