Ethicist Says Nothing Wrong With Using Free WiFi
from the not-your-problem dept
While some people are being sent to jail for using open WiFi connections, an ethicist for the NY Times Syndicate is saying there's nothing ethically wrong with piggybacking on an open WiFi connection, assuming you're not sucking up all the bandwidth. His point is that it's the responsibility of whoever owns the WiFi access point to secure it, if they don't want it used. He also points out that if you find an open connection, you should try to figure out who owns it to let them know it's open -- in case they want to cut it off. Of course, he leaves out the strongest argument for why there's nothing wrong with using free WiFi, assuming you're either on public property or your own property: those radio waves are no longer under the control of the access point owner once they drift off of his or her property. If those radio waves reach my property, then it's not "theft" any more than if your regular radio plays loud enough that I can hear it on my property. Update: Clarified that this ethicist is for the NYTimes Syndicate. It turns out that the NY Times' own ethicist wrote something similar two years ago.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bad analogy warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
Also, in the case with the apples, some would argue that your analogy is correct. If the neighbor lets it grow onto your property... then it's yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
As for radio waves: the Supreme Court has ruled that no wiretap warrant is required (legally, not Bush-style) for police to sit just over your property line and listen to your cordless (NOT cellular) phone. Same would go, I guess, for your WiFi traffic.
To me, the eavesdropper is much more a threat than the bandwidth-borrower. YMMV, but my WAP is WPA and not broadcasting SSID. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
Tangible, no. Finite, yes. However, if the broadband connection is nowhere near being maxed out, the effective impact of someone using a small part of your bandwidth tends to be nil. So, the "loss" in most cases does not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
My connection isn't free. Neither should yours be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
That would involve taking the hose off of your property, and also taking something from you that had a marginal cost (assuming you pay for water). That's not the case with WiFi and bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looking at the road instead of the car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looking at the road instead of the car
See, but the problem here is the opposite. You let your radio waves go on someone else's property. By your rationale, they could charge YOU with trespassing by not keeping your radio waves to yourself.
Anyway, again, the candy example isn't the same because there's an actual loss there.
That's not true in the case of WiFi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looking at the road instead of the car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looking at the road instead of the car
The problem at hand is that some folks want to say "don't use my wifi" without actually doing anything to keep their signals off my computer. With every single wifi router I've ever touched, security was one click of the mouse away. Can't be bothered to do that little? Well don't go making laws forcing me to not share my wireless. I leave my router open on purpose, because I LIKE to share. My parents taught me that sharing was nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Looking at the road instead of the car
Also, if you didn't want a person to take something from you, you would have some sort of deterrent. Like locking your door, a sign saying will shoot trespassers, or encrypting your wifi. You wouldn't go and leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looking at the road instead of the car
Wrong. The focus of discussion is intent. My radio waves, similar to my voice in public, were not directed to you specifically anymore than anyone else in the vacinity that may have heard. However, you actively sought out a wireless connection and fully intend to use my internet access without my permission.
You let your radio waves go on someone else's property.
If you know a way to prevent radio waves from going through the air, do tell. Otherwise, none of your arguments hold water. "If I can find a signal, I can use it." - that's rather simplistic and immature. You shouldn't need to be told that the access you are using is being paid for by someone else and you don't have permission to use it. I guess if someone wants something for free badly enough, he or she can spew any kind of nonsense to justify getting it. Why all the outlandish arguments? Is it really so necessary to justify or difficult to illustrate the fact that you using my internet connection without my permission is wrong? Do you think you deserve free internet access at Joe Random's expense? I noticed you didn't respond about metered bandwidth. What if every byte you send through my internet connection cost me $.00x, or if you used up my allocated time and prevented my access or my customer's access? Of course, you don't care right? As long as you get it for free? I mean, it's clearly my or my customer's fault for not securing it, and not your fault for using it. Discovering the security lapse (doubtful you'd report it of course) and securing it would at least force you to move along to the next unsecure access point in your quest for free access.
