On a scale of 1 to 10, how immoral is it to

[burythehatchet]

steal bandwidth in the form of picking up wireless networks from your neighbors?

[The Straight Story]

1. Depends, if it is for porn it is ok

If for DU, well not so OK :rofl:

[Larry Ogg]

34. You have a sick, perverted and disgusting mind…

Everything I appreciate in a person. :evilgrin:

[SoCalDem]

2. They have the ability to block it.. wonder why they don't?

maybe they want to see into YOUR computer??

[burythehatchet]

4. anything's possible. n/t

[Matariki]

22. You CAN'T see into other people's computers via wireless

You could if they don't have a firewall. Separate issue.

[Recursion]

30. Err... wireless is broadcast rather than switched

So unless you're
A) using TKIP (WEP doesn't cut it), or
B) using transport-level (or higher) security like SSL, your data is vulnerable in transit.

No, it's not technically seeing "inside your computer" but since most users probably conceive of the Internet as being "on their computer", it's a fair point.

[Matariki]

51. There is a general misconception that connecting to someone's wifi network

automatically enables a person to easily see 'into' someone's computer - or web browser for that matter.

I wanted to 'clear up' that misconception.

What you are referring to would take a fair amount of knowledge to see anything related to a person's actual web browsing.

[Pavulon]

61. promiscuous...

not the song..pcaps and wireshark are not high level concepts.

Allowing a person into your network is the first step into a person compromising your systems.

It is a spot where you can put a crowbar and crack the clients.

[Recursion]

62. Plenty of skill-less skript kiddiez have wireshark

and driftnet, etherape, and metasploit.

You really don't have to be very good at anything to compromise computers you share a physical network with anymore, sadly.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. We installed our wireless system and didn't put a password on it

Can't figure out how to block it without buying a new system.

There I admitted doing something stupid. Don't hold it against me. :)

[slackmaster]

3. Depends on how much midget porn you are downloading

If you aren't impacting their Web browsing in a noticeable way, somewhere around 2.1.

If you are downloading so much midget porn that they are waiting a long time for simple Web pages to update, you're up around 7 or 8.

[burythehatchet]

45. GREAT link for midget porn!

Midget Porn Village

[Mojambo]

5. Unless you're using it in such a way to degrade their performance I don't see the big deal.

I would say it's about as immoral as jaywalking.

[mike_c]

6. you mean how immoral is it to use the bandwidth your neighbors...

...park in your living room? If it's unencrypted, and in your home, what right do they have to expect you to NOT use it? The frequency they're broadcasting on is public property, after all. Do radio stations have any expectation that receivers won't use their signal?

I left my wireless signal unencrypted for months once-- an oversight, really-- and noticed a couple of unknown machines on my network one day. I figured I was sharing, even if unknowingly. I did turn my WEP back on, but no hard feelings about it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Serious answer: 1

A wireless router has several layers of security.
A person who has disabled WEP is analagous to a homeowner who has left the door unlocked.
A person who has disabled WEP and does not do Mac address filtering has the door unlocked, and trained the dog to wag at everyone.
A person who has disabled wep, no mac address filtering, and has set up DHCP to give IP addresses to everyone who asks, has done all of the above, and set extra places at the dinner table, just in case.
A person who has disabled WEP, no MAC address filtering, set up surplus DHCP addresses and advertises his SSID, has done all of the above and published an ad on craigslist inviting anyone and everyone over for dinner at his place at 123 Main Street.

One can only conclude that you're invited for dinner. Help yourself.

[Pavulon]

46. no by that logic

a person who does not use wpa2 with tkip or aes encryption is allowing you to use wep cracker to get the information you need.

this person's ignorance does not mean they are inviting you in. If I leave my car parked on the street with my windows down I am not inviting you to steal the ipod off the front seat.

This is a harsh comparison but demonstrates the logical failure.

But I have piggybacked on networks before. But try to leave a light footprint.

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. WPA2 is a better lock. TKIP is a deadbolt.

There's a vast difference between using the fanciest encryption and advertising your SSID. Using the bandwidth of people who don't use even the most rudimentary means of discouraging it - in fact openly advertise their open network - is arguably their intent.

