Hmmm. So, when I turn on the radio in my car, how do I know if I have license to listen to a station of music?
Is "borrowing" wireless wrong?
- Thread starter maxamuus
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
See above. I guess you just didnt understand...
annasdadhockey
Well-Known Member
I think some people are taking this thread personally. You know who u ar
CHefJohnboyardee
Well-Known Member
If I'm checking email, who cares? If I'm streaming videoes, Shame on me...
A figure of speech.
The net result is blaming the owner of the house for a burglary because he didn't lock the door. While I agree it's a great idea to lock the doors, not doing so isn't license to steal your stuff.
As passedpawn is suggesting, the relevant legal and ethical question is what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy in this context. If you decide to broadcast radio signals into the world and have elected to not utilize the simple and effective privacy features built in to every router, that's a clear indication that you are choosing to not make your broadcasts private.
If I were to transmit every argument I have with my wife over shortwave radio, it would be strange for me to get pissed off when people start tuning in.
If I were to transmit every argument I have with my wife over shortwave radio, it would be strange for me to get pissed off when people start tuning in.
The legality is a question, since clearly there are variables in different locales. I see no lack of clarity in the ethical standpoint. Don't take what isn't yours...and I'm not buying that people don't know what's theirs and what's not.
I've been resisting throwing this out there, but there's a lot of ignorance of how the legal system works going on in this thread.
There is absolutely not a comparison between the burglary of a private building and accessing a wireless signal which is broadcast into the public realm and is easily captured by common electronic devices.
What's that term? Full disclosure? Interpreting the law is my job and has been for a good while now. I know how these things work. Being righteous rarely means being right.
There is absolutely not a comparison between the burglary of a private building and accessing a wireless signal which is broadcast into the public realm and is easily captured by common electronic devices.
What's that term? Full disclosure? Interpreting the law is my job and has been for a good while now. I know how these things work. Being righteous rarely means being right.
Seems logical that to stand up for what you believe entails taking things somewhat seriously/personally.
Who on earth said anything about people who "don't know what's theirs and what's not"? Good gravy, man.
If I thought somebody would be unhappy with my using their wifi, I would consider it wrong of me to do so. But, if they've chosen to broadcast an open network channel into public space, that's as clear a choice as it can be about whether the network is intended to be public or private.
Appeal to Authority? That's fine, sometimes it's appropriate.
Just because something can be done legally doesn't always mean it's the right thing to do.
Yeah, but it's a beer forum filled with people who like to sit around and chat about whatever's on their minds. There's really no need to get as mean and nasty about it like this.
I disagree. Call it ignorance or plain stupidity, there are lots of people that simply buy a wireless router and hook it up with no understanding of the implication. That's like taking candy from a baby. It's not really an informed choice.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
We need an adjunct of the law to interpret this issue for us.
*this message typed using someone's unsecured wireless network*
Not sure if it is my neighbor, the library, a hotel, or the chamber of commerce. It just says "connected to linksys." Probably shouldn't use it since I don't know whose it is.
*this message typed using someone's unsecured wireless network*
Not sure if it is my neighbor, the library, a hotel, or the chamber of commerce. It just says "connected to linksys." Probably shouldn't use it since I don't know whose it is.
So then you are arguing ethics, that's fine. But law and ethics are two different things. I haven't been arguing ethics for quite a few pages, but you still seem to have a disagreement with me. So which is it?
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
How 'bout some personal responsibility?
How about some personal integrity?
If you can't figure out how to use your router, I just don't see that as my problem. Perhaps you shouldn't be flooding public space with radio waves if you can't be bothered to understand the equipment.
You're begging the question.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
How about take 2.4 seconds and protect your wireless.
Good night, this mental exercise is no longer interesting to me. 
You're missing the point here. Many, many people share their wifi on purpose. If you don't want to be mistaken for people like that, click the little checkbox that says "password". If you can't be bothered to do even that, maybe you shouldn't feel so entitled to pump public spaces (or, worse yet, other people's private spaces) full of radio waves.
You seem to be taking this discussion very personally, I'm curious why.
Who stole your intrawebz and slowed down your netflix streaming?