Disregard for, or ignorance of, consequences not pertaining to oneself is the hallmark of adolescence. I guess some people haven't matured socially enough to recognize right from wrong when it isn't as simple as you-took-my-toy. That or they have watched The Matrix a dozen times too many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looking at the road instead of the car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
The number one misconception people have with this issue is that one intrudes on somebody else's property to use wireless signals. It just ain't so. The wireless device intrudes on my property with its signals. I can only use that which comes to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
If you leave your hose running in the middle of the street, can you fault someone who uses it rather than letting it run down the storm sewer?
If you don't want to share, then don't give it away. It's not about stealing.
People leave candy on their front steps when they aren't at home on Halloween. Is it stealing for kids to take the candy? How do you know it's there to be taken... there's no note and you are taking goods off of their property with no express permission?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
I think this is a great anaology. Finite resource which costs you money and I get a free ride legally/ethically. It's your lack of carrying/noticing that you are effectively watering my yard, and me noticing/taking advantage of the fact that you are doing so.
I could be a nice guy and let you in on it, and you may decide that it's too much trouble to fine-tune your sprinkler system. Or I could do it until you figure out on your own that you're wasting water.
But eitherway there is no obligation on my part not to take advantage of the water.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad analogy warning
Now...if you left your hose out and running...in my yard...yep...I would fill up as many containers as I could.
People, think about this for a minute.......these are radio waves bombarding into my house. They are being broadcast into my house...my laptop connects to them....and I can now surf the web. Should this be a crime? Did I break into the network...or was it offered up to me without any maliscious intentions on my part? Did I have to packet sniff the security?
All of this is pure BS. Welcome to the world of uncontrollable radio waves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
http://www.tisc-insight.com/newsletters/416.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, but...
Hiding SSIDs just makes your WiFi a little harder to find, that's all. Those who are looking can find it easily enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
Nothing's been stolen, since it was propagated (no pun intended) for the sole purpose of allowing anyone to use it. I make that assumption, since the owner of the wireless router could have enabled a password to restrict access, but didn�t.
We can make all the foolish analogies to meaningless open-door scenarios, but the bottom line is that if I connect to an unsecured wireless LAN system that is broadcasting (advertising) a system ID (SSID), I am an invited guest (I can make myself an UNWELCOME guest by doing some anti-social things after I�m connected, but that�s a different issue).
However, if I defeat ANY password scheme (regardless of how inherently secure the technology used), I am clearly an intruder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This idiot is wrong...
To use a better analogy - if you picked up your cordless phone to dial out and some guy next door was yacking on it to his girlfriend because he had managed to tap into your cordless with his own handset - does that mean he's entitled to do it?
Of course not - your phone, your service, your Bill...
2. If people are really concerned about keeping their Wi-Fi away from intruders - don't broadcast the SID.
You can't hack it if you can't see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This idiot is wrong...
If nothing is lost, how is it stealing?
To use a better analogy - if you picked up your cordless phone to dial out and some guy next door was yacking on it to his girlfriend because he had managed to tap into your cordless with his own handset - does that mean he's entitled to do it?
Huh? How is that the same situation? Each phone call has a marginal cost for most users. Also, if he's using your phone line it means you can't at the same time.
Neither of these things apply with WiFi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This idiot is wrong...
Not everyone has unlimited bandwidth.
Friends of mine only have an X amount of GB they can download/upload each 30 days. What if I took a portion of that, would that be considered stealing? Heck yes! I took a part of their available bandwidth, without paying for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This idiot is wrong...
This is incredibly narrow minded, unimaginative and utterly concrete. So, inevitably, it is wrong. Allow me to disprove.
I take my laptop to friends houses all the time. Most do not have wireless routers themselves but 90% of the time there is at least 1 unsecure network in range. If I weren't so concerned about the legal and ethical issues, I would jump on and check my email or the feeds. BTW, I pay $45/mo for cable internet service at home.
