Free internet.

[Chunky]

i fixed my friends computer and as payment he gave me a wifi pci router. niceeeeee. slow. but free! yay for unsecured networks!

[Sticks]

You do realise that if you do not have permission of the person whose network you are hacking into, you may be committing a criminal offence

Well that is the situation in the UK, not sure about the US

[Sticks]

Also, your thread title caught my attention as it looked almost like spam, please be careful in future - this is an advisement at this time

[Chunky]

im not hacking 0.o its an unsecured network. its free game.

[Chunky]

or so i thought.

[Neverfly]

im not hacking 0.o its an unsecured network. its free game.

It is not Cracking ( Hacking is programming. A hacker is a programmer. A person who breaks into computers is a Cracker. Blame Hollywood for this word definition change in popular culture.) It is, essentially, unauthorized access.

[Chunky]

hm. ill have to get to the bottom of it. you should read my new poem while i do :O huuuh?

[novaderrik]

using someone else's unsecured wireles router to get internet access is the same as downloading music for free- it's technically illegal, but people think they are entitled to it.
of course, there is a sticker right on every wireless device that says that it must accept any "interference" that it encounters and the airwaves are technically public domain in the USA.. so anyone that isn't smart enough to shut off or otherwise secure the wireless part of their router is kinda sorta in a way unknowingly giving anyone access to their internet portal. kind of like leaving the keys in your unlocked Cadillac in a high crime neighborhood..

[pzkpfw]

Woo hoo, next time I find a car parked with the doors unlocked and the keys in it.

Free car!!!

(Wouldn't be illegal, would it?)

[Chunky]

not as long as i just sit in the car and enjoy the smell, not taking it away from the original owner :)

[djellison]

im not hacking 0.o its an unsecured network. its free game.

It's theft.

If someone put a mains socket outside, say for their lawn mower - would you run your house of an extension lead from next-doors electricity?

Would you drill a hole thru the wall and heat your house with their gas?

Would you borrow their car, without asking, using their petrol, if the keys were in the door?

For all you know - they're carefully managing how much bandwidth they use so as not to go over some ISP limit - your useage might take them over that limit have their connection throttled, terminated, or incur extra charges.

Stealing bandwidth is THEFT. Stop it. Now.

You are a thief.

[mugaliens]

It is not Cracking ( Hacking is programming. A hacker is a programmer. A person who breaks into computers is a Cracker. Blame Hollywood for this word definition change in popular culture.) It is, essentially, unauthorized access.

Ditto, and the term "hacker" came from the newsrooms, where reporters hacking away at their typewriters on into the night were known as "hackers." When programming came along, the term applied for the same reasons, just to a different venue.

In addition to breaking into computers, "cracking" also covers any form of illegally gaining access to networks, computers, or messages, encrypted or not. However, this term arose during WWII, mainly in Blechley Park, named after the code-breakers, or "crackers" as they were sometimes called.

Nev's right - using the term "hacker" to describe those who break into computers originated solely in the confines, ironically enough, of the news media.

[The_Radiation_Specialist]

Intelligence*: Using someone else's wireless internet
Stupidity: boasting about it on the internet.


* Yes, I know it's illegal.

[Veeger]

It is not Cracking ( Hacking is programming. A hacker is a programmer. A person who breaks into computers is a Cracker. Blame Hollywood for this word definition change in popular culture.) It is, essentially, unauthorized access.

I need to dig out my copy of Neuromancer and see if this is true.
:)

[Chuck]

Stealing bandwidth is one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is you're requesting that someone's wireless network give you internet access and it's up to its owner to decide whether or not such requests will be granted. Someone with an unlimited usage connection might be fine with his neighbors using it too. He can always secure it if outside usage starts to interfere with his own.

[HenrikOlsen]

Nope, still theft.
I haven't seen any ISP agreement for home use that didn't explicitly forbid using the connection to provide access to outsiders.

[SeanF]

Stealing bandwidth is one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is you're requesting that someone's wireless network give you internet access and it's up to its owner to decide whether or not such requests will be granted. Someone with an unlimited usage connection might be fine with his neighbors using it too. He can always secure it if outside usage starts to interfere with his own.
pzkpfw's analogy of an unlocked car is a good one. You have to actually ask them, not just assume they're allowing you because they're not proactively stopping you.

[Chuck]

Your computer asks their computer for Internet access. You're not forcing your way in.

[Chuck]

Nope, still theft.
I haven't seen any ISP agreement for home use that didn't explicitly forbid using the connection to provide access to outsiders.

Then if someone allows others to use his connection then he's in violation of his agreement. If someone steals something and gives it to me that doesn't mean that I stole it unless I know it's stolen and keep it anyway.

[sabianq]

It is not Cracking ( Hacking is programming. A hacker is a programmer. A person who breaks into computers is a Cracker. Blame Hollywood for this word definition change in popular culture.) It is, essentially, unauthorized access.

what do you call a person that just breaks computers?

[SeanF]

Your computer asks their computer for Internet access. You're not forcing your way in.
Yeah, and my hand asked their car door to let me in, and their car door did. I didn't force my way in.

It's the same thing, and it doesn't work either way.

[Chuck]

You moved the car door with your hand. That's using force.

[Doodler]

or so i thought.

Nope, even in an unsecured network, you're still committing theft. Its on the books in the US, too. I read a story a couple months back where a man was arrested during a traffic stop. He was parked in front of someone's house checking his email on his laptop.

Bagged him for parking violations and unauthorized use of a computer.


Of course, the ultimate rule: Thou shalt not get caught.

[jt-3d]

It's not against the law to leave your stuff unlocked. It is against the law to take stuff that doesn't belong to you.

[Chuck]

Does that mean if I walk past someone's house and can smell the flowers in his yard, I'm stealing?

[nauthiz]

You do realise that if you do not have permission of the person whose network you are hacking into, you may be committing a criminal offence

Well that is the situation in the UK, not sure about the US

It's the same. There was a case I read about a few years back where someone in Florida (I believe) got a little jail time for poaching Wi-Fi.

[captain swoop]

Using an unsecured network isn't theft if you have the permission of the owner. I can think of several places in Guisborough that have unsecured 'hotspots' free for people to use. One of my friends also has a wireless router he lets his friends who live close use, although it does have a WEP key he has shared with them.

[nauthiz]

Does that mean if I walk past someone's house and can smell the flowers in his yard, I'm stealing?

It's true that our legal system is based on common law.

However, that does not mean that what is and is not legal has anything whatsoever to do with what anyone believes is common sense.

[Sticks]

It is not Cracking ( Hacking is programming. A hacker is a programmer. A person who breaks into computers is a Cracker. Blame Hollywood for this word definition change in popular culture.) It is, essentially, unauthorized access.

But what we are talking about here is hacking into a communications system, to wit the Wi-Fi system. Think about those criminals who literally hack into a telephone exchange to intercept calls in some elaborate fraud, hence hacking into a wifi system.

Incidentally when my brother visits a certain place in Washington State with his partner, they piggyback off of a neighbours wifi, with their permission. My brother said they did offer to pay something towards their neighbour's internet fee, but the neighbour declined.

[HenrikOlsen]

All your examples are cracking not hacking, though I know it's tilting at windmills to get people to understand.

[SeanF]

Does that mean if I walk past someone's house and can smell the flowers in his yard, I'm stealing?
No, but if you take some of the flowers from his yard, you are.

When you hack into someone's wi-fi and use it to get on the internet, you are using up bandwidth inside his house. You're not just grabbing electrons that he let out into the air, you are actually using up bandwidth and thus preventing him from being able to utilize it himself.

[Doodler]

THe way the law interprets use of unsecured networks is not unlike the way the law would view someone hotwiring cable TV by slipping a coax cable into an unused outlet.

You aren't paying for the access, its not yours to use (without permission).

The only difference between this and how I described stealing cable is the lack of jury rigging needed to pull it off.

[nauthiz]

Possibly a better analogy would be using your neighbor's garden hose without permission.

Sure, the hose is just laying out on the lawn. The spigot is outside where anyone can get to it and completely unprotected by any security devices. And let's even say the house has its own artesian well so you don't have to worry about increasing their water bill. Still, I think using their hose to water your lawn would be questionable.

[mugaliens]

Nope, still theft.
I haven't seen any ISP agreement for home use that didn't explicitly forbid using the connection to provide access to outsiders.

Agreed. Even if you leave the door to your house unlocked, if someone enters without your permission, it's tresspassing.

[Chuck]

No, but if you take some of the flowers from his yard, you are.

When you hack into someone's wi-fi and use it to get on the internet, you are using up bandwidth inside his house. You're not just grabbing electrons that he let out into the air, you are actually using up bandwidth and thus preventing him from being able to utilize it himself.

When my wireless card is detecting my network it also detects my neighbor's network. How dare he send his signal into my apartment, using my electrons to put the name of his network on my computer screen? I wanted to use those electrons for something else.

[SeanF]

When my wireless card is detecting my network it also detects my neighbor's network. How dare he send his signal into my apartment, using my electrons to put the name of his network on my computer screen? I wanted to use those electrons for something else.
You're just being deliberately obtuse now, aren't you?

[Chuck]

I'm just pointing out that wireless internet is not entirely like a garden hose or a car.

If I weren't using a wireless network to full capacity I would let others use it. If anyone else doesn't feel the same way they can prevent others from using theirs easily enough.

[nauthiz]

It's still their wireless network, and even if they're capable of putting a password on it they aren't required to, and common courtesy would still dictate that you should ask before using it.

[SeanF]

I'm just pointing out that wireless internet is not entirely like a garden hose or a car.
But it's entirely like smelling flowers? Which do you think it's more like?

If I weren't using a wireless network to full capacity I would let others use it. If anyone else doesn't feel the same way they can prevent others from using theirs easily enough.
And if you don't want somebody else driving your car, you can prevent it easily enough (by locking the door).

The fact that you don't lock it doesn't mean you're giving permission for others to use it. And if others use it without getting your permission first, they're stealing.

[Chuck]

I might not know where it is. Common courtesy on their part would be to make it easier for others to tell that it's not open to the public by not allowing public access.

[publius]

Technically, the network isn't leaking anything. To access the network, you have to send signals yourself to carry on a two-way conversation with that network. Nothing is being "thrown away". That argument is even less valid that similiar arguments about stealing power "through the air".

While it would take a lot of rambling to explain the details, if you have a long stretch of property (we're talking a couple miles) it is possible to capacitively couple with a HV transmission line and steal power. It's been done and there have been court cases where the argument was the power company is leaking their field all over adjacent property and if they don't want someone to make use of it, they better shield it.

