Is it wrong to steal wireless Internet?

[Alexander]

I have just moved into a new apartment and I am now remembering all the expenses I had at my old one. In addition to the rent, I had to cough up money for utilities, (wired) internet service, and the phone bill. The cheaper rent I had was offset by the other expenses I had to split with my roommate.

Now I'm in a new place. More expensive, but utilities are paid for. I just got a cell phone (yes, I was stuck in the 1900s), so the phone bill is only based on how much I use it. And I used an older wireless adapter to get internet access for the first time tonight, by which I am typing this message.

I thought about the moral implications of this - someone paid for internet service so I could freeload - and I don't know what to think.

I steal music from the internet - but I make up for that by buying the CDs and records of the bands I end up liking, and also downloading rare tracks and bootlegs.

But I can't really "make up" for getting free internet.

So, is it wrong? Am I a terrible human being for doing this?

[madeline_con]

1. If the previous tenent had left the electricity on....

would you use candles until you paid a deposit Monday?

Something to think about...

edit: electricity only has 3 c's

[rhino47]

2. Is it wrong for me to share satelite tv with my neighbor

My neighbor can`t afford satelite tv.So I bought an extra dish/receiver at a yard sale.I got an extra room added to my bill for 5.00.(he did offer to pay for the 5.00 but he only gets 72.00 a week on workmans comp )Is this wrong?If my neighbor spliced my cable that I was paying for I would have no problem with it.Most people that do this not out of cheapness but because things are a bit tight.

[Maru Kitteh]

88. That's a sharing agreement between the two of you - WiFi THEFT IS A FELONY

in some areas. It's not just wrong, it's illegal as hell.

http://www.masslive.com/news/topstories/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1122277881283500.xml&coll=1

[norml]

3. Neighbor leaves a porch light on, is it stealing to read by it's light?

Your neighbor is broadcasting radiant energy.

Enjoy it.

[pitohui]

51. as far as i know norml is correct

enjoy

[DS1]

57. norml couldn't be further from the truth

stealing internet service is stealing. it's theft. it's not "radiating energy" - that's the weakest argument I've ever heard. It's taking up one of a fixed number of IP address, using bandwidth the owner of the bandwidth is paying for. If I paid for X amount of throughput because I like my internet fast, and some neighbor moves in and I'm suddenly back to modem speeds because he's hosting an FTP warez site you're goddamn right I'm going to call the police.

That's all a hypothetical because my wireless is locked down via 128 bit WEP and Mac address authentication.

Still. The answer to the question is in the question itself. Yes, it's stealing.

[BiggJawn]

79. You'd probably steal water from an outside faucet, too.

I have an outside faucet that I use to water my plants and wash my bicycles with. To use your rationalization, why not stael my water? After all, if it was such a big deal to me, I'd shut it off from inside, right?

Easier to run out and cold-cock you with a baseball bat when I hear the water running...Hey, answer Anarchy with Anarchy, I say...

His neighbour has a reasonable expectation to exclusive use of his wireless network, just as I have a reasonable expectation that somebody's not going to steal from me by taking water and letting me pay for it.

What the OP is describing here is referred to as "Warchalking", and has been determined to be a crime in court cases already.

[VTMechEngr]

80. You have to trespass to use the water.

The internet just happens on your XP computer right in your own bedroom.

[BiggJawn]

84. It's still stealing.

Lemme guess, you think encrypted sattelite broadcast suck, too.

BTW, the outside faucet is accessable from the common side walk in this building. No tresspass is reguired to steal my water. Does THAT make it right?

How about if I find out my cordless phone operates my neighbour's base unit? Is it OK to rack up thousands of dollars worth of phone sex charges on HIS phone line?

[VTMechEngr]

85. The phone is unlikely, and different.

The point, and I hope a court rules this way, is that you the router user, are responsible for securing your network from others logging on. I'm almost 25, and for all of my adult life, this has happened all over and never been illegal or punished. I never had a wireless card to do this as I'm a believer in hardwire ethernet, but I cannot see this becoming illegal. It has always been unethical, but the rule was the router owner was responsible for what others did on their provided network.

All my life, the fix was not the police or courts, but a helpful friend like me to lock the MAC addresses to only the router owner's computers. I actually hope that one day all a city is one big hotspot.

You openly broadcast an internet connection that does not require any effort to log on. By hitting the power button on a Dell Laptop, Windows XP finds a network, and immediately, Norton antivirus starts getting its update. Can theft be such a simple act as hitting the power button on a standard piece of home equipment?

This would not be an issue if Retail stores had not been so quick to sell wireless routers to people who were clueless.

[Maru Kitteh]

87. WRONG - in Florida stealing someones wi-fi bandwidth is a FELONY

The newest threat in cyberspace? Wi-fi poachers.

They are people who steal the signal from your home or business wireless (wi-fi) network to get entry to the Internet, essentially on your dime.

While such poaching is usually harmless, in some circumstances it could have repercussions. Let's say someone hijacks your wi-fi signal and downloads child pornography, sends a death threat to someone or does something else that breaks cyber law. As the owner of the computer network of record, you might be the initial suspect, forced to prove your innocence.

Two weeks ago, a Florida man was arrested for allegedly poaching on someone else's wi-fi network, a third-degree felony. (snip)
http://www.masslive.com/news/topstories/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1122277881283500.xml&coll=1


By your logic if you don't have everything you own locked up and screwed down with security and alarms then other people are ENTITLED to take your things. They are not.

Also, if I were you I wouldn't frame arguments on the experience of your adult life at the ripe age old of 24. No offense, but you don't have much. I certainly would leave the "almost 25" kind of comments out of it too, sounds like a paperboy telling us about his birthday next week.

If the neighbor agrees to share the network that is their business, but nobody has the right to simply take it from her or him.

[VTMechEngr]

103. Your stuff is in your house.

Why must you fence in a pool? Its on your property. And if kids drown themselves in it, why are you responsible.

Don't broadcast an open network if you don't want people riding on it. Its that simple.

[tx_dem41]

105. Yes, always be aware there will be amoral, despicable

deadbeats lurking about ready to take advantage of you. But, remember, when they are on your network, their computer is vulnerable to anything you would like to try to do to it.

[VTMechEngr]

113. If you guys are going to name call, there is another site for you.

And I have actually secured my neighbors wireless networks so protect them. The point remains though.


If you put an expensive radio in your car, and then leave it in a crack ridden neighborhood with the windows down, are you going to whine that someone stole it? Are you not somewhat responsible for leaving it to be so easily stolen. Yes, its wrong to steal, but you did allow it to happen.

If you people would secure your networks, this wouldn't happen.

[tx_dem41]

118. "Yes, its wrong to steal, but you did allow it to happen."

That's your philosophy in a nutshell. My, you must be proud! I hope you never have a loved one that is a victim of a crime, especially of rape. You're going to be such a help! Are you sure you are on the right site?


You're like a lot of my fellow engineers. You're coming out of college and worshiping at the altar of technology. You forget that life is still about people relating to people. If you can't grasp that soon, you are in for a very unhappy work career.

Good luck.

[VTMechEngr]

125. Have you even thought of how you are going to enforce a law like that?

My point isn't on an ethical level, it is on an engineering one. You want to put out this law, well how are you going to enforce it? And I once again say that I relate to people just fine. I think that the better choice is to require the homeowner to secure their network. Its different from hacking in that the freeloader does not have to overcome any security to get on. He just turns on a laptop.

Ethical issues are one thing, the mechanics of enforcement are another.

[tx_dem41]

128. It's the beauty of the concept of "Contracts" in your vaunted English

Common Law. You need one to use a service. Its quite simple. Even in the case of your beloved technology.

[VTMechEngr]

135. Actually I hate WiFi.

I use an ethernet system.

I don't like a law that encourages people to leave a system unsecure. It sounds great to you. Punish the bad freeloaders. The problem is, they don't obey laws, and will still login and send spam, viruses, etc.

But a principal of requiring owners to secure their networks would work. I don't care if that doesn't seem right to you. Its more practical.

[nashbridges]

212. My neighbor's teenage son spent two days

disrupting my home network because he cloned the MAC address of one of my laptops to get past my security. Then he sat for a while with a utility that trapped all the traffic between my machines (since his computer was now on the network, even if he couldn't read anything, and ran a program that helped him crack the WEP key. Once he had the key, he was good to go for a fairly secure wifi network.

