Travel Technology - Man Charged With Stealing Wi-Fi Signal - a felony

Man Charged With Stealing Wi-Fi Signal

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Police have arrested a man for using someone else's wireless Internet network in one of the first criminal cases involving this fairly common practice.

Benjamin Smith III, 41, faces a pretrial hearing this month following his April arrest on charges of unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony.

Police say Smith admitted using the Wi-Fi signal from the home of Richard Dinon, who had noticed Smith sitting in an SUV outside Dinon's house using a laptop computer.

The practice is so new that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement doesn't even keep statistics, according to the St. Petersburg Times, which reported Smith's arrest this week.

Innocuous use of other people's unsecured Wi-Fi networks is common, though experts say that plenty of illegal use also goes undetected: such as people sneaking on others' networks to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information and send death threats.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/ap_on_hi_te/techbits_wi_fi_theft

Lets keep this in perspective; this wasn't someone stopping, getting online and moving on again, this guy was out in front of the victims house for ages, pretty much all day from what I understand, and behaved very strangely, closing his laptop screen anytime anyone passed.

I find the whole thing pretty scary, and will be interested to see the outcome.

If anything the victim should be told that he is an idiot for having an open network.

Is there really a law against this?

The owner of the network is quoted in one story as saying he left it open intentionall because his neighbors are older.

Now does that mean he was doing it to give them all free internet? Then maybe they arrested the wrong person :confused:

Or does he think they are too old to care?

Not sure why somebody would drive up in front of your house and use your network, but if somebody was parked in front of my house all day, I'd be fairly happy they found something to haul him away for.

The owner of the network is quoted in one story as saying he left it open intentionall because his neighbors are older.

Now does that mean he was doing it to give them all free internet? Then maybe they arrested the wrong person :confused:

Or does he think they are too old to care?

Not sure why somebody would drive up in front of your house and use your network, but if somebody was parked in front of my house all day, I'd be fairly happy they found something to haul him away for.

If he is anywhere on record that he left it open on purpose then he is screwed and this case has zero merit.

I can't count the number of times I've used an open Wi-Fi signal. They come in very handy when traveling. It never hurt anyone, with the possible exception of paid access providers I might have used otherwise.

To me, it's like watering your lawn and letting part of the sprinkler pattern fall on the public sidewalk in front of your house. If a neighbor's kids run up and down the sidewalk under the spray, staying on the sidewalk, are they stealing your water? If you don't want them to, put the sprinkler someplace else.

Unless this person had some nefarious purpose in mind, which might be an offense, I don't see why it should be a big deal.

I can't count the number of times I've used an open Wi-Fi signal. They come in very handy when traveling. It never hurt anyone, with the possible exception of paid access providers I might have used otherwise.

The ethicist on NPR on Sunday All Things Considered had a question a few months ago about using others' Wi-Fi -- he concluded it isn't even unethnical, as no one is being harmed. Listen here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4604352)
Didn't know it was illegal. :eek:

Or does he think they are too old to care?
That's my reading of it.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/State/Wi_Fi_cloaks_a_new_br.shtml

The FBI Special Agent quoted in the article above keeps talking about people being "victimized."

Personally, aside from security concerns, I'm happy to let other people use my wifi connection.

If the user wasn't doing anything malicious, I don't see what the problem is.

If the broadcaster has a problem with it, than he needs to encrypt and secure is signal/network.

If the user wasn't doing anything malicious, I don't see what the problem is.

If the broadcaster has a problem with it, than he needs to encrypt and secure his signal/network.

I agree!! It is a simple enough procedure - although I'm not sure why he was concerned about someone getting a free ride. Sounds more like he didn't like the guy parked out front in an SUV.

AWESOME! Theft is theft, Anyone stealing Wifi should be sent to jail!

-Vincent

To me the analogy is if I am playing my stereo loud enough for others to hear. Are they "stealing" my music by sitting in front of my house listening? Or even by switching on a tape recorder and capturing it? I agree, if you don't want people to have access to your stuff, don't broadcast it. I can't even imagine how this is a felony if the network was open.

AWESOME! Theft is theft, Anyone stealing Wifi should be sent to jail!

-Vincent

Most certainly do not agree.

You are broadcasting on a public assigned frequency, and you alone are responsible for protecting that signal.