The courts did not buy that argument. :) The physics of that argument don't even hold up. Power lines don't radiate energy, save for a tiny little bit that is insignificant. If it were easy to radiate 60Hz, power lines wouldn't be very efficient as you'd be wasting wads of what you were trying to transmit. They do have an extended EM field around them, but that is not a radiation field. When one capacitively couples to that field, one *alters that field* to pull energy from the line. One is actively changing the system to cause it to transfer power.

Many people don't understand this, even those who should. One big scare tactic with HV power lines is to hold long fluorescent tubes under them and demonstrate a glow. Some of the big ones will do that. The claim is then that energy is leaking out, and just imagine what it will do to a human body etc. Well, the same principle applies. The tube is coupling to the ambient field and pulling energy out that wouldn't otherwise leak.

And likewise, when one accesses a wireless network, one is very actively altering the field so to speak by sending your own signals to cause the network to give you access and transfer your information back and forth.

Now where I would draw the line is with true leaks. That is, if you're just passively listening to things actually radiated, thrown away, then I don't hold that as theft or eavesdropping. But the law sees that differently, I think as well.

-Richard

[Ara Pacis]

So, the term cracker didn't come about because most of them were white?

Hmm, So the neighbor is emitting photons that are being intercepted by you through some means. The law varied depending on the frequency. IIRC, some freqs are illegal to intercept, such as some phones. Other frequencies are illegal to emit, such as x-rays, gamma rays, and visible light especially if it's been reflected off of certain parts of one's anatomy.

[Chuck]

But it's entirely like smelling flowers? Which do you think it's more like?


And if you don't want somebody else driving your car, you can prevent it easily enough (by locking the door).

The fact that you don't lock it doesn't mean you're giving permission for others to use it. And if others use it without getting your permission first, they're stealing.

It's not like smelling flowers and it's not like stealing a car.

[Ara Pacis]

I'm not sure it's illegal for you to take internet from a neighbor who says it's okay. All you are doing is logging onto his local network to use his local resources. If you use the internet and he has not specifically say that you shall not, then any breaking of the ISP contract should be on him.

[Chuck]

Some people might want to allow others to use their wireless networks. Should that be illegal just because someone who doesn't want to is doing it anyway?

[stutefish]

Fun fact about computer networking: Access to a network is established by transmitting an explicit request for access to the network, followed by receipt of an explicit grant of access the network.

It seems to me that the real problem is that people are still far too enthusiastic about reasoning about computers by means of analogy, instead of recognizing that computers have their own paradigm and their own implications, which are not amenable to comparison with other, more familiar things like cars and houses and streets and flowers.

[Doodler]

We can split legal hairs all afternoon, ladies and gents, Blind Justice has a full head of hairs being fed by the brainrot of reactionary legislation to work with.

Can we agree that the bottom line here is that boosting internet access on unsecure wireless is currently illegal?

[SeanF]

I might not know where it is. Common courtesy on their part would be to make it easier for others to tell that it's not open to the public by not allowing public access.
Sorry, Chuck, I don't think "common courtesy" is on your side on this one.

Default position is "not yours to use." Unless somebody tells you it's yours to use. And, no, neither your computer nor theirs counts as "somebody." :)

Some people might want to allow others to use their wireless networks. Should that be illegal just because someone who doesn't want to is doing it anyway?
No, of course not - not on you, anyway, although they may be violating their provider's terms of service.

But you are insisting that you can assume they want to allow it, unless they explicitly deny it. You can't. You assume they don't allow it, unless they explicitly allow it.

Somebody can invite you into their house, and it's not illegal for you to then enter. But an unlocked door (or even a door standing wide open) does not constitute an invitation, and it is illegal for you to enter.

[nauthiz]

Now where I would draw the line is with true leaks. That is, if you're just passively listening to things actually radiated, thrown away, then I don't hold that as theft or eavesdropping. But the law sees that differently, I think as well.

I believe it depends on the situation. I'm pretty sure listening in on your neighbor's phone conversations is illegal in the USA, whereas using a police scanner is not. Assuming that's true, I'm not sure of the legal grounds for the distinction.

[hewhocaves]

Originally Posted by Chuck I'm just pointing out that wireless internet is not entirely like a garden hose or a car

But it's entirely like smelling flowers? Which do you think it's more like?


Perhaps its like smelling flowers through a garden hose from your car?

I'm confused. how do the dump trucks fit into all of this?

[Ara Pacis]

I believe it depends on the situation. I'm pretty sure listening in on your neighbor's phone conversations is illegal in the USA, whereas using a police scanner is not. Assuming that's true, I'm not sure of the legal grounds for the distinction.

Probably arbitrary legislation and common law jurisprudence.

[mugaliens]

If I weren't using a wireless network to full capacity I would let others use it. If anyone else doesn't feel the same way they can prevent others from using theirs easily enough.

Terrific, and that's generous of you.

But I think the conversation wasn't about giving away your bandwidth, but taking another's bandwidth without their permission.

[sabianq]

so i have a question.

how about reading or unencrypted information that is present in your own home?
like a transmitted signal?

say errant signals are infiltrating into your home,
would you have the authority to observe the signals?

i am not talking about transmitting and talking to say your neighbors wireless router or using a wifi connection.
but receiving a broadcast like from a satellite, radio station or what ever.
I wonder if there is a law that says that i cannot view information that has leaked into my home...

sometimes, i can hear my neighbors conversation on her cordless phone when i have my AM FM TV Shortwave radio on.

is it illegal to eaves drop? or just record it?

my neighbors wifi signal is super strong in my living room, can i use a spectrum analyzer and a packet sniffer to watch the data?

can i set up a dish and view the unencrypted satellite signals bombarding my house??


i really dont know.


hmmm...

[mugaliens]

Assuming that's true, I'm not sure of the legal grounds for the distinction.

The legal terminology is a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

Your neighbor, talking on his phone, as a reasonble expectation of privacy. That no longer holds, however, if he's out in his backyard, talking on the phone loudly, or worse, using a speakerphone, and you're in your backyard, laying in the sun, sipping tea, and taking all of it in.

Similarly, even though WEP is a cinch to crack, simply by using it, your neighbor has established a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if you then crack his stream and listen in, you're violating his privacy rights.

On the other hand, the jury's still out on whether or not he has a reasonable expectation of privacy is he's broadcasting in the clear. Personally, I think it's the same as a neighbor talking loudly in his backyard, but some would disagree.

[sabianq]

on a side note, i have FIOS (there is a single mode fiber optic line that runs directly to my house, it carries the phone, internet and TV on 3 seperate wavelengths of light) at my home with a 20 megabit connection.
i do believe that it is against the TOS to let anybody but me use it.

so technically, i cant even let my in laws connect to the wireless router when they come to visit.

but i don't think they (verizon) really care.

[ravens_cry]

I would say no. It may be entering your house, but it's a signal. If you had an antenna that allowed you to pick up very weak signals, weaker then you would otherwise be able to detect that are now because you can detect them' entering your house', should you read those signals as well? No. It's an invasion of privacy. You can choose not to view them, so don't. It's not yours.

[tofu]

But it's entirely like smelling flowers? Which do you think it's more like?

Sorry, but it is more like smelling flowers and less like using water, provided you pay a flat rate for your internet service.

If I use one gallon of water from your hose, you will pay for that gallon. But if I use 1kb of bandwidth, or inhale X molecules of sent from your flowers, I haven't denied you the use of anything. It's possible that I *might* start downloading a DVD and thereby degrade your use of the network. It's possible that I might have a giant nose and suction up all the smell from your flowers, but it isn't necessarily the case.

preventing him from being able to utilize it himself.

Nobody is preventing anybody from doing anything. If you don't want someone to use your network, do not give them access.

Look at BAUT. It's a web site. What does it mean to be a web site? It means that a server is listening on port 80 of a particular IP address, and when I send certain packets to that server, it sends me a response. How silly would it be to claim that, "whoa! I only wanted Jay Utah to be able to read this web page. All you other people are hacking and stealing and costing me money!!"

Similarly, what does it mean to be a wireless access point? It means that a device is listening on a particular frequency. How silly of you to complain when a device that you set up and configured is used for a purpose in accordance with that configuration. If you don't want someone visiting your website, then configure it accordingly. If you don't want someone using your WAP, then configure it accordingly. If that's too hard for you, then don't run a web server or a WAP.

Note: I'm not suggesting that anybody go out and connect to an open wifi. There are plenty of things in the world that you shouldn't do, even if they were legal. But I am demanding that people use language that appropriately describes the situation. It's not stealing. It's not hacking. The worse thing you can call it is taking advantage of your neighbor's laziness.

[sabianq]

The legal terminology is a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

Your neighbor, talking on his phone, as a reasonble expectation of privacy. That no longer holds, however, if he's out in his backyard, talking on the phone loudly, or worse, using a speakerphone, and you're in your backyard, laying in the sun, sipping tea, and taking all of it in.

Similarly, even though WEP is a cinch to crack, simply by using it, your neighbor has established a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if you then crack his stream and listen in, you're violating his privacy rights.

On the other hand, the jury's still out on whether or not he has a reasonable expectation of privacy is he's broadcasting in the clear. Personally, I think it's the same as a neighbor talking loudly in his backyard, but some would disagree.

i have always been of the mind that if it ain't encrypted and the information is inside of yours or my house, then is its ok for you or me to observe.

(not to forget that utilizing a wireless network is not just passively observing, but being an active part of the stream which involves transmitting and receiving, so in essence, your wireless signal is infiltrating the space where the wireless gate or AP is).

[SeanF]

Sorry, but it is more like smelling flowers and less like using water, provided you pay a flat rate for your internet service.
But it's more like the latter, provided you don't. :) Don't make assumptions.

If I use one gallon of water from your hose, you will pay for that gallon. But if I use 1kb of bandwidth, or inhale X molecules of sent from your flowers, I haven't denied you the use of anything. It's possible that I *might* start downloading a DVD and thereby degrade your use of the network. It's possible that I might have a giant nose and suction up all the smell from your flowers, but it isn't necessarily the case.
Oh, yes, you might thereby degrade my use of the network. Just use your own network and not mine, and you don't need to worry about it.

Nobody is preventing anybody from doing anything. If you don't want someone to use your network, do not give them access.
Yes, you are. And, again, let's drop the passive "don't give them access" when what you're really insisting on is an active "prevent them from getting access."

Look at BAUT. It's a web site. What does it mean to be a web site? It means that a server is listening on port 80 of a particular IP address, and when I send certain packets to that server, it sends me a response. How silly would it be to claim that, "whoa! I only wanted Jay Utah to be able to read this web page. All you other people are hacking and stealing and costing me money!!"
Yes, it would be silly, because the purpose of putting a server on the Internet is to serve the Internet.

Similarly, what does it mean to be a wireless access point? It means that a device is listening on a particular frequency. How silly of you to complain when a device that you set up and configured is used for a purpose in accordance with that configuration.
No, because the purpose of putting a WAP in your house is to serve your house. Not your neighbors'.