If he had been smart, it would have taken more than a day to catch him. However, he cloned the MAC address of a laptop I use frequently, and it was screaming bloody murder about a duplicate MAC on the network, and the kid had so thoroughly used up any and all available bandwidth once he got on - it didn't take me long.

That, and since I trust no on, the client firewalls on my six or seven machines all started logging broadcasts of nefarious kinds because the kid couldn't be bothered to remove the trojans from his computer.

After watching his traffic for a while flowing through the network and getting enough data to run a nice, concise report, I went and talked with his parents. Even though he was crafty enough to get in, he was dumb enough to host his own personal web page through my network, which made it easy as pie to identify him.

Anyway, after several apologies were made and a notarized document was signed explaining that from xx/xx to xx/xx our neighborhood hacker was running traffic through my network, I feel pretty comfortable. If the RIAA ever comes knocking for behavior around those two days, I'll help put the kid in jail.

Even though the wireless was locked down very good, according to the accepted standards, this kid still got in. I set everything up again with a new private WEP key, and this key is generated anew every four hours and uploaded to the WAP and sent to the other machines on the network. I figure it takes them some time to crack the WEP, and once they've done it, I'm on a new one or will be shortly.

There are Access Points out there with higher security (they require a usb Key with encrypted data to be inserted into your laptop before you connect). I am looking into those options as well.

But the long and short of it, even if there isn't a law that says so: IT'S STEALING. Someone is paying for a set amount of bandwidth, That bandwidth, even if they don't use it, IS THEIRS. If you take it without paying or notifying the owner, you're a thief.

That said, it was an easier case with my neighborhood kid because he had to WORK to get into my network.

[VTMechEngr]

213. QUICK GUIDE TO SECURE A ROUTER, XP

Quickest thing to start with is getting the MAC address for your card.
Goto start, and right click on Network neighborhood.
Select Properties.
Right click on Local area connection and select status.
Click the support tab.
Now click the details tab. The physical address is the MAC. It is in a 00-00-00-00-00-00 format. Record this for every allowed PC.

Alternate method of getting the MACs is to open the browser as below, but go to DHCP, and click on the client list. This is also how you see if anyone else is on your network.

Then goto browser, and type (depends on router) 192.168.1.1. May be 192.168.1.0
That gets you into the browser.

If a linksys, the name is blank, the password is admin.

Click the security tab, and go to WEP.

Input MAC and Save. Set to only allow.

[SeattleGirl]

183. How did you secure it?

And how do I secure mine? Actually, if someone is using my wireless network, I don't have much of a problem with it. But once or twice a week, my computer will pick up other wireless networks that must be around my neighborhood. They are obviously not secured, otherwise I would need a WEP (I think that's what it is) to access the network. I always disconnect from the other wifi network and reconnect to my own. I just don't know how to do the secure thing.

[VTMechEngr]

184. what brand router do you have?

Quickest thing to start with is getting the MAC address for your card. Assume XP.
Goto start, and right click on Network neighborhood.
Select Properties.
Right click on Local area connection and select status.
Click the support tab.
Now click the details tab. The physical address is the MAC. It is in a 00-00-00-00-00-00 format. Record this for every allowed PC.

Alternate method of getting the MACs is to open the browser as below, but go to DHCP, and click on the client list. This is also how you see if anyone else is on your network.

Then goto browser, and type (depends on router) 192.168.1.1. May be 192.168.1.0
That gets you into the browser.

If a linksys, the name is blank, the password is admin.

Click the security tab, and go to WEP.

Input MAC and Save. Set to only allow.

[Silverhair]

165. I STRONGLY object to this!!

This would not be an issue if Retail stores had not been so quick to sell wireless routers to people who were clueless.

Progressives are supposed to be for freedom, and here someone wants me to pass a proficiency test on a piece of consumer electronics just to buy it????

Not only No, but HELL NO!!!!

[VTMechEngr]

166. They could have sold them wired routers that eliminated this problem.

Geez. 10 other people opined this, Yet i'm the beating rod. And yet, unlike you people, I have actually gone and fixed this.

what gives?

[Silverhair]

178. If I say I want a geewhizzdegizmoator, I don't want to have to show

that I am qualified to use it. If I want the store's help, I will ask for a saleclerk.

It is MY responsibility to know if I am able to use it, NOT the store's. I am very tired of this idea that somebody else has to protect ignorant me from myself.

[VTMechEngr]

169. My point was they could have sold a different technology.

When I wired my house, there was only ethernet. It worked fine. Only cost $150 to wire up the Den and 2 Bedrooms upstairs.

But to ask a decent question anyhow, You buy a car, but cannot use it with passing a proficiency test. Its not unheard of, Though this is not my position. And to REPEAT FOR THE TROLLS OUT THERE, THAT IS NOT MY POSITION!

I will say this. Everyone attacking me being a Democrat/Progressive gets an alert. I'm over this. Been on this board since shrubby got selected and yet I have never seen it this hateful ever.

[Silverhair]

180. An internet use license??

You can buy all the cars you want AND you can drive them all you want to, just NOT on public roads. That is because of the danger that you could pose to others. Same for pilot's license. Other usage licenses are mainly for gov't revenue raising. Some things are dangerous, and testing and licensing is entirely appropriate. But most aren't.

I really object to the idea that I should have to pass some sort of exam to buy something like that. What's next? TV's operator's testing to make sure I know how to use all the features of the remote? (I don't.) VCR prepurchase exams to make sure that I won't let my VCR constantly blink 12:00? (Mine does.)

I find the idea that I must meet someone else's test for something like that, objectionable.

[VTMechEngr]

182. I even said in all caps, that wasn't my position.

Damn Trolls

[Silverhair]

185. Then why did you say it in the first place?

This would not be an issue if Retail stores had not been so quick to sell wireless routers to people who were clueless.

That is what I am objecting to.

Then you try to say it isn't your position? How could a store comply with your wishes rearding what I should or shouldn't buy without first discovering my level of proficiency? You can't have it both ways.

[VTMechEngr]

186. No, Your spin is showing

I said the Usage license you went screaming about in 2 posts was not my position. I swear I have read about Rush attacking people on a point they don't support. Strawman I believe.


I still think the stores should push ethernet routers. They are safer, more reliable, and more secure. You deny that stores sweet talk wireless routers and don't mention the pitfalls like bad signals, theft, etc.

[Silverhair]

187. Read your own post!

This would not be an issue if Retail stores had not been so quick to sell wireless routers to people who were clueless.

That is what I am objecting to.

I have said: "If I say I want a geewhizzdegizmoator, I don't want to have to show that I am qualified to use it. If I want the store's help, I will ask for a salesclerk.

It is MY responsibility to know if I am able to use it, NOT the store's. I am very tired of this idea that somebody else has to protect ignorant me from myself." Post#78

And in post #185: "How could a store comply with your wishes regarding what I should or shouldn't buy without first discovering my level of proficiency? You can't have it both ways."

And if you are NOT in favor of "internet licenses", then why did you mention driver's licenses for cars?

Regarding a store pushing something: I a salesclerk advises that I may wnat to buy a particular item, then it is still MY responsibility to find out how to use it. Of course I will question the clerk closely.

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silverhair]

190. I am not a troll.

In fact, in over two years here, you are the first person that has accused me of that. I am simply strongly objecting to the concept expressed in that particular sentence.

I dislike the idea that I must be protected from myself.

If I drive a car poorly, I endanger others. A license is proper. If I want to drive only on my own land - that is my business.

If I carry a gun in public without the proper permits and training, I am a danger to others. If I want to go on my land and shoot, as long as I do not endanger others, that is my business and no license is needed.

And if I want to use home computer equipment, it is MY responsibility, NOT THE STORE'S, NOT YOUR'S, to make sure that I know what I am doing.

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silverhair]

192. There is a difference between telling the truth and testing for competency

Certainly I expect a salesperson to answer my questions truthfully. That's part of their job.

I do not expect to be examined to see if I am proficient enough to buy the product from them.

The IS a difference between the two.