Agreed - But there are numerous "nefarious" purposes that an open network can be used for. Would an owner of an open network be liable for an unauthorized user downloading music, distributing/downloading child pornography or stealing credit card info?

FDuvall

I can't count the number of times I've used an open Wi-Fi signal. They come in very handy when traveling. It never hurt anyone, with the possible exception of paid access providers I might have used otherwise.

To me, it's like watering your lawn and letting part of the sprinkler pattern fall on the public sidewalk in front of your house. If a neighbor's kids run up and down the sidewalk under the spray, staying on the sidewalk, are they stealing your water? If you don't want them to, put the sprinkler someplace else.

Unless this person had some nefarious purpose in mind, which might be an offense, I don't see why it should be a big deal.

Most certainly do not agree.

You are broadcasting on a public assigned frequency, and you alone are responsible for protecting that signal.


Not the "because its there argument" If I left 100 dollars on a table, and someone took it when I went to the bathroom, does that make it right because for that brief period it was in public domain?

We are suppose to exercise self control and self impose limitation, its the foundation of our modern society and goverment, without such technically we'd have anarchy.

We could argue this both wasy forvever - so if it's okay with you lets agree to disagree...

-Vincent

1. What state or federal law did this fellow violate exactly?
2. If someone uses someone else's wi-fi signal without consciously doing so, does that constitute a crime? (If so, then a lot of people in a lot of neighborhoods may be commiting crimes and not even know about it.)

While I think a quick piggyback on someone's network is mostly harmless, it probably isn't something anyone should do for any extended length of time.

One other thing to consider for those who choose to piggyback is that some people must pay if downloaded data exceeds a certain threshold. We have a T1 line at home, and at one time there was a limit on how much data could come downstream without additional fees being charged.

Also, using someone else's network will, of course, affect the owner's network performance.

As for the guy who turned in the freak parked outside his house leeching his bandwidth, the guy should have just put a password on his network to lock the freak out and be done with it.

1. What state or federal law did this fellow violate exactly?
2. If someone uses someone else's wi-fi signal without consciously doing so, does that constitute a crime? (If so, then a lot of people in a lot of neighborhoods may be commiting crimes and not even know about it.)


It does not violate any laws YET that may change.... In the future stealing wifi may be a crime only time shall tell...

-Vincent

In the future, WiFi is most likely going to be a free or such a low-cost commodity that this isn't even going to be an issue.

I was in an area once with many different unsecured Wi-Fi networks, but 2 of them were default labeled "Linksys."

Now just how the heck am I supposed to tell which "Linksys" I'm authorized to use?

:)

Deleted.

The original story was published in the St. Petersburg Times. You can read it here: http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/State/Wi_Fi_cloaks_a_new_br.shtml

The article is very badly written and confuses two separate issues (as do some posters here): 1. accessing an open network and 2. committing illegal acts on someone else's computer (hosting a child porn site, sending spam, phishing, etc.).

Indeed, most of these illegal acts are currently being run on zombie machines, most of which are breached not by wifi, but by holes in the so-called OS.

The analogy of the money left on the table is ridiculous. This is an unencrypted broadcast signal. If the broadcaster does not want other people to use it, it is easy enough to encrypt. Laziness is not an excuse.

I can understand both arguments here - (the "he was stealing" vs. the "it's an open network. Lock it down if you don't want others to use it.") I look at it and have to ask if he knew the guy and didn't like him, or if he was freaked out with a stranger sitting there all day. Perhaps what the person should have done is password protected his network, but furnished the password to the people he was going to allow to access the network.

I too have encountered the situation where more than one network shows up with the same name, so that does raise the issue of, "Is it stealing if I log on to network x, when I meant to log on to network y, but they were both called the same thing?"

Deleted.

In the future, WiFi is most likely going to be a free or such a low-cost commodity that this isn't even going to be an issue.
Probably. Though there's a bill in Congress right now which would make it illegal for any state/local/municipal government to offer Wi-Fi service for free :rolleyes:

If Congress is to do anything, then it is to educate people on installing secure wireless and/or prohibiting the sales of unsecured equipment out of the box. I can fully understand someone buying a wireless router, unpacking it, and when it works without any additional settings being quite content, not worrying about any security.