And, when you say it would be "silly" to accuse someone of accessing your server of hacking, you're presuming they're either retrieving data that you placed on the server or putting data on the server for you. What if, instead, they are using your Internet connection and your server for their own purposes, that have nothing to do with you? Would that not be, in fact, "hacking and stealing and costing [you] money," and is that not, in fact, what happens when somebody else uses your WAP for their own purposes?

The worse thing you can call it is taking advantage of your neighbor's laziness.
If your neighbor's too lazy to lock his car, driving off in it is still stealing.

[Chuck]

If my neighbor is too lazy to lock his car and I drive off with it, he's denied access to his car. If he's too lazy to stop me from using his bandwidth he's not denied access to it because he can take it back at any time.

When someone sets up an unsecure network near me he's actively giving me Internet access. He's using a configuration that specifically allows others to use it. He can disallow it at any time. I see no reason to assume no usage to be the default rule.

[tofu]

No, because the purpose of putting a WAP in your house is to serve your house. Not your neighbors'.

Until you can provide a quote from the RFC that uses the word "house" you aren't going to win this argument.

The purpose of a wireless access point is to provide wireless access. Period. Full stop. The word "house" has nothing to do with it. Your WAP advertises its presence. My computer says, "hi! May I have an IP address?" and your WAP says, "sure! Here you go!"

If you want to invent some additional feature that involves just your house, then I want you to go find that requirement in the RFC. Until you do that, I'm right and you're wrong. A WAP is *exactly* like a web server. It's a machine. When you buy it, you take responsibility to configure it to do whatever you want it to do. If you configure it to allow public access, then it's rather stupid of you to be angry that the public accesses it. It's *exactly* like a web server in that regard.

you're presuming

no I'm not.

What if, instead, they are using your Internet connection and your server for their own purposes, that have nothing to do with you?

Like what, if I use BAUT to pick up chicks?

Bottom line, if you have a web server, and you configure that web server to listen on port 80 on an IP address on the internet, then it's silly of you to say, "WAIT! I ONLY WANTED PEOPLE IN MY HOUSE TO LOOK AT THIS! MOM!!! HE'S LOOKING AT MY WEB PAGE! MAKE HIM STOP!" The government might come along and say that unless you're a teacher, it is illegal for you to look at any web site on a .edu domain. But if I do it anyway that doesn't make it stealing or hacking.

If your neighbor's too lazy to lock his car, driving off in it is still stealing.

That's right it is. But using someone's WAP isn't. Also (because you probably don't know this either) downloading the latest britney spears song isn't stealing. It's copyright violation. It isn't stealing. That doesn't mean it's legal or moral. It just means it isn't stealing.

[jfribrg]

You do realise that if you do not have permission of the person whose network you are hacking into, you may be committing a criminal offence

Well that is the situation in the UK, not sure about the US

I don't know if it has been tested in court, but I would argue the prinicple of implicit consent. Kind of like placing your 50" tv in a bay window and claiming your privacy was violated by people walking by on the sidewalk and stopping to watch. If you don't want people to use it, then secure it. On a modern router, securing a network is trivial. As far as I am concerned, if you didn't secure your router, it is because you want people to use it.

I have no idea if that argument would hold up in court, but it does mean that I connect to unsecure networks whenever I need to and I don't consider it to be illegal or unethical.

BTW, my wireless router at home is secure.

[SeanF]

If my neighbor is too lazy to lock his car and I drive off with it, he's denied access to his car. If he's too lazy to stop me from using his bandwidth he's not denied access to it because he can take it back at any time.
No, he can't. He can start using it, too, but the router will still delegate some of that bandwidth to you.

When someone sets up an unsecure network near me he's actively giving me Internet access. He's using a configuration that specifically allows others to use it. He can disallow it at any time. I see no reason to assume no usage to be the default rule.
No, he's not "actively giving" you access. Go to the store, buy a WAP, take it home, plug it in, turn it on. Is access restricted? No. That's the default setting. He has just not "actively" disabled it.

And that's not even the point. It is wong to enter another person's property without their explicit permission, and them opening the door and/or leaving it open doesn't qualify.

[tofu]

Look, if we're fumbling around looking for an accurate analogy so that we can have this debate without using any technical terms, here's what we need:

1. an analogy that doesn't involve a physical entity like a car. If I take your car, then I have a car and you don't. That's not what's happening here.

2. an analogy that doesn't make reference to property lines, like saying, "if you come into my house." Nobody is trespassing here. I promise you, any electrons that are used are just jiggled. They're not actually coming from outside and going inside.

The facts are:
1. The person with the WAP is advertising something. That little radio is broadcasting outside their house. The advertisement says, "please connect to me" in computer language.

2. The person connecting is using the device in accordance with the rules that the WAP owner has set.

3. It *may* be illegal. Lots of things are illegal. That doesn't mean it's like stealing a car.

4. It is certainly unneighborly, and probably rude. There are lots of things in life that I don't advise you to do. It's rude to stare. That doesn't mean it's necessarily illegal or immoral. I do advise you to put close on before you go outside. If you ignore that advise, don't be surprised if people stare.

[publius]

I don't know if it has been tested in court, but I would argue the prinicple of implicit consent. Kind of like placing your 50" tv in a bay window and claiming your privacy was violated by people walking by on the sidewalk and stopping to watch. If you don't want people to use it, then secure it.

That's what everyone has been talking about. It's not like watching a TV through the open window, it's like getting a remote control and hijacking that TV to change the channel to whatever you want to watch, and even turning it on when you want to, not the owner.


-Richard

[Chuck]

Someone can take back his bandwidth by securing his network. Then I'd have to stop using it. Using someone's network is not entering his property. It's requesting information from it.

[tofu]

He can start using it, too, but the router will still delegate some of that bandwidth to you.

good god man, are you posting through a time portal from the year 1986? It's called QOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service). Any router from Best Buy will do it.

[stutefish]

And that's not even the point. It is wong to enter another person's property without their explicit permission, and them opening the door and/or leaving it open doesn't qualify.
What if their door is secured by a keypad, and they have a sign on the door saying "access controlled by keycode, please take one", and they have a box full of 3x5 cards below the sign, with a valid keycode printed on each?

I mean, as long as we're arguing by analogy and all.

[tofu]

it's like getting a remote control and hijacking that TV

No, it's not. It's like pointing your web browser at a web page. 1000 people can use it all at the same time. If you put a web server on the internet, and someone that you don't know accesses it, that's not hijacking.

[Ara Pacis]

Like what, if I use BAUT to pick up chicks?

Comparing the ladies here to unsecured access somehow seems inappropriate. "But your honor, it was wearing a very revealing IP address." [/satire]

Anyways, I doubt any of the ladies here would date any member who logs onto BAUT by stealing internet access.

[SeanF]

Your WAP advertises its presence. My computer says, "hi! May I have an IP address?" and your WAP says, "sure! Here you go!"
That is not its purpose, that is what does in pursuance of its purpose. Purpose includes an intent, and the WAP doesn't have one of its own.

A person who puts a server on the Internet can be construed to be serving the Internet. A person who puts a WAP in their living room can not be construed to be serving the whole neighborhood.

If you configure it to allow public access, then it's rather stupid of you to be angry that the public accesses it.
That's exactly like saying if you leave your front door standing open, it's stupid to be angry if the public accesses your house. It may be technically true, but the people entering your house are still going to jail.

A door standing open is not a legal invitation to use, whether that door is physical or digital.

[stutefish]

That's exactly like saying if you leave your front door standing open, it's stupid to be angry if the public accesses your house. It may be technically true, but the people entering your house are still going to jail.

A door standing open is not a legal invitation to use, whether that door is physical or digital.
Except of course that a computer is nothing like a house, and the digital "door" isn't really analagous to a physical door at all.

But if you do insist on arguing from analogy, here's one that's closer to the truth of the matter:

A locked door, with a bar code engraved on the front. The bar code may encode access authorization and an access key, or it may encode access prohibition, and no key. Anybody can walk up to the door with a bar code reader, and scan the bar code on the locked door. They will see either a message from the door's owner, granting them access and giving them a key to unlock the door, or they will see a message denying them access. If the bar code grants access, and provides a key, then what?

[tofu]

Comparing the ladies here to unsecured access somehow seems inappropriate.

lol! Shall I compare thee to free internet? Thou art more geeky and awesome.

Seriously though, I wasn't comparing them to unsecured access. Sean said, "what if someone uses the web site for a purpose other than the one I intended." That didn't make any sense to me, so I said, "like picking up chicks"

That is not its purpose

Purpose (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purpose). The purpose of a wireless access point is to provide wireless access. The purpose of a web server is to serve web pages. If I buy and install a WAP, it's silly of me to whine when someone uses it for its intended purpose. If I buy and install a web server, it's silly of me to whine when someone connects to i.

A person who puts a server on the Internet can be construed to be serving the Internet. A person who puts a WAP in their living room can not be construed to be serving the whole neighborhood.

Let me guess, because "they just can't!" you'll say while stomping your feet.

Look, it's exactly the same thing. If you have some argument to make that they aren't the same, then let's hear it.

That's exactly like saying if you leave your front door standing open

No, it's not. Analogies to the physical world simply don't work. Personal space physically occupied by another person is not the same thing as giggling a few electrons on a wire.

A door standing open is not a legal invitation to use, whether that door is physical or digital.

Wrong. If you're going to call this a "digital door" then I'm going back to my totally awesome and debate-winning web server comparison. If I buy a web server and I connect it to the internet, then it has a "door" on port 80. And yes, that door is an invitation for a web browser to connect. And it's just ridiculous to whine when someone connects to it. Even if the government made it illegal, it would still be ridiculous. Similarly, if I buy a WAP, it starts broadcasting a "please connect to me!" signal. It's downright silly of me to complain when someone answers that invitation.

[nauthiz]

The legal terminology is a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

Your neighbor, talking on his phone, as a reasonble expectation of privacy. That no longer holds, however, if he's out in his backyard, talking on the phone loudly, or worse, using a speakerphone, and you're in your backyard, laying in the sun, sipping tea, and taking all of it in.

. . .

On the other hand, the jury's still out on whether or not he has a reasonable expectation of privacy is he's broadcasting in the clear. Personally, I think it's the same as a neighbor talking loudly in his backyard, but some would disagree.

I'm guessing that the courts would be inclined to take the cordless phone example as a relevant precedent since both involve radio communication rather than standing in your backyard talking loudly.

[Veeger]

When my wireless card is detecting my network it also detects my neighbor's network. How dare he send his signal into my apartment, using my electrons to put the name of his network on my computer screen? I wanted to use those electrons for something else.

I used to feel the same way about telephone solicitors and would ask them "What gives you the right to use my telephone to try and sell your wares. For that, I can charge a service fee." They usually hang up at that point.

