Florida Veterinarian Nails WarDriver Outside His Home - 3,826 Views, 7 Comments
|
Previous Article « Email Readers’ IQ Going to Pot - Study Says Messaging More Harmful to IQ Than Marijuana or Lack of Sleep
Read Next Article » Get Started Podcasting! How to Guest Podcast with Aunty Spam!
A St. Petersburg, Florida veterinarian nailed a wardriver he caught parked outside his home, jacked into his Internet connection. Realizing that there was someone surreptitiously using his Internet connection, the unnamed veterinarian called St. Petersburg police, who quickly came and arrested Benjamin L. Smith III, who was sitting outside the doctor’s home in his car, still logged in and online through the doctor’s connection. Said St. Petersburg police spokesman George Kajtsa, “While this person was accessing his computer, little icons appeared on his computer screen, or his monitor and this puzzled him because he did not access any of those areas,” adding that “He was concerned this guy might be accessing child porn or some other such thing.” Remember, dear readers, wardriving is real. It happens. Protect yourself against it by, among other things, making sure that you have WEP encryption enabled on your wireless router.
Follow Anne on Twitter
Friend Anne on Facebook
Florida Veterinarian Nails WarDriver Outside His Home
Twitter Explained in Plain English
Previous Article « Email Readers’ IQ Going to Pot - Study Says Messaging More Harmful to IQ Than Marijuana or Lack of Sleep
Read Next Article » Get Started Podcasting! How to Guest Podcast with Aunty Spam!
Read more:
» Has Your Wifi Access Point Been Mapped by a Wardriver?
» Dunedin Florida to get Metro-Wide WiFi
» WarDrive-Proof Your Windows with GlassLock SpyGuard Window Film!
For additional similar stories check out our archives on Good Guys, Hacking
NOTE: We never, ever, ever will recommend any product or service on this site that we have not regularly used ourselves and do not wholeheartedly believe in. That said, in some cases after being very pleased with a product or service, we may enter into a relationship with the provider of that product or service such that if someone purchases that product or service based on our recommendation, we may get a small payment. Such payments go towards the upkeep of the Internet Patrol.
Have to believe even a bad lawyer could beat this!
Comment by Gary — 4/26/2005 @ 2:46 pm
Ha! I think that he was “stealing” bandwidth cause he couldn’t afford his own…how can he afford even a BAD lawyer? Nail ‘em up I say!
Comment by Tony — 4/28/2005 @ 9:08 pm
Anyone using wifi deserves to get wardriven. everyone knows wep has been broken. why not just grease up, bend over and yell TAKE ME!?
Comment by Anonymous Coward — 4/29/2005 @ 9:44 pm
Did the vet have any encryption? if not he was broad casting “in the clear” and as long as the wardriver was not trying to access the vets data the vet is wasting the courts time
It would be like suing someone for listening to a cd they don’t own because you are blasting your stereo
Comment by jon — 5/10/2005 @ 9:08 am
That’s not quite correct, jon… Blasting a stereo can contravene noise polution laws, and anyone within range is forced to listen- you can’t turn off your ability to hear. On the other hand, even if there’s an active, open, unsecured WiFi network in range, a person still has to make a conscious decision to join that network. You are not being forced to connect to the network the way you are forced to listen to somneone’s extra-loud stereo.
I’m not saying the Vet will win in court, but just because the front door is unlocked doesn’t mean you have permission to enter- it’s just easier to do so.
Comment by Sparehead2 — 5/15/2005 @ 11:32 am
Using an unlocked network is not illegal, They are considered “OPEN NETWORKS”; however, if the network is locked, and hacked into then its illegal. The airwaves are open. If you know what youre diong you can pick up a signal from well over 1/4 mile.
Comment by S. Johnson — 6/4/2005 @ 8:38 am
Did the veterinarian set up a private access point, and Smith broke into it? Or did the vet set up a public access point, and Smith just connected through it? There’s a big difference.
Was the vet clueless enough to think he had a private access point when he really had a public one? Were the police clueless enough to not know the difference? The article doesn’t really say.
Comment by Anonymous — 8/2/2005 @ 3:24 am