Is "borrowing" wireless wrong?

[whoaru99]

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.

No it doesn't.

 

[thadius856]

Nobody has stolen any bandwidth from me. I run a very 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.

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.

 

[Jukas]

Nobody has stolen any bandwidth from me. I run a very 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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[whoaru99]

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.

 

[thadius856]

It's the same as a neighbor coming over and using your gas grill without asking you.

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.

 

[whoaru99]

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.

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.

 

[Jukas]

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?

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.

 

[thadius856]

Don't take what isn't yours.

We're going in circles here.

Unsubscribed. Night all!

 

[whoaru99]

How is this the same?

See post #155.

 

[Jukas]

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.

You're entitled to that opinion, but your also treating it like a hard consumable asset in most of your comparisons (apples etc).

What if I was in my garage with the door open and I was watched a blacked out game on nfl Subday ticket. You walk by on the sidewalk and glance at my tv and see who's playing and the score. Did you just take what wasn't yours? Shouldn't you have averted your eyes?

Here's another one for you, it's 105 out and your walking down the sidewalk. I have my sprinklers on and the water is hitting the sidewalk. Are you contributing to societal decline if you stand on the sidewalk and enjoy the refreshing mist for a few minutes, because the water wasn't yours?

 

[passedpawn]

What if you use this forum but don't become a paying member

 

[Jukas]

What if you use this forum but don't become a paying member

Then you miss out on the glory that is the boneyard, duh.

 

[passedpawn]

Then you miss out on the glory that is the boneyard, duh.

Actually, I keep assuming this thread will get swiped into Debate, and whoaru99 will not have access. That would end it since he's buoying the thing anyway.

 

[whoaru99]

You're entitled to that opinion, but your also treating it like a hard consumable asset in most of your comparisons (apples etc).

It is, for me, and for more than 64% of broadband subscribers. Admittedly though, I never get close to my cap limit, but I paid for every single one of those 2.147e+12 bits.

 

[Golddiggie]

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.

I was going to post up a longer response but there's not much point. This is not borrowing, it's theft. It would be borrowing if the OP asked the neighbor with the WAP (unprotected) if he could jump onto it. Since that's not been done, it's theft. Doesn't matter how you try to justify it or claim you're not costing them anything or doing harm. Stealing is still stealing. IMO, it shows how bad this country has gotten when people cannot see that. Or think it's fine since it appears to be a victimless crime. IF you really need to get online that bad, and your home connection is down, and you have no alternative that YOU pay for, then go someplace which advertises 'Free WiFi' for use. Or ask the bloody neighbor if you can suck on their internet pipe.

BTW, I'm done with this thread so

 

[zeg]

What if you use this forum but don't become a paying member

ZOMG THAT'S A TERRIBLE ANALOGY YOU IGNORANT NAZI PORNOGRAPHER!!!

Ahem, uh, er, excuse me.

This is not borrowing, it's theft. [...] Stealing is still stealing.

No, it really is not theft nor stealing. It might be illegal and it might be wrong (or it might be both), but it's not nearly as simple as applying a concept that was developed for physical objects to information or its ephemeral representations.

You can't simply write off the victimless nature that many cases have as irrelevant. Well, you can, but that means you're not really thinking about why something is right or wrong, you're just blindly following a rule that you picked up somewhere. In 99.9% or more of these cases, no one is inconvenienced.

Ok, so a few kb of whoaru's cap are used up by a stranger, but unless he actually approaches that cap, it's going to reset in a month or two and there is literally no consequence. What is it that makes this ethically wrong?

Ok, so maybe you are accessing the ISP's network without authorization. This isn't obviously the case---the owner of the wireless AP is authorized, and he's permitting anyone who attempts to connect to his network to forward packets through his authorized connection. It's unclear, legally at least, whether or not you're authorized to do this---it's not at all obvious that you are making unauthorized access. But, again, other than the possibility that you're violating a ToS agreement, what is it that makes this access unethical?

"It just ain't right" is not an argument. Acceptance of it as one, and god forbid a convincing one, is a more troubling sign for the future of a civilization than a rational debate about the ethics of a new technology.

 

[Airborneguy]

"It just ain't right" is not an argument. Acceptance of it as one, and god forbid a convincing one, is a more troubling sign for the future of a civilization than a rational debate about the ethics of a new technology.

