By Dan Ilett, 22 July 2005 15:55
NEWS
A UK man has been fined £500 and sentenced to 12 months' conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband connection.
On Wednesday, a jury at Isleworth court in London found Gregory Straszkiewicz, 24, guilty of dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service and possessing equipment for fraudulent use of a communications service.
Straszkiewicz was prosecuted under sections 125 and 126 of the Communications Act 2003.
Police sources said Straszkiewicz was caught standing outside a building in a residential area holding a wireless-enabled laptop. The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that Straszkiewicz was 'piggybacking' the wireless network that householders were using. He was reported to have attempted this several times before police arrested him.
The case is believed to be the first of its kind in the UK.
Last year, 21-year-old Brian Salcedo was sentenced to nine years in a US prison for siphoning credit card numbers over a wireless network from hardware store Lowes.
Comments
There are 17 comments. Join the discussion
1. David
...and if manufacturers did a bit more to encourage users to set up even basic security on access points, this would be less likely to happen. I can see three unsecured wireless network points from my settee at home (and one secured one - guess where that is?). The thing is, most of the broadband wireless routers now are almost plug and play. Stick in the network authentication and "look Mavis, it's working". Domestic users probably never get off the "quick start" page.
2. Marcus Randle
Could someone please assist Mr Ilett in performing his job, and fill in the rest of the story. In common with a number of people, I use wireless connectivity in a large number of locations, and have the connect to any options set on my devices. Indeed, I have taken advantage of public spirited citizens sharing of connections in London, Manchester and New York. Does this mean I should go straight to court, or is there actually a little more to this story than some poor unfortunate standing too close to an intolerant incompetent while his laptop did the evil of trying to seek a connection?
[Ed note: Good point about free wireless access, Marcus. But we think the important part of Dan's story is the word "dishonestly". These weren't connections meant for just anyone to use.]
3. Ian
One important thing missing from this - was the network open, or password protected? Did the guy do anything illegal once he had access.
If it was an open network, and he did nothing bad, then what's the problem. I leave my network open deliberately. I don't care if people use it, if they need to.
4. Paul M
leaving your wlan open poses problems. OK, most borrowers might be nice. But you might expose your windows shares - most wlan APs bridge your home network to wireless, so passers-by could see your default shares.
My wlan AP is on a separate interface on my linux firewall.
If someone downloads some kiddy-porn or sends abusive emails, it will trace back to your network. Sure, you might be found innocent, BUT, the three months enduring your PCs being impounded, questioned by police etc, it's not worth it.
My AP's essid is, "keep out". It's old and crappy, doesn't support WPA, so I change the WEP keys frequently.
5. Allan
David - You've done well to find 3 WLANs from your sofa! My NetGear DG834G wireless ADSLmodem/router/firewall struggles to get a Low strength signal in a 'normal' household from the groundfloor hallway to a groundfloor back room only about 6metres away (through two open spaces and two open doorways). But you're right, WEP security should be the default WLAN security, but there's bog-all understandable about WEP in the set-up routines! Also, unless a person is maliciously or routinely abusing someone else's WLAN internet access, I think it's a bit rum to prosecute a guy for a one off (or even two-off) short term access - unless it's hacking access to steal data. Nix on hijacking someone else's b-band access for downloading huge movie files, but a quick check for emails should be allowed though, I would have thought that that's not unreasonable. Is it?
6. Graham
I too am confused about this. How 'dishonest' is it to turn on WiFi on my PDA and check my email when in a built-up residential area on the offchance that someone has an open access point? How 'dishonest' is it to sit on my sofa and connect to an AP called 'Sitecom' (I still can't work out who's it is) to periodically check my firewall is still doing what I expect?
There needs to be some sort of clarification on this. Ok, downloading a terabyte of dodgy DVD rips could be construed as a DoS attack for the poor unfortunate access point owner, and moving kiddie porn around is illegal in it's own right (isn't it?). But hooking up to a piece of equipment that has been set up according to the manufacturer's instructions and carrying out legal activities that do not adversely affect the owner of that equipment..... what exactly was the crime?
By that standard the access point owner could be sent to prison for not securing his/her network and 'aiding and abetting criminal activity'?
7. Andrew Howard
I think that this is a bad interpretation of the law. People and companies (coffee shops, restaurants) deliberately leave their connections open for use. If people don't want their wireless networks used, they should secure them! How should the public know if a network has deliberately been left open or is owned by someone who has left it open "in error"? I don't see any culpability in using something that's there for the taking - different matter if he hacked, or cracked, looked at private stuff or stole data but it doesn't sound like he did. He should appeal against the decision!