:lol:

[SeanF]

Except of course that a computer is nothing like a house, and the digital "door" isn't really analagous to a physical door at all.

But if you do insist on arguing from analogy, here's one that's closer to the truth of the matter:

A locked door, with a bar code engraved on the front...
If you've got to go to that unrealistic of an analogy, we've got problems. :)

But, you're right, arguing from analogy is generally problematic, so let's just deal with the basics.

1) Since WAPs generally come preconfigured, plug-and-play, with secure access disabled, it is not reasonable to presume, in the absence of additional information, that any given WAP operating in that mode is being done so with the intention of being open for use by anybody capable of picking up the signal.

2) If you use something that you know belongs to somebody else without obtaining explicit permission to do so, "I don't see where the actual owner was explicitly denying permission" is not a valid defense - the basic rule of private property is that if it ain't yours, you can't use it.

3) Therefore, using somebody else's WAP without their permission is a violation of their private property rights.

That's my take on it, and - so far, at least - nothing in this thread has given me reason to doubt my conclusion.

[mugaliens]

You go with that in court, Chuck. Let me know how it goes.

sabienq, several programs out there allow you to listen, passively, on wireless traffic, without broadcasting a thing. Technically, and legally, it's considered eavesdropping, which came from standing under the eaves while dropping in on a private conversation.

[captain swoop]

I always like to see people trying to justify things they feel guilty about. They know they are doing something wrong but if they can persuade others it's ok they feel better themselves.

[captain swoop]

In the UK if the Police stop and search (reasonable Suspicion or 'Sus' law) and find you have a radio Scanner capable of listening to the Police Bands they can charge you with 'Going Equipped'. Good fun.

[tofu]

2) If you use something that you know belongs to somebody else without obtaining explicit permission to do so

Explicit permission is given by your surrogate, the device. It broadcasts a signal specifically for that purpose. This is even more clear-cut than a web server. The web server is just listening. A WAP actually broadcasts itself. It says, "hello! here I am!" A computer asks for an IP. The device gives it one.

[SeanF]

Explicit permission is given by your surrogate, the device. It broadcasts a signal specifically for that purpose. This is even more clear-cut than a web server. The web server is just listening. A WAP actually broadcasts itself. It says, "hello! here I am!" A computer asks for an IP. The device gives it one.
Nope, not explicit. And this, again, is the problem with your server analogy.

Nobody puts a server on the internet without intending to serve the internet.

People put a WAP in their home intending it for their own use all the time.

That they did not change the default settings on that WAP can not be presumed to give you permission to use it.

[Ara Pacis]

lol! Shall I compare thee to free internet? Thou art more geeky and awesome.

Seriously though, I wasn't comparing them to unsecured access. Sean said, "what if someone uses the web site for a purpose other than the one I intended." That didn't make any sense to me, so I said, "like picking up chicks".

Ah, that wasn't what you meant? So, intent is important afterall. :-P

I think intent is the heart of the matter. If you cannot determine the intent of the WAP owner, then it may be best to assume their intent is not to allow it. If the network name is something like "John's Network", then you can assume it's meant to be private. If it's "John's Network free to anyone" then it may be safe to assume he knows it's open and is allowing access. If it has a default name then it's safe to assume your dealing with a n00b who doesn't know how to restrict access, and therefore shouldn't assume the owner would allow it. Of course, this isn't about legality so much as logic.

[publius]

Let's look at what the law actually does about unauthorized access to personal networks:


It's a felony in Florida:

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

The man illegally accessing the network was charged with a felony and had his laptop confiscated. Right on.


And here's one from Michigan:

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/052307-fine-using-free-wifi.html?t51hb

This guy was even fined for using a public Wifi hotspot from a parked car. Yes, the owners provided wifi, *but for their paying customers inside the premises*, not for any passerby. And he got off easy. It's a felony in Michigan, up to a $10K fine.

It's also a felony in Illinois:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6447.html

So, I think the law is clear. If you access a wireless network without the owner's permission, you are committing a felony in most states of the union. From the last article, it seems that even the NY Times has whined about it, saying it ought to be a "public service". Well, the law does not, and should not, agree.

Let me repeat this to the OP. You are most likely committing a felony.

-Richard

[Ara Pacis]

Explicit permission is given by your surrogate, the device. It broadcasts a signal specifically for that purpose. This is even more clear-cut than a web server. The web server is just listening. A WAP actually broadcasts itself. It says, "hello! here I am!" A computer asks for an IP. The device gives it one.

I'm not sure the electronic device has legal authority to give permission. After all, permission and authorization can mean two different things.

To use a completely different analogy, this reminds me of contract law. A person may sign a contract that waives a certain legal right, however courts often find these clauses to be null with respect to the law since neither you nor the contract holder have the authority to waive those rights.

[Chuck]

You go with that in court, Chuck. Let me know how it goes.
It depends on where I am in the courtroom. If I'm on the jury then that jury won't be convicting.

sabienq, several programs out there allow you to listen, passively, on wireless traffic, without broadcasting a thing. Technically, and legally, it's considered eavesdropping, which came from standing under the eaves while dropping in on a private conversation.

[mugaliens]

Explicit permission is given by your surrogate, the device. It broadcasts a signal specifically for that purpose ... A WAP actually broadcasts itself. It says, "hello! here I am!"

Not mine.

A computer asks for an IP. The device gives it one.

Not without that computer knowing a few things, it doesn't.

[ravens_cry]

Bandwidth is an object. Not a physical object, but an object nonetheless. What I mean is there is only so much of it. If you take, others can't have. If you take an object that you did not pay for, without permission of the person who paid for it, then it is theft. Now if you ask the neighbor if you can use it, and they say yes, fine. You now have permission. Just like asking for a cup of sugar. To continue the analogy, even if they were careless enough to leave the door unlocked and had rooms full of sugar, more then they could ever use alone, that still doesn't make it right to waltz in and take some. Good gods, why are we even having this discussion, does 'thou shalt not steal' mean nothing these days?

[publius]

It's also noteworthy that this is a felony in many states. Look up the "fleeing felon" rules in your state. In some states, deadly force by private citizens is allowable to stop fleeing felons. :lol: (there is a standard of reasonableness, so while I'd love to put some buckshot in the hide of somebody leeching my wifi, it probably wouldn't be considered reasonable, unfortunately).

Oh, and were I on a jury about that particular case, I'd rule it reasonable. Heh, heh. Goes both ways.


-Richard

[stutefish]

1) Since WAPs generally come preconfigured, plug-and-play, with secure access disabled, it is not reasonable to presume, in the absence of additional information, that any given WAP operating in that mode is being done so with the intention of being open for use by anybody capable of picking up the signal.
Fair enough, and on this basis I'm inclined to accept a social convention to the effect that using someone else's WAP without permission is bad manners.

2) If you use something that you know belongs to somebody else without obtaining explicit permission to do so, "I don't see where the actual owner was explicitly denying permission" is not a valid defense - the basic rule of private property is that if it ain't yours, you can't use it.
The thing is, I can print out my router logs, highlight the relevant entries, and say "I do see where the actual owner was explicitly granting permission." And on this basis I'm inclined to accept a social convention to the effect that using someone else's WAP isn't possible without at least implied permission.

3) Therefore, using somebody else's WAP without their permission is a violation of their private property rights.
Depends on how you weight the principles implied in 1) and 2) above. Personally, I figure, people being the way they are, it's reasonable to assume that they have no idea what's actually going on inside their WAP, and that they just sort of blithely take it for granted that because the physical device is inside their house it's part of the same privacy paradigm as their house, and that this entirely predictable human bliss-in-ignorance is in fact a sufficient cause for "reasonable expectation to privacy".

Though I certainly hope that future generations will be much better able to consider computers in terms of computers themselves, and will evolve social customs and pass laws that more accurately reflect the realities and implications of the technology they're using.

[ravens_cry]

While not all bad manners are crimes, and damn well shouldn't be, a lot of crimes can also be considered bad manners. Murder is considered, in my family at least, a severely unfriendly act. Good luck getting invited over for tea and scones after that.

[captain swoop]

Let's look at what the law actually does about unauthorized access to personal networks:


It's a felony in Florida:

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

The man illegally accessing the network was charged with a felony and had his laptop confiscated. Right on.


And here's one from Michigan:

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/052307-fine-using-free-wifi.html?t51hb

This guy was even fined for using a public Wifi hotspot from a parked car. Yes, the owners provided wifi, *but for their paying customers inside the premises*, not for any passerby. And he got off easy. It's a felony in Michigan, up to a $10K fine.

It's also a felony in Illinois:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6447.html

So, I think the law is clear. If you access a wireless network without the owner's permission, you are committing a felony in most states of the union. From the last article, it seems that even the NY Times has whined about it, saying it ought to be a "public service". Well, the law does not, and should not, agree.

Let me repeat this to the OP. You are most likely committing a felony.

-Richard


People have been successfully prosecuted with a Criminal Offence in the UK for sitting in cars and using wireless access without permission.

[Chunky]

i didnt think this thread would reach page 3

[pzkpfw]

We can only hope nobody asks "If I use 0.9999999...% of my neighbours bandwidth am I using all of it?"

[Ara Pacis]

The thing is, I can print out my router logs, highlight the relevant entries, and say "I do see where the actual owner was explicitly granting permission." And on this basis I'm inclined to accept a social convention to the effect that using someone else's WAP isn't possible without at least implied permission.

What's granting permission? The router or the owner? The chain of command isn't him->his server->your computer->you, it's him->you.

[matthewota]

Wireless internet is so new that the laws vary from location to location. In more developed areas of the USA there are entire cities that allow free internet access through their wireless transmitters. Fullerton and Hermosa Beach in California, for example.

Bear in mind too that hooking into somebody else's unsecured internet will allow that person to hack into YOUR computer, too...providing they have the know how.

[Sticks]

Also, turn this around, should someone who is hacking into / piggy backing off of your wifi system access illegal material, such as child porn, the authorities would trace it back to the owner of the wifi, and you could face prosecution.

Which is why you should always secure your wifi


If people did that, then this becomes academic, as only authorised people have access.

[tofu]

Nope, not explicit. And this, again, is the problem with your server analogy.

It is NOT an analogy. Both a web server and your linksys are servers. That's not an analogy. They're the same thing. They're equal. You have no answer for this argument.

Sure, maybe the law makes it a felony to access one and OK to access the other. That doesn't make it stealing. Nor does it make it morally wrong. Where I live, the law says it's illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday. That doesn't mean that doing so is murder.

This thing:
http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:f8rRhOrbADJFpM:http://www.sputnik.com/images/linksys-wrt54.gif

Is a server and the service it offers is wireless internet. It advertises itself by broadcasting an SAN. Your computer asks it for an IP, and it gives one out - oh look! it's also a DHCP server!

