Jailtime For Leeching Wireless? 587
jginspace writes "A 17-year-old from Singapore is is facing three years' jailtime for accessing his neighbor's wireless network.
His neighbor complained and now the unfortunate Tan Jia Luo is facing charges under the computer misuse act and is scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday."
More info (Score:5, Informative)
More details at the local HardwareZone Forum [hardwarezone.com]:
Teen, 17, first to be charged with unauthorised wireless Net access
By Chua Hian Hou
A 17-YEAR-OLD polytechnic student has become the first person here to be charged with piggybacking on someone else's wireless Internet connection.
Garyl Tan Jia Luo was accused yesterday of using a laptop computer to gain unauthorised access to a home wireless network on May 13 this year.
If convicted, Tan faces up to three years in jail and fines of up to $10,000 under Section 6(1)(a) of the Computer Misuse Act.
Tan was released on $6,000 bail and is scheduled to appear at the Subordinate Courts on Wednesday.
Court documents did not describe the circumstances in which Tan was arrested, but The Straits Times understands that a neighbour near his Casuarina Walk home had lodged a complaint against him.
While there are no statistics on how commonplace the practice of piggybacking unsecured home wireless networks is, networking firm Cisco System's spokesman, Mr Rayson Cheo, said it is probably quite widespread here.
Most modern notebook computers and personal digital assistants (PDAs) have the ability to sniff out unsecured networks and hop online for free with just a few clicks.
There are numerous guides online that describe how to do this and the low cost of wireless networking equipment means that most HDB or condominium blocks have unprotected networks users can log on to.
Said Mr Cheo: 'People assume, wrongly, that since it is there, it is okay to use it.'
Mr Aloysius Cheang, the chairman of local infocomm security association, the Special Interest Group in Security and Information Integrity, said: 'Most people probably do it because it is convenient, or because they are cheap and want free Internet.
'But, for some, it is because they want to do something illegal like defaming someone or downloading pirated MP3s, and they don't want the activities traced back to their own network.'
In the online world, there are even special terms for it, like 'wardriving' and 'Wi-Fi mooching'.
The problem, said lawyer Bryan Tan, is that while most people know that mooching is not quite legitimate, they probably do not know that it can be treated as a serious offence.
'Blinkered by the convenience and allure of ?free Internet', people don't realise that mooching is the virtual equivalent of trespassing,' he added.
Likewise, many users do not seem to realise that they can block moochers simply by installing a password on their Internet connections.
For most users, the only indication they get that someone is mooching is when their connection speed slows down, though Mr Cheo said software tools are available for download that can track who is using a network and what they are doing on it.
While the case is the first of its kind here, there have been at least two similar arrests and convictions in the United States.
In some countries like Holland, Mr Tan added, Wi-Fi network owners can even be held liable by the courts for crimes committed on their unprotected networks.
chuahh@sph.com.sg [mailto]
Re:More info (Score:2, Informative)
A particularly interesting guide [oreillynet.com] that, if accurate, makes me wonder why people still bother with wireless security at all. Note that it is in excess of 3 years old--the info. may not apply today.
Said Mr Cheo: 'People assume, wrongly, that since it is there, it is okay to use it.'
So, when I go to an airport to sit for 8 hours--even though there is no sign noting "FREE WIRELESS"--I should probably beg the proprietor for written consent? Fortunately, I don't go to Singapore, I could be in a lot of trouble.
There's a saying... (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding is that Singapore's punishment for littering, vandalism, drugs, and most everything else, is far more severe than most liberal democracies would tolerate. It is NOT surprising, therefore, that he is facing 3 years / $10,000 fine in Singapore, whereas in a western country he would likely face < 1 year + < $3,000 fine for a first offence of a crime of this nature, unless he was caught using the wireless access to do something else illicit, like download child pornography.
Singapore is a police state. It is not a liberal democracy. It is unfortunate that he is facing such a harsh sentice for such a minor crime, but it should not be unexpected in an unfree country such as this.
Not to end on a trollish note, but honestly, if you believe that caning and a lengthy prison sentence is a fair and just punishment for spraypainting a wall, then I would suggest you try living in a country that practices such harsh punishments, and see how long you like it there.
Nope (Score:3, Informative)
Also, I renember discussing with people when gum was banned in 89 (? I think). Contrary to myth, it wasn't to keep the sidewalks clean. It was because they engineered their subway system so poorly and so stupidly, that if you blocked one door - that none of the other doors would work and the whole freakin system would shut down. It wasn't long before kids discovered that all they gotta do is stuff their gum in the door on the way out, so then the doors couldn't shut, the subway couldn't move, and the whole freaking system would go out of service. So basically it was a stupid law to hide the faults of a stupid system. If that is the perfect description of Singapore then I don't know what is. (Singapore inc. as they call themselves
Re:Pretty open and shut (Score:5, Informative)
For the same reason, you are the one signing the LA and because you are not an ISP, it is assumed that all traffic originating from you is yours/under your control. Certain liability has been waived from ISPs in regards to content because they are merely "keepers of the pipe" and have little influence on what goes through them - you do not fall into that category.
This is what I understand, but the obvious caveat to this is IANAL.
Re:This is absolutely right (Score:3, Informative)
Heck, even the economic growth rate is a state secret!!!!
Feh. Singapore: Disneyland with the death penalty (William Gibson) [wired.com]
Re:Pretty open and shut (Score:5, Informative)
I think that you will find you are wrong. My ISP explicitly permits and encourages me to run a wireless network, which I may run as either paid or open. The agreements are in order all the way up the chain.
And it's a service agreement, by the way, not a license agreement.