IMHO all wireless products should be delivered with WEP enabled.

I was in an area once with many different unsecured Wi-Fi networks, but 2 of them were default labeled "Linksys."

Now just how the heck am I supposed to tell which "Linksys" I'm authorized to use?

:)

Just this weekend, I was at the Pointe Hilton here in Phoenix. They were charging $10 a day for internet access. I pulled up the wireless locations, and a Hilton Convention and a Linksys came up. The first needed a password, the latter did not, and was open. Guess which I used.

While I wouldn't check bank accounts and stuff on such a link, I think it's perfect for checking out Flyertalk.

Not the "because its there argument" If I left 100 dollars on a table, and someone took it when I went to the bathroom, does that make it right because for that brief period it was in public domain?

Your analogy is so far off, it is not even funny. When someone takes your 100 dollars, he deprives you of the physical control over those 100 dollars. Only one person can have the 100 dollars. When I use someone else's Wi-Fi signal, it does not mean they cannot use it anymore. Physical property and some waves are not the same thing.

Your analogy is so far off, it is not even funny. When someone takes your 100 dollars, he deprives you of the physical control over those 100 dollars. Only one person can have the 100 dollars. When I use someone else's Wi-Fi signal, it does not mean they cannot use it anymore. Physical property and some waves are not the same thing.

Almost, but not quite. If you're leaching on my AP without permission, you are reducing bandwidth that would normally be available to me.

This is really no different that a guy plugging into an outlet on your house to recharge his laptop or using the spigot on the side of your house to refill a water tank. Neither of these are acceptable without permission, why is leaching bandwidth OK? Do i need to lock my outdoor outlets and spigots?

While I wouldn't check bank accounts and stuff on such a link, I think it's perfect for checking out Flyertalk.So long as it's a secure connection, evidenced by the lock symbol in most browswers, you should be safe, even if the connection is not secure. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=446541

Your message follows mine so I ask you directly if you are including me in the group of people you say are confusing the issues.

Not at all. My message was not in response to yours, your's was just the last message when I posted.

Deleted.

Deleted.

Attorney:

I happen to agree that this is not a crime for the reasons stated in my previous message. I notice however, that you are in Munich. Are you admitted to practice law before any of the courts of the United States?

I ask this because you seem to be aware of the elements of common law larceny (i.e. caption and asportation) but not the elements of modern day "theft of services."

Yes, I am also admitted to practice law in the state of New York. And I think the lawyers who drew up something called "theft of services" are guilty of bad wording.

Probably. Though there's a bill in Congress right now which would make it illegal for any state/local/municipal government to offer Wi-Fi service for free :rolleyes:

I'm so glad our representatives have already enacted measures necessary to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, end the budget deficit, significantly improve the education provided to our kids, protect veterans' health and benefits, and obtain a clean and healthy environment so that they have time to propose such prohibitions. :rolleyes:

Almost, but not quite. If you're leaching on my AP without permission, you are reducing bandwidth that would normally be available to me.

That's correct, but it is not "stealing" in the traditional sense. That is when it gets tricky: Was the AP owner's own use of the AP in any way hindered? Is the AP owner on a flatrate or not? Etc. The case is somewhere in between listening to someone else's radio and taking someone's stuff.

One also has to take into consideration what ScottC has said: It is easy to encrypt one's wi-fi signal. Many people do not encrypt it on purpose, because they don't mind others using it. Thus, if someone uses an open wi-fi signal, one would have to question the intent of depriving someone else of anything, as one can reasonably assume that the other person does not mind. Of course, this is completely different if someone hacks into someone else's AP.

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice in any jurisdiction, I am just thinking out aloud.

All of this discussion about stealing/theft is moot. They aren't attempting to charge the guy with any type of theft. The crime in question (unauthorized access to a computer network) doesn't appear to me to require an intent to actually steal property. From reading this, it doesn't even appear that they are headed down the dreaded "theft of service" path as you might for someone caught breaking into the cable company's equipment.

The lawyers will undoubtedly focus on the fact that the network was unsecured. If I leave my car unlocked, somebody climbs in it just for fun, and then gets out without damaging or taking anything, has a crime occurred? I can claim that they had "unauthorized access"; the perp can claim that if I didn't really want him there I would have locked the doors. I agree with whoever said it'll come down to who has the best lawyers.