Indeed. What of it?
Hell yes it does. Every router I've seen shipped in the last... oh, almost 10 years, has come with the security pre-set to 'Enabled' (PSA with key). You have to manually disable security on a modern router for it to be public.
Nobody has stolen any bandwidth from me. I run a pretty tight ship in that regard.
As I mentioned earlier, it seems a very basic principle to me that you don't take what isn't yours without explicit permission so I react strongly to what seems contrary to that.
No it doesn't.
Most people will agree that theft is wrong. Taking is theft only when it deprives a person of something which is rightfully theirs. That's why copying a DVD is considered copyright infringement, not theft.
The minimal browsing we're talking about here does not deprive the use of use of their internet connection, not do they get them charged more for it.
It's great that you have your idiom to live by. Good for you. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a universal truth, which is what morality is concerned with.
whoaru99 said:
You're applying your own ethics to the situation to determine your story. That's fine, but you cannot force your own moral paradigm upon someone else as an absolute.
There isn't enough legal precedent on file to make an absolute statement about the legality of using open wifi. The fact that open, public wifi is abundant in major metropolitan areas further muddies the water.
Golddiggie
Well-Known Member
IME, those are the same people that get the router from their ISP and use the default password that's on it. Luckily, the better/smarter ISP's are now making those passwords stronger and harder to crack.
To the original question about it being wrong... IMO, it is. It's the same as a neighbor coming over and using your gas grill without asking you. Would you be ok with that? How about the neighbor you've never even met doing it? How about some schmuck driving by? I have the utility on my wireless devices to scan the airwaves to see what AP's are out there and if they're secure or not. For the past few years, the number of unsecured routers has dropped to either zero, or damned close to it whenever I've checked. If the person has a router setup with a 'guest' path, then they are allowing people to connect up and use it. If it doesn't have something that actually says 'guest' in the SSID, then it's not intended for that.
On my own wireless router, I have it locked down so that I have to enter the key for anything that's going to connect to it. That's through either the 2.4GHz or 5GHz bandwidths.
It's been too long since I've set up a new router, so I can't say (for certain) if it came with a password on the wireless side or not. I believe that Linksys/Cisco routers do come with it enabled by default. I also think it asks you to change the admin password, but that might have just been me not liking the crappy strength default one. Keep in mind, my router is a WRT610N (first version) so it's more than a few years old now. I do think my sister/brother-in-law's password for their router is a joke. It would be in the first 5-10 things a hacker would try using to break in. Maybe I'm more paranoid than they are, or I just care more about my network's security, but I make sure my passwords are all at least "strong". At some point I'll go to the level above that. It's just easier to remember 8-10 character combination than 13-15. Especially when you use the full range of characters in order to get that higher security level of password.
Again, arguable, since many ISP have caps. Most, however, seem not enforced unless you're a flagrant violator. That said, I pay $xx.xx/mo and in exchange for that I'm entitled to 250GB per month. Every single bit of that is mine, not anyone else's to use without my permission.
Point being, if I'm deprived of even just one bit it's theft because that bit is one I no longer have in the bank, per se.
Point being, if I'm deprived of even just one bit it's theft because that bit is one I no longer have in the bank, per se.
How is this the same? Your neighbor is depriving you of using you grill during the time he's using it. He's also using your gas, which is quite finite and has worth. And he's putting wear-and-tear on your grill.
None of these things are true with WiFi.
Also, the ones that do say 'guest' in the SSID are usually Cisco/Linksys routers. That's a feature that ships enabled by default. Connecting to the SSID doesn't provide internet access, and it's segmented from the rest of your network, until you manually provision them permissions with your admin login.
I'm in full agreement that I can't force it on anyone. What disappoints me is that that point should even come up because it seems that fundamental to a functional society. Don't take what isn't yours. It's really beyond my comprehension why this seems to be a point of contention.
Golddiggie said:
That's a terrible analogy and completely irrelevant to the situation.
I personally would use a neighbors open wifi in a pinch, but I wouldn't use it permanently as my primary source of Internet and I certainly wouldn't use it in a manner that would impact their quality of service.
See post #155.