[Pavulon]

58. Agree

many radios automatically grab the best network and will use an unprotected network "automatically". Many users have no idea what an ap is, never mind how their cards roam.

Not knowing any better is my point. Many people buy technology without understanding it. Taking advantage of that ignorance is, imho, no different than taking advantage of a administrator who does not patch or makes some other error allowing an intrusion.

Intent is the key.

[Clovis Sangrail]

8. if they haven't locked it down at all

they probably don't care... so it's a 0 on the immorality scale.

If they're just technologically challenged then higher.
Why don't you go tell them their wireless is open for anybody to use?
Maybe offer to pay them a couple bucks a month to use it?

:shrug:

I left wireless at my old place wide open for years and didn't care a bit if my neighbors used it.

[slackmaster]

16. IMO it's not OK to make that assumption

You can always ask.

[Clovis Sangrail]

76. If you read me post you'll see I suggested that :)

[Captain Angry]

9. If 10 is the highest level of immorality? 10.

You didn't pay for that service.

You didn't receive explicit permission to access their network.

It's just like using somebody else's cable or phone line. You didn't sign the contract to use the network bandwidth on the other end of that wireless connection.

Sorry, if you're looking for somebody to tell you it's not really that bad, you're in the wrong spot. If you KNOW better, as in you have a degree in Computer Science or a related field, or have a technology type job, it gets even worse.

My mom can claim ignorance if she were to use somebody else's network. I can't. If the network provider whose bandwidth you're stealing by using somebody's unsecured wireless connection were to sue, and you're a techie, you could be in trouble.

With my network security background, I'd be screwed.

[PeaceNikki]

10. Some of us socialists intentionally share our stuff,

:)

[Captain Angry]

70. And therefore you've given permission, so no problem.

Just keep in mind that you're liable if somebody drives up, and uses your wireless connection to upload 50GB of child pornography.

Be careful.

[burythehatchet]

11. yuo IT guys are all alike!

jus kidding

:)

[Matariki]

25. Ha! A *real*, oldskool IT guy would be telling you how to do it.

[Captain Angry]

72. The poster knows how.

It's not hard to click on the connection that's unsecured, especially since the poster was able to determine whose network it was.

An old school IT guy would know that you ask permission and buy your neighbor off with beer + pizza. Never steal.

[Hoof Hearted]

17. On a scale of one to ten with 1 being ripping the tag off a mattress

and 10 being starting an illegal war with millions of casualties for personal gain and/or personally taking a human life with malice and forethought but no reason ......


what say you now?

[Matariki]

44. LOL

good point made!

[Captain Angry]

71. Scales...

From 1 being a mattress tag, to 10 being a Bush, you're in the 4 neighborhood.

But questions like this generally are from people trying to console themselves for a guilty conscience.

The solution? Ask the neighbor if you can surf their network a little, and buy them pizza once a month.

Permission granted, happy neighbors.

[Wizard777]

19. If they put a cable or phone jack in my house. Yes I will use it.

I have a reasonable right to assume that anything in my house is mine. Including your unencrypted WiFi.

[Captain Angry]

73. You have to specifically select the network you join.

If you choose to connect to a network that is in the air, that doesn't grant permission.

That network extends a contract that was signed by the person whose wireless it is and their ISP. You would not be a party to that contract, and would be illegally using the bandwidth.

The simple solution is to ask the neighbor's permission and buy them a beer once in a while.

Problem solved.

[TahitiNut]

12. It's misdemeanor larceny.

:shrug:

It's akin to turnstile-jumping or sneaking into the drive-in movie.

It's also the law under which hospitals have prosecuted indigent people unable to pay for medical care.

[burythehatchet]

13. so sitting in your living room, your computer picks up a network automatically

the user does not even necessarily become aware, is the same as sneaking into a movie?

[TahitiNut]

14. "automatically"? "not aware"??

Yeah. Riiight. Tell it to the judge. :rofl: :rofl:

[burythehatchet]

15. I'm sorry, I've known you a long time here and at one time enjoyed

conversing with you, but I have to say goodbye.

[Truth2Tell]

20. The movie is a good analogy.

Because... ultimately the purpose of paying for the service is to compensate those who developed and built it. It may not negatively impact your neighbor... but if you ask yourself what happens if everyone steals bandwidth... well then the creators and maintainers of the system are not compensated for their work - like the actors and producers of a movie are somewhat damaged if you buy a pirated DVD.