Anyway, a guy sitting in an SUV with a laptop - that's creepy. My guess is that he wasn't browsing Yahoo, Flyertalk, Google, etc. :eek:

One also has to take into consideration what ScottC has said: It is easy to encrypt one's wi-fi signal. Many people do not encrypt it on purpose, because they don't mind others using it. Thus, if someone uses an open wi-fi signal, one would have to question the intent of depriving someone else of anything, as one can reasonably assume that the other person does not mind. Of course, this is completely different if someone hacks into someone else's AP.
I'm in the camp that I don't see the "passing use" as stealing. But, I think I'd comment on the portion quoted above. I think the percentage of people with intentionally open AP's (vs open AP's in general), is small, very, very small. Between my work and house (a 3 mile drive) I picked up over 100 AP's recently (iPaq on the dash, going down the road at 30 mph). Of those, about two thirds were nominally open (i.e., no encryption). How many of these do I think were left open so others could freely share? Zero. My guess is that most people just buy them at the store, plop them down and get running.

I do agree someone hacking into an AP requiring encryption is similar to tresspassing on a property that is posted with no tresspassing signs.

This is really no different that a guy plugging into an outlet on your house to recharge his laptop or using the spigot on the side of your house to refill a water tank. Neither of these are acceptable without permission, why is leaching bandwidth OK? Do i need to lock my outdoor outlets and spigots?

Water and electricity have meters, internet does not :p

I have WEP and MAC security on my router, if an elderly person lived right next door to me, and couldn't afford it, I would give them access to my network, in a secure way.

A sniffer can do a lot of damage on an open AP ;)

Anyway, a guy sitting in an SUV with a laptop - that's creepy. My guess is that he wasn't browsing Yahoo, Flyertalk, Google, etc. :eek:

I hope this doesn't make me sound too creepy, but I actually did exactly that once (sitting in my car in front of some random building, browsing Yahoo, Flyertalk, Google)... :)

My guess is that most people just buy them at the store, plop them down and get running.

That is exactly my issue with networking equipment; it is TOO easy to just plug in and go. Of course, the manual talks a little about securing the network, but when it works out of the box, why bother reading the manual.

I hope this doesn't make me sound too creepy, but I actually did exactly that once (sitting in my car in front of some random building, browsing Yahoo, Flyertalk, Google)... :)
Been there, done this myself. Sitting in a hospital parking lot while mom was in ICU for a week. Needed to catch up on things and do some condition research. Didn't want to leave the hospital for long. A couple big appartment buildings across the street.

Been there, done this myself. Sitting in a hospital parking lot while mom was in ICU for a week. Needed to catch up on things and do some condition research. Didn't want to leave the hospital for long. A couple big appartment buildings across the street.

And what harm is done...none, in my opinion, and that is why I think this situation does not come close to being a crime at all.

It's one thing in a public parking lot, but I do think it's creepy to be on a residential street in front of someone's house for hours.

I would call the police if someone did that in my neighborhood. However, my first thought wouldn't be that they were stealing wi fi, I would be worried that they were casing houses for burglaries, or, even worse, looking for kids to hurt.

Deleted.

This is really no different that a guy plugging into an outlet on your house to recharge his laptop or using the spigot on the side of your house to refill a water tank. Neither of these are acceptable without permission, why is leaching bandwidth OK? Do i need to lock my outdoor outlets and spigots?

Well, a little different -- you keep those things on your property. In this case the radio waves were broadcast to public land.

If you ran a hose from your spigot over to a nearby park, would you be suprised if someone stopped for a drink?

In that case, may I suggest you look up New York Penal Law §165.15 which was drawn up by the Legislature to cover Theft of Services."

When I worked for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, we routinely prosecuted people for stealing gas and electricity.

Do you think there is anything wrong with such a prosecution?

No, I don't think there is anything wrong with such a prosecution. I just think it is a little imprecise to call it "theft". Maybe there should be a different word for it. Also, I think the situation with gas and electricity is different compared to wi-fi.

Deleted.

Do you suppose this will cause a decrease in sales of Pringles? After all, Pringles cans make a great WiFi antenna for the casual Internet thief.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1860241.stm

Water and electricity have meters, internet does not :p



Not always true.