Now, obviously I am not too cheap to pay for an ISP and I have a reason to "steal" signal. Barring the ethical/legal issues, the practical end result would be a negligible bandwidth drop for the provider of each unsecure network with almost blanket wireless coverage for me to the places I go most.
I suppose you could argue that I am too cheap to by each and every one of my friends a wireless router, but then...that's just as ridiculous as your first statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This idiot is wrong...
Actually what it means is that you know your friends don't have wireless internet access, and you don't care. You knowingly go somewhere you can't use wireless and think you have a right to use someone elses. His arguement still stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This idiot is wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
The closest analogy, though, is radio and TV. Nobody accuses me of stealing for using those signals that are being broadcast onto my property. Wifi is the same thing on a different frequency. If somebody broadcasts it to me, I will receive it whether I want to or not. So what's the harm in using it? None whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
And if you kill the tree in doing so? I mean, is it really so hard to just tell the neighbor about it? A lot less work if nothing else...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
First of all, some people leave their WiFi insecured to allow others open free access.
With the general internet being that if it is open, it's free. I and others are only to assume that if it's open, it's an invitation to use it.
Besides, as another post points out. My computer requests access to the network. If the router approves the access by providing me an IP that is in fact an invitation.
Ok, so if a person has an open WiFi, and their router accepts a request from my computer and assigns me an IP, I HAVE to assume that the person is offering the WiFi for free.
I mean there are so many different ways of preventing me from using someone's WiFi, setting static IP routing, all the different encryptions, and the simplest of all of not broadcasting the SSID.
Oh and yes I have a Cable connection with WiFi where I live, and have encrypted WiFi, with a subnet to another router with Open WiFi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
While using an open WiFi spot without permission is not illegal everywhere, it is illegal in some spots (Florida, I believe, is one state). The fact that the task of configuring your laptop to NOT connect to that open access point automatically is difficult does not absolve you of the requirement to follow the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
But it is only useful if you transmit information back to the unit (You have to send in order to recieve). Sending information into a private network and then instructing it to send you information is in fact theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see where...
otherwise, I would say if somebody is using the neighbor's open wireless network to just check email and look up stuff on wikipedia, I'd think *nobody* would notice it, since pretty much the only people with wireless networks have broadband, and even on DSL, most people arent gonna be able to tell the difference from the 40k being taken up 2 seconds at a time every 20 or 40 seconds from their 256k dsl line...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WIFI WINOT?
1. Its on my property
2. Its not secure
3. If the guy doesn't know how to secure it, he will not know.
What the hell, if there is any other computers on it, try to \ip-address and log-in with administrator and no password, maybe they have some goodies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ethical Use of Wi-Fi
Now, my network name is also my email address in case someone wants to ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No different then cutting through someone's yard
I see these as the exact same thing as using a bit of someone's wifi. Just as if someone doesn't want me to cut through their yard they'll put up a fence or sign, if they don't want me to use their wifi they can enable encryption. And likewise I'd never use someone's wifi connection to download torrents or anything just as I'd never pitch a tent in someone's yard.
FWIW ---
Sam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why wouldn't open WIFI be open.
We're talking about broadcasting a request for data from a WIFI card, and someone's Wireless AP filling the request.
If you want to blame someone, blame the hardware manufactures.
They should set-up new routers with a random encryption code, then stamp the code on the top of the router.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's theft of resources, simple
There's little one can reasonably expect anyone to do to stop the signal propagating beyond their walls (lead-lined bunkers count as "unreasonable"). What Mike seems not to be seeing is that whatever bandwidth the piggy-backer hogs is unavailable to the owner. It's entirely tangible, too - point iptraf or similar at your outgoing connection and see the bandwidth being used. That makes it theft of resources: when a finite quantity is used by another at the expense of the "provider"/owner.
More pertinently, I would not call myself an ethicist unless I'd weighed-up all the pros & cons: so as a provider of free WiFi, you get to feel good that you've allowed some pauper to connect, and as said pauper you get free (to you) connectivity; however, you also introduce major security risks in both directions too: do you trust machines running on networks accesssible by free wifi connections? Should boxes on those networks trust you, as an intruder, not to launch viruses or UBE attacks through that connection?
IMO, unless the free-wifi is set up with a license to permit connection ("copyleft"-style), the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, therefore it is a bad moral choice to leech off someone's insecure wifi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good debates all around...
First, I think the apple tree analogy is good for unencrypted wifi in my yard.
I also want to add that at least one law has been written to force property owners to protect themselves from possible intruders.
Pool Laws: some counties or states, etc require that if you are in a non-rural area that you must have 6ft fence surrounding your 3ft+ deep pool and it must be locked. Failure to do so is your breaking the law should some trespasser come in and swim and drown in your pool.
How does it fit in? Well, the best thing I can say is if you don't want to share your bandwidth then fence it. I do believe that there is a such thing as trespassing on my connection; however, if I am concerned then I should protect myself from that. I just don't want to see anylaws saying it is against the law to use an open network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm....
This is simple, if it is not yours, and you don't know if you are allowed to use it, do not. There is no grey area here. You can rationalize why you should be allowed to all day long, it is just more of the me, me, me I deserver whatever I can get attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're all missing one big point...
How about sending mail. If you are sending the latest joke video clip to 20 friends, you are utilizing the upload bandwidth - usually MUCH more restricted. I have 3 Mb DSL download, but my upload is capped at 384Kb and usually maxes out around 256Kb. Uploading a 4 Meg video clip will use 100% of my upload connection for a couple minutes, thus reducing the effectiveness of my download speed since I cannot send "got it" replies back to sending servers. This is an issue for me since I work from home over my companies VPN.
Now, all that being said, I don't have an ethical problem using open WiFi. However, I do think there is a legal problem doing so and believe people should be careful.
Yes, I have wireless. Yes, it's encrypted. No, I don't broadcast SSID.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're all missing one big point...
What everyone's missing is that it depends on the open wifi network's owner's wishes. There's nothing wrong with open wifi, or even seeking to provide ISP facilities over wifi - see http://en.fon.com/ for example. However, I firmly believe that just because someone doesn't secure something it doesn't mean you're allowed to leech off it. Leaving car-keys in public does not entitle you to joy-ride a car. The default reading should be that use of a wifi network to which you're not entitled is theft of resources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The proper analogy
Well, what you need to look at is that:
1. SSID is being broadcast, to let people know that the access point is present.
2. Encryption is off, which means that you don't require any special key to get in (although people who crack WPA/WEP are committing a crime IMO).
Now, #1 and #2 above aren't enough, but don't forget about...
3. The DHCP lease is freely given and connection made without client authentication.
In other words, all three of those conditions would lead one to believe that the access point is open. To use an analogy with a neighbor's house, Wifi is some all-in-one home addition with the following characteristics.
1. The house is publicly visible. This doesn't allow people to come in necessarily, since lots of houses are visible in public.
2. The door is unlocked. This, again, doesn't allow people to come in necessarily.
3. There is a big sign on the front saying "Please come in". Well, what am I supposed to assume at this point? Is this really any different than an open house done by a realtor?
So, the problem boils down not to the person using the connection, but to the idiot router companies that allow it to be use. I believe that granting DHCP leases without authentication, in conjunction with SSID broadcast and lack of encryption, could justify one entering the network from a purely legal standpoint.
Is it ethical? Probably not if you're using a material amount of bandwidth, but remember that you need to prove that you incurred damages if you're the "victim" of such activities. If you're using it to check your e-mail and browse a few websites, it'd be really hard to prove that you've been damaged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The proper analogy
The issue I have is that a DHCP lease is not an invitation as much as it is an agreement to provide you identification which can be used to access the network. Just because I get a driver's license from DMV (identification) doesn't mean they will allow me to go behind the desk (access). I think a better wording of your third point would be "There is a big sign on the front saying 'I won't stop you if you try to come in'".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The proper analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The proper analogy
Now I understand that I may be connecting to someone else's open WIFI signal, but how many computer owners, laptops in particular, understand this. Are we now going to start arresting people for a crime they may not be aware they are committing?
"...but officer when I go to Starbucks the interent just automatically works. I didn't tell it to steal the connection it just did it by itself..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The proper analogy
When the user isn't capable of understanding why it 'just works' it's not realistic to blame them for not knowing, or previously learning the technology.
What I find is that they know it works, not how, and that's good enough for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The proper analogy
here is a link to the story.
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=40457
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The proper analogy
The DHCP arguement is lousy, it is wireless, which means it is most likely used in multiple locations, which usually have different subnets. This means that I would have to reset my IP depending on which location I am in without it on. But according to you, DHCP is not a convience factor it is a welcome mat.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're all missing one big point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're all missing one big point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Mike has always been opinionated and biased, but never stupid. This, however, crosses the line. Using someone else's bandwidth is stealing.
I hate using analogies because they're never accurate (look at what it did for you), but I liken that to parking in your neighbor's driveway and saying it isn't tresspassing because he wasn't using that part of it.
It's his bandwidth on his connection made available via his access point. The fact that he didn't secure it is his fault, yes. The fact that you're using that to your advantage is yours, should be illegal, and makes you absolute scum, ethically speaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Legal precedent for such a broad, stupid statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OPEN = AVAILABLE
Period.
It seems alot of people are confusing signals and goods.
Singals can not be stolen.
Encrypted signals can not be decrypted without authorization.
But were talking about publicly broadcasted unencrypted connections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OPEN = AVAILABLE
However you have no right to send signals back through the neighbours device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OPEN = AVAILABLE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OPEN = AVAILABLE
To use the apple tree example that some of you are fond of, you can pick the apple, but when you start to water and fertilize the tree (hence "replying"), there is a legal issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OPEN = AVAILABLE
Funnily enough, it never mentioned WEP or WPA encryption, or prompted me to setup a password for the router.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
There are two REAL issues regarding WiFi access:
1. Does WiFi access constitute computer trespass per Title 18 U.S.C. 1030 (paragraph (a)(2)) which covers anyone who "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access."? In other words, is accessing someone's WiFi router 'computer trespass', which is a felony.
2. Is it even legal for you to re-broadcast your service? In many states it is illegal to have a "device, technology, [or] product . . used to provide the unauthorized . . . transmission of . . access to, or acquisition of a telecommunication service provided by a telecommunication service provider." (Maryland).
So, it comes down to wether it's computer trespass of an illegal service...
And nobody actually knows the answer, although the answer has nothing to do with loss of bandwidth or use airwaves. Also, both of those laws were written before WiFi even existed and there is little precendent. Some providers (such as Speakeasy) have TOS that explicitly specify what can and can't be done with WiFi connections. Anyway, it's likely that any case would be dropped as federal law requires a minimum of $5k of damages as a threshold for 'computer crime'.
Here's a good article about it: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/237
Chris.
Ref:
http://news.com.com/FAQ+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-7351_3-5778822.html
http://www.securityfocus. com/columnists/237
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
2. You are not rebroadcasting the signal, you are just using it, and its a public unlicensed signal.
The fact is that its not illegal trespass, its legal because the person with the router is too lazy to read the graphical 4 step simple manual that came with the raouter.
>>>Legally, that's simply not true. There are clear precendents for this in law and broadcast radio of all kinds has always been considered 'public'. Use of radio waves being broadcast is legal, period, end of story.
There are two REAL issues regarding WiFi access:
1. Does WiFi access constitute computer trespass per Title 18 U.S.C. 1030 (paragraph (a)(2)) which covers anyone who "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access."? In other words, is accessing someone's WiFi router 'computer trespass', which is a felony.
2. Is it even legal for you to re-broadcast your service? In many states it is illegal to have a "device, technology, [or] product . . used to provide the unauthorized . . . transmission of . . access to, or acquisition of a telecommunication service provided by a telecommunication service provider." (Maryland).
So, it comes down to wether it's computer trespass of an illegal service...
And nobody actually knows the answer, although the answer has nothing to do with loss of bandwidth or use airwaves. Also, both of those laws were written before WiFi even existed and there is little precendent. Some providers (such as Speakeasy) have TOS that explicitly specify what can and can't be done with WiFi connections. Anyway, it's likely that any case would be dropped as federal law requires a minimum of $5k of damages as a threshold for 'computer crime'.
Here's a good article about it: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/237
Chris.
Ref:
http://news.com.com/FAQ+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-7351_3-5778822.html
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/237
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
No.2 was addressing those with PROVIDING WiFi connections.
Most of the people on this thread are using analogies. Analogies don't work in court. The law clearly states that 'computer trespass' is illegal. Wether or not accessing a WiFi router constitutes computer trespass is largely a matter of interpretation, and the courts have not, er, 'interpreted' this for us yet, so it's all conjecture...
That's what I was trying to point out. And that fact that most people are not discussing the actual law, but some vague notion of 'bandwidth stealing'.
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
The law varies by state. NY for instance has a provision basically saying that if a network is open its fair game unless you cause some sort of damage to data. FL is more archaic, and even surfing the Internet drops you into the category of computer trespass.
IMHO, you can't have one standard set of rules applying to Internet traffic and then another applying to WiFi access, which is just an extension to the Internet. What no critic can seem to address for me is why WiFi deserves special protection. If you think it shouldn't be legal to hop on an open access point, then why should it be legal to access any website without calling the company for permission?
People are extremely overprotective when it comes to property rights, but every website they visit daily is either some one's/company's private property or a rented property. And yet no one has ever questioned the legality of accessing an open website. In both cases we are talking about "theft" or usage of services that you didn't pay for.
One simple explanation is that there is a dissociative element to the Internet, most of the time we don't see the Web Servers, the DNS servers, etc, so we can't conceptualize either how huge everything is or that the Internet is a congolomoration of privately held elements. Once the Internet entered the home with WiFi and broadband, the ownership aspect became abundantly clear. Your average home owner suddenly had a little piece of the Internet with a box that sits in the corner and blinks a lot. But what seems to be a little unclear to many of these homeowners is that being part of the Internet entails new responsibilites. And instead of maintaining these responsibilies they want to say that the rules formed over the last decade suddenly don't apply to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
My driveway connects me to the city/state road on which I live, this does not make my driveway part of the highway.
The difference for the ethically challenged individual is that, my router is not on the internet, my modem is, my router connects me to my modem, which in turn connects me to the internet.
Accessing a web site is in no way akin to connecting to an access point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
How so? In both cases no permission is explicity given and in both cases you are using resources which are presumably not yours. Why do you think you have a right to access any website but not an open access point? Someone come up with a rational explanation of that and I will be humbled.
"I am not part of the internet because I have a router that connects to the internet, keep fishing. BankOne's internal network is not part of the internet, but it is connected to the internet, replace BankOne with any number of Corporations and you get the point."
Any device that is connected to the Internet is inherently part of the Internet. Do you really think that all those websites out there don't have firewalls/routers too? In most cases they are setup to block all traffic except port 80 traffic. So if we are going by your definition, that means that an overwhelming large majority of web servers are not on the Internet and that you are gaining "illegal" access to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
By what you just said, if I scan a network and connect to it trying to find something I have access to and find something else that is open and unlocked, do I get access to it? That is exactly what the wireless network connection apps do, they scan for something open and try to connect to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how about the opposite?
If they use my network don't I have the right to do these things? Ought I "notify" users somehow (how?)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Issue: Public and Private Goods
What we are dealing with in the 20th/21st centuries is a whole new idea of ownership. We now own intangible things like intellectual property, digital rights, and options. Stealing has always been considered an evil, not because you were getting something you didn't pay for, but because you were depriving someone else of a possession. That kind of logic does not apply to the realm of information.
