title for Warchalking note
home | about | site use | resources | publications | timeline   spacer graphic   blaw

overview

law & ethics





















related pages icon
related
Guides:


Networks
& GII


Security &
Infocrime


Privacy

Economy




related pages icon
related
Profiles:


wireless
access


the net in
Australia


cybercafes

Aust & NZ
telecoms


dot-com &
telco bubble


stalking


section heading icon     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.

section marker     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)

section marker     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.

section marker     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.

section marker     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).





::



this site
the web

Google

version of July 2007
© Bruce Arnold
caslon.com.au | caslon analytics