Is "borrowing" wireless wrong?

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

If your neighbor has a apple tree in his yard, and the branches extend over the property line to your yard, would you eat the apples on your side of the tree?

This is a fair analogy in my opinion. Our wireless networks send signals that can't be contained for the most part. If you don't secure it, you're pretty much giving permission for it to be used.

I rarely do it, but have and always will if necessary.

Interesting thread, but I got bored easily......So here is my view the quick and easy way.

 

[whoaru99]

The internet is a public access network. Think a business' internal network, or a personal home network setup with a few computers and a linked printer. Or for fun, let's say the NSA!

No, that doesn't work because regardless of any laws defining what it may or may not mean in terms of connecting to or accessing, it amounts to theft of service. It's no different from a content standpoint than scaling the pole and connecting your cable TV line to get it free. You're receiving a paid service you haven't paid for.

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

I just got unbored!! Another analogy: If your neighbour is talking loud and you can hear the lardy assed moo cow (Sorry, I'll pretend it's a random neighbour from here on) Is it wrong to hear them?

edit to accomodate the above post: She is talking to her shrink. She has paid for that service.

 

[Airborneguy]

Regardless of any laws? So you just decide you don't like something then declare it illegal? It doesn't work that way in real life fortunately.

 

[passedpawn]

No, that doesn't work because regardless of any laws defining what it may or may not mean in terms of connecting to or accessing, it amounts to theft of service. It's no different from a content standpoint than scaling the pole and connecting your cable TV line to get it free. You're receiving a paid service you haven't paid for.

I think the OP said he did pay for it.

 

[Airborneguy]

If I built a machine that captured farts and turned them into fuel, would it be theft to...

 

[whoaru99]

Regardless of any laws? So you just decide you don't like something then declare it illegal? It doesn't work that way in real life fortunately.

It is illegal in the majority of places.

 

[thadius856]

You can justify it to yourself that it's not wrong... But you're stealing bandwidth you didn't pay for. They paid for a certain speed of internet and won't get that because someone else is stealing their internet.


And to those of you who say that it's not wrong or that it's fair game because it's not password protected... Is it okay to break into someone's home if the doors aren't locked? Whether it has a password or not is completely inconsequential in the discussion of whether or not it's morally wrong to do.

Um... surfing HBT, checking email and checking Facebook is not going to make a dent in any internet connection that has been relevant in the past decade.

I leave my wifi wide open on my guest SSID, separated onto its own VLAN and QOS'd down to 1 mbit. I have two additional access points, so I'm pretty sure half the neighborhood can see it.

Know how many problems I've had because of it? Zero.

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

I thought is an ethical question rather than a legal one.

 

[opus345]

I just got unbored!! Another analogy: If your neighbour is talking loud and you can hear the lardy assed moo cow (Sorry, I'll pretend it's a random neighbour from here on) Is it wrong to hear them?

edit to accomodate the above post: She is talking to her shrink. She has paid for that service.

Make it more interesting, you hear the "cow" tell the "bull" that if he doesn't shut up she will kill him like she did his brother. Is it wrong to act on that information?

 

[Airborneguy]

It is illegal in the majority of places.

Apparently it isn't where I live. I plan on clarifying for academic purposes, but let's just say I'm pretty familiar with the NYS penal law, and according to what I read, they refer to networks specifically.

 

[whoaru99]

I think the OP said he did pay for it.

He did say that, but my comment was in general response.

As far as the OP goes, I think he should ask to use the neighbors wireless. If he doesn't have explicit permission then he shouldn't use it.

 

[whoaru99]

Apparently it isn't where I live. I plan on clarifying for academic purposes, but let's just say I'm pretty familiar with the NYS penal law, and according to what I read, they refer to networks specifically.

Fair enough, I caught that earlier but the point still remains. It's illegal most places.

 

[MalFet]

It is illegal in the vast majority of places.

Really? Can you provide any evidence of that? I can't find anything to say that it is.

Like I said, in my neck of the woods the custom is to indicate that you are willing to share your wifi by leaving it broadcast and unlocked. It's not stealing if I'm inviting you to use it.

If I stick a couch on the driveway with a sign that reads "free", I probably shouldn't be surprised if it's not there when I come home. The taker isn't stealing. The implication is that anyone who wishes to take the couch is invited to do so.

 

[whoaru99]

So when you connect to your neighbor's wi-fi you get a popup that says "take me I'm free", or "you have my permission to use this network"?

There is a link back in post #22.

 

[Airborneguy]

So when you connect to your neighbor's wi-fi you get a popup that says "take me I'm free", or "you have my permission to use this network"?

There is a link back in post #22.

In reference to the point you make here, read this article from Wired:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/pr_burning_wifi_squatting/

Their sources seem pretty legit. Apparently it is still a gray area, but one that is becoming more lenient as the technology spreads. Furthermore, ignorance of permission seems to be a valid defense. Interesting since ignorance of the law isn't in most cases.