[VTMechEngr]

194. And i never argued for a test. thats all your words.

I said clueless. Repeat it if you like, but my context was with people who do not know the danger with WiFi. Way down on this thread, with a civilized DUer, I described how my neighbor got hit hard by these things. She was also logging and using another neighbor's network without knowing it on the upstairs computer. I don't think she was doing a crime, she didn't know it was happening. The neighbor's signal was stronger, so the upstairs pc logged onto that, instead of hers. Mr. texas jumped in without paying attention to my points, and so did you.

I support secured networks, but to make logging in a crime is dangerous because XP computers just do it anyhow. It could net the wrong people.

But I'm over this thread. I'm gonna go to the lounge where people don't yell at you without having a clue.

[BiggJawn]

193. I'll do him one better.

I strongly feel that if you want to operate a "Ham" radio, you should have to demonstrate proficiency in the Morse Code.

What's this got to do with "Consumer Electronics"?
Because what used to be the domain of the "Uber-Geek" is now "buy it, throw the switch and yak".

The ARRL, FCC, and electronix industry, in an effort to sell more magazine subscriptions (the ARRL), radios (Ken-Ya-Com) and Cheerlead new 'Technology" (the FCC) have decided that proficiency tests in Morse and electronics theory are "artificial barriers" to well-meaning morons who had trouble opertaing a CB radio in the 70's...

Without Morse, it's just CB radio, and the quality of operators we're getting on the bands prove it.

Am I "Elitist"? You god-damn better believe I am.

Oh, BTW, you got a driver's license? I do. I had to "pass a proficiency test" before they gave me one of THOSE.
Had to show that I knew which end of a motorcycle to grab hold of before they endorsed me for THOSE, too.

[VTMechEngr]

195. Your in for some fun. Enjoy.

Cause I stated in my first post on this that I was arguing a technicolor issue and for black and white minds to butt out. Eh, well, you get the point...

Have fun.

[Silverhair]

202. If only the uber-technologist of any technology were allowed to use it..

Imagine if you had to be a mechanic to own and use a car. Would the interstates ever have been built? Would the auto industry have ever become anything but a playground for rich hobbyists?

I could go on with other examples. If the internet were restricted to uber-geeks, it would not be the wonderful thing that it is now. DU would not exist.

Making technology more available to the nongeek helps everybody in the long run, and helps most people in the short run.

I'm not crying any tears that ham radio no longer requires knowledge of morse or electronic theory, just as I don't have to know much about what happens inside this computer to use it on the internet.

Some things do indeed need some level of competency testing. Those are mostly things whereby you pose a hazard to others if you don't know what you are doing.

Would you support compentancy testing before you were allowed to buy an electric circular saw? How about for a lawn mower? Don't laugh. Think of all the stupid warning labels that seem to be on everything you buy nowdays.

I really hate this idea that we have to be protected from outselves because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves.

[PatriotGames]

200. It is if your neighbor's light is blocked by you so they can't use it.

[high density]

4. Not a good idea in my opinion.

I think the potential privacy issues should be enough for anybody to consider buying their own $40/mo broadband connection instead of freeloading off of an unknown WiFi connection.

[longship]

7. No privacy issue

unless the guy puts a sniffer on the other DHCP IP addresses.

If the neighbor with the wireless doesn't secure his router, that's his lookout. Go ahead and use his bandwidth. He won't even know about it unless he looks at his router's logs. How many people do you suppose do that?

[Maru Kitteh]

89. What kind of moral standards do you live by? I feel sorry for your

neighbors and I hope never to be one of them. I guess anything I didn't have locked down and under surveillance you would feel you are entitled to steal. That's a really sad and sorry set of ethics right there.

[longship]

102. I have my own wireless router

and do not (and would not) leach off neighbors.

If I brought up a WiFi sniffer at a location near a hotel, an airport, or many apartment houses I'd undoubtedly get dozens of connections labelled "linksys" with not only no security, but also with the default login "admin/password" still set up. This, in spite of every document that came with their router says to change passwords and secure the WiFi connection. It is negligence to not do that, yet that's what happens.

It's like going on vacation leaving your front door wide open. And no, I would not steal from a person like that, either. But that person is going to get their house raided.

It's not bad ethics to not feel sorry for incompetence.

[Pithlet]

117. It most certainly is

It isn't okay to steal just because your victim was careless.

[longship]

177. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

n/t

[AndyP]

5. I say go for it but...

Be careful. Wireless connections are realy insecure. No banking or credit card stuff on a wireless connection.

[longship]

10. Wireless not a problem if you go through

a secure channel between client and server. E.G., entering credit information to a secure Web server (https://....) is secure even on a wireless channel.

N.B., that a wired Net channel is just as insecure. I can point a sniffer onto the DHCP IP address you connect through and grab anything going both ways to your computer.

[jayc]

13. Re: Security

Be careful. Wireless connections are realy insecure. No banking or credit card stuff on a wireless connection.

It's true that they are insecure. However, every banking and virtually anywhere you would use your credit card to buy something uses SSL. As long as you see a lock on the website and you verify the URL is correct (to avoid phishing) then it is 100% secure. A person seeing the data you send from your computer to your bank, for instance, would not be able to get anything from it as it is encrypted.

So feel free to do sensitive things over any Internet connection as long as it is encrypted.

[jsamuel]

19. Welcome to DU!

Thanks for the informative post!

[Sentath]

6. Chances are: No.

Iff 1)your use of bandwidth is moderate and you don't put the originating account's transfer in GB/month over what the ISP has budgeted for it. & 2)you do not detectably increase the lag/ping of the paying user. Then it could be argued that you are no more stealing the wireless than the nails in the wall which are slowly turning it to heat.

[Liberal In Texas]

8. No. And here is my reason.

Under the Communications Act of 1934, the congress declared that the airwaves belong to the people. Only recently have they amended it to give corporations private access to what is ours by virtue of being citizens of the US.

NOW...as far as I'm concerned, anything I can pick up in my house with my receivers is fair game. I don't give a shit if it's encoded or scrambled. If I can receive it, I have a right to listen, or watch, or be on the internet with it.

The RF is coming into my house. Therefore it is mine to look at, hear, or WIFI.

That includes C-Band satellite dishes with illegal descramblers. If they're beaming RF down on my property, I should be able to figure out how to look at the signal.

But, then again, I'm a heretic.

[lvx35]

9. I don't think it hurts your neighbor at all.

The way networks work, or at least cable, is that there will be lots of little spikes for page requests like every few minutes, that take like a second each. So there is a really rare chance of you making your neighbor have to wait for a second. The only way to hurt your neighbor is to share mp3s in his name, or post naughty things on the net that would concern police. You neighbor could block you out if he wanted to though, so I assume he has some trust.

[RoyGBiv]

15. Depends on what you're doing ...

Casual web surfing is not likely to be noticed, but if you download a large file on a typical broadband consumer connection and another person is doing the same thing, it will affect the speed at least.

[PatriotGames]

204. Running file-sharing programs sucks a lot of bandwidth.

My broadband connection is slow enough between my wife and I to have everyone in my neighborhood mooching my connection.

[evilqueen]

11. lemme put it this way...

If I light a campfire, you'd be stupid to sit there freezing in the darkness. I wouldn't begrudge you the warmth of my fire. If I wanted to keep the fire to myself, I'd have built a house and chimney to surround it.

Likewise, if the person providing the wireless didn't want to share it, they should have figured out how to secure it, or hired someone to do it for them.

Back in the old days, the hippies (yes, those "dirty hippies" that so many people disparage today) ran Free Stores where anyone could come in and take what they needed, or leave something for someone else. No one went "broke" from not being a part of the corporate economy. If we all learned to share what we had, we'd be a whole lot less dependent on the corporations for our needs.

And maybe there wouldn't be a war to protest.

You can flame me all you'd like, but before you do, you might spend some time reading and studying the not so distant past, and the ideals and philosophies that existed among the hippies.


*Edited for typos

[Maru Kitteh]

90. What you are talking about is consent - much different than annoymous

and deliberate theft. What the OP is doing is a felony in some places.

Why not simply ask for the consent?

[Silverhair]

161. So what happened to all those free stores?

How did the rent, utilities, taxes, etc get paid?

[fujiyama]

12. I don't see a problem in using it

but I would probably avoid financial transactions though. It won't matter if you use it for simple browsing.

[PatriotGames]

198. Because when you use it, you degrade the performance that the owner paid

for.

[jgrad]

201. Only if the owner fully utilizes the line

I would suspect that almost no broadband line out there is ever fully utilized (except for mine maybe :D). So why let it go to waste when others can use it? The internet is supposed to be the ultimate democratic medium: everybody can go wherever they want and post whatever they want. If it was not for the access problem. If the internet belongs to all of us, why should the last mile to your house belong just to you?

[PatriotGames]

203. So, if some 15 year old next door is downloading bootleg movies all day

on dime. That is OK? Maybe if they asked, it would be cool with me. Or what about somebody using your IP address to partake in some dubious activity? You think they would come forward when the feds are knocking on my door. I think not.

[jgrad]

207. Its okay to utilize the line, but not to hack

I see this from the perspective of the supposed "stealer". The question is if sharing a line is okay, not if hacking is okay. Those are totally separate issues. Hacking is never okay, regardless if its your line or somebody elses. Plus, from the perspective of the line owner, just secure your network and you are fine. But if a network is open and all I want is do some web surfing - nothing wrong with that.

[PatriotGames]

209. Mine is locked down. Surfing doesn't hurt much, but d/l does.

It will kill your connection if enough bits are flowing through the pipe.

[RoyGBiv]

14. Unanswerable question ...

You define your own ethical standards. Apparently you're somewhat troubled by it, else you wouldn't have asked.

You might ask yourself whether your would be agreeable to a neighbor using your phone or cable service without helping you with the bill. You might also consider whether you'd be happy if you were guaranteed a certain speed when you subscribed to an Internet service and found that during certain times of day you never seem to be able to get it and then realize, after the provider has made a service call, that this is because your neighbor is using your connection as well. Whether you're fine with that pretty much determines the answer for you, I think.

For me personally, I'd have a big problem if someone tapped into my internet connection, especially if they were engaging in activities, like downloading music illegally, that might make me a target of an investigation. Mostly it is a privacy issue with me because I have rather stringent security measures in place. For someone to tap it would require them to break that security on purpose. That "feels" to me like an invasion. I did discover a couple years ago a neighbor using my phone line by tapping into the voice port on the side of the building. I discovered this because it degraded my service substantially and caused a few issues that were extremely irritating. I would have let him use my phone any time he asked. It's the not asking for permission that was upsetting ... that and the charge for the service call to get it fixed.

That said, some people leave their wireless connections open on purpose for philosophical reasons, and certain areas have "hot spots" that can be used without infringing upon anyone else's usage.

[charlie]

16. I'm a little uncomfortable with it

but I'm not going to argue the point. However, you do want to be a good neighbor and mind your downloading. The ISP you're leeching from may have download caps and if you're smoking your modem pulling ISO and DVD torrents, you could get your neighbor's account yanked. Also, he/she may be a heavy downloader, so if you start a large download and notice the speed is markedly below normal, you might be stepping on his/her speeds, so cancel and wait for another time when the pipe isn't so congested.

[PatriotGames]

205. I think they should just stay off my pipe, unless I say it's OK.

[PatriotGames]

206. If someone you didn't know came over and said I'm just gonna use your car,

I gotta go pick up some crap from the store. I'll be right back, promise! Meanwhile he uses it as a getaway car for a bank robbery.

Would you hand him your keys?

Sucky analogy, but I hope you get my point.

[HKTech]

17. Well, you are stealing.

You are taking something from somebody without their permission. While you might not be a terrible human being, you can't call yourself a good human being. But it's a good thing that you know you can't "make up" this action, it shows you do have a moral/ethical base.

But for a more practical discussion -
1) If you download songs and the such from his Internet Connection and the RIAA (or whatever) traces a song that you downloaded. They will go after your neighbor, not you since it's his IP address they have on file and you don't exist in their records.

2) Your use of bandwidth will slow down his connection and his home network. It could be tougher for him and his family to print, IM or Download their own stuff.

3) If he doesn't know what he's doing, God knows what else is on the network that can screw up your own computer.

4) If he does know what he's doing, he can really f*ck you up - when he finds somebody on his network. We can start with the benign of just redirecting all your internet activities to bestiality sites to placing a few nasty programs on your computer.

5) Not a great way to introduce yourself to the Neighbors.

[lvx35]

21. God punishes those who don't read the manual.

Edit: whoops, this was intended as response for the next post down. Sorry.

For every wireless router its like a 3 page thing. Plug it in. Plug network cord in. go to http://192.168.1.1. Change the password. Set up encryption so you alone can use it. To me the best analogy to this is a neighbor who routinely strips in front of his window every night. Is it unethical for somebody to look? No. If my neighbor doesn't like it he needs to close his curtain. If he hasn't closed the curtain he probably doesn't mind that people look.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HKTech]

26. A sense of community means getting your neighbor's back and not

screwing him/her over any chance you get. You know being a good neighbor, I thought that was the base of Liberalism? Silly me, I guess we are all on our own now and a ruthless "I've got mine - screw you" Libertarianism is now the rule of the day.

If a man strips in his window, I would hope, me or one of my/his neighbor's would have the common decency to tell him that he was giving the neighborhood a free show and might be breaking some local public nudity ordinance.

[charlie]

28. Bad analogy, anyway

Your eyeballs need no special receiver to see the guy stripping. And if you're looking in his direction, it takes effort to ignore or turn away. Wireless broadcasts on the other hand, can be ignored, they cause no disruption or inject themselves into your receiver.

[lvx35]

31. That's the thing, they do, with windows XP!

My wireless router is upstairs, and the signal is weaker than my neighbor Andy's. I pressed "yes" (without looking too close) once on some dialogue where it asked me if I wanted to connect, and ever sinse it chooses Andy's network over mine, because XP goes with whatever network the signal is stronger on, which happens to be my neighbors when I'm downstairs. I just figured out how to stop it from going on his network, but real theiving takes more than accidentally pressing yes to some pop up dialog when your sitting in your living room. That's my two cents anywho.

[Liberal In Texas]

27. Oh please. Not even the same situation.

[HKTech]

36. It's a quantitative difference not a qualitative difference.

You know like that old joke,

A man is on a business trip. He spots a nice woman in the bar. He goes over there to talk. After a few minutes he asks if she would have sex with him for $10,000. And she agrees quickly. He then offers $100. She shouts "What kind of woman do you think I am!"

"We know what kind of woman you are, we're just
haggling about the price!"

[Maru Kitteh]

91. State of Florida doesn't wait for GOD to punish - WiFi theft is a FELONY

http://www.masslive.com/news/topstories/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1122277881283500.xml&coll=1

[VTMechEngr]

99. Great state to pick. We know they are so progressive...

[Maru Kitteh]

211. And you think that's a valid point because?????????

Theft and thievery is generally not a red state vs. blue state thing Bop-pa Lou. It's more like a personal lack of ethics or perhaps inability to admit you're just plain wrong kinda thing.

I'm pretty sure that taking that which does not belong to you without permission is illegal in the blue states too. :crazy:

[Liberal In Texas]

29. They are putting RF into my house. Am I stealing it because I can decode

it?

The gov at this point wants to take away our rights to the airwaves and give it to corporations. Do you support this?

Just because some company has some RF flowing into my house and claim that they have rights to it, does not make it right?

Is it illegal? Maybe. Is it right that they can charge for RF in my house? Nope.

[spuddonna]

106. Excellent post... and welcome, btw! :)

I was just about to list half of what you said, so thanks for saving my fingers... :)I totally agree with what you said.

Look, if you are wanting to be a good neighbor, and you're following the 'white hat' hacker ethic, you'd go over and say, "Hey, your wireless is broadcasting to the neighborhood - did you know that?" Maybe they do - if so, great! Share away! But I'm guessing they're newbies, and don't have any clue that they're being used this way.

You want to know if it's 'bad' that you're using the wireless and downloading songs. Yes, it's illegal. There are laws and you are breaking them. Not only that, you could be affecting that whole family's QoS, which I personally think is a much bigger issue... :7

Let's not equivocate here. If the feds catch you, you're gonna get busted. And as for 'the radio waves tresspassed; fight against corporate oppression', that ain't gonna cut it in court...

Look, there are laws in this country. You might not agree with them, so fight them. But don't expect to break them and not be punished.

[NAO]

18. Haven't' you seen those giant "Ten Commandments" monuments?

"THOU SHALT NOT STEAL" is definitely on that list.

Now the Ten Commandments covers stealing thy neighbor's wife, or his goats, or his asses, but I'm not sure the Deity had anything to say about stealing wireless internet when he was inscribing the tablets on Mt. Sinai. Possibly one of those rare theologians who "keeps up with the times" could inform you of the Church's position on stealing coax-based Cable TV. That is probably as recent info as your are going to get from the Church. They are typically several hundred years behind the times.

[Liberal In Texas]

30. Moses did not know about the Communications Act of 1934.

Or about radio. Or about the rights of citizens. He just wanted to get the Jews out of Egypt before the damned sea sitchecd back in.

Then, he got the "tablets" from God. He broke a couple and marched down the hill with what was left.

Now we have people that want to erect the remaining 10 in our public places. Nerver mind that they don't actually follow what is written on the 10.

Anyway. If you have RF coming into your house, it's yours. It is pretty much the basis of our country. If you use that to screw your neighbor, that is a different story. But, I and you, should be able to look at anything that people beam into our houses.

...aaargh....

[Fescue4u]

20. At least one prosecutor thinks so

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/07/technology/personaltech/wireless_arrest/index.htm

"NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Police have charged a Florida man with a third-degree felony charge, after he was arrested for accessing a St. Petersburg resident's wireless Internet network without permission."

[VTMechEngr]

22. NOPE

Your radio waves are trespassing on my property. You don't sue me for using it, I won't sue you.
:woohoo:

[rman]

24. nice, but will it hold up in court?

apparently it doesn't.

[VTMechEngr]

47. Its just being funny.

[KitSileya]

32. Thanks for asking that question.

I am also writing this post on a 'hijacked' connection - There's someone on my street with an unsecured wireless connection which my computer picked up. Not having a job, I couldn't afford getting my own, and without an internet connection, I couldn't apply to jobs (because the county insisted on email applications for their teacher jobs, and the local library has a 30min/no outside files on our machines rule.) However, I got a full-time job last Thursday, and when I get my first paycheck in September (we only get paid once a month) I'm going to install my own connection - and I'm going to secure it.

Hypocrizy? Perhaps, but you are responsible for what is downloaded on your connection. In the last major child pornography raid we had in this country (Norway), a man was arrested at work for d/l paedophilic pictures. It turned out that it was the guy renting some rooms from him who was breaking the law - but the police didn't know he had access to the internet connection, and the landlord and his family had to go through days of agony and social ostracism. So I'm not going to take that chance.

[Maru Kitteh]

92. I can't afford it is NOT an excuse for theft and reveals a moral lapse

don't you think? I'd hate to think my neighbors felt entitled to steal from me whatever I didn't not have locked down surveilled and secured simply because they wanted it and may not have felt they could afford their own.

[Walt Starr]

33. What you are doing is a crime

You are illegally accessing somebody else's private netwrok, even if just for th access to the internet. It's still illegal even though it sound as if they are leaving their wireless network wide open.

Should you be caught, that is what you will be charged with, not for stealing the internet access.

[kohodog]

39. There are people who purposely create hot spots, and

soime cities have created wireless zones. Boston has hot spots, as does NYC, and Middletown CT has a wireless network downtown that is opwen to all. Internet providers are going to court to prevent this....

I don't think it is that cut and dry.

[tx_dem41]

40. I think we can be certain that the neighbor he is stealing it from...

is not in a "hot spot".

[Walt Starr]

43. In this case, it is probably very cut and dried

He's in an apartment thus the network he is accessing is most likely a neighbor's.

That makes his actions a serious crime.

[VTMechEngr]

50. The point is it actually isn't right now

Most new computers auto-pick the networks. And many people may not even know they are stealing, since I have seen People with a Wireless Router using the neighbor's net.

In most cases, you are not actually accessing someone else's private network. Private implies you had to hack your way in. The Law never intended to prosecute someone for just opening their laptop.

I myself use a hardwired Ethernet Base 10-T network. But I say that if you did not secure your network, you do not have the grounds to complain.

[Maru Kitteh]

93. Actually the point is that it's a felony to steal WiFi access

at least in Florida and probably in more places as well.

It's most likely illegal in every state, since taking something that belongs to someone else without their consent is by definition stealing. It's wrong and it shouldn't be done.

[VTMechEngr]

101. In most states, its not a law. I don't care about Florida

and its backward government.

[phylny]

34. It's wrong. n/t

[freshharbor]

35. It is not stealing to use 'free' internet

If you're picking up a signal for an access point, use it. If it wasn't encrypted or made secure, then it's 'free'. The own-ness is on your neighbor not to make it available.

[Walt Starr]

38. Wrong

It's still illegally accessing a network regrdless of how insecure the network is, and that's the crime he would be charged with.

[rman]

41. It's trivial to accidentally use an insecure access point

Just pop open your wireless enabled, default configured notebook in the vicinity of such an access point - eh presto, you broke the law. If you're lucky it's just an intentional free public access point, in which case you did not break the law.

[Walt Starr]

42. IF he's in an apartment building, chances are it'sa neighbor's network

if he continues using it, it's just a matter of time before he gets caught.

And yes, it's a serious crime if he continues using it.

[Shrek]

44. Why would it necessarily be a crime?

You can't use the connection unless the router grants you a DHCP lease and gives you an IP address.

By doing so, hasn't the router granted permission to use the connection?

[Walt Starr]

86. Nope, no permission has been granted

Lack of security on a network is not a viable argument that access was granted freely. You brok into the network regrdless of how easy it was to do so.

If a door is left unlocked wide open, that is not an invitation by the owner for you to enter.

[Shrek]

96. Not the same thing

I agree that an unlocked door is not the same thing as permission to enter.

But if the home owner not only left the door open, but posted a sign that said "You are welcome to enter" then I think that's a different scenario.

That's basically what happens with a wireless router. The wi-fi card requests access, and the router can either grant it or deny it. By accepting the request and explictly granting a DHCP lease and assigning an IP address, the router makes it clear that the connection is available for use. What other possible meaning could such an action have?

[tx_dem41]

97. The other possible meaning: They don't know they have deadbeats...

for neighbors?

[Shrek]

100. Not deadbeats

Suppose I knock on your door and ask to borrow a cup of sugar.

You reply "Sure. Help yourself."

Am I stealing if then go ahead and actually take the sugar? I don't think so.

That's essentially what happens with a wireless router. It's impossible to use the connection without the active participation of the router. It can deny you access simply by refusing to give you an IP address. If it does give you one then it's the same thing as the neighbor giving you a cup of sugar.

[tx_dem41]

104. Spin all you want. Rationalize amorality all you want.

You are walking into a house without consent and borrowing that sugar with no means to "pay it back". I hope once when one is doing this, someone takes advantage of the thief's computer's vulnerability and makes them pay for being a thief.

[Shrek]

108. I didn't say "without consent"

Re-read my post. In each case (the sugar and the wireless connection) I specfically indicated that permission was granted.

I agree 100% that using the connection (or the sugar) without authorization is stealing.

[tx_dem41]

111. I read it....but you assume the technology is granting the consent....

Contracts are made between people not between people and machines.

[Shrek]

115. But that's the point I was trying to make

If the router grants me a DHCP lease and a corresponding IP address, how should I interpret that action? It has to mean that it is authorizing me to use the connection. The grant of the lease has no other possible meaning.

How am I supposed to divine any other intent?

[tx_dem41]

120. A "router" is not a person.

How are you supposed to divine any other intent?

The old-fashioned way. Ask the person.

[Walt Starr]

176. Your analogy would not hold up in court

Entering a network because of a lapse in security is still a felony, no matter what convoluted analogies you choose to use to argue against a prison term.

[Walt Starr]

175. You present a false analogy

HAving a poorly secured wireless router is NOT tanamount to giving permission. Entering that network is a major crime and a felony in most states.

[Walt Starr]

173. There was no sign.

Choosing to connect to the open network was a crime the moment you connect.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it is a very serious crime. In fact, if you look, it's a felony. It doesn't matter whether or not there was security, the moment you choose to connect to it you are committing a crime.

[Shrek]

116. Permission has not been granted?

If permission is not granted, then why did the router provide a DHCP lease and an IP address? What other meaning did it mean to convey by that action?

[Walt Starr]

171. The router is a device and it has not been properly secured

It's analagous to the unlocked and open door. It is not an invitation to enter. Doing so is a crime.

[tx_dem41]

37. Between the hatefulness for just about everybody shown on ...

other threads and the twisted rationalization to justify amorality on this thread, it appears DU has lost all moral high ground in our fight against freepers.

What did Walt Kelley write?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

52. Why must you tar ALL of DU with the attitudes of some of the posters

you disagree with? There are people on this thread who are saying it's NOT okay to do. Yet you must make a statement that "DU" has lost all moral high ground. Gimme a break.

[VTMechEngr]

58. As a member of the digital generation:

I think you guys are missing the point.

[tx_dem41]

61. I'm a member of the digital generation as well....

in fact, an engineer like you...electrical....

what's the point?

[VTMechEngr]

63. The point is that it is the responsibility of the wireless owner...

to secure the network if they do not want other users. I'm sorry, but to charge people with a crime for simple booting up any windows 2000/XP computer is beyond ridiculous. You even think most Baby boomer are even going to understand what they did?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

119. Tsk, tsk....weren't you the one just complaining about name-calling...

Haha...shouldn't be a surprise to me though. Hypocrisy goes hand-in-hand with moral equivocation.

"Excellent set of morals"? Well, let's see about that:

From your post upthread:

"Yes, its wrong to steal, but you did allow it to happen."

Can I ask you a question? Where are you hiding these "excellent set of morals"?

[VTMechEngr]

123. I use my morals and ethics in everyday life.

I'm arguing an abstract topic on a thread. Big difference.

And the comment was a proper reply to someone who said such things about me. You don't know me. And you guys are implying that I'm a sleezeball. You don't think I'm going to reply to that?

Its a simple point. English common law doesn't have provisions for stealing something that doesn't exist - I.E. Broadband and radiowaves in the material (I can see it) world. I do not steal broadband, and never have. I don't even have a WiFi card. I use a linksys router with Base 10 Ethernet to avoid having someone steal my connection.

[tx_dem41]

124. Interesting you use the phrase "steal my connection".

Very interesting. You're a very conflicted person, aren't you?

I hope it works out for you someday.

[VTMechEngr]

126. No, I think the end user should secure their network.

No conflict. Suggest you read before attacking.

[tx_dem41]

130. I was making an observation about the delicious irony you provided...

...I love irony. Thanks.

[VTMechEngr]

136. the irony is in your head only.

I don't support freeloading. I just think it isn't illegal, and would prefer a law to require people to secure their networks. I won't bother explaining it though. Its OBVIOUSLY over your head.

[tx_dem41]

137. Moral rationalization usually does go over my head.

Am I supposed to be ashamed of that? I think not.

[VTMechEngr]

139. your not a results based guy are you. Read my other replys to understand.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VTMechEngr]

143. Hell yes I'm on the correct site.

Your comment is excellent: "put another level of federally-mandated regulation on personal computing (read: personal life) is perplexing"

If you do not take any steps to secure your network, should you be angry if someone freeloads.

If I put a 100 dollar bill on my driveway, and left it there overnight, i couldn't say I was surprised or angry. The reality is clear, Don't leave a bill (network) out there for someone to take it. I think it should be enforced, by local, federal, state or if you want the contract with the provider.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VTMechEngr]

147. rape is a crime of violence, not lust.

bad example

[tx_dem41]

150. Nice try....

the thinking that you have demonstrated has been used to attack rape victims since the first rape occurred. Why its being used here astounds me.

[VTMechEngr]

152. Your attacking yourself now?

Hey, at least you aren't calling me a rapist supporter, or are you? Ad hominem

[tx_dem41]

153. Nope......

nice to see I've got you floundering though.

[VTMechEngr]

156. Board looked like you replied to yourself since it went under your topic.

I am not floundering though, because the rape argument is just a personal attack by you. Wireless or a dollar has nothing to do with the violent degradation of women by violent men.

[Pithlet]

122. It is the owner's responsibility

It's also everyone's responsibility not to steal, even if someone else is lax in their responsibility.

You do not have an excellent set of morals if you believe it is perfectly okay to leach off your neighbor's network without their knowledge or consent. Rationalizing it doesn't make it okay.

[VTMechEngr]

127. This is not about morals.

Its about law.

[tx_dem41]

132. Of which you are on the wrong side of both.

The morals is obvious, and as has been pointed out, you're on the wrong side of the law as well. That's the beautiful thing about law that many engineers lack the creative ability to appreciate. Words and the ideas they convey are timeless. They are adaptable to an ever-changing world. People might disingeneously play semantics with them, but their true interpretations, as in the case of Contracts law, will always shine through.

Good luck in your career.

[VTMechEngr]

134. Do you use ad hominem in every argument.

I have said through this entire board that it is unethical, but not illegal. In every state I have lived in, it has not been illegal.


I wish you could be sincere and realize that I myself do not like people who steal broadband. This would be why I helped my neighbors secure theirs.

You guys cannot unlock your morality arguement from one of law. This is like arguing with a damned College Republican. Smear Smear Smear.

I do want people to secure their networks.

Quick reason why. People do not obey a freaking law! If you leave a network open, some hacker is going to use it to send spam or viruses. It sets a better precident to require people to secure them because that would eliminate the problem.

It may not seem ethical, but its a whole lot more freaking practical. OK?

Got my point? if you ever plan too?

[tx_dem41]

140. You brought the ethics into it when speaking out of both sides of ..

...your mouth, remember?

"Yes, its wrong to steal, but you did allow it to happen."

As for the illegality:

One day, you might get into program management. The first thing you will have to do is review a contract. Now, I have worked with several Hokies in my career and all were great managers. Don't they currently offer an Engineering Management program in your curriculum? Its a great course that should be required. You'll learn about the concept of contracts. Its vital for every engineer to take, or they are going to be miserable program managers in the future.

Good luck.

[VTMechEngr]

142. I was getting called names before I brought up that example.

I was making a point that the owner should bear some responsibility. I'm a reality based guy. Thieves will always steal. Why make it easy with a useless law when another law to force people to secure the network would kill 2 birds with one stone.

No spamming from zombie networks
And No freeloading.

[tx_dem41]

145. That "useless law" is what our whole civil legal system is based on.

If you're going to make it in engineering, you need to respect a contract.

Good luck.

[VTMechEngr]

148. where have I not respected a contract?

And what contract? Your ad hominem is showing.

[tx_dem41]

151. You might want to take a Latin class, or, better yet, a philosophy..

class as well.

"Contract for services"!

[VTMechEngr]

155. So you are completely off the topic and just attacking me personally.

Damn it! Democrats should argue points, not smear.

[tx_dem41]

157. I consider it my own little personal contribution to saving the ...

field of engineering. :)

Psst...I answered your question.

[VTMechEngr]

158. Uh Huh.

Let me alert a Mod for yah.

[tx_dem41]

60. You're right MM....that was unfair of me to say...

I've been overwhelmed the last few days by the increase of "hate" threads, but I should have noted that they are not the majority of them...just increasing. I stand corrected, and I thank you for calling me on it. I'm sorry it's too late to edit it.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

64. No biggie. Even on the other thread, we disagree, but I don't HATE the

famous cyclist or think "FU". I'm disappointed in what he did and disagree with it, even if I understand a rationale for it. I don't think this disappointment makes me "shameful" or whatever.

People complain about DUers being "absolutists", idolizing someone then demonizing them for some transgression. But some of these same complainers are doing the very thing they complain about, saying that those who don't like what a certain famous cyclist did are "shameful".

There are degrees. I'm disappointed but reserve judgement about the cyclist. If I saw him riding around in a convertible with Jeb Bush or Frist or whoever the Manchurian Candidate for 08 is, then my emotions will turn more towards anger.

[VTMechEngr]

67. Same: I disagree with your points, but you are still a fellow Democrat.

Though legal and ethical issue such as this can make it seem like hate.

[Mr.Green93]

45. It is our duty to steal from the robber corporations

and their pawn users.

[Kitka]

46. Not a terrible human being exactly, but yeah....

it's wrong. Don't steal.

[Toucano]

48. You could find the neighbor you're leeching from and offer to pay

part of their bill.

Or you could just put a $10 bill under their door each month anonymously.

Then you're not stealing. You are accessing the network without authorization, but you're not stealing.

[woo me with science]

49. There was a post on DU just recently

by someone whose computer was operating very slowly, and he or she asked if someone could be stealing the wireless Internet service. Practically all the responses screamed that he should figure out who was doing it and notify the law.

I don't think you should take something that's not yours. Call me old-fashioned, but...

[Jawja]

53. Yes it's wrong

because an ISP is providing that wireless connection as a service for a fee. Folks working for the ISP are trying to make an honest living and expect a return on their expertise and productivity. :spank:

I stole cable at one point in my life from a neighbor. I knew it was wrong then, but I did it anyway, so I'm not judging you. O8)

Karma will straighten it all out in the end. I knew when I had a consistent problems years later with neighbors stealing MY cable, that karma was calling in the chips. :P

[WMliberal]

54. an analogy:

Wireless works in a similar manner to someone using a sprinkler on their lawn (this sprinkler just happens to shoot about 400 feet in every direction). What you are doing is like putting your potted plants in the path of the water.

Yes it's a service someone else paid for. The service they paid for happens to extend WAAAY beyond their property. Your using it doesn't diminish from their ability to use it.

If you still feel bad about it, go find out who it is and ask permission. At least it's a way of meeting a new neighbor.

[DS1]

59. It's an analogy, but a bad one

because the water your potted plants used, in a system more like wifi, would be recycled back into his grass - not into your plants.

[WMliberal]

66. good point.

I'm just trying to think of something that extends well beyond ones own property and wouldn't be used there by that person.

My other one would've been a person sending out a radio signal, but that's even worse, since tuning his radio to it wouldn't improve his ability to use his own radio the way wifi does his internet connection.

[DS1]

68. Broadcasting a radio signal is done

for the supposed enjoyment of others. This is a case where technology has gone beyond the current set of laws, so wireless routers that can broadcast 200 feet can be picked up by others and used if they aren't configured correctly.

I 'get' the argument about owners being negligent by not securing their networks for the benefit of convenience, but it's still morally wrong to hop on to his or her network and use it like your own playground. I've done it in a few pinches myself, and could easily hop on to 3 other networks my card can pick up. But I don't, because I want the full bandwidth of a line I'm paying for - all to myself.

[WMliberal]

71. this guy would be better off if he just asked his neighbor.

especially since he's new to the neighborhood.

[DS1]

73. That's what I did

I asked, this guy had his street address as his SSID, so I walked over, rang his bell, offered him 20 bucks to piggyback on his network for a month until my cable modem showed up. He didn't know anyone else could get on it, and when my box arrived I went back and helped him secure it.

[tx_dem41]

62. Your using it most definitely could diminish their ability to use it.

That's the point.

[VTMechEngr]

65. So you boot up your pc

Oh wow, I have internet. And you click on the Outlook button. How many years in prison for that click? Tell everybody here on DU how many years a person should serve for a mouse click.

[DS1]

70. that's where the courts come in to the equation

[tx_dem41]

72. There are two concepts about the law that you need to read up on...

while you're spinning your point...."intent" and "discretion". Just because an act is against the law, the judicial system does take these concepts into account.

[VTMechEngr]

55. The Question: Can the law limit the use of your own computer.

According to several here, if I were to open my laptop and it grabbed a wireless network on boot up without me doing a thing, I'm breaking the law. There is only one way to prevent breaking a law like that. I cannot open my laptop. What gives government the right to tell me I cannot use MY computer on MY property? And I was trying to be funny last night, but this also brings the issue of a neighbor's wireless signals are preventing me from using my property fully if a law like that was enforced.

It is not a simple problem, and simple answers do not do justice. This is Technicolor issue, so the black and white minds should just tune out.

[DS1]

69. On the other hand, if you don't pay for intenet, and have it

something presents the facts that a reasonable person would come to conclude as your laptop is getting internet from somewhere that isn't intending for your laptop to get it. Even if you move next door to a Starbucks with wireless, you're stealing because you're not a customer, and they are paying for their customers to have the privelidge of getting on the internet. It's by no means a right to be on the internet, just as it's not a right to be able to drive.

By opening your laptop repeatedly, and using an internet connection you're not paying for, you're doing something that reasonable people would find immoral. And I think the DCMA now covers this, anyway. So unless you're 86 years old, bought a laptop, and all these little people inside your computer are the works of black magic, you're stealing.

[VTMechEngr]

74. But can it be illegal?

If I open my laptop on My Property, I have not hacked anybody. Why should I have to not use my Laptop on my own property. This is the problem with some people. They are quick to say that a law is a law. I have never seen a Law saying I could not use my TV, or Radio. If they could just pick up cable, would you ban using a TV.

The point is that people do not actively do anything to steal internet. They simply use their own computer. Ethics aside, it cannot be against the law to use my own computer in my own home.

[DS1]

75. I'm starting to gather that you're arguing on behalf of the vast

majority of computer dolts out there. I hope so, anyway. Using your computer and using the internet are two entirely different things, despite what Bill Gates thinks. If I buy a cellphone to play games, and no cell phone plan, but I can still make calls somehow - due to a neighbors wireless vonage plan or whatever - does that make it okay?

[VTMechEngr]

76. I helped several neighbors secure their wireless systems.

Some had the downstairs PC on theirs, and the upstairs one on another's. They were browsing oblivious to the difference. My point is quite straight forward, how many years in jail for them?

I myself use an ethernet network to avoid this whole problem. The cell phone thing btw is unlikely. Windows XP was made for internet usage. The computer will use any network it can find. Even your programs will use it, such as norton, if you do not. My point is that this may be truly unethical, but not in any sense illegal.

On Edit: If you mean by computer dolts, our parents, and other Baby Boomers, then yeh, I am!

[DS1]

78. Like someone else pointed out above

intent is the issue. I'm a network admin, I KNOW when I'm stealing someone elses connection, I should be fined for doing so repeatedly. Once or twice would be okay until I reconfigged my pc.

Someone that doesn't know shit about shit, on the other hand, would be more likely to be given a warning. Then again, that person who doesn't know shit about shit probably wouldn't be using that much bandwidth in the first person.

That's all I have to say about this discussion, anything further is pointless until there's a precedent set by the U.S. Circuit Courts

[spuddonna]

129. "people do not actively do anything to steal internet"

Just because someone doesn't 'click' to get on the Internet, doesn't mean it's right for them to be there.

You pay for access to the Internet. If your XP picks your neighbor's wireless as the best signal strength during the network init phase, if you know this is happening, ethically, you should go into the Network Settings and change it... Would you be convicted in court for theft? Good question. I think it hinges on that wording in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access"

I agree that there is a difference between actively knowing you are doing something wrong, and accidentally doing something wrong.

But does it make it wrong to use some else's wireless without their permission? Yeah...

[VTMechEngr]

138. Do you think my neighbor realized this?

It wasn't till after I told her that she even knew? Then I fixed it to where she wasn't riding on another neighbor's internet.

I do not agree with making this a crime. Securing the networks would be many times more effective. This is lawmaking at its stupidest.

[spuddonna]

163. I think you misunderstand my point...

A law should be there because people do steal, and break into other people's networks...

Crackers and pornographers use numerous back doors to perpetrate their crimes. To be able to prosecute these people, there has to be a law that says 'unauthorized access or content is illegal'.

Look, I'm not saying the police should bring a paddy wagon around and round up everyone that hasn't secured their wireless. People who do this accidentally have their own access to the Internet - the 'intent' to commit crime is not there. People who use the Internet via wireless should be educated, not prosecuted.

But without the laws, you've got no way to sue or prosecute the real criminals. And the government (which means us) and corporations (which still means us by way of increased rates) are paying for the fraud and theft that's going on.

[VTMechEngr]

164. Now that is a good point.

I see that point.

[spuddonna]

170. Besides, I don't want them going around and arresting my family!

lol :7 I have many 'technology challenged' relatives... I'm sure that several are being 'used and abused'.