Re:remember, this is SINGAPORE (Score:3, Informative)
Nope...just bought a new Linksys...and no security is on by default.
Re:remember, this is SINGAPORE (Score:3, Informative)
>Before everyone flies off the handle here, remember that this is happening in Singapore, who has much more draconian law enforcement than the US or Europe.
Examples:
However, law-abiding Singaporeans, though trouubled by the principle of such punishments, seem pretty darn happy with their prosperous and sqeaky-clean city-state. It is every autocrat's dream. I think that the case of Singapore demonstrates that democracy isn't a prerequisite for a effective government. A also think it's interesting that the West counts Singapore as one of the "good guys" despite its antithetical form of government: It belies that, when American presidents speak of "spreading democracy," they really mean "opening up markets" -- and if your market is open, they don't so much care about democracy itself. (In the case of Singapore, that is nevertheless a good thing, because Singapore's government works.)
I do hope that in time Singapore becomes more liberal on its own. Because many Singaporeans, though reasonably satisfied, do feel the same way, I expect that will happen. Modern, enlightened countries can't keep laws on the books for killing people just because they are gay [or for killing anyone, for that matter (you listening, U.S.?)].
Re:remember, this is SINGAPORE (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More info (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)
As for the gum and the subway issue, I don't know where you live, but over here, automation means the lack of human oversight, so to err on safety is always better for commuters. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be flung out of a high speed train onto a set of electric rails just because they decided that hey, a door that won't shut isn't as important as sticking to the schedule. As a citizen and frequent user of said train system, despite what was reported, gum pretty much affected the running of the trains. What gum certainly was though was a public nuisance that stuck to your shoes or pants if you were unlucky enough. I'll concede that I don't think the magnitude of the problem back then was large enough to warrant a complete ban.
In any case, you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. Gum was banned in 1992, and your other posts on kids and drugs (categorically false BTW) makes it abundantly clear that (a) you've never stepped foot in Singapore (b) you have no idea what is going on in Singapore.
Re:Nope (Score:3, Informative)
Re:remember, this is SINGAPORE (Score:2, Informative)
Re:More info (Score:4, Informative)
Bumping a disk tumbler lock ? It doesn't have pins. The key doesn't have cut teeth, instead it has segments that rotate disks. Only when the disks have been rotated to the correct position relative to each other does the lock open.
Just see this PDF [toool.nl] for details :).
Re:remember, this is SINGAPORE (Score:1, Informative)
Some restrictions? You can't say anything negative about the government, and you especially can't say anything remotely critical of their "dear leader" Lee Kuan Yew. See the current brouhaha [boingboing.net] with the Far East Economic Review [feer.com].
Re:remember, this is SINGAPORE (Score:2, Informative)
Singapore has a fledging homosexuality and just released a book about gay people living in Singapore, to great fanfare (there was a book signing at Borders on Orchard Road and LOTS of press about it)
Whilst Marijuana use isn't punishable by death, having a set amount (and this amount really is quite small); is considered ownership with intent to distrubute and is punishable by death. I spent my last two years of highschool in Singapore, and one of the students in my year level had to flee the country after being discovered by the school as having a 'death-sentence' quantity cannabis in his possession.
You are correct about the freedom of press, having said that, you can still write about race or religion as demonstrated by this hilarious and underappreciated book that deals with religions, race (malasya vs singapore for example), government censorship, etc: http://www.bigomagazine.com/theshop/books/skewme.
Re:More info (Score:4, Informative)
Where I live, if I leave my front door open, and someone walks into the living room and sits on the couch, no crime has been committed. Depending on the jurisdiction, just wandering onto someone elses property is not a crime. Bad manners perhaps, but not a crime. And is wandering onto someone's wireless network analagous to opening a door, or walking onto the property outside of the house? I own rural land, and uless I post it with no trespassing signs meeting a certain criteria every so many feet, people are free to wander at will onto my property. Below are the legal requirements for posting land in my state.
I don't post, mainly because I don't mind people wandering around in my woods, so long as they don't take anything. This is true for many property owners in my area. I live next to a popular sledding hill, many people cross my property to gain access to the sledding hill. Since I don't put up any barriers or signs restricting access, they are free to do so. They know they aren't on property they own, and they don't have explicit permission to be there, but they know they can be there because nothing is telling them they can't be.
The following state regulations pertain to controlling access to property. They explain that the onus is on the property owner to make it clear that others are not permitted on the property.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.
A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of such land or other authorized person, or unless such notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.
My wife and daughter recently took a cross country trip together. They took along a laptop with wireless. I had assumed that they would use the wireless networks of the hotels they were staying in. It turns out they used what ever was available. My wife thought that when in a hotel she'd only be able to pick up the hotel's signal. She had no idea she could have perhaps been on networks outside of the hotel. She was also of the opinion that if people didn't want you to use their wireless network, why do they leave it open? From her perspective, wireless networks should be treated like access to real property. If you don't want other people on it, put up barriers or signs. Othewise, don't complain when you find someone camped on it. She's got a point. With real property you assume you can be there unless the owner let's you know in some manner you shouldn't be. Why aren't computer networks the same?
Re:Nope (Score:3, Informative)
Gum is not banned. Sale of gum is. Perfectly legal to step through Changi or Woodlands with your pockets full of chewing gum. And even at that, gum for "medicinal" purposes is still legal; it is possible to get Wringley's at your local Guardian's, just that you have to give in your NRIC number and stuff. (Haven't tried it though; my hatred for gum is long-standing, and beats my contempt for Big Brother Singapore)
No, I don't get tired pointing this out all the time.