Bravo. I am not surprised with the major disagreement in this thread, but I am surprised that a few people see it as so "obvious". One can easily make a plausible argument that people who allow their wireless to invade another persons home or property are breaking a law themselves, whether the signal is locked or not. What of the people who still believe wireless signals cause cancer? Too bad for them?

Do I agree with this? Not at all, but I'd be interested in hearing someone defend that position, I wouldn't just say "jeez why is this even an issue? Mankind is a failure obviously!"

 

[whoaru99]

If the owness is on me to implement security to protect myself from your piggybacking, if I'm concerned about it, does it not follow that the owness is on you to seek refuge in a Faraday cage to protect yourself from my EMI/RFI, if you are concerned about that?

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Should I even bring up the fact that on my old laptop my device would roam and reconnect to the network with the most bars and least restrictions. Sometimes it would hop off my password protected network to jump on some local linksys network and then jump back. That wasnt my choice, it was the way the device was set up to work.

 

[Airborneguy]

If the owness is on me to implement security to protect myself from your piggybacking, if I'm concerned about it, does it not follow that the owness is on you to seek refuge in a Faraday cage to protect yourself from my EMI/RFI, if you are concerned about that?

I don't have any opinion on hiding from rampant wi-fi at all. My point was that you see question as obviously and clearly a black and white issue as if those of us who question the matter further are immoral society destroyers.

 

[Airborneguy]

Should I even bring up the fact that on my old laptop my device would roam and reconnect to the network with the most bars and least restrictions. Sometimes it would hop off my password protected network to jump on some local linksys network and then jump back. That wasnt my choice, it was the way the device was set up to work.

I mentioned that already. It was ignored I believe.

 

[maxamuus]

You all will be happy to know Comcrap has restored my Internet. Only took them 2 days to do it. So now i am "legal" again.

 

[Jukas]

If the owness is on me to implement security to protect myself from your piggybacking, if I'm concerned about it, does it not follow that the owness is on you to seek refuge in a Faraday cage to protect yourself from my EMI/RFI, if you are concerned about that?

Oh good lord..

 

[zeg]

I mentioned that already. It was ignored I believe.

I think I commented on it, at least in a draft of something at some point.

Accidental/incidental connection to a wireless network is a very different scenario. That is probably true legally, and certainly true ethically.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that in that case, it is an open and shut ethical question. It's not "wrong" any more than any other accidental act is "wrong." To me, that means it's not wrong at all, but you are responsible for any injuries that result from it.

As a practical matter, that sort of automatic connecting behavior is a terrible configuration, for numerous reasons, but it's not exactly unethical if you're not doing it intentionally.

 

[whoaru99]

Oh good lord..

Really? I think it's a better rebuttal than Airborneguy was expecting.

 

[whoaru99]

As a practical matter, that sort of automatic connecting behavior is a terrible configuration, for numerous reasons, but it's not exactly unethical if you're not doing it intentionally.

When does it stop becoming unintentional if you know it's happening and can prevent it from happening? If one expects people to be smart enough to secure their wireless I think it's reasonable to expect they're smart enough to turn off the automatic connection function.

 

[Jukas]

Really? I think it's a better rebuttal than Airborneguy was expecting.

It wasn't. One is an active decision (or lack of) on your part in terms of securing your network. The other is a passive action that is subjected upon someone else, possibly without their awareness.

Of course you could always provide the rebuttal that if they were concerned about the radiation/rf signal saturation it it's responsibility to do the due diligence to see what they're being subjected to. That would beg the natural rebuttal that if you were concerned about people using your wireless it's your responsibility to do the due diligence to make sure your network has at least minimal security preventing random and unauthorized use.

Your basal argument is flawed, it would be like me playing HBO on a street facing tv in my garage and then expecting passerby's to make the moral decision not to look at it because it's my cable subscription, not theirs.

 

[whoaru99]

Of course you could always provide the rebuttal that if they were concerned about the radiation/rf signal saturation it it's responsibility to do the due diligence to see what they're being subjected to. That would beg the natural rebuttal that if you were concerned about people using your wireless it's your responsibility to do the due diligence to make sure your network has at least minimal security preventing random and unauthorized use.

Which is exactly what I said.

As far as my base argument, that is unchanged; don't take what isn't yours. Simple.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Before I continue, let me ask... is this an actual debate (discussion of opinions and facts to support a thesis) or has it become an invitation for an argument? Because frankly, I dont give a flying arse-buggery against a rolling doughnut about the actual "crime"...