[VTMechEngr]

174. Yeh, my neighbors got had on that stuff.

They got hacked and used as a spam relay. Cox shut them down, I formatted the pc, reinstalled the disk, and then secured the wireless router to their 2 computers. After that, I added Zonealarm and tought them how to use it.

It took explaining that someone could download child porn on the computer for me to sink in how important it is to secure the network. Before that, she thought sharing it was cool.

I got chewed by others because I think that the end users should always secure a network. Just takes the ability completely away from a freeloader.

[spuddonna]

181. Whoa! See that's what I worry about...

Getting 'Cialis' and 'SPUR-M' spam from my mom! LOL

My hubby and I were able to help some of the family secure their routers, clean up their nets... But we still spent several days 'scrubbing' machines... so many trojans to clean, so little time! lol (And I mean the virus kind!! :7 )

Yeah, you have to secure them now. And the id theft is becoming huge...

Our street was hit by 'low-tech' identity thieves - they ransacked mailboxes, were creating new id's and using our neighbor's credit cards to buy trips to the Bahamas... And the sad thing is, one of the guys isn't sure if it was the stolen mail or his account at Bank of America that really was the cause of it!

[Madrone]

81. DCMA

Now THERE'S a wonderful, fair, and well thought out piece of legislation.

A pox upon Bill Clinton for that one.

[Maru Kitteh]

95. The law limits the use of your own computer every day - nothing new there

You are not allowed to use your computer to download kiddie porn, defraud others, lure minors or STEAL from others.

You have to choose to use an available wireless network so the silly comment about not being able to open your book is just bunk, ridiculous.

It is your responsibility to obey the law whether you are ignorant of it or not. This is well established.

[VTMechEngr]

98. You obviously don't have a clue

XP will choose it for you.

[VTMechEngr]

189. Since people have been dicks about this, Let me explain this

I do not own a wireless card, or a laptop. This was a hypothetical situation. In real life, I support networks being secured to avoid these issues in the first place.

Politics always has hypothetical arguments in it. Arguments on principals. I have occasionally argued these in the opposite of my actual view just to see What the counter points could be.

Frankly, I'm ashamed that my view could only be defended by those who smeared me and called be immoral, unethical, A bad engineer, A rapist supporter, etc. WOW.

So much for playing devils advocate. I do want to say this. Its a shame that people who call themselves progressives or Democrats could behave like that. I thought we used to explain why a position is illogical. Guess things have changed.

For the count, I've been a member since 2001. Usually a reader and not a poster. I see that DU does attack low post people though.

[LisaL]

56. Yes, it's wrong.

Stealing music is also wrong.
So there.

[ultraist]

77. Aren't you slowing down his connection by using his service?

I'd be pissed, if I paid for a service and then didn't get the full service, because someone bogged it down, by bogarting off of my service. Not cool, IMO.

Why don't you ask your neighbor if he wants to share the service and you could chip in a little?

Also, think about the fact, your neighbor might use his wireless to make a living. What if you are impeding on that by bootlegging off of his service?

As a general rule, when take from others without their permission, it's selfish and it is stealing.

[WLKjr]

82. Well, it is something that can get you sued over

I read an article where a guy recorded all of the times a nieghbor accessed his internet wirelessly and let it get to about $500 worth and got him on a felony charge.

I would offer to make little money off the deal and charge them to make that AP or router secure :)

[lynne]

83. It depends -

- Do you think that stealing and theiving are acceptable actions in a civilized society?

I hope - for your sake as well as ours - that your answer is NO.

[evil eggplant]

107. Of course it's wrong.

Stealing is stealing. Period.

A victimless crime? Perhaps. Unless you're on winmx, gobbling up so much bandwidth that the user that is actually paying for the bandwidth is suffering from clogged pipes.

If you're OK with it, then that's all that matters. There are different levels of theft.

[FreedomAngel82]

110. What I think

is if you're that guilty it's for some reason. I would pay. At least so you're not paranoid and all that.

[darkism]

112. No. Not unless you do something atrociously illegal on it.

Just don't use ALL their bandwidth. For all you know, they could use VoIP as their only phone service, and you'd be effectively disabling their phone line when they needed to make an urgent call.

For those of you who think it's wrong, you should hang out with the band of ultra-right-wing wackos who populate broadbandreports.com . Those people are really a laugh and a half sometimes. :p

[blondeatlast]

114. I fyou have to ask--hell, effing, yes. Why ask US?

It's your conscience, guy.

[GoneOffShore]

121. How do you know you're stealing?

The person who owns the router, may be, like me with my node at my office, just not closing access to the node.
I live in Philadelphia, and the city is just about to install wireless broadcast nodes all over. The price will be somewhere around 10-15 dollars a month. I'm still going to be paying Comcast for my access, but I'll be able to use my laptop anywhere in the city.
I 'war drive' all the time.
There are those of us out there who just leave the access on and not password protected (It helps that I've got Macs and they're networks are much easier to firewall - so I'm not worried about the security of my data).
Are you sure that you're 'stealing' or are you just relying on 'the kindness of strangers'.
Besides, lots of cable providers are allied with the Repukes. You are merely liberating the access.

[spuddonna]

133. Well, if you have something that belongs to someone else...

(say bandwidth...) and you took it without asking to use it, and they don't know that you're using it, you're probably stealing...

:eyes:

[Clintmax]

131. I live in an apartment and have a desktop and laptop...

I have a wireless router installed so that the laptop can have internet access in the house as well. I did not install the router for all tenants in the complex to use. If someone did something illegal online, the police would come after ME and not them. I have not and will not give permission for anyone to access my wireless signal for that reason. If I ever find that someone IS illegally accessing my signal, I will shut them down so fast their head would spin!

If you are freeloading the internet off someone else, you are a thief in my book. Turn off your wireless card or subscribe to "Net Zero" or another of the cheap ISP's.

[VTMechEngr]

144. Do lock the MAC address of your PC in the router.

That way, only you can log in. Be safe, not angry.

[OrlandoGator]

149. I enable the encryption because I work hard for my $45 a month.

But if other people use wireless routers and fail to encrypt the signal, I think it should be open season. You are broadcasting to the world, the world shouldn't be held liable if they can receive your broadcast.

That's what the damn encryption is for.

[VTMechEngr]

159. Don't argue that point, lest you be called a rapist in this thread.

[tx_dem41]

162. Please point out where you were called a rapist on this thread?

In fact, I answered no when you asked that question.

Ethics shmethics I guess. I usually value consistency. Maybe not this time though.

[OrlandoGator]

179. It's not really a matter of ethics, it's a matter of reality.

If you broadcast something "loud" enough for other people to "hear" it, you shouldn't act surprised of those people "listen."

ALL wireless routers are capable of WEP encryption. If you don't want people stealing your internet connection, open the manual and spend the three minutes it takes to enable the WEP.

Otherwise, don't act all appalled when you blast your free, unrestricted signal all over the neighborhood and people use it.

[Blue Diadem]

154. Yes it is wrong. Taking something without permission

is stealing, no matter how easy it seems to be.

edited to add:

You already seem to know this since you asked if it was wrong to steal..

[lateo]

160. Yes.

It is no different than stealing anything.

[ScreamingMeemie]

167. Yes I think it is wrong.

I think, if it's a money issue, you should look for a free or cheap dialup until you can afford something speedier. My brother in law was one of those who had his card reprogrammed for free Directv, and I refused to watch. Stealing is stealing. :hi:

[GoneOffShore]

168. Sure, stealing is stealing, but sometimes

bandwidth just wants to be free.

[ScreamingMeemie]

172. I couldn't do it. Someone else is paying for it...therefor it's not mine.

:hi:

[lectrobyte]

196. If you have to ask if it's wrong, then it probably is.

[PatriotGames]

199. Agreed.

[PatriotGames]

197. Yes. You are stealing what I paid for. It's the same as stealing my car.

Maybe people should ask first. They might be suprised at how many would share some bandwidth with someone who couldn't afford.

[Old_Fart]

208. "What type of wireless adapter are you speaking of"

[PatriotGames]

210. I think any kind in general.

[Moderator]

214. Locking

This thread has turned into one gigantic flamefest.

DU Moderator