Accessing it may be illegal. It may also be illegal to marry outside your race. That's completely irrelevant to the question at hand. The question is, is it stealing to connect to a server. The answer is no.

People put a WAP in their home intending it for their own use all the time.

Ignorance of technology is not my problem. The fact is, it's a server, exactly like a web server. It is neither stealing nor hacking to access that server.

That they did not change the default settings on that WAP can not be presumed to give you permission to use it.

Tell me, who gave you permission to access bautforum.com? You pointed your web browser to this address. Your browser looked up an IP address. Your browser sent an HTTP request to port 80. The web server responded. The response of the web server is your permission. If they were to whine about how you hacked into BAUT or stole their bandwidth, we'd all have a good laugh.

[pzkpfw]

Intent comes into it.

There are "green bikes" that some cities place unlocked around the place. The intent is clearly to let anyone choose to take one and ride across the city on it.

Leaving a car unlocked may be stupid, but that isn't an invitation to take it.

(Analogies only go so far, as different situations are, well, different. How about another: two boxers are not arrested for fighting in the ring, but if one were to punch some person on the street, s/he'd be arrested. Is the difference the intent or agreement between the boxers that they may punch each other?)

BAUT is clearly intended to be publically acessible.

Hoping on someone elses (home wireless access point) server, when they don't intend you to, because they were silly/uneducated/... enough to leave it accessible ... is still wrong; and I'd call it theft.

I think the only valid defence would be if you could prove you were not aware you were doing it - i.e. as clueless as the person who left the router open.

(Whether is it is "illegal", but not specifically "theft", seems to miss the point.)

I think it's similar in some ways to illegal downloading of music:
1: The technology makes it so easy, it's easy to overlook that it's theft.
2: It appears to be a victimless crime, so it's easy to rationalise as not theft.

[hhEb09'1]

Accessing it may be illegal. It may also be illegal to marry outside your race. That's completely irrelevant to the question at hand. The question is, is it stealing to connect to a server. The answer is no.The reason it is (sometimes?) illegal is that someone somewhere made an argument that it was stealing, probably, so the answer is not unambiguously "no"
Ignorance of technology is not my problem. The fact is, it's a server, exactly like a web server. It is neither stealing nor hacking to access that server.Depends on location. Were I inside the NSA and plugging in, yeah, I'd be in trouble. :)Tell me, who gave you permission to access bautforum.com? You pointed your web browser to this address. Your browser looked up an IP address. Your browser sent an HTTP request to port 80. The web server responded. The response of the web server is your permission. If they were to whine about how you hacked into BAUT or stole their bandwidth, we'd all have a good laugh.The BA and Fraser have certainly given explicit general invitations to access bautforum.com, so it's not the same thing at all. Webpages in general are not always so explicit, true, but there certainly is more of an invitation than from my neighbors's wifi

[pzkpfw]

Covet not thy neighbours wifi.

[captain swoop]

Accessing it may be illegal. It may also be illegal to marry outside your race. That's completely irrelevant to the question at hand. The question is, is it stealing to connect to a server. The answer is no.

Ignorance of technology is not my problem. The fact is, it's a server, exactly like a web server. It is neither stealing nor hacking to access that server.

Tell me, who gave you permission to access bautforum.com? You pointed your web browser to this address. Your browser looked up an IP address. Your browser sent an HTTP request to port 80. The web server responded. The response of the web server is your permission. If they were to whine about how you hacked into BAUT or stole their bandwidth, we'd all have a good laugh.
/
Keep saying it long enough you might convince yourself.

This thread is remarkably similar to a recent thread on hacking into online ScienScience Journals.

If you want to steal someopne elses Wifi connection you get on with it but don't expect to convince everyone that it isn't stealing. If you are happy with it and have resolved it in your own mind then good for you.

[HenrikOlsen]

Wireless internet is so new that the laws vary from location to location. In more developed areas of the USA there are entire cities that allow free internet access through their wireless transmitters. Fullerton and Hermosa Beach in California, for example.
My bold. These are places where the access is explicitly granted, probably because bandwidth is paid for by forcing the users to look at ads for local businesses, so are utterly irrelevant to the legality of using someone's unsecured router.

If you're using a resource they paid for without their permission it's theft.

The smelling flowers analogy is invalid, since there's nothing in it to take the role of the used bandwidth from the internet connection.

[SeanF]

Ignorance of technology is not my problem.
In a case like this it is, and this really is the crux of the debate, isn't it? What you are saying is that if somebody else is dumber than you are, it's okay for you to take advantage of their lack of intelligence. That is exactly why we have laws in the first place - society protects those individuals who are either not capable or not bright enough to protect themselves.

Tell me, who gave you permission to access bautforum.com?
Again, the explicit actions which must have been taken in order to put a webserver on the internet are enough to indicate approval. The same actions are not necessary in order for a WAP to be physically "available," so that does not indicate approval.

One cannot be a functioning member of society, if unwilling to grant due consideration to others. The attitude that it's okay to take something if the owner didn't sufficiently protect it is dangerous.

[HenrikOlsen]

Tell me, who gave you permission to access bautforum.com?
Phil and Fraser did, by putting it on a public web server and pointing the dns record for the name bautforum.com at it, and mentioning it on their web pages and by stating that you can use it in the terms of service.

None of those actions have equivalents to running an unsecured wi-fi router.

[Neverfly]

If there's a breakthrough in Wireless power (Beaming electricity to appliances without wires) is it then OK to steal electricity?

What about satellite tv?

If you come across an old building that looks abandoned, can you just go in and move your things into it and set up shop?

What about a car on the side of the freeway- it's abandoned right?

[tofu]

Keep saying it long enough you might convince yourself.

I'm right, and I'll keep saying it until someone makes a reasonable argument in opposition.

If I buy a machine that performs a certain task, and I configure that machine in such a way that people can access it, I have no one to blame but myself. When people access that machine, they are not stealing - it's nothing at all like stealing.

This is true whether the machine is a WAP or a web server. And yeah, I will keep saying it, because it makes so much sense, it's just obviously true.

What you are saying is that if somebody else is dumber than you are, it's okay for you to take advantage of their lack of intelligence.

Actually, if you read all of my posts carefully, you'll see that right from the start, I said you *shouldn't* take advantage.

But I also said that taking advantage of them ISN'T STEALING nor is it hacking. It's just that, taking advantage of.

society protects those individuals who are either not capable or not bright enough to protect themselves.

That's not a proper role of government. What you just described is called "mommy." The closest proper role of government to what you've described is contract enforcement.

Again, the explicit actions which must have been taken in order to put a webserver on the internet are enough to indicate approval. The same actions are not necessary in order for a WAP to be physically "available," so that does not indicate approval.

OK, you tell me if these actions indicate approval:
1. I buy a machine - a little black box.
2. I read the documentation for that machine, and I see that it's purpose is to allow public access to something.
3. I plug it into a power source and an ethernet network.
4. I log into that machine via a web browser and I perform some configuration.

Now according to your logic, you should be able to tell from those explicit actions what my intent is. Well, I'm calling you out. What was my intent?

One cannot be a functioning member of society, if unwilling to grant due consideration to others.
Sure, I agree.

The attitude that it's okay to take something if the owner didn't sufficiently protect it is dangerous.

What's wrong here is your insistence on using words like stealing and taking. You know what else is wrong? Staring. It's impolite. That doesn't mean I get to label it rape. If someone corrects me for that incorrect use of the word rape, I might (if I was you) respond this way:

"Once cannot be a functioning member of society, if unwilling to grant due consideration to others (by avoiding the impulse to stare). The attitude that it's okay to rape someone just because they are dressed provocatively is dangerous!"

Connecting to a WAP may be illegal. Maybe it makes you naughty and you wont get any presents from Santa. But it's not stealing. It's not hacking.

[tofu]

Phil and Fraser did, by putting it on a public web server and pointing the dns record for the name bautforum.com at it, and mentioning it on their web pages and by stating that you can use it in the terms of service.

None of those actions have equivalents to running an unsecured wi-fi router.

public web server = public wifi
pointing dns record = assigning a SAN and setting it to broadcast
terms of service = quality of service setting

That doesn't mean it's legal or moral, it just means that you don't have a logical leg to stand on. There are two actions which are essentially equivalent. You picked one of those actions and labeled it stealing because you didn't fully understand it, and because you have a huge giant bleeding heart and feel sorry for people. Then I came along and mentioned the other action, a web browser, and you had a choice to make - you could say, "oh crap, he's right" or you do some mental gymnastics in order to keep your worldview consistent without changing anything. Most people choose the gymnastics. I'm not at all surprised.

Anyway, a server is a server is a server. If you hook one up, guess what it does.

[HenrikOlsen]

OK, you tell me if these actions indicate approval:
1. I buy a machine - a little black box.
2. I read the documentation for that machine, and I see that it's purpose is to allow public access to something.
3. I plug it into a power source and an ethernet network.
4. I log into that machine via a web browser and I perform some configuration.

Now according to your logic, you should be able to tell from those explicit actions what my intent is. Well, I'm calling you out. What was my intent?
My bold. Please show an example of documentation that states it's intended for public access.

Lets try again:
1. I buy a machine - a little black box.
2. I buy it because everyone tells me that will let me use my internet without needing wires.
3. I plug it into a power source and an ethernet network.
4. I log into that machine via a web browser and I perform some configuration.

Which action indicates that I'm allowing you to use my internet connection?

[Nicolas]

If anyone would use my Wifi, they'd be stealing my monthly bandwidth limit (I can only DL 4 GB per month). An unsecured network popping up in your list of wireless networks doesn't tell you whether or not it has a monthly limit. And that alone is reason enough not to assume it's ok to use somebody else's wireless network, whether it's illegal or not. You may be causing harm to that person. You would in my case.

[SeanF]

If I buy a machine that performs a certain task, and I configure that machine in such a way that people can access it, I have no one to blame but myself. When people access that machine, they are not stealing - it's nothing at all like stealing.
Yes, they are. It's exactly like stealing.

That's not a proper role of government. What you just described is called "mommy." The closest proper role of government to what you've described is contract enforcement.
No, it's the role of society, which is done by government.

2. I read the documentation for that machine, and I see that it's purpose is to allow public access to something.
As Henrik said, I don't think you'll find "public access" as the purpose anywhere in the documentation. "Wireless access," probably.

4. I log into that machine via a web browser and I perform some configuration.
If the standard were that unsecured access required some configuration, you would have a better argument. But the fact is that most of the unsecured wi-fi access points you find in a residential neighborhood were set up with the owner doing no configuration at all - plug and play.

