That could be one of the listed negative effects of technology... When the more technology-independants such as our parents just can't understand the how the technology-dependants think. And eventually will cause the technology-dependants to be even more dependent on technology then ever.

Yes, it all boils down to communication doesn't it? It believe understanding is a two-way process.

Trackback from Wireless island - parents losing control over their kids’ Internet usage?:

What is interesting is why the youth resorted to WIFI mooching in the first place: his mother tried to control his Internet usage. So he just left the house at 2 a.m. with his laptop to find a network....

Reminds me of the girl who ran away from home, was found and tried to run away again by jumping down from the window.

Our teens can be too wilful for their own good.

Yes, they hate the nagging but they really should obey and listen to adults at times.

Ok, I am going to hide now 'cos those teens will come charging and shooting at moi soon.

Trackback from Reaching Zenlightenment:

since there are so many IT-idiots out there buying routers and turning them up unsecured, the newspaper report is just stating that piggybacking is wrong, just to scare the same dipshits that what they are doing is wrong...

let me put this scenario across.

you are somewhere that you know, offers wireless for free. say, Macdonalds.
However, its your first time, and you dont know what the wireless's SSID is. You scroll your list of unprotected networks and you find one that you think is by Macdonalds. You connect.

turns out the connection isnt Macdonalds, and someone is unhappy. could you get arrested for that?

perhaps ST didnt give enough information. did he hack the WEP/WAP? was he able to change the internet settings, which resulted in irritating the neighbour? did he actually warn the teen beforehand? did the police actually warn the teen, since there was a complaint filed?

we give examples of open homes, unlocked doors. in both cases, its the owner's responsibility to lock the door, to secure at least with WEP. but being Singaporeans, we never ever blame ourselves. so here we are.

back to the open door analogy. i connect to an unprotected network. in a way, i am entering someone's home. am i stealing anything? no! am i using the water? if the connection is not unlimited, which is very unlikely - a wireless network setup costs more than a few months of limited internet usage - then yes, i guess im in the wrong. BUT, other than that, im just taking up space. i'm not disturbing you, im just giving you less space to walk around.

petty? file a complaint. its the only way i'd be exorcised.

Isn't it also logical that those people who think they are cool and savvy enough to use wireless should learn how to detect the right connection or not connect at all?

Ever heard of trepassing? Say, I go to your home, don't touch anything. Stand beside you while you sleep, eat, type your stuff on the computer... Is that alright? DOH!

Trackback from the-double-0-project.net:

It is interesting to wonder what if the owner deliberately opened up access to his network in order to farm the usernames and passwords of these people tapping into his network illegally, and then use this info to get the offenders into trouble....

Trackback from Slashdot | Jailtime For Leeching Wireless?:

An open accesspoint is actually broadcasting invitations- if accepting an invitation is considered illegal, how is accessing a web server legal?...

Hi,

When you are walking outside a corridor in a block of flats, you see several open doors available to enter. When you enter, it brings you to an unsecured home. Is that a crime ? If so, why is a unsecured home there in the first place, should not all homes be secured?

You get 5 points for answering since Singaporeans love scoring points.

Hi,

When you switch on the laptop at home, it asks you that there are wireless networks available to connect. When you click Yes, it connects you to an unsecured wireless network. Is that a crime ? If so, why is a unsecured wireless network there in the first place, should not all networks be secured?

Teak! Thick! Teeeeak! Thick!

But if they are not selling for S$1 a piece, I would NEVER buy them. So they'll never have my profit. So what is the profit that they are being deprived of ?

thats just you and you can't speak for others.
even out of 10% who switch to buy original means 10% profit for them...

think about it.

Another line of thought :

I buy pirated DVDs because the are cheap. And because I think it is a victimless crime.

If I don't buy the pirated DVDs, I would NEVER have bought the orignal DVDs anyway, cos they are so expensive.

So whether I buy pirated DVDs, or not, the actual copyright owner would NEVER have earned my money, so there is no loss to them.

And by buying pirated DVDs, I am still contributing to the economy, and some people had jobs, and probably I helped prevented them from going into robbery or burglary. So I am helping the economy and society.

Think about it.

but if the GLCs are the main distributors of DVDs... then u are eating into their profits..

especially if they might have extra 3 billion to make up this financial yr..

Ask yourself this. Should people be arrested for stealing?

any lost of capital here?

Smelling of food doesn't USE anything, nor does it affect the food for the actual consumer.
Watching TV that is placed in Garden, doesn't spoil the TV signal, nor causes the neighbour to pay more in TV license.

Tapping onto someone's wireless is USING bandwidth. Unless you check with the victim first to make sure he/she is on unlimited plan. Also, reducing someone's bandwidth probably affects the surfing pleasure.

We do not know if (a) neighbour HAS turned on any security. What if the teen actually HACKED in ? Or (b) the teen has used it to do anything bad ? Like hacking other people ?

Not much information in the news. So why is everyone jumping to the conclusion that because the owner didn't secure, it is OK ?

Take the examples of uncles and grandmas who are watering plants at the corridor and left their house open, unlocked, and someone walks in to take something. Uncle/Grandma sees and being physically unable to stop , calls the poolice.

Are you going to blame the uncle/grandma and LET THE BURGLAR GO ???

Leaving wireless unsecured and not blaming the piggybackers is like saying women who dressed scantily deserves to be raped by rapist and any decent woman will have enough common-sense will not dress that way ?

hmm.. i nvr said its not a crime if it incur more cost to the owner..

the "arrest" is definitely too overkill.. come think of it.. TT Durai was nvr "arrested" before...

Now I understand why "The True Story of Ah Q" by Lu Hsun is evergreen and has been published in 35 languages! This incident reminds me of Ah Q who was punished to awe a thousand others. :-(

Why does history seem to repeat itself so often? Don't we homo sapiens ever learn from our mistakes and weaknesses?

