| overview
 law & ethics
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  related
 Guides:
 
 Networks
 & GII
 
 Security &
 Infocrime
 
 Privacy
 
 Economy
 
 
 
 
 
  related
 Profiles:
 
 wireless
 access
 
 the net in
 Australia
 
 cybercafes
 
 Aust & NZ
 telecoms
 
 dot-com &
 telco bubble
 
 stalking
 
 |  law and ethics 
 This 
                        page considers rights and responsibilities in warchalking 
                        and wardriving, along with pointers to primers and studies.
 
 It covers -
 It 
                        supplements the broader discussion elsewhere on this site 
                        regarding wireless internet 
                        theft (aka piggybacking) and of internet security, 
                        network governance and matters such as cybercafes and 
                        wireless access in Australasia.
 
  legal frameworks 
 Is wardriving legal? The answer varies, depending on jurisdiction.
 
 Some analysts use the 'front door' model, where it not 
                        an offence to identify that a door exists but unauthorised 
                        entry breaches the law and facilitating wrongdoing by 
                        alerting offenders that the door is unlocked may also 
                        be a breach.
 
 Most regimes regard unauthorised connection to and use 
                        of a network as illegal.
 
 That encompasses activities such as identifying what files 
                        are held on particular servers or desktop machines, identifying 
                        the topography of a LAN, copying (or modifying or deleting 
                        files) and using the network for unauthorised communications 
                        (including spam and stalking).
 
 It is consistent with prohibitions on unauthorised physical 
                        access to content, devices and networks, with legislation 
                        for example identifying crimes such as theft of services.
 
 In Australia there has been no definitive case law about 
                        'theft of service' through unauthorised use of a network. 
                        Observers note that there are specific prohibitions in 
                        federal law.
 
 The federal Cybercrime Act 2001 (CA) 
                        for example amended the Criminal Code Act 1995 
                        by identifying computer offences that "impair the 
                        security, integrity and reliability of computer data and 
                        electronic communications". The three major computer 
                        offences are -
  
                         
                          1) Unauthorised access, modification or impairment with 
                          intent to commit a serious offence (with a maximum penalty 
                          equal to the maximum penalty for that serious offence). 
                          
 2) Unauthorised modification of data where the offender 
                          is reckless as to whether the modification will impair 
                          data (maximum penalty of 10 years in prison), covering 
                          situations such as where a hacker unintentionally impairs 
                          data in the course of unauthorised access to a computer 
                          system.
 
 3) Unauthorised impairment of electronic communications 
                          (maximum penalty of 10 years in prison), including 'denial 
                          of service' attacks'.
 The 
                        first offence centres on activity such as hacking a financial 
                        institution's database to access credit card details with 
                        the intention of using them to obtain money (ie intending 
                        to commit a fraud offence).
 The Act includes other computer offences -
 
                        1 
                          Unauthorised access to, or modification of, restricted 
                          data (maximum penalty of two years imprisonment) 
 2 Unauthorised impairment of data held on a computer 
                          storage device, including removable storage (maximum 
                          two years imprisonment)
 
 3 Possession or control of data with intent to commit 
                          a computer offence (maximum penalty three years imprisonment)
 
 4 Producing, supplying or obtaining data with intent 
                          to commit a computer offence (maximum penalty three 
                          years imprisonment)
  prosecutions 
 The 2004 conviction (in the US District Court for the 
                        Western District of North Carolina) of Paul Timmins on 
                        a single count of fraudulent and unauthorized Wi-Fi access 
                        to a private corporate network is believed to be the first 
                        wardriving conviction in the US. Legal specialists have 
                        argued that there is potential liability under the US 
                        federal Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, the Wiretap 
                        Act and some state legislation.
 
 The same year saw action under the US federal CAN-SPAM 
                        Act against Nicholas Tombros, 
                        who allegedly sent spam via insecure residential wireless 
                        APs in Los Angeles.
 
 Other jurisdictions have successfully prosecuted individuals/groups 
                        for 'theft of service' or unauthorised access.
 
 Canadian police for example prosecuted a man in November 
                        2003 after checking his car for a traffic infraction and 
                        discovering that he was naked from the waist down and 
                        was viewing child pornography accessed via a residential 
                        wireless hot spot. He was charged with theft of telecommunications 
                        and possession, distribution and creation of child porn. 
                        In March 2006 Ontario Provincial Police charged a man 
                        under Section 326 of the Ontario Criminal Code (Theft 
                        of Communications), alleging the man was "using his 
                        lap top computer to steal a wireless Internet connection" 
                        in Morrisburg.
 