Now according to your logic, you should be able to tell from those explicit actions what my intent is. Well, I'm calling you out. What was my intent?
No, my logic is that I can't tell what your intent is, because the unsecured access is the default. I would argue that if the wi-fi is secured, then I can conclude that your intent was to deny permission. But if you left it at the default setting, I have no idea what your intent was - and it would be wrong of me to assume.

What's wrong here is your insistence on using words like stealing and taking.
If you're going to acknowledge that using someone else's wi-fi without their permission ought to be illegal, we can stop right now. But if you're going to argue with that, then don't pretend that you're just arguing with the use of the word "stealing."

[tofu]

My bold. Please show an example of documentation that states it's intended for public access.

Lets try again:
1. I buy a machine - a little black box.
2. I buy it because everyone tells me that will let me use my internet without needing wires.
3. I plug it into a power source and an ethernet network.
4. I log into that machine via a web browser and I perform some configuration.

Which action indicates that I'm allowing you to use my internet connection?

I reject your change to bullet two because there's no way for me to know what people told you. I can only know what I can see through my computer.

1. I see a server, so I know there's a little black box.
2. I know that the purpose of those little boxes is to provide access to something.
3. I see that it is connected to a network.
4. I see that it is configured for public access.

If you all weren't emotionally invested in this discussion, you'd see that this chain of events applies to either a WAP or a web server - meaning I'm right and you're wrong. But because you're emotionally invested, your brain is doing that thing that our brains are so incredibly good at: it's contriving a difference in order to preserve your world view. Happens all the time, and is as old as religion.

[HenrikOlsen]

So you concede that there's a difference between a purpose of "providing public assess" and one of "providing access"?

And what you can see from your computer is that it's someone who hasn't read the manual :)
Which doesn't tell you that they want you to use it.

[SeanF]

I reject your change to bullet two because there's no way for me to know what people told you. I can only know what I can see through my computer.

1. I see a server, so I know there's a little black box.
2. I know that the purpose of those little boxes is to provide access to something.
3. I see that it is connected to a network.
4. I see that it is configured for public access.

If you all weren't emotionally invested in this discussion, you'd see that this chain of events applies to either a WAP or a web server - meaning I'm right and you're wrong. But because you're emotionally invested, your brain is doing that thing that our brains are so incredibly good at: it's contriving a difference in order to preserve your world view. Happens all the time, and is as old as religion.
Nope.

You see a door. You see that the door is standing open. You see that there's stuff on the other side of the door.

Can you walk in?

It depends. What is the door connected to, a business or a private residence? Even if it's a business, is it reasonable business hours? Are the lights on inside? In other words, whether the owner of that property thinks it's okay for me to walk through is determined by an understanding of how the world in general works, not simple sophistry that it's a door and it's open.

So, you are wrong that it's the same whether it's a WAP or a Server. Yes, they both provide access to something, and in both cases that access is open, but there's more to it than that.

We don't even need to limit it to WAPs versus something-other-than-WAPs. If I'm sitting in a Taco John's and my laptop shows an unsecured wi-fi connection named "tacojohn," I'd be comfortable connecting. If I'm sitting at home and my laptop shows an unsecured wi-fi connection named "linksys" (and it's not my own!), I'm not. To suggest there's no reasonable difference between the two situations strikes me as untenable.

And, I think, it is not Henrik or I who is trying to emotionally rationalize something.

And what you can see from your computer is that it's someone who hasn't read the manual :)
Actually, you can't even see that. You don't know whether they read the manual or not, which is kind of the whole point. :)

And I find it interesting that tofu objected to your "I buy it because everyone tells me that will let me use my internet without needing wires" on the grounds that "there's no way for [him] to know what people told you," but his original scenario included both "I read the manual" and "I perform some configuration," even though there's no way for anybody accessing the WAP to know either of those happened.

[Tinaa]

If you don't consider it stealing from the person, you are certainly stealing from the provider. You are getting service without paying. Just like stealing cable service.

[Chuck]

The owner of the wireless network is paying the provider so the provider is not being robbed unless the network owner agreed to not provide public access, in which case the network owner is robbing the provider.

[hhEb09'1]

The owner of the wireless network is paying the provider so the provider is not being robbed unless the network owner agreed to not provide public access, in which case the network owner is robbing the provider.And then the guy in the street is robbing the network owner, right? No honor amongst thieves...

Argghh! I couldn't help myself.

[Tinaa]

I disagree. Here's a link to my cable company explaining theft of services. http://www.timewarnercable.com/corporate/customerservice/cabletheftaffects.html

Types of theft:
http://www.timewarnercable.com/corporate/customerservice/cablethefttypes.html

Seems not securing your service is also theft because you are allowing others to get free service.

[bunker9603]

You can learn a lot about people's character from reading these posts.

[captain swoop]

It seems that a lot of Juristictions think it's stealing, apart from a whole list of States in the USA it's stealing in the whole of the UK if permission hasn't been given and theres case law to prove it.

[bunker9603]

Several examples are given on what can happen if somone "Taps" into your network:

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/State/Wi_Fi_cloaks_a_new_br.shtml


That's still the case with Wi-Fi but if a criminal taps into a network, his actions would lead to the owner of that network. By the time authorities show up to investigate, the hacker would be gone.

"Anything they do traces back to your house and chances are we're going to knock on your door," Breeden said.


This addresses laws from different countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Piggybacking

[captain swoop]

There have been a string of cases in the UK recently with people getting demands for payments for pirated films and music. Pay up or we take you to court. The yare tracing people by their IP addresses etc, the common factor is wireless routers.

[geonuc]

I'm right, and I'll keep saying it until someone makes a reasonable argument in opposition.
This is a long thread and maybe someone has already mentioned this. I know publius linked to a non-legal source.

tofu, you live in Florida. Section 815.06 of the Florida statutes say unauthorized access of a computer network is a third degree felony. Is that a reasonable argument?

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0815/SEC06.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0815->Section%2006#0815.06

[hhEb09'1]

I disagree. Here's a link to my cable company explaining theft of services. http://www.timewarnercable.com/corporate/customerservice/cabletheftaffects.html

Types of theft:
http://www.timewarnercable.com/corporate/customerservice/cablethefttypes.html

Seems not securing your service is also theft because you are allowing others to get free service.I read both webpages at those two links and I think the interpretation is ambiguous, if not the opposite:WiFi Theft - WiFi theft occurs when someone installs a wireless network in a residence or business location and intentionally enables others to receive broadband service for free over their wireless network. The key word there is "intentionally," if it were just a matter of having an unsecured service, that word would not be necessary.

Under the heading "Assisting Others to Steal Cable is Illegal" it says promoting the free use of one's wireless broadband networkUnder the next sub-heading Primary Theft, they sayIt can also involve surreptitiously using someone else's wireless network to gain access to the InternetSo, it looks like they haven't quite crossed the line to accusing the owner of an unsecured wireless of criminal negligence, yet. :)

We should ask ourselves, why haven't they??Time Warner Cable pays franchise fees to operate in your area. Those payments go directly into your local community and can be used for parks, schools or additional police or firemen. When people steal cable services, no franchise fees are paid on those services. Ah, there it is, it's about children, and safety, safety for our children. By not providing the encoding themselves, the cable company is able to sell a cheaper product, but if they were to assert that their customers were guilty of theft by neglect, that would redound to their own situation, and they're not ready for that, yet. I give them four years. :)

[ravens_cry]

There is only a limited amount of bandwidth. And if your not the one paying for it, and if your taking it without permission, then your stealing it. People can borrow other peoples cars, with permission from (and this is the important bit) the owner of the car. If the car is unlocked and has it's keys inside, the car itself has given you access, but that doesn't mean the owner has. Should this be a crime on the level of murder? No. Should it be a crime on the level of stealing a car? No. I don't even think it should be a felony. But I do think it is very wrong. It is both theft and an invasion of privacy. Yes, it is foolish to leave ones WiFi unsecured if one doesn't want this to happen, but then, it is also foolish for one to leave ones keys in ones car. How does that make it right to steal it? Now, maybe the neighbor doesn't mind, or is actively sharing it. Fine. Maybe someone is leaving cars around for people to use whenever. But find out. Ask your neighbor, and if they, not the machine, grant permission, then good. Then you are not stealing it, any more then borrowing a car with permission is theft. But permission comes from an agreement, not from a machines default settings. Even on most public forums you can't post automatically, and on some you can't even read automatically. You have to set up an account, come to an agreement.
I am sorry, but I don't see how the opposite position can be considered morally or ethically tenable, especially considering we are talking about a limited resource here.

[Tinaa]

Ah yes, we must think of the children.

So what is the conclusion? Is it stealing when one uses some one else's services?

[geonuc]

So what is the conclusion? Is it stealing when one uses some one else's services?
See my post #122. it definitely is in Florida.

[Fazor]

For what it's worth; I think it's stealing. At the same time, it floors me how many people don't know any better and set up completely unsecured networks.

I bought a wireless router when my g/f got a laptop (until that point, I only had one computer thus no need for wireless). When I went to set it up and searched for signals, it suprised me that in our small little neighborhood, about 7 connections were found. Out of those, three had no protection what so ever.

Mine's not locked down like the Pentagon by anymeans, but I at least have a password and use some encryption. *shrug*

[mugaliens]

Wireless internet is so new that the laws vary from location to location.

While the technology is new, the principle has been around for years. Water wells are but one analogy. Land/hunting/grazing rights are another.

In more developed areas of the USA there are entire cities that allow free internet access through their wireless transmitters.

The correct term is "providing." They are "providing" access. As previously mentioned, intent is everything.

Fullerton and Hermosa Beach in California, for example.

Bear in mind too that hooking into somebody else's unsecured internet will allow that person to hack into YOUR computer, too...providing they have the know how.

Not if my computer is secured, they won't, know-how or not.

This thing:
http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:f8rRhOrbADJFpM:http://www.sputnik.com/images/linksys-wrt54.gif

Is a server and the service it offers is wireless internet.

Mine doesn't.

It advertises itself by broadcasting an SAN.

That's "SSID," not "SAN," and mine doesn't.

Your computer asks it for an IP, and it gives one out - oh look! it's also a DHCP server!

Mine does, but only for authenticated users.

Accessing it may be illegal. It may also be illegal to marry outside your race.

:confused:

That's completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

What was completely irrelevant, period.

The question is, is it stealing to connect to a server. The answer is no.

Your answer is wrong. The answer is, "it depends," and the rule of law (that's that funny thing in our society which defines whether something is legal or not) considers intent.

Ignorance of technology is not my problem.

Your problem isn't ignorance of technology. Youre problem is ignorance of the law, and like the proverb says, "that is no excuse."

Covet not thy neighbours wifi.

Leave it to God to both think of everything, and have a sense of humor, to boot!

I'm right, and I'll keep saying it until someone makes a reasonable argument in opposition.

If I buy a machine that performs a certain task, and I configure that machine in such a way that people can access it, I have no one to blame but myself.

