Wireless technology is hot these days, with more and more wireless devices appearing all the time. There's no denying that wireless is here to stay. My brother works from home two days per week, and I recently helped him set up a wireless router at his house. His company has a wireless usage policy even though they do not condone using wireless technology for work; because they recognize that they can't control or monitor wireless use in home offices they are trying to educate their employees about how to set up a secure wireless network.
We set up MAC filtering, a private SSID, disabled DHCP, disabled broadcasting, etc. according to the guidelines from his employer. I also tried to explain to my brother how these setting protected him, and in the process explained wardriving to him. Obviously the risk for wardriving on his suburban street is much lower than in a densely populated city, but it is still possible a neighbor or neightborhood kid might try. I'm sure that he and I aren't the only ones that find it morally disturbing that there are those who do not see anything wrong with wardriving.
Note to any wardrivers out there reading this: I know that there are many reasons for wardriving, some of them legitimate. I also expect that any wardriver is aware that there is controversy about that particular passion, and to understand that this is not an attack but a topic for discussion.
I was intrigued when an InfoWorld columnist wrote about the ethics of war driving. He summarized one side of the argument (the one I gravitate towards) quite well: (full text available here)
Are you connecting to the Web through my network while sitting in your mom's Volvo on the curb? Answer: yes. And am I paying for the bandwidth that connects me to the Web? Answer again: yes. And is this bandwidth that connects me to the world a finite resource? Yet one more time, the answer is: yes. And am I paying to connect you or my employees to the Web? Answer: my employees. So in what sense of the word could this possibly be considered public? Ummmm ...The argument is actually a mite more complex than that. There's an additional element of wardrivers, who argue that as long as the data they capture isn't private corporate data, siphoning off your access point is OK. After all, it's out there broadcasting; all they're doing is listening from inside the Volvo. But what are they listening for? That's like saying that casing your house is OK; after all, you're turning your lights on and off, all they're doing is recording when and how often. They haven't stolen anything yet.
I'm not a lawyer, so I suppose I'll never understand the argument. But to me, it's akin to saying that everything in your house is public property if you leave your door unlocked. Now in my local haunts of New York and New Jersey that last argument is true. Your $4,000, 37-inch Sony plasma HDTV is definitely public domain if you leave your doors unlocked. But at least swiping it isn't legal.
So then is it OK if he gets sued by the RIAA for your (generic you) setting up a Kazaa superhub on your computer? While you're at it, why not borrow his car while he sleeps (replacing any used gas)? Swim in his pool uninvited while he's on vacation? Pick his lock and watch his 62" Plasma TV while he's at work? Obviously I'm being a bit extreme, but I hope that I'm also making a point in my extremity.
It seems to be the age of me-entitlement (mp3 downloading being another hot topic along these lines). I only wonder how long it will be until it's taken too far. There are many gray areas here, and I'm sure that the field of computer and technology law will soon emerge as a prominent category of law. Let's hope that the right decisions will be made and that technology can continue to be a useful tool for so many things, instead of being a commonly abused, often feared tool as more and more things can (and probably will) go wrong.
I have to wonder how practically finite bandwidth is. It's rather an imposed cap. There can be more than enough to go around for current usage if providers were required to upgrade lines and service while eliminating data transfer and usage caps as well as keeping prices low.
That minor aside aside, I agree. One shouldn't steal the service of another. There should be something said for ignorance as well, though. It shouldn't be tolerable. People need to research and learn what it is that they're getting into when they...well, do anything. In this case: use new technology. To use the analogy that the article writer used: sure, people shouldn't steal your stuff if you leave your door unlocked. However, shouldn't you be held accountable for leaving them unlocked in the first place?
At the heart of the matter, chalkers/wardrivers indeed shouldn't be doing what they do. They obviously do it with malicious intent. There's very little social benefit to driving around and stealing the services of others.
i tried this wardriving thing once...except i dont have an external antenna - so it failed horribly :P
i only tried it so that i could connect to a network and surf the web for a few minutes...cause its cool to do that :P
i wouldnt feel guilty at all about using a few MB of somones bandwidth, and i dont care if somone used mine either. as long its not my neighbour who uses it on a constant basis, and as long as they're not stealing any data from me.
I think wardriving should be considered a serious crime.
I can't possibly see how wardriving could be practical from the standpoint of just "borrowing" a little bandwidth. Who wants to surf the web while cooped up in a car? Surfing without a good chair and plenty of fresh coffee is not even fun.
OTOH, setting up servers, stealing passwords, and plundering bank accounts are worth all the effort to criminals. Let's not kid ourselves. Wardriving is not meant to be a victimless crime.
Seems like a misdemeanor offense to me. One has more of a responsibility to secure their networks than one has to not enter them. If I were living on Pluto and your transmissions reach me, do I have some sort of obligation to not poke around? As a wireless network administrator, *you* are the one sending signals out. You better make damn well sure you know that fact before you start complaining about people connecting to it.
While bandwith is more abundant than most of us get in our homes, the reasons for the limits are justifiable--they don't want us running servers in our homes and not paying their premium business rates. ;)
Sonic, I'm asking this out of all sincererity, why is it "cool" to surf for a minutes on someone else's bandwidth, uninvited? I also think you hit on a really interesting gray area: what is "constantly" and why is it OK to do it periodically, but not to your neighbor "constantly?" What's the difference?
I do agree that people who set up wireless networks should also take more responsibility to secure them. Sadly, we live in a world of technical toys and people who don't know how to operate them.
i cant really define how its cool. to me its cool because its less normal. its like using a new technology for the first time. but the whole concept of the internet inside the car, thats the coolest part!
well, the difference to me (magnified to the extreme to show the difference) is the difference between checking your email and downloading movies. if there person has 15gb transfer, its probably ok to take 5mb. however, if you start downloading 1gb....you know. i agree that there are no set #'s. and im sure some ppl would not like me to use 1kb of their connection. but F them :P
So once wardriving is more mainstream it won't be cool anymore and you won't do it? I think that deserves a Lemming Award. Reminds me of a former roommate who sold his CDs of his favorite band once they became popular, he couldn't listen to them anymore because they were popular. I thought that was pretty silly too.
I wouldn't want you using 1kb of my connection without my permission, either. Your "acceptable" usage may be 5 megs, mine may be 0 k. So whose limit should be respected in this case, mine or yours?