Still, I'd give it about a 3.3 on your scale.

[Wizard777]

23. No not really. It's in the air. This is more akin to an oxygen bottling company having a leak.

Then trying to have the surronding community arrested for stealing their air. I have lungs that will process their product just like I have a computer that will process WiFi's product. Anything in the air is up for grabs.

[TahitiNut]

28. Good luck with that argument.

:hi: Then explain to the judge how USING the service (routers, etc.) is "in the air."

[Wizard777]

36. The routers would be the equivalent of bronchial tubes that route the oxygen to the blood stream.

But I think this is the best arguement. You cannot soley rely upon the protection of the law. I cannot place 1 Million in cash on my front lawn and rely upon nothing more than the law against theft to protect that money. That is basically what you would be doing with an unencrypted signal. In fact your doing worse. Your putting the 1 Million in cash in someones livingroom and soley relying upon the protection of the law.

[TahitiNut]

48. That analogy fails.

First off, the WiFi signal is not some 'subtance' that has a commodity value in and of itself. It's the connection to assets (private property) which perform services for subscribers. In effect, it's like tapping into the cable lines that are strung over your property.

If it were a matter of passive use then the individual wouldn't be hitting keys and performing activities on the Internet. So, there's an ACTIVE and CONSCIOUS element (mens rea) to the behavior. Furthermore, even if you move into a home or apartment where the cable connection was left active, connecting up to it and using it constitutes theft of services. That's settled law insofar as fines and penalties have been assessed in court.

There might indeed be a question of whether the neighbor is also culpable. The service contract mmost likely has terms that limit the service to the subscriber's household, prohibit resale, and require some due diligence.

It's not likely that the cable company will make much of an effort to seek out and prosecute such instances ... unless and until they get to some point where they think it's in their business/legal interests to embark on some wider program of enforcement.

[caraher]

54. The correct analogy is, of course, a system of tubes...

It's not a truck!

[Matariki]

29. More like picking up a radio broadcast.

Up to the broadcaster to protect the signal

[Wizard777]

40. Either way. You cannot soley rely upon the protection of the law.

Without any other protections. You have an arguement of implied consent. Just like you have implied consent to enter someones yard if they don't have a no trespassing sign posted. Even implied consent to enter someones home if they don't have their door locked.

[Matariki]

26. No way. I don't believe it.

What law is that? Is it a state or federal law? Or a local law where you live? Got a link to back that up?

[TahitiNut]

32. Look up "theft of services" ... and consult an attorney.

Good luck. :hi:

[Matariki]

39. Looked it up

There seems to be a point of contention whether it's actually a 'theft of service' as you say, i.e. there have been a couple overzealous cops who hassled and/or arrested someone for using FREE WIRELESS outside a public library or other PUBLIC place. Don't see any precedent on a neighbor's connection. Also, just because a cop arrests someone doesn't mean the person actually broke a law. "Theft of Service" applied to open wireless sounds like a legal grey area. Guess the courts will have to work it out.

IMO, connecting to an unsecured wireless network is far more akin to picking up a radio broadcast than stealing cable service by splicing cables or whatnot.

[TahitiNut]

57. Well, I'm not saying that I agree with the way the statutes are written.

I'd PERSONALLY want to require the owner/provider of the services to actually take material steps to SAFEGUARD the services from theft and act with continuous and reasonable diligence to ensure that they're not being SELECTIVE (or whimsical) in their detection and prosecution. Nonetheless, the statutes exist and HAVE BEEN enforced. It's clear that the enforcment is spotty and much needs to be improved, but that's the situation.


ONCE UPON A TIME, cable companies provided service according to the number of television sets that were connected. They attempted to define their 'service' in a manner that prohibited the homeowner from cabling their own home and merely paing for the service INTO the home itself. Since that was overreaching and effectively necessitated invasive oversight to enforce, that interpretation of their service was unsustainable under the law. So, they've stopped doing that. But it took over 20 years for that to change.

