Laws regarding "unauthorized access of a computer network" exist in many legal codes, though the wording and meaning differs from one to the next.
For example, a common but untested argument is that the 802.11 and DHCP protocols operate on behalf of the owner, implicitly requesting permission to access the network, which the wireless router then authorizes.
Under Australian Law, "unauthorized access, modification or impairment" of data held in a computer system is a federal offence under the Criminal Code Act 1995.
[5] In September 2016, the European Court of Justice decided in "McFadden"[6] C-484/14 that "a businessman providing a public wifi network is not responsible for copyright infringement incurred by users.
In a case brought before the court involved a man named Hiroshi Fujita, who was accused of accessing a neighbors wi-fi network without authorization and sending virus-infected emails, and then using that to steal internet banking information and send funds to his own bank account without authorization.
[10] Although Russian criminal law does not explicitly forbid access to another person's network, there is a common judicial practice to qualify these cases as an "unauthorized access to an information" (a broadly interpreted concept in Russian law regarding computer crimes) according to Article 272 of the Criminal Code.
Piggybacking another person's unsecured wireless network is illegal in Singapore under section 6(1)(a) of the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act.
[11][12] In November 2006, the 17-year-old Garyl Tan Jia Luo, was arrested for tapping into his neighbour's wireless Internet connection.
[15][16] On 4 January 2007, Lin Zhenghuang was charged for using his neighbour's unsecured wireless network to post a bomb hoax online.
In July 2005, Lin had posted a message entitled "Breaking News – Toa Payoh Hit by Bomb Attacks" on a forum managed by HardwareZone.
Lin faced an additional 60 charges for having used his notebook computer to repeatedly access the wireless networks of nine people in his neighborhood.
[25] In early 2006, two other individuals were arrested and received an official caution for "dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services with intent to avoid payment.
Some criminalize the mere unauthorized access of a network, while others require monetary damages for intentional breaching of security features.
[1][28] Some portable devices, such as the Apple iPad and iPod Touch, allow casual use of open Wi-Fi networks as a basic feature, and often identify the presence of specific access points within the vicinity for user geolocation.
He had been accessing the Internet through a nonprofit agency's network from a car parked nearby and chatted with the police officer about it.
[31][32] In Sparta, Michigan, 2007, Sam Peterson was arrested for checking his email each day using a café's wireless Internet access from a car parked nearby.
The officer found a law against "unauthorized use of computer access", leading to an arrest and charges that could result in a five-year felony and $10,000 fine.
[1][46][47] Westchester County passed a law,[48] taking effect in October 2006, that requires any commercial business that stores, utilizes or otherwise maintains personal information electronically to take some minimum security measures (e.g., a firewall, SSID broadcasting disabled, or using a non-default SSID) in an effort to fight identity theft.