Your yard is configured in such a way that people can access it, and when they do, it's illegal, aka "against the law," as that is tresspassing.

That's not a proper role of government.

Safeguarding it's citizens against the leeches of society who would, to use your terminology, "take advantage" of them is now "not a proper role of the government." Well, that's your third strike. First, you flubbed the technology test (corrections, above). Then you flubbed the legal test (corrections, above). Now you're flubbing the social sciences test.

He's ooouuuttt!!!

Ok - one more:

Connecting to a WAP may be illegal. Maybe it makes you naughty and you wont get any presents from Santa. But it's not stealing. It's not hacking.

I'm so glad you're conceding the possiblity that it may be illegal. Thanks.

But if it's not stealing, what's your purpose? To look at your connection message and go, "Oooh! Ahhhh!" ? Gimme a break...

Let's go back to the lawn analogy:

Look at lawns = Observe available wireless networks = legal

Walk onto a lawn = Connect to a wireless network = trespassing

Use the lawn (sunbath, perhaps carry buckets of water away from the well) = Use bandwidth = stealing

I reject your change to bullet two because there's no way for me to know what people told you. I can only know what I can see through my computer.

1. I see a server, so I know there's a little black box.
2. I know that the purpose of those little boxes is to provide access to something.
3. I see that it is connected to a network.
4. I see that it is configured for public access.

Let's revisit the lawn/well analogy. They meet all those definitions, too, but you know better than to camp out on someone else's lawn and/or divert water from their well. Yet you claim "there's no way for [you] to know what people told [you]?"

Do you camp out and steal from wells until someone adds mass to your anatomy that rhymes with mass? Might you think it prudent for you to ring the doorbell, and at least ask? Does your common sense at least go that far? If they said, "no," would you do it anyway, because it's "not stealing?"

Please! Don't even begin to answer that one, as you're so caught red-handed....

...your brain is doing that thing that our brains are so incredibly good at: it's contriving a difference in order to preserve your world view.

What was that baby movie with John Travolta and Kirstie Alley?

[ravens_cry]

See my post #122. it definitely is in Florida.
There is a slight difference between stealing cable and stealing Wi-Fi Internet. In the former, your taking a service without paying for it, but it doesn't affect the person who is. In the latter, the customer is more affected. After all, you paid for a certain amount of bandwidth, and I say you should, if you so wish, distribute that as you like, within the amount you have paid for. Just like both you and a friend can both use a car and drive in total so many miles on a single tank of gas. It doesn't matter who uses it, that tank of gas is going to be used up. Bandwdth is like a tank of gas, it is a limited resource and I think you should be allowed to share it, if you so desire. The important part is IF.

[geonuc]

There is a slight difference between stealing cable and stealing Wi-Fi Internet.
I was responding to Tinaa's question. I assumed the subject matter was internet access. Stealing cable is also most likely illegal, although I haven't taken the time to look up any statutes.

[Tinaa]

There is a slight difference between stealing cable and stealing Wi-Fi Internet. In the former, your taking a service without paying for it, but it doesn't affect the person who is. In the latter, the customer is more affected. After all, you paid for a certain amount of bandwidth, and I say you should, if you so wish, distribute that as you like, within the amount you have paid for. Just like both you and a friend can both use a car and drive in total so many miles on a single tank of gas. It doesn't matter who uses it, that tank of gas is going to be used up. Bandwdth is like a tank of gas, it is a limited resource and I think you should be allowed to share it, if you so desire. The important part is IF.

Who ever paid for the car, the insurance, the maintenance and gas gets to decide.

Theft is theft no matter how you pretty it up.

[ravens_cry]

I was responding to Tinaa's question. I assumed the subject matter was internet access. Stealing cable is also most likely illegal, although I haven't taken the time to look up any statutes.
My apologies. I should have read more closely.

[nauthiz]

So what is the conclusion? Is it stealing when one uses some one else's services?

I tend to use the term "poaching" just to avoid reactions to the connotations of the word stealing. Also, I don't personally see a whole lot of reason to get worked up about certain examples, like if someone's iPhone sees an unsecured network in range and automatically switches to it. Connecting to your neighbor's wireless network to get free Internet, on the other hand, is something that I don't like for the same reason I'm not a fan of horking cable TV.

[Fazor]

Connecting to your neighbor's wireless network to get free Internet, on the other hand, is something that I don't like for the same reason I'm not a fan of horking cable TV.
I'm not a fan of it 'caus if I'm playing my Warhammer, I don't want to lag out because I'm out of bandwidth. :) But there again, I'm at least smart enough to have a password. My networks not bulletproof, but it's not just out there screaming "Use me! Use me!" either.

[ravens_cry]

Who ever paid for the car, the insurance, the maintenance and gas gets to decide.

Theft is theft no matter how you pretty it up.
I agree.v I am not prettying up theft. I am just saying that IF the person who paid for the car or paid for the Internet personally allows it, by explicitly giving permission themselves, not just the machine, be it server or car, then yes, it should be allowable. Just like borrowing a car, with permission of the owner. We actually agree, believe it or not.

[Tinaa]

I believe it. I have a wireless router because I have several teenagers and they all need access. I pay for the service so that they can all access the internet from different parts of the house. I don't want my neighbors to have free access though.

[nauthiz]

I agree.v I am not prettying up theft. I am just saying that IF the person who paid for the car or paid for the Internet personally allows it, by explicitly giving permission themselves, not just the machine, be it server or car, then yes, it should be allowable. Just like borrowing a car, with permission of the owner. We actually agree, believe it or not.

Though in the case of internet access there's the caveat that the person doesn't actually own the Internet, they're using a service that's owned by someone else. They're most likely bound by a terms of service agreement does not allow them to give everyone permission to use their internet service.

[Fazor]

Though in the case of internet access there's the caveat that the person doesn't actually own the Internet, they're using a service that's owned by someone else. They're most likely bound by a terms of service agreement does not allow them to give everyone permission to use their internet service.

I've never read my contract that closely, but honestly I barely say "hi" to my neighbors--Im not about to pay for their internet access. :)

[ravens_cry]

Though in the case of internet access there's the caveat that the person doesn't actually own the Internet, they're using a service that's owned by someone else. They're most likely bound by a terms of service agreement does not allow them to give everyone permission to use their internet service.
Now, THAT, that I think is wrong. It may be legal, but it's wrong. You paid for bandwidth, you only get so much, you should be allowed to use it as you see fit. If you want more, you pay for more. That means the company still get paid for the use. Anything else is just greed.

[geonuc]

My apologies. I should have read more closely.
No problem. :)

I agree.v I am not prettying up theft. I am just saying that IF the person who paid for the car or paid for the Internet personally allows it, by explicitly giving permission themselves, not just the machine, be it server or car, then yes, it should be allowable. Just like borrowing a car, with permission of the owner. We actually agree, believe it or not.

Don't forget that there is a contract involved, too. If your internet provider forbids you to share it out, you are violating the contract by doing so.

[Fazor]

Now, THAT, that I think is wrong. It may be legal, but it's wrong. You paid for bandwidth, you only get so much, you should be allowed to use it as you see fit. If you want more, you pay for more. That means the company still get paid for the use. Anything else is just greed.

*Shrug* I don't know, depends on how you look at it. Instead of a person like myself buying it and sharing it with a few neighbors, what if I'm a cafe owner and I pay for regular internet and let all my customers use it? That's attracting business for me. Is it *that* greedy for the service provider to want more money since more people are utilizing it?

Kinda in the same vein that theaters are charged much more for films than you or I when buying them on dvd. Notice, I didn't say "exactly the same", but similar idea.

What it comes down to is they provide a service, and have terms and conditions if you want that service. If you don't agree to the conditions (which is well within your rights), you simply do not get that service.

So, would it be "greedy" for a provider to provide stipulations on how you share your service? In my opinion, no.

[BioSci]

Now, THAT, that I think is wrong. It may be legal, but it's wrong. You paid for bandwidth, you only get so much, you should be allowed to use it as you see fit. If you want more, you pay for more. That means the company still get paid for the use. Anything else is just greed.

Well, no... residential users pay under a contract for residential uses with whatever stipulated restrictions - if one wants to provide wider access, then they should sign a different contract with the supplier that anticipates such uses and is priced accordingly...

[ravens_cry]

No problem. :)



Don't forget that there is a contract involved, too. If your internet provider forbids you to share it out, you are violating the contract by doing so.
In that case, yes, I guess it is a violation of a contract. But I think such a contract is wrong. If your paying for it, and as long as your paying for the bandwidth. It isn't free internet, the person who owns the service is paying for it, and if they don't mind other people getting something they are paying for, wheres the bad? It's like not been allowed to lend to a friend a leased car.
edit: By 'wrong' I mean I think it isn't right, rather then being incorrect.

[SeanF]

I'm suddenly having flashbacks to a thread about a church and the superbowl...

[ravens_cry]

*Shrug* I don't know, depends on how you look at it. Instead of a person like myself buying it and sharing it with a few neighbors, what if I'm a cafe owner and I pay for regular internet and let all my customers use it? That's attracting business for me. Is it *that* greedy for the service provider to want more money since more people are utilizing it?

What it comes down to is they provide a service, and have terms and conditions if you want that service. If you don't agree to the conditions (which is well within your rights), you simply do not get that service.

So, would it be "greedy" for a provider to provide stipulations on how you share your service? In my opinion, no.
They would get more money because the amount of bandwidth is the cost to the company. If your cafe gives out 'free' internet to customers, the cafe owner is still paying for it. And if the amount of bandwidth goes up, the amount he pays should go up. If a residential user decides to give away 'free' internet to his apartment complex, he is still paying for it, so the ISP is still getting paid for the service provided. If it goes over, the bill will go up. Someone is still paying for the service provided at the rate set. To ask for more then that is what I call greedy.

[Fazor]

To ask for more then that is what I call greedy.
:) Then don't sign a contract with a company that stipulates that kind of use. I'm not saying I agree or disagree; but it's certianly within a company's rights to limit use to the household paying for the service.

[ravens_cry]

To ask for more then that is what I call greedy.
:) Then don't sign a contract with a company that stipulates that kind of use. I'm not saying I agree or disagree; but it's certianly within a company's rights to limit use to the household paying for the service.
Just because they have a right, doesn't make it right. And if I get wireless internet network set up, something I don't at the moment as I only have one computer, I will see about getting such a contract. I know this is a lame argument, but I think it's only fair that you should be allowed to share a resource you are paying for, if you pay a fair price for it. Now, if say you had a flat rate for unlimited use, then yes, I would say such a stipulation of only within your house hold would be fair for both parties.

[nauthiz]

Now, THAT, that I think is wrong. It may be legal, but it's wrong. You paid for bandwidth, you only get so much, you should be allowed to use it as you see fit. If you want more, you pay for more. That means the company still get paid for the use. Anything else is just greed.