8. Ed Yee
This is ridiculous. I leave in a condo and it depends on where I am at, I could pick up 3 different WiFi signals from my neighbors. Only one of them is secured. Mine is secured also. I usually do not know which one I am connected to or care unless my laptop picked up the secure WiFi network and I have to disconnect it.
If I got sue for picking up someone signal, may be I could sue him back for sending his signal into my property? The case in US involves stealing credit card numbers with intent to fraud.
9. anonymous
Yes, let's have some more details on this 'dishonestly' word you;ve decided to highlight in the story. how did the police go about proving this 'dishonesty?'. Or was it 'dishonest' simply by virtue of the prosecution saying so?
10. anonymous
Sorry Silicon.com but you really haven't provided the clear story here, to anyone who is interested a more descriptive (and worrying) account is found here.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/25/uk_war_driver_fined/
Silicon.com can be pleased to know that all the links on Google for the mans name all gave ripped off accounts of the Silicon.com story, which didn't actually help though.
It appears you (cos I'd never do it!) are committing a crime by logging on to any unsecured connection.
If you walked in to a house whos door was open and made a phone call, would that be a £500 fine and 12 month suspended sentence? Hmm.
Does anyone know how to turn the auto unsecured network connect feature off on an Ipaq?...
11. Nick Salter
Too right, Gregory Straszkiewicz is not Paul Timmins or Adam Botbyl. I’ve been using a neighbour’s broadband for a while now, though connections were never brilliant, it did allow fast downloads of windows update files compared to my dial up. Since I can park in McDonalds and use BTopenzone I find this story incredible. Is it not just a way to get £14.99 per month out of every householder and feather the nests of the executives of Telewest et al and their crony lawyers who also did not have the brains to do a BSc or have the imagination to pursue anything other than a materialist money grabbing existence? Bit like that poor chap who got 8 bullets in the head, better safe than sorry, better shoot than do a bit of research or reflection
12. Simon
this is madness - should be responsibility of owner to lock it down - you don't leave your front door open at night do you? what would the police say then - 'sorry sir, but you are an idiot, trying shutting & locking your door'. Insurance company - 'you did what! er - sorry your not covered for stupidity.' maybe they wouldn't be sooo rude - but that would be the sentiment.
13. Jeremy
I think this case is worth a silicon.com feature article/investigation (by a better journo with more time). What would have happened, for instance, if the chap with the laptop had instead been using eg a wi-fi enabled phone, or a BT-fusion phone, that is constructed to automatically switch to the lowest-cost connection? Would he still have been convicted of 'being equipped to break and enter someone else's wireless network' as seems to have been the prime evidence here? The precendent that has been set in this case could turn out to be enormously pervasive, and render thousands of innocent people liable to criminal conviction.
14. George
This is rediculous! What about the following scenario...is this ilegal too?
I walk by a house, (on the public sidewalk), and see a woman undressing through a window with no shades drawn. I do this every day at the same time. Is this me being a "peeping-tom"? Am I a stalker? I don't think so. Actually, I think she would be prosecuted for "public indecency"!
This has gone to far! Take responsibility for your own WiFi network!
15. George
This is rediculous! What about the following scenario...is this ilegal too?
I walk by a house, (on the public sidewalk), and see a woman undressing through a window with no shades drawn. I do this every day at the same time. Is this me being a "peeping-tom"? Am I a stalker? I don't think so. Actually, I think she would be prosecuted for "public indecency"!
This has gone to far! Take responsibility for your own WiFi network!
16. anonymous
my 2 penneth..
communications act section 125:
125 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services
(1) A person who-
(a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
(b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
How can he be classified as dishonestly obtaining the communications service if the network wasn't secured? He hasn't done anything dishonest to access the network, it was freely available.. WEP security cannot be described as difficult to set up, even non technical users could do this within 2-3 hours, especially using Windows XP ..
the owner of the wi-fi should be responsible for enabling security mechanisms, and is there own fault for not doing so... they should be charged with wasting the courts time!!!!
what is the difference with accessing a public hotspot in macdonalds, and a 'public' (any wireless communications can be classed as public as it is being publicly broadcast) hotspot emitting from somebodys house?
somebody has got this interpretation of the communications act seriously wrong, and i would be very suprised if Straszkiewicz doesn't appeal against this decision, with the public awareness on this case, i'm suprised a better lawyer than the one that represented him in the first place doesn't offer to represent him!
17. Kaine Bruce
Surely it isn't a private network when its availability is publically broadcasted, like a radio station. Which it was...