As I brought up above, it depends on the host's type of network and the services they receive from their ISP.

Some ISPs charge according to how much data passes downstream and/or upstream.

Additionally, as others have mentioned, the host's own bandwidth will suffer to some degree with an extra user on the network. Let's imagine someone is attempting to participate in a video conference, or maybe there's a doctor who works from home and is providing instructions to surgeons in the field. These tasks might require a good chunk of the host's network bandwidth. If the leech parked in the street is busy downloading bootlegged DVDs or pirating lots of software, they could have enough of an impact to affect the quality of the video conference or medical procedure session. This would have an impact on the host's ability to make a living, thus depriving him of something concrete.

It's a bit of a crazy scenario, but it's just to make a point.

But it all goes back to the fact that the host could always secure his network... It doesn't excuse the leech, but, in my opinion, it's a better way to solve the problem than calling the cops.

We also use available networks every once in a while. But we are careful to limit our use to activities that have a minimal bandwidth impact and not "squat" on the network for very long.

It's a bit of a crazy scenario, but it's just to make a point.

Just a tad crazy ;)

He could also be using directway (http://hns.getdway.com/HNS/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity %5BOID%5B28DF8A40D54C88479BDCD5B00B03B65B%5D%5D) and be paying for a certain amount of bandwidth.

More times than not, you don't have that restriction.

And if you are metered, you have to be really dumb to do it with an open AP.

Maybe the issue here is that all AP should be WEP enabled, with a sticker or something on the back of it. That way, if they just want to plug it in and not bother with the additional setup they can just enter the key and forget about it ;)

Anyway, a guy sitting in an SUV with a laptop - that's creepy. My guess is that he wasn't browsing Yahoo, Flyertalk, Google, etc. :eek:

Uhhhh oh. Looks like I'm guilty too. A couple months ago I was on a business trip in Ireland/England. I had planned a full day of work in Dublin but it only took about an hour and I was done by 10AM. I had already checked out of my hotel and my flight to England didn't leave until 6PM. I drove around a residential neighborhood and found an unsecured connection in less than 3 minutes. I sat there in my car for almost 4 hours until my laptop battery died surfing/catching up on FT since I hadn't checked it in almost a week. Almost the exact same thing happened the next day in England. I sat in front of another house checking FT for several hours. And I understand exactly why the guy in the article closed his laptop whenever somebody would walk by............ That's the exact same thing I did!! If I saw somebody, I'd close the laptop real quick and throw a magazine over my computer and pretend to be reading the magazine. It's a little uncomfortable when you're "stealing/borrowing/WhateverYouWantToCallIt" somebody else's connection right out in the open. And I do it at hotels as well. If I can get a free connection, why should I pay $10-$15 to the hotel for their connection? Just two weeks ago I had a room up on the 39th Floor at Hyatt Waikiki and was able to get an unsecured connection all the way up there. Why pay if you don't need to? Isn't that what brought most here to FT in the first place? Why pay for F class airfare when you can scheme your way into an upgrade?

Almost, but not quite. If you're leaching on my AP without permission, you are reducing bandwidth that would normally be available to me.

This is really no different that a guy plugging into an outlet on your house to recharge his laptop or using the spigot on the side of your house to refill a water tank. Neither of these are acceptable without permission, why is leaching bandwidth OK? Do i need to lock my outdoor outlets and spigots?

To plug into your electric outlet or use the water spigot, someone has to enter your property. The WIFI, in this case, was accessed from a public road.

I installed a Wi-Fi doohickey (hope my highly technical terms don't confuse anyone ;)) on a friend's desktop computer recently. He lives in a large Condo building and we immediately picked-up an unsecured Wi-Fi network with the SSID of "Rocko."

I asked him if that name rang any bells as to names of neighbors, and it did not.

I suggested to him that he might consider pounding on a few doors to see if he could locate "Rocko" and ask if Rocko might be willing to share his bandwidth for a few bucks per month, and save himself the expense of setting up his own DSL w/Wi-Fi.

On the third door he knocked on upstairs from him, he finally found Rocko. Rocko said go ahead...climb onboard...and that was that. He didn't even want any money.