Trackback from More FON and giving them away:

For those who dont know, FON allows you to share your broadband via wireless in exchange for a cut of the revenue ('bill' model) or allow you to use other broaband ('linus' model)....

is it a crime if u are watching ur neighbours big screen TV located in his garden?

You know what? Some pubs used to screen movies at their premises. Guess what happened? Yes, they got found out.

And they were stopped.

If you go wireless, at least learn how to bloody use it. The ignorance of such people who happily just switch on their wireless routers and don't bother to FIND OUT how to protect themselves are always the first ones to complain when their wireless networks get abused.

Hello, (un)common sense please?

Granted that this is a victimless crime, stealing is stealing. No two ways about it how ever much one wants to play with semantics.

Tapping onto bandwidth is very similar to stealing.
If the user you tapped onto is on unlimited account, then probably it is like stealing 10 cents from a multi-billionaire.

If the person is made to PAY EXTRA due to the extra megabits being used by others unknowingly, then it is the same as stealing.

I only hope the judge will take into account the circumstances and award punishment accordingly.

I read Max is 3 years in jail, which is a bit too much. Probably some community work or something.

come and think of it, if u have more than 5 frds over at ur home and prolly decide to surf harmless webby like www.tomorrow.sg but using connection of ur neighbour, u prolly be charge wif an additional charge of unlawful assembly (renew code) as well.

Trackback from We are all serial offenders!:

I think many people including myself would be serial offenders if piggybacking is a crime!...

Then the piggybackers deserves to be charged for mischief. Then again, there is nothing the owner can do except to hard reset the router, which will then remove all traces of the log. :(

These piggybackers are downright evil then. They deserved to be shot and hung twice over.

The owner may be in the fault for not securing his network, but for the piggybacker to be up to such mischief, I don't think it's any right either.

*bang* *cluck* cluck*

Trackback from themediaslut: The day the wired router turned wireless:

One technical guy told themediaslut that sometimes not only do these piggy-backers use it for their Internet acces, they enter the control panel and changed the settings, eg the username, passwords, and even WEP settings....

Trackback from decayonnet:

Let say there is this big house along the road. The owner always keep his door wide open. He has a lock, but just didn't lock the door. Their aircon is turned on 24hr a day, regardless if there is anyone at home....

under common law, the jury/judge tend to decide on two factors when dealing with matters of such nature.

1) Reasonable Man's test. a test to see if a normal man would act the way the accused do.

2) Mens Rea. the mental factor. whether he had intended to do a certain act.

well i dont suppose the police will come down TOO harsh over this. probably like the guy who got caught for dwnloading MP3s. small fine.
-hairyfairy

Then I think he definately pass the Reasonable Man test. To be frank, if there is a free network next to you and some how you want to but is not able to log online. How many out there will go "No, that is stealing" and dun use the free wireless.

i think MOST of us, okae maybe just me, don't know that piggybacking wireless networks is wrong. so.. definitely the message has to be sent across more strongly that it is an offence, before anyone can be sentenced.

then again, i think the govt might just decide to kill off all unsuspecting riders. they are in constant need of more revenue.

"money.. more money.. show me the money.."

what if my wifi ssid is the same as my neighbour's ssid and my laptop connects to his router instead of my own. who's fault is that?

Trackback from tinkertailor: My neighbour and her chillis:

My neighbour loves chilli, and loves planting them as well. She plants them in her balcony, along the corridor, and even in the small grass patch right beside our block....

Well, yes, but if I leave my main door unlocked and unattended, that doesn't give you the right to come in and cart away my TV. For my carelessness, I probably deserve to have my TV taken away but you would still be committing a crime for taking my TV.

I think the person who reported him is just being petty. That person obviously knows that an unsecured WiFi network is open to wardriving, and is too lazy to secure it or too cheap to pay someone to do it. And then someone come and steal your bandwidth you not happy.

To you the complainant I say: "Why the heck do you want to ruin the life of this young man?"

It's more like putting your TV in the corridor and objecting when neighbors come to watch it.

So are you saying that it is alright to take things that do not belong to you? Just because there are goods displayed without lock and key in department stores, does that mean you can take them without paying?

Security features/measures are a deterrent but they are not foolproof. That's why there are hackers and phishers.

The young man, if he has willfully broken the law, is the one ruining his own life. Don't blame it on somebody else.

No, I'm saying it's *not* alright to take things even if it is easy to do so due to the negligence of thr owner. It is patently wrong, but it does do distract responsibility from the owner from securing his belongings.

But I still think being hauled to court just for mooching abit of bandwidth is a little extreme. Of course if he had been repeatedly told not to access the network or if he had hacked the WEP key to access the network, that would be en entirely different story. At this point we simply don't have enough details.

So perhaps we shouldn't be too quick to pass judgement.

Yes, there are security features on wireless routers to keep unauthorised users out, passwords and all. They can be confusing to the layperson, but if one wants to go wireless, then learn the trade. Not that I like piggybackers, but it's not the guy broke into someone else's house to use the network or tried to hack through the network.

To be frank, I wouldn't want any unauthorized access to my wireless network for privacy and security reasons if it can be compromised by such acts.

So protect it. It's so easy.

anyone who have taken advantage of anyone/anything that will hurt the profit of any GLCs will be punish...

targeted to make extra $3 billion this financial yr?

Somehow, I just couldn't get that Shin Corp booboo out of my mind.

Yah, and they can go to jail by listening to the closing of the jail doors outside the cells.

Trackback from Balderdash:

"Go away, you gang of thieves!" he yelled at them. "I'll send you to jail for stealing the smell of our food."...