The wholesale use of the service one's neighbor is paying for, however, seems far more clearly enforceable to me. First off, it DOES add a workload ... unlike cable TV. With Cable TV, the cable company can't even theoreticall detect an additiona workload, since the SIGNAL is the same no matter what. With Internet service, traffic and load ARE detectible. There's a TANGIBLE service being provided.

[Matariki]

67. Again, imo, it becomes fuzzy when the connection is accessible from your own living room.

But yeah, it can affect connection speed. Sometimes imperceptibly, sometimes significantly. Personally, I keep mine locked and protected - my partner on the other hand *likes* to share his connection.

I'm wondering, are those laws you are referring to general 'theft of service' laws that historically had more to do with cable and utilities - or are they new, specific laws governing wifi? I suspect the former, and if that's the case, applying 'theft of service' to wifi is really open to legal challenge.

[bpeale]

18. well you are stealing from your neighbor as well as whatever company

he gets his service from. stealing is stealing no matter how much it is. I'D SAY THIS RATES A 10!

[Matariki]

21. My partner leaves his wireless open on purpose

He likes the idea of ubiquitous, free wireless connections. The only disadvantage of that might be if too many people were using it for high broadband uses like video downloads it might slow down his connection.

You CAN'T see into other people's computers via the wireless. Well maybe if they don't have a firewall and you're a clever monkey, but that's another issue. Firewall on the computer and password protection on the wireless connection are two different things.

So no, it's not immoral. It's not even stealing, imo.

[EFerrari]

27. Commie.

:)

[Matariki]

31. Him, not me.

:hi:

I just like reading what all my neighbors have named their networks LOL

[Swamp Rat]

75. LOL!

:rofl:

[A HERETIC I AM]

33. If you receive (or take) something for free that others are paying for, how is it NOT stealing? n/t

[EFerrari]

35. Sometimes it's only receiving. If I leave a plate of cookies on the stoop

and you take some, that's not stealing.

[A HERETIC I AM]

56. I don't think your cookie analogy really addresses my question.

Sure, if I leave some baked goods outside my front door I should have a reasonable expectation that they might not all be there when I open the door again.

If I open that same door and find an extension cord plugged into an outdoor electrical outlet whose source routes through the meter I am billed by, I would be very justified in assuming the person who plugged that cord in was taking advantage of me, as well as the electric utility into which I have entered a contract. I think I should have a reasonable expectation that my neighbor would not feel justified in "receiving" electricity I am being billed for.

[EFerrari]

59. I agree with that. Shouldn't people who have wireless service

be responsible for protecting their account? Three of us do in this building. We bump into each other's service but we all have passwords. (We'd be further ahead to share one!)

It doesn't seem that complicated.

[A HERETIC I AM]

63. Absolutely.

It isn't that complicated, I agree. And yes, it should be the responsibility of the individual to protect their account.

I'll admit this doesn't rise to a very high level of importance for me personally, I merely question the notion that receiving something for free that others MUST pay for is somehow not, at some level, thievery.

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. Is your bandwidth metered?

When you send a wireless signal into to your neighbors homes, accompanied by a broadcast of your SSID, it is as if you'd extended your own household wiring into each of their houses.

IMHO, in that scenario, your intent to share is clear.

Weak though it may be, the best case can be made that if your bandwidth is not metered, then the people who are being "stolen" from is the phone/cable company.

[Squatch]

77. You don't need to know who the cookies on the stoop belong to...

you just need to know that they're NOT YOURS.

[Matariki]

41. My partner isn't losing ANYTHING if someone uses his connection

AND he leaves it open for people to use freely. How is THAT stealing?

edited for a loose 'o'.

[A HERETIC I AM]

60. Correct, your partner is not losing anything, but the provider he has a contract with is.

I have no problem at all with your partner being magnanimous, and if it is ok with the internet provider, then it is ok with me. Your partner has done nothing wrong but anyone else receiving that signal who is not paying for it is, in my opinion, treading ethically thin ice.

I would venture that it isn't really ok with the provider. They would justifiably see it as a theft of services.

[Firespirit]

65. It doesn't really matter if it's ok with the provider

Unless it's a contract that explicitly forbids the customer from sharing, then if someone has set up a wireless network on an internet connection that they're paying for, it is not for the provider to decide who has access to that network. Their customer has paid for the service, and it's up to him or her who that service is shared with. I do not owe the utility companies for every time I am a guest in someone's house and turn on a light or take a shower. The person I am visiting has decided to share with me, and the utilities have nothing to do with it.