 In the UK Gregory Straszkiewicz is believed to be the 
                        first person to be convicted of wireless 'piggybacking' 
                        in breach of the Computer Misuse Act and the 
                        Communications Act in 2005. He was fined £500 
                        and given a 12-month conditional discharge.
 
 In 2006 Singapore teenage 'bandwidth bandit' Garyl Tan 
                        Jia Luo pleaded guilty under the Computer Misuse Act 
                        to tapping into a neighbour's wireless network, in what 
                        is claimed to be Singapore's prosecution for the offence.
 
 What 
                        of warchalking? As far as we are aware there have been 
                        no successful Australian prosecutions for chalking, although 
                        presumably there is some scope for action under damage 
                        to public/private property (don't use waterproof paint 
                        or carve a symbol on someone's fence or front door) or 
                        even aiding a crime.
 
 
  responsibilities 
 As with most information security issues, APs involve 
                        several responsibilities and are not restricted to containment 
                        of wardrivers.
 
 Pundit Jeff Duntemann comments that -
  
                        My 
                          fellow wardrivers and I adhere to a relatively strict 
                          code of ethics that can be cooked down to the following:  
                          Don't 
                            look. Don't touch.
 Don't play through.
 In 
                          other words, 1) don't examine the contents of a network; 
                          2) don't add, delete, or change anything on the network, 
                          and 3) don't even use the network's Internet connection 
                          for Web surfing, email, chat, FTP, or anything else. 
                          Somebody else paid for the bandwidth, and if you don't 
                          have permission to use it, you're stealing it. Basically, 
                          unless you have permission, don't connect. Consider 
                          it a matter of personal honor, even when it's unlikely 
                          that you'll be caught. (If you get too used to feeling 
                          that you won't get caught, sooner or later you will 
                          get caught!)  Patrick 
                        Ryan's 2004 War, Peace, or Stalemate: Wargames, Wardialing, 
                        Wardriving, and the Emerging Market for Hacker Ethics 
                        (PDF) 
                        considers wardriving and 'ethical hacking', something 
                        examined in more detail here.
 Network operators also have responsibilities, including 
                        an obligation not to inadvertently allow access to their 
                        networks. In Australia, apart from damage to the financial 
                        viability of an organisation, the operator might potentially 
                        face exposure to action for failure to adequately protect 
                        employee or customer privacy, 
                        intellectual property and other duties.
 
 Some sense of scope is provided by a contact's discovery 
                        of an open 2 megabit network in Canberra, which in principle 
                        would allow an offender with an appropriate address list 
                        to spam much of Australia with a few minutes.
 
 The organizer of the Auckland wardrive noted above commented 
                        that
  
                         
                          People just take their routers out of the box, assign 
                          a username and password and nothing else. It 
                        is thus not surprising that intrusions occur ... although 
                        many of those intrusions are undetected.
 
  studies Primers 
                        for drive & chalk aficionados include   
                        Drive-By 
                          Wi-Fi Guide (Phoenix: Paraglyph Press 2003) by 
                          Jeff Duntemann
 WarDriving: Drive, Detect, Defend - A Guide to Wireless 
                          Security (Rockland: Syngress 2004) by Chris Hurley, 
                          Michael Puchol, Russ Rogers & Frank Thornton
 
 Wi-Foo: The Secrets of Wireless Hacking (New 
                          York: Pearson Education 2004) by Andrew Vladimirov, 
                          Konstantin Gavrilenko & Andrei Mikhailovsky
 
 Wireless Hacks (Sebastopol: O'Reilly 2003) 
                          by Rob Flickenger
 Christian 
                        Sandvig's 2004 An Initial Assessment of Cooperative 
                        Action in Wi-Fi Networking (PDF) 
                        in Telecommunications Policy 28 (7/8), Hira Sathu's 
                        2006 'WarDriving: Technical & Legal Context' in Proceedings 
                        of the 5th WSEAS International Conference on Telecommunications 
                        and Informatics and Gregory Kipper's Wireless 
                        Crime & Forensic Investigation (Boca Raton: Auerbach 
                        2007) are of value. For an historical perspective see 
                        Shipley's LanJacking and WarDriving (PDF).
 
 
 
 
 ::
 
 
 
 | 
                        
                       |