Is wi-fi dangerous?

[swee'pea99]

Someone mentioned to me yesterday that their daughter's health had improved since they stopped using wi-fi in their home. They reckoned wi-fi was knackering her immune system.

Can anyone point me in the direction of something resembling science on the subject?

No, but I'm with Bonj - it's total cobblers. Given the ubiquity of wi-fi and the simultaneous miraculous survival of people's immune systems, it seems rather more likely that their daughter's recovery is what we scientific types like to call a 'coincidence'.

 

[gratts]

*climbs on the bonj-pea ship*
I'm with them on this, codswallop!

 

[Carwash]

which is actually illegal, although how you'd detect and prove it after the fact, i'm not sure.

How is it illegal? You can't have "gained unauthorised access to a computer system" because there is no authentication/authorisation-checking in place. They've failed to secure their network, either by choice or out of ingorance - that's their look out.

What if they've left their network open on purpose, as a service to others? Plenty of people do this - how are you to know if you're welcome or not? Far nicer to assume generosity on their part than incompetence!

On many systems, connecting to an available, open network in range is the default behaviour. Does you computer acting without your input in this way make you a criminal?

 

[alecstilleyedye]

i think an analogy would be if someone leaves their front door unlocked and someone comes in and uses the telephone. that's also illegal.

you are possibly costing the network owner money, or at least using up band width. and if (as is often the case) you're downloading porn or copyrighted material, you're going to leave the network owner with potentially some awkward questions to answer.

 

[JonoB]

The Swedes have done the most research in to this. The scientist involved had all the Wi-fi removed from his house based on his findings.
Most schools now have Wi-fi. Maybe this accounts for much of the poor behaviour??

 

[Carwash]

i think an analogy would be if someone leaves their front door unlocked and someone comes in and uses the telephone. that's also illegal.

I think that would be a poor analogy. People do not leave their front doors open intentionally in order for other people to just come in and use their house without asking. And it would be difficult to establish a plausible reason for them to do so. But people do leave their wireless networks open as a courtesy to others in the area, for them to use. They are sharing with others.

Now, of course people also leave their networks open by mistake, either due to ignorance or incompetence. But I think that to assume that, and to assert that accessing an open network is illegal because the network owner may not want you there is silly, and ignores those who may have left their networks open on purpose. How are you to know their intentions?! You can't. Better to assume charity of spirit than incompetence.

If they really didn't want you to get on their network, they would have at least made an attempt to secure it. Even something as trivial to bypass as WEP or even filtering by MAC address at least says "Keep out!" even if the 'door' is still open - in that case, yes, it would certainly be immoral to gain unauthorised access to the network and probably illegal.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

The Communications Act 2003 says a "person who (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and ( does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service, is guilty of an offence".

interesting article on the subject here.

 

[DJ]

which is actually illegal, although how you'd detect and prove it after the fact, i'm not sure.

How is it actualy illegal?

It's only illegal cos some dumb ass let himself get done for using someone elses (unprotected network). If people leave them unprotected then it suggest's to me they don't mind some one else using it!

 

[Carwash]

The Communications Act 2003 says a "person who (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and ( does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service, is guilty of an offence".

I would argue that accessing an unsecured wireless network does not contravene either of those clauses. Assuming good faith on the part of both the network owner and the person accessing the network, there is nothing dishonest about it, and there is no avoidance of charge.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

regardless of whether it's moral or otherwise, the law is what the law is. maybe takek it up with your mp if it's a big issue.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

I would argue that accessing an unsecured wireless network does not contravene either of those clauses. Assuming good faith on the part of both the network owner and the persona accessing the network, there is nothing dishonest about it, and there is no avoidance of charge.

yes, but there's a difference between using a free wi-fi service at e.g. mcdonalds (where it is promoted as a free service for diners), and logging on to someone's wi-fi without their knowledge. unless expressed, you cannot be sure that the only reason the network is insecure is because the owner does not understand either how to secure their network, or the ramifications of failing to do so.

assumed good faith is not something i'd want to rely on in court either.

and just imagine this; your broadband package is subject to a monthly download limit. your bill shows that you are regularly over the limit, and getting charged extra, or being denied service until the next month (when the limit resets). imagine you get a letter from your isp concerned that your ip address has been used to download copyrighted material (with the threat of disconnection), or worse still, a visit from plod because your ip address has been used to access child porn. now tell me that there is no value in a law which makes it illegal for people to use your internet connection without your permission.

 

[Carwash]

regardless of whether it's moral or otherwise, the law is what the law is. maybe takek it up with your mp if it's a big issue.

True, the law is the law. But I don't think the law covers this issue very clearly. What, exactly, is dishonest about using someone else's unencrypted wifi? What charges are being avoided? Assuming that network resources are not being abused, what is being stolen?

 

[Carwash]

yes, but there's a difference between using a free wi-fi service at e.g. mcdonalds (where it is promoted as a free service for diners), and logging on to someone's wi-fi without their knowledge.

I think that if the network is open, there is nothing to suggest that there is any difference.

assumed good faith is not something i'd want to rely on in court either.

Why not? Assumption of good faith is an important legal concept!

now tell me that there is no value in a law which makes it illegal for people to use your internet connection without your permission.

I absolutely think there is value in that. But I think that by not securing your network, you are granting implied permission.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

But I think that by not securing your network, you are granting implied permission.

no more than leaving the front door unlocked is implying you want people to come in and make themselves at home. i know for a fact that if my in-laws had wi-fi, they'd not even think about a need to secure it. i also know they'd be appalled if i explained to them the consequences of not doing so. you can't assume that the lack of security on the network is a tacit approval for you to gain access.

the law is there to protect the stupid technically challenged in this instance.

 

[Carwash]

no more than leaving the front door unlocked is implying you want people to come in and make themselves at home.

As I've already said, I don't think that analogy holds.

i know for a fact that if my in-laws had wi-fi, they'd not even think about a need to secure it. i also know they'd be appalled if i explained to them the consequences of not doing so.

Undoubtedly. But if they don't want other people on their network - or not even on their network but listening to its traffic - then they should invest the time to learn about these things. If they are not prepared to do so, perhaps wifi is not for them?

you can't assume that the lack of security on the network is a tacit approval for you to gain access.

I think that pragmatically that is exactly what you have to assume. Otherwise you would never be able to connect to any network without explicit authorisation, and no-one would be able to share their network if they wanted to. Why would anyone want that state of affairs? That you prefer to assume that people are ignorant rather than generous is saddening. Proper access control says "Authorised persons only!"; a lack of it implies that anyone may access the network. If someone does not want their network to be open, why on earth would they leave it open?

the law is there to protect the stupid technically challenged in this instance.

It is not a question of "technically challenged", it is a question of laziness or apathy. Securing a home wireless AP to a reasonable level is not rocket surgery. The law probably does not agree with me on this, but: I feel that if someone is going to administer a computer network they must be prepared to take on certain responsibilities, and to at least be familiar with the operation and configuration of the devices under their control. Any adverse consequences resulting from their failure to do so must surely be caused, in part, by their own incompetence.