[A HERETIC I AM]

69. I understand and agree precisely with the point you are making...BUT (lol)

(you knew there was gonna be a "but", didn't you?)

You said:

if someone has set up a wireless network on an internet connection that they're paying for, it is not for the provider to decide who has access to that network - Unless it's a contract that explicitly forbids the customer from sharing

Exactly. Precisely. And, as I mentioned above, if the provider has no problem with it, neither do I from and ethical point of view.

But there is, in my opinion, a significant difference in the issue I initially raised (Why is it not stealing if you receive something you aren't paying for) when you compare using hot water and light as a guest of a friend and accessing the internet via a wireless signal you don't have permission to use.

I admit, I'm certainly playing the Devil's advocate here. Quite frankly and in all sincerity, I think Internet access SHOULD be free - or cost as much as sending a letter to the editor or checking a book out from the library. It's communication. It should be free. But that is impractical for no other reason than the infrastructure to provide this fascinating medium costs somebody money to implement.

Interesting discussion, nevertheless. This is one of the reasons I truly love Democratic Underground.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. A person using your wireless is on your local network.

One way that a router protects your network via NAT (network address translation) your computer is not directly translatable to an ip address on the internet.

If you let people use your network, avoid file and printer sharing on the other computers on your lan.

[CRF450]

24. When I was still living with my dad last year

We had a wireless router, and I left the WEP turned off (tried connecting a friend's PS3 to the net, but for some reason it wouldn't work on wireless) I wasent really aware that the WEP was left off, but the new people across the to road was using the wireless connection from our router. When I started hangin out with them I ask the dude with the laptop how he got online. He said didn't know, it just picked automatically when they first moved in, but it has a low signal and cuts off from time to time. So I let them use our connection and they eventually got their own high speed internet service, and I turned the WEP back on.

[varelse]

37. it goes to 0 on the scale if you just ask the neighbors nicely to share the bandwidth

people will actually do that sometimes - and then it isn't stealing, but sharing!

Our next door neighbors actually did knock on our door and ask - but we couldn't help them out because the password protected signal they were detecting wasn't coming from us, as we don't have wireless.

[Firespirit]

38. When you configure most routers, the wizards recommend using encryption

Most ISPs also recommend it when you set up a wireless network.

If you don't turn it on, people will take it as an invitation.

I suppose technically it is stealing bandwidth, and if they decided to sue, they'd likely win. But most people wouldn't sue. And if they have chosen to turn down the recommendations from their ISP and the router software, then I wouldn't feel guilty about piggybacking.

[Wizard777]

42. Without encryption you are giving implied consent for anyone to use the signal. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. encryption is like the fourth level of security.

If you're advertising your ssid, you are inviting the neighbors to use it.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Do you consistantly hog it or just borrow it when you don't have a connection?

I'd have no problem loaning my wireless to my neighbors when their connection goes out.

[burythehatchet]

49. I didn't say it was me

:)
but, in my home I get around 6 networks just thrusting their waves in my face.

[Fox Mulder]

52. I don't think it's immoral at all.

If a person doesn't want someone accessing his/her internet, then password protect it.

I leave mine open because I don't care if anyone uses it.

[hyphenate]

66. Depends, really

on how savvy either party is. Any home network can be shielded by the owner, passworded. And more and more people are setting up networks without any knowledge whatsoever of the risks they're presenting. Of course, the alternative of that is that anyone who is close enough to a home wireless network who can use it should have a little discretion and good judgment and not do it without asking.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

68. 9, very immoral...

[Xithras]

74. Treat it like the Take A Penny, Leave A Penny cup.

It's ok to take a few cents if you need it, but you should leave a few cents when you have change of your own. And remember: EVERYONE hates the jackass who takes the whole cup.

[Squatch]

78. Stealing ANYTHING is immoral

You don't need to know to whom something belongs, you just need to know that it's NOT YOURS.

[seabeyond]

79. we share, ergo not stealing, hence, ..... not immoral. anyone want

to set in our driveway can, we dont care. or those that walk into our house and want to tap on, more than welcome.