Fair enough. Luckily for the ISP, nobody ever reads contracts before signing them. So they can put terms like that in there without ever having to worry about anyone seeing it and deciding to go with Other Company who doesn't impose restrictions like that.

Though I don't think it's entirely greedy. I can see where they might be worried about stuff like landlords sharing their personal internet access with all their tenants. The language could be a reflection of that.

[nauthiz]

Now, if say you had a flat rate for unlimited use, then yes, I would say such a stipulation of only within your house hold would be fair for both parties.

I don't know about how internet access is priced in your neighborhood, but everyone I know is paying a flat rate for unlimited use. So maybe everything I'm saying doesn't apply in your case.

If the contract were paying a certain price for a certain amount of data transferred, yeah, I would have more of a problem with restricting open access. But I think the ISP wouldn't impose sharing restrictions on that kind of plan, either, since that would open up a great opportunity for them to stick you with a huge bill when your neighbor starts downloading movies with your internet connection.

[captain swoop]

I tend to use the term "poaching" just to avoid reactions to the connotations of the word stealing

Poaching as in stealing game and fish from someone else property? They used to hang you for that in England.

[nauthiz]

Poaching as in stealing game and fish from someone else property? They used to hang you for that in England.

Yup. But for whatever reason people don't get as defensive when I use that word instead of 'stealing'.

[Fazor]

Yup. But for whatever reason people don't get as defensive when I use that word instead of 'stealing'.
Maybe they're like me and zone out while daydreaming about one of the tastiest ways to prepaire eggs. Mmm... poached eggs over an english muffin... *drools*

[ravens_cry]

Maybe they're like me and zone out while daydreaming about one of the tastiest ways to prepaire eggs. Mmm... poached eggs over an english muffin... *drools*
I prefer eggs over easy myself. You know that golden crust you get when you fry an egg? I love that. And with eggs over easy, you get it on both sides. The hard part is making sure the yolk doesn't break or completely solidify. Hmm, liquid yolk, creamy golden goodness. "drool, drool."

[Fazor]

"sunny side up" or "over easy" are my two favorites. But poached is up there. I'm not a fan of scrambled eggs or omlettes.

[ravens_cry]

"sunny side up" or "over easy" are my two favorites. But poached is up there. I'm not a fan of scrambled eggs or omlettes.
I agree, that is just cruel and unnatural thing to do to an egg. I do like quich though, or at least the way I make it, which is technically a Alsacienne. But there is so much other stuff stuffed in a quiche, eggs are more an ingredient, the same way we don't call eating a cake eating flour.

[BetaDust]

If anyone would use my Wifi, they'd be stealing my monthly bandwidth limit (I can only DL 4 GB per month). An unsecured network popping up in your list of wireless networks doesn't tell you whether or not it has a monthly limit. And that alone is reason enough not to assume it's ok to use somebody else's wireless network, whether it's illegal or not. You may be causing harm to that person. You would in my case.

Bold mine.
Yes. I completely agree with Nicolas on this.

If someone is on a monthly bandwidth limit, Unauthorized use,
of the owner's WAP, could result in serious financial cost, to the owner of the WAP.


--Dennis

[Nicolas]

That said, my wifi has some basic security. Quite noticeable, as I regularly get messages that an anonymous user with IP bla.bla.bla.bla is trying to access my preccccioussss and will be kicked automatically in 5 4 3 2 1

[SeanF]

If someone is on a my monthly bandwidth limit, Unauthorized use, of the owner's WAP, could result in serious financial cost, to the owner of the WAP.
Yes, but it's worth pointing out that when you access somebody else's internet, you don't know whether or not they're on a bandwidth limit. So it's wrong in general to access without permission, not just if they are on a limit.

And if they are unlimited, "sharing" their internet access is like "sharing" somebody else's "All you can eat" purchase at a buffet restaurant. It ain't right.

And it's kind of interesting that so much of the focus has been on the wireless part of it. That's really just doorway - the real issue is that you're utilizing somebody else's cable/DSL/whatever physical internet connection.

[hhEb09'1]

I prefer eggs over easy myself. You know that golden crust you get when you fry an egg? I love that. And with eggs over easy, you get it on both sides. I was told emphatically at a restaurant that that's "over medium" :)
Bold mine.
Yes. I completely agree with Nicolas on this.

If someone is on a monthly bandwidth limit, Unauthorized use,
of the owner's WAP, could result in serious financial cost, to the owner of the WAP.
But using the same connection is another way of limiting bandwidth, no connection is infinite. And if it takes them twice as long to download something, isn't that a "cost"?
::sig::
The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanFDidn't we already have this thread? :)

[ravens_cry]

I was told emphatically at a restaurant that that's "over medium" :)

Well, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_egg), your right. Thanks, I learned something.

[Ara Pacis]

Lest we forget the other costs of internet, part of the monthly bill is used to pay for people who support the service. If they budget based on discret users who pay a lower rate because everyone is paying a low rate instead of a few paying a high rate, then it throws off their calculations and can hurt their budget, result in budget cuts, layoffs, less money for improvements in infrastructure and less spending that goes into the economy in general.

If that doesn't convince you, then recall that taxes on service are often based on flat fees instead of on bandwidth. When you steal service you are comitting the crime of tax evasion. The government has men with guns that make sure they get paid. If there's no better reason than "might makes right", then there you go.

[HenrikOlsen]

I don't know about how internet access is priced in your neighborhood, but everyone I know is paying a flat rate for unlimited use. So maybe everything I'm saying doesn't apply in your case.

If the contract were paying a certain price for a certain amount of data transferred, yeah, I would have more of a problem with restricting open access. But I think the ISP wouldn't impose sharing restrictions on that kind of plan, either, since that would open up a great opportunity for them to stick you with a huge bill when your neighbor starts downloading movies with your internet connection.
You're forgetting here that the company has to pay for upstream bandwidth just as you have to pay them, and by putting more people on your line you're incurring an additional expense for the company without paying extra for it.
That's why all ISP's have restrictions on who can use it, unless you explicitly pay for a connection that you may resell which will cost more.
If they didn't, would you think that it would be fair that all the users who don't share should pay so you can?

And then there's accountability for what's put through the connection.
You as the one paying is the one responsible for its use, if you allow your neighbor access through your system and he uses it for illegal purposes, you'll have two lawsuit to go through, one where you are held responsible for the damages, which you will lose because you have already signed a contract where you accept all responsibility and one against him where you try to get him to pay and you won't be sure you can win that one.

[Chuck]

If a provider offers unlimited access for a flat fee then they're probably going to lose money on some customers. They make it up by gaining more normal customers who are attracted to the offer of unlimited usage without having to watch a connect time clock or byte transfer counter. If this arrangement isn't working out for the provider then they can stop offering it and charge more for heavy usage. Trying to make sure that the computers on a wireless network all belong to the same person seems like a hopeless task. If they want the benefits of being able to offer unlimited access then they're going to have to put up with the drawbacks. It's not up to the taxpayers to pay their government to make the drawbacks illegal, provide a court system to try offenders, and finance prisons to house the guilty while the provider rakes in the big profits. If a business plan can't work without special legislation then they can do something else. Why should I have to pay extra taxes for their incompetence?

I'm not using someone else's wireless network and don't plan to even if one were available, but I don't see why my taxes have to support their faulty business plan.

[Chuck]

Sorry if the above post seems political. I'm not against all laws and law enforcement but there must be some limits to what the taxpayer can be expected to protect. If some merchant puts his stuff on his sidewalk with a box in which people can put their payments for the items that they take and then goes home, it's still stealing to take something without paying but it seems excessive to expect the police to guard his stuff. The Internet providers can charge by usage and aren't doing it. Wireless network owners can secure their networks but aren't doing it. If someone can take care of his own security then why should I pay to have it done for him? If someone is using reasonable security and someone else hacks in, then it's time for the police.

[captain swoop]

I see so if it's easy to steal it's ok?

[Chuck]

It's not OK, but if it's easy for someone to prevent the theft then the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay someone to protect his stuff for him.

[captain swoop]

Right, so are you saying that if you think you can get away with it then it's fair game?

[Chuck]

No, that's not anything like what I said.

[Chunky]

will an administrator delete this thread for me. i dont know how. too much conflict. and a guy called me a thief. in my ignorance. so wrong. please?

[Tinaa]

No, we'll leave the thread. Others may learn something from it.

[Chunky]

No, we'll leave the thread. Others may learn something from it.


oh well.
but i found out my uncles body shop is the unsecured network. its past the baseball field infront of my house.
now that its family im stealing my internet from. does it still seem so illegal? because i know when i asked they said yes its alright like any kind caring person would. (status of "family" helps or friend)
does it seem so wrong now that the other person doesnt care?


Merry Christmas.

~altered~

[Musashi]

Altered. Who would have guessed. Does it seem wrong still? Well, it doesn't change the fact that you didn't know who the connection belonged to when you used it.

[Chunky]

Altered. Who would have guessed. Does it seem wrong still? Well, it doesn't change the fact that you didn't know who the connection belonged to when you used it.


and it never changed the fact that i was ignorant about it being illegal.

touche

[Musashi]

Yes, and ignorance of the law does not make it any more or less legal.

[Chunky]

but its still all the justification i need to know in myself im not a thief.

[Musashi]

Whatever it takes I guess.

For what it is worth, the legality of the issue is separate from the ethics of it.

[Chunky]

Whatever it takes I guess.

For what it is worth, the legality of the issue is separate from the ethics of it.
i agree.

[SeanF]

Sorry if the above post seems political. I'm not against all laws and law enforcement but there must be some limits to what the taxpayer can be expected to protect. If some merchant puts his stuff on his sidewalk with a box in which people can put their payments for the items that they take and then goes home, it's still stealing to take something without paying but it seems excessive to expect the police to guard his stuff. The Internet providers can charge by usage and aren't doing it. Wireless network owners can secure their networks but aren't doing it. If someone can take care of his own security then why should I pay to have it done for him? If someone is using reasonable security and someone else hacks in, then it's time for the police.
The taxpayers don't have to come into it - I think that was just an example. The bottom line is that the amount the ISP provider charges each customer is based on the number of paying customers they have.

When you add a non-paying customer, one of two things happen. Either you're increasing the ISP's cost of doing business without increasing the number of paying customers, which means the amount each paying customer has to pay goes up or you're simply increasing the number of customers without increasing the ISP's cost of doing business, which means the amount each paying customer has to pay should go down, but doesn't.

Either way, the people who do pay have to pay more than they ought to. And that's why it's unethical and why it's illegal.

[Chuck]

It doesn't matter if it's illegal unless the law is enforced and enforcing laws cost taxpayer money. Since the providers and wireless owