Is it stealing? -- Borrowing insignificant bandwidth
 

.
I admit it, and I am sure many of us have done it. We have connected to an unprotected network in order to check our email or check a web page.

Please note that I am not talking about extensive downloading, hacking onto a protected network, or any type of questionable Internet activity. Merely the sort of brief, modest online activity that in all likelihood won’t cause a microsecond’s delay or be noticed by the network owner.

Ok, there are laws on the books; they’re gradually catching up with reality. But for the moment, never mind the legality...

My question is -- is this immoral?

Thoughts?
.

No... In this day and age, if someone has set up a router at home, they should be able to make is password protected. I mean a router isnt the easiest thing to set up, so if someone has the brains to do that, they should know how to make there wifi password protected. If they have left it unprotected, they must have a reason for it, either that or they are very generous :D. They must know what the risks of not have a password on their network are, and well it serves them right...

Oh goodness, we've discussed this one to death! I will use my former analogy in response to kel101: If someone leaves a car door unlocked, you are not allowed to just use it without asking the owners permission. It would be called "theft".

In response to Arctic Stone: When it's that small of a usage...I dunno. I wish someone would make a protocol that would allow us to "give permission" to guests for short durations of time (you know, so they can check email if they want, or something). Thus, I can set up my router to allow someone 5 minutes of time to check Email and then give them the boot.

I'd say if you are taking advantage of someone's ignorance to access their wireless connection then it is immoral no matter how small the imposition. If someone chooses to allow public access then obviously that is ok.

This is another of those "shades of gray" dilemmas that is equivalent to a "little pregnant".

Given "Merely the sort of brief, modest online activity that in all likelihood won’t cause a microsecond’s delay or be noticed by the network owner."

The logical next question is "Well, as long as my activity is very low bandwidth, how long is brief"? For that matter, what is low enough bandwidth? How certain must "in all likelihood" be (after all, unseen email might include a significant attachment)?

Then, we must consider: are stupidity or ignorance (about setting up a router) an excuse to hitchhike? If a donut shop attendee leaves a pile of tips out in plain sight on the countertop and walks away, can you help yourself to 3¢ to avoid a bunch of change? (won't be noticed by the attendee, after all, and 3¢ is "insignificant").

Is it OK to copy your homework from a willing friend if you really did do it, but forgot it at home?

Shades of gray...

Seems to me that morality is not about these nuances. "Thou shalt not steal" is pretty simple stuff without explanatory clauses.

Interesting point. I believe the Buddhist version of this commandment is even stricter, something along the lines of "Thou shalt not take something unless it is willingly offered."

So...... That would be like using the neighbour's unlocked car to drive 5 minutes to Fat Tony's for those discount cigarettes?

This is standard practice in almost all stores (including donut shops) in western Canada. The Maritimes doesn't use a GST Jar?

Remember that "stealing" involves depriving the owner of something. If the owner has excess capacity that he cannot use then its not depriving him of anything.

I doubt that you (or I) have the right to decide that for someone else.

Thing is there is no way to check if you are using excess capacity or their last megabyte when you log on. Maybe some sort of dialog is needed for unsecured network access.

"An anonymous user wishes to access your unsecured wireless network. Click Ok if you wish to allow this or Cancel if you wish to run the secure your network wizard."

Well, let's see where we are so far:

1. Discussion of whether or not presence of password matters.

2. Poorly constructed analogies we've all heard before.

3. Overdone debate on the semantics of the word "stealing".

4. Poorly constructed rebuttal analogies.

5. Introduction of religion.

We're well on our way to fulfilling Godwin's Law here at Internet Morality Argument Theatre. How long until p=1?

On the other hand, there are plenty of other threads to participate in, too.

There are two different questions being asked in the original post. "Is it stealing?" and "Is it wrong?" The arguments for using bandwidth like to avoid the question of whether it is wrong and only focus on if it is stealing, then try to say that if it is not stealing it is not wrong.

But there are problems with the "was not deprived of anything" argument because under at least two scenarios it is "wrong" even if it is not "stealing":

1) You are on vacation and you leave a door unlocked. The only consequence is that a person walks in and spends the night in your bed, without disturbing a thing and even without consuming your supplies and utilities. And leaves the next morning, never to return. You never discover that they have done this.
You were not "deprived of anything." Even if it was not "stealing," is there a question as to whether the act was "wrong"?

2) While you are at work, your wife has a torrid affair with another man. When you return home, you receive no less affection from her than you usually do. There is no evidence of any kind of the affair, and in fact, you never discover it. Your marriage ends up lasting a happy lifetime.
You were not "deprived of anything." Even if it was not "stealing," is there a question as to whether the act was "wrong"?

The "was not deprived of anything" argument is simply a thinly veiled alternate way of saying "If you can get away with it, it's OK," in other words, devaluing trust and social agreements.

Anyway, the argument's quickly becoming moot on my block. A couple years ago, all access points were open (except mine, which has been encrypted from day one). Today, all access points I can receive at this location are encrypted. The public is catching on, and it's reaching the point where if someone is using your unsecured wi-fi and you object, you should have known better.

I think the real crime is making a router that doesn't popup a window in your browser reminding you to turn on wireless security and providing a link to do it!

If you know how to block the popup, you should know how to set up the security. ;)

Doesn't bother me really. I'm from western Canada, where due to a vast rural area it is still legal to break into a house to use the telephone in certain situations. If you have to break a window, just leave a $20 on the counter and all is (usually) well. Goldilocks can help herself to some coffee if she wants.

Really wouldn't bother me. I have female friends who have done exactly this and no one involved came out any worse off.

My point exactly. Digital 'property' can't be held to the same value system as physical properly.

Heres the thread where we already discussed this topic to death http://forums.macosxhints.com/showth...ling+bandwidth

Do we have to do it again...

Thoughts...
 

.
The personal background for my initial question was this:

A year and a half ago I visited a relative who lives in a very rural part of California. For various reasons connecting to her phone line was not an option. On a handful of occasions I connected to a neighbour’s unprotected network, just long enough to receive and send email.

So I made my choice... My alternative was to drive well over half an hour.

That really would be brilliant!

That might be rather nifty as well.

Best regards,
ArcticStones


PS. Ah, yes, it seems we have discussed this before. But that thread, which I wasn’t aware of and hadn’t participated in, focused primarily on the legality. That wasn’t my concern here. :)

Arctic;

We've all been "scofflaws" at one time or another when we perceive that no harm is done and neither permissions nor alternatives are readily available.

I wanted to use my battery charger to help a motorist I didn't know who was stranded down the street from my house. I have 100 ft of extension cord which wouldn't reach my home. I could have gone back and got my car and jumper cables, but she was parked snugly behind a truck and I didn't think my jumpers would reach. I solved the problem by plugging my charger into an exterior outlet on the front of the nearest house where no one was home (I do know them to greet on the street). I stole power from them.

hmmm... not being in a position where I have to pay for internet access (gotta love the university life :) ), I have no idea how your standard internet connection works, economically speaking. my impression is that (in general) you pay a monthly fee for unlimited access at a given bandwidth, possibly with blockouts or fees if you exceed certain usage limits?

I'll confess I have a hard time with the various kinds of 'non-material' property rights; they strike me as magical thinking. I mean, it's one thing to worry about someone sleeping on my bed (or on my wife, for that matter); but this bandwidth thing strikes me more like worrying that someone is breathing my air. there are, of course, situations where it's a problem to have someone else breathing your air (if you're stuck in a mine cave-in, or the other person has the Black Plague, or something like that), but for the most part worrying about it is a kind of neurosis.

You must answer that for yourself. Now, how much trust do you have in the person from whom you are "borrowing" from? I ask because, being the naturally mean person that I am, I could well plug my WiFi router directly into a machine which is a "honeypot" just to trap "borrowers". Then, depending on what I see go by, deliberately infect the data stream with a virus of some sort.

Is that wrong? Yes, it is nasty. Never borrow the sugar without asking. It might be laced with arsenic.

see, this is the social problem I see with 'non-material' property rights. unlike 'real' property, which is marginally self-regulating (in the sense that you have a tangible object that you can hopefully locate and repossess, if necessary), the only way to defend 'non-material' property is to become far more of an evil ass then the purported perpetrator. I know this is a sign of the times (the record industry, law enforcement, and even our foreign policy are geared towards creating absurd and outlandish punishments), but it's not exactly what I envision in a just society.

Well, I do limit my "sugar" intake.
It’s close to zero and limited to when I’m on the go and there is no candy store in sight.

And apparently the known viruses fail to bite on my Apple. :cool:

People with those intentions don't even have to infect the datastream. They only need to watch for your plaintext email/chat/blog login names and passwords. As far as the "ooo, I got free wifi!" freeloader is concerned, they got away with it.

I never attach to hotspots listed as "Computer to Computer" under the Airport menu. Way too many reports of laptop owners turning on sharing and naming their computer "Free Wireless" with the intention of becoming your Man in the Middle. There was another article a while back about how often "Evil Twin" traps are set up.

Did you get away with free wifi, or did free wifi get away with your online identities?

When I was a kid, I had a very long walk home from school if I took the sidewalk. I could cross a few yards and save some steps. I only crossed the yards with no fences, that seemed fair game and still seems so. I never jumped over fences, even low ones that I could have jumped.

I see open wi-fi exactly the same way. If you don't want me to cross your yard, put up a fence or even a sign.

ArsTechnica has weighed in on this question: "The ethics of "stealing" a WiFi connection". They don't think it's unethical.