To illustrate... You and I both have one apple each. I give you my apple and you give me your apple. How many apples do you have? How many do I have? The answer to both questions: 1. Now let's say you and I both have an idea. I give you my idea and you give me yours. Now how many ideas do you have? How many do I have? The answer to both: 2. For physical goods, 1 + 1 - 1 = 1. For digital goods, 1 + 1 - 1 = 2. Not the same thing.
To put it simply, we as a society need to and are in the process of creating new definitions of what is stealing. Unfortunately, most people discussing this issue are just trying to push whatever social agenda helps them economically, rather than thinking and discussing the issue from a neutral, third party point of view.
As to the issue of WiFi, the crux of the problem is the inability of society to properly separate public goods and private goods. WiFi is based on the electromagnetic spectrum. Is the EMS something that you create? Is it something that your ISP create? No. Man did not create the EMS. It is a naturally occurring resource, and as such, it should be treated as a public good, not a private good.
The theory behind the Federal Communications Commission, before it became utterly evil, was that since the EMS is a public good, a government agency should be created for the sole purpose of ensuring that the EMS is most efficiently used and is available for the benefit of the entire public regardless of political, economic, or social status.
Although the FCC fails to do this because it's too busy trying to censor content, the principle itself is good. The WiFi spectrum, which is just a small subset of the EMS, should be a public good.
As a public good, the best use of this resource is to create a nation-wide public WiFi system. An "information highway system" if you will. Such a system would generate the most bang for the public at the smallest cost since no money is lost to marketing, business waste, and corporate profits.
Don't get me wrong, I think that ISPs and other companies should make lots of profits for providing private resources and services. I just don't think that a company should make money by selling public goods, which is essentially the situation we have right now. That would be like a private company selling pieces of Yellowstone National Park as timeshares.
The key point is that public goods should be owned, controlled, and used by the public whereas private goods can be bought, sold, and rented by companies and individuals.
All of the disagreements presented in this thread are fundamentally a disagreement over whether or not radio waves that propagate through your residence are public or private goods.
I would suggest that it is in society's best long term interest to consider all naturally occurring phenomenons to be a public good.
Now before someone jumps to a wrong conclusion... I'm talking about the EMS spectrum, not the actual data being transmitted. Just because you ftp a file over a WiFi link doesn't make the file a public good any more than driving your car on a public highway makes your car a public good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agendas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agendas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stealing?
Most WiFi manufacturers ship their equipment configured to work with basic services right from the box for the convienence of their customer. And because their customer wants the benefits of wireless but is not a LAN engineer does not set aside the theft performed by someone outside the system. If this was so, then if the intruder could break the encryption, it would be alright for them to use it also. (Ask the government how they feel about individuals "jumpin in" on their systems.)
The bottom line is personality. If it is not yours and you take it or use it, THIS IS STEALING. It seems that in today's society it is okay for some people to put aside their personal ethics, morals, and values if it can be blamed on someone else. This has been tried many times over the years and still does not pass muster. Examples of this are; Blaming the bartender because a drunk is a drunk, blaming the gun manufacturer because someone got shot, or blaming the teacher because the student is unruly and undisciplined.
There is only one way to keep your personal values straight and true. If you did it - it is your fault and if it is not yours - IT IS NOT YOURS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WiFi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WiFi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WiFi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make it Public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Unethical but You're Stupid If You Don't Secu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the truth folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a cops view
As for the original apples comment and waterhose comments, they both involve trespass. The apple tree owner to get the apples on your property and someone taking your hose and turning your water on. A more appropriate water analogy would be if I left my hose in the neighbors yard with the water running onto their property and they redirected it to their pool, is that a crime.
I would certainly never arrest someone for piggybacking on an open wifi connection unless there was some indication of unauthorized access to the owners data.
The bottom line, repeated often above is that it is relatively simple to apply MAC filtering and not broadcast your SID.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Category of behavoir
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
receive wifi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]