I did recommend that he advise Rocko to turn on WEP for both their sakes. Don't know if he's done that yet. But my buddy has free Wi-Fi at home now and he's just thrilled.

Don't really know what this has to do with the subject. Just thought I'd mention it. I'm sure it's nothing really unique. But my buddy who had never experienced Hi-Speed internet before and was only using dial-up, is really jazzed.

I know several people who have unsecured Wi-Fi not out of lazyness but out of necessity - certain systems can't handle encryption - In one case the TiVo uses the WiFi for updates and although it is meant to handle encryption in reality nobody could get it to work. A similar thing happened with some mixed Mac/Windows clients with certain WiFi routers. So although you can encrypt a signal sometimes it is detrimental to the desired use.

More interestingly, if the 'victim' was at home watching the man outside why didn't he just turn the WiFi transmitter off for a while?

I know several people who have unsecured Wi-Fi not out of lazyness but out of necessity - certain systems can't handle encryption - In one case the TiVo uses the WiFi for updates and although it is meant to handle encryption in reality nobody could get it to work. A similar thing happened with some mixed Mac/Windows clients with certain WiFi routers. So although you can encrypt a signal sometimes it is detrimental to the desired use.

More interestingly, if the 'victim' was at home watching the man outside why didn't he just turn the WiFi transmitter off for a while?

Weird, encryption works just fine on my Tivo, and there are plenty of solutions to making a Tivo wireless if it can't do encryption, going from a wired adapter to a wireless bridge would be one of them.

Weird, encryption works just fine on my Tivo, and there are plenty of solutions to making a Tivo wireless if it can't do encryption, going from a wired adapter to a wireless bridge would be one of them.

It is to do with the router - TiVo works with some but not others in encrypted mode. Yes there are other solutions but they would require extra cost so when you have an unmetered connection why spend more money? I was just using that as an example that lack of encryption does not automatically indicate ignorance (not renaming your base stations from the default name however...). I personally don't think using open WiFi networks is theft however whether or not you encrypt it shouldn't affect if it is a crime - if you forget to lock your house and someone enters it without permission they are still trespassing (of course your insurance company will consider it important....).

Just a tad crazy ;)

He could also be using directway (http://hns.getdway.com/HNS/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity %5BOID%5B28DF8A40D54C88479BDCD5B00B03B65B%5D%5D) and be paying for a certain amount of bandwidth.

More times than not, you don't have that restriction.

And if you are metered, you have to be really dumb to do it with an open AP.

Maybe the issue here is that all AP should be WEP enabled, with a sticker or something on the back of it. That way, if they just want to plug it in and not bother with the additional setup they can just enter the key and forget about it ;)


Directway is a PAIN to setup with a router - anyone who has gone through that much trouble would have most prolly enables WEP...

-Vincent

I hope this doesn't make me sound too creepy, but I actually did exactly that once (sitting in my car in front of some random building, browsing Yahoo, Flyertalk, Google)... :)
I've done it too. I was visiting family and their phone line gave me less than 28K dial-up. Horrible! So I went around the neighborhood and found a free signal to use for a little while. It was not like I was going to be sitting in front of that house everyday for hours either.

This makes me nervous because I've used other people's wireless sooo many times when I'm at school--dorm room walls are thin and wireless is easy to access. I wonder how much they're going to enforce these laws.

It would seem to me though that the victim could have easily called the police and gotten this guy for loitering or something like that.

Deleted.

I know several people who have unsecured Wi-Fi not out of lazyness but out of necessity - certain systems can't handle encryption - In one case the TiVo uses the WiFi for updates and although it is meant to handle encryption in reality nobody could get it to work. A similar thing happened with some mixed Mac/Windows clients with certain WiFi routers. So although you can encrypt a signal sometimes it is detrimental to the desired use.

More interestingly, if the 'victim' was at home watching the man outside why didn't he just turn the WiFi transmitter off for a while?

There may be a way to do it, but I couldn't make our wireless net in the house work with my wife's Imac until I removed the security. Then it worked like a charm.

Hmm I do rent SUVs on most trips, and frequently snag an open signal to check company e-mail and FT. I usually try for businesses or apartment complexes, but have resorted to a residential signal before. However I'll usually try not to park directly in front of anyone's house, so as not to creep them out!!! :p