 

[whoaru99]

Regardless of any laws, I find it unacceptable to take something that isn't yours. A neighbor's Internet service isn't yours. To me it's a matter of principle.

 

[MalFet]

So when you connect to your neighbor's wi-fi you get a popup that says "take me I'm free", or "you have my permission to use this network"?

There is a link back in post #22.

Did you read the link?

I didn't go through all 50 states, but the ones I did look at use language very similar to what Airborneguy describes for New York. In other words: it's not as obvious as you'd like it to be.

Implicit permission is a common question in the law. The issue comes down to reasonable interpretations of intent. As I keep saying, among everyone I know an open wifi router is explicitly intended as an invitation for the public to hop on.

As a side note, do you really need to drench your responses in sarcasm? This is just a friendly conversation here.

 

[whoaru99]

Did you read the link?

I didn't go through all 50 states, but the ones I did look at use language very similar to what Airborneguy describes for New York. In other words: it's not as obvious as you'd like it to be.

Which is why I said most, rather than all.

Implicit permission is a common question in the law. The issue comes down to reasonable interpretations of intent. As I keep saying, among everyone I know an open wifi router is explicitly intended as an invitation for the public to hop on.

I have no particular problem if you have a Gentlemen's Agreement to use each other's stuff. However, because that is your way doesn't grant permission to assume it's everybody's way.

As a side note, do you really need to drench your responses in sarcasm? This is just a friendly conversation here.

Yes, if I think it might help drive home a point.

 

[bob1852]

Regardless of any laws, I find it unacceptable to take something that isn't yours. A neighbor's Internet service isn't yours. To me it's a matter of principle.

How do you know if it's the neighbor? Many areas have free open source wifi.

 

[zeg]

IMO it depends on the circumstances. If it's brief and low-data volume and for an urgent, legitimate (and legal) need, I think it's ethically ok. Otherwise, no.

Basically, if you know (or were to later find out) whose network it is, would you feel comfortable bumping into them and saying, "Hey, by the way, I had to do XYZ yesterday and my network was down, so I borrowed your connection"?

That's the test I would apply, and I would further suggest that "'fessing" up like that is also a good idea, just in case they do have a problem with it. (In which case you apologize and don't do it again, whether or not they secure it.)

I've never heard of anyone being sued for using another's wireless. And I assure you it is not a criminal act in any way, shape or form.

I'd be a bit careful with this. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's fair to make such a sweeping statement that it's not a criminal act. I have certainly seen multiple reputable reports of people getting into legal trouble for this (or technically very similar activities). If you are connecting to a wireless access point, you are accessing a private network, even if the only thing you use it for is transmitting packets to/from the Internet.

A couple potentially useful links, though the first is somewhat dated and unsourced. Note in particular in the second that "New York law is the most permissive" on the subject (though the cited reference seems to be a dead link).

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/13052
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking (see the "United States" section)

 

[Airborneguy]

I tend to base my ethical opinions first on the letter of the law first, then on intangibles. If something is legal, I'll more than likely do it, either hypothetically in conversation or in real life. Now abortion is legal and I never would have been a party to one (moot point now), so I'm not saying I go around doing anything that isn't strictly illegal. I just don't see the need to hold myself morally higher than the legal standard in regards to minor aspects of life.

 

[whoaru99]

More to the point, how do you know it isn't?

I don't know what sort of free wi-fi to which you refer, but all the "free" wi-fi I've used has made some sort of announcement/terms of service/log in to use it even though it's free, as in like at many/most(?) hotels these days. These are my primary source of "free" wi-fi. No doubt there are other types that may be different.

 

[MalFet]

Which is why I said most, rather than all.

I've read through thirty now. That's officially "not most".

Yes, if I think it might help drive home a point.

In all sincerity, I find that pitiable.

 

[bob1852]

More to the point, how do you know it isn't?

Cuz there isn't anything that says it is?

 

[Airborneguy]

I'd be a bit careful with this. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's fair to make such a sweeping statement that it's not a criminal act.

I don't know if you skipped ahead, but we went further into it and my reasoning changed in later posts. That said, I'm not one to go back and edit my posts if I'm later proven wrong or something changes.

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

Moral V Legal : 190 gallons of homebrew moral.....210 gallons of homebrew immoral?

 

[Airborneguy]

More to the point, how do you know it isn't?

If you're talking about permissions, according to the link I posted, you don't have to. You only have to not know that you didn't have permission.

 

[whoaru99]

The link seems to cite both federal law as an absolute no-no. but goes on to say even though it's probably illegal it's not really enforced unless you do something really bad with it and someone makes the effort to hunt you down.

 

[whoaru99]

Moral V Legal : 190 gallons of homebrew moral.....210 gallons of homebrew immoral?

What is the moral vs. legal debate of taking something that isn't yours?