he accessed the network, not sniffed it out.
what’s the point here?

Reply to this: comment | thread

Your “argument” is sophistic, at best.  Yes, some people are less than bright for having an unsecured personal network.  Yes, it’s easy for you access.  But just because you can do something, that doesn’t mean you should do it.  It would be quite easy for you to open a random homeowner’s back gate and walk around in their yard.  But it’s still trespassing, and it’s still wrong.  It’s privately-owned property, just as the network entity is privately-owned property.

If you’re so bored that looking for network hotspots is high entertainment for you, I’m sure we can find a more constructive use of your time.

Reply to this: comment | thread

I didn’t realize I was making a philosophical argument - I thought I was trying to share an interesting, possibly relevant, article about a guy who got arrested for something ofo questionable legal status.

My bad.

Reply to this: comment | thread

I think that another point is that there is a difference between what you do and what a malicious hacker would do with the information - however, just because you aren’t going to do something malicious doesn’t mean that there isn’t someone else out there who would.  I think its an interesting arguement though. I saw this demo at www.lucidlink - and it shows exactly what the hacker sees.  Its honestly a little concerning when you see how easy it is - it definitely made me think twice.

Reply to this: comment | thread

No I thought the Airways in the US are free and could only be regulated by the FCC.

Yes browsing there computer may be a crime, but access the internet through their “wide open” AP should not be a crime any more the walking the side walk in front of their house.

Ok, stop right there, yes the network is controled by the brodband supplier, but I can let any one use my phone if I want, and I have an all you can eat plan so it wont cost more.

I really dont see the big deal, I have my AP wide open, but my computers locked up, if I dont want some one to use my bandwith I can block it.

Lets get real, this law is eather to protect people to dumb to protect themselfs or to force every one on a pay service.

And then Again I might be wrong
ErstO out

Reply to this: comment | thread

Man, St. Pete is full of crazy freaks and old geezers!

Reply to this: comment | thread

Actually the title of your article is incorrect to say the least.  First off let me define what wardriving is and isn’t: 

WarDriving is:
The searching for wireless networks by means of a roaming (driving, walking, busing) wireless client. Sometimes accompanied by a high gain antenna and GPS.

WarDriving is NOT
WarDriving is NOT illegal or unlawful in any form or fashion in the United States.
WarDriving is NOT about theft of services.
WarDriving is NOT about unauthorized access.

What this fellow in St Pete’s did was NOT wardriving by any means.  What he did when he connected to the access point was something illegal and highly frowned upown by the wardriving community.  I for one am outraged that wardrivers are lumped in and used as scapegoats for people who break the law.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Yeah this case you described isn’t actually war driving, but rather piggybacking. Piggybacking involves connecting to someone’s wireless and using it without their permission.

“What he did when he connected to the access point was something illegal…”

Not necessarily, though some places do have laws against, it other jurisdictions may not. Piggybacking is more of a gray-area topic in most places rather than being black and white legal or illegal.

Reply to this: comment | thread

I’m tired of all these idiots. dumb ##### dont even know what war driving is. its not illegal..

anyway others have said what needs to be said…. I dont need to rant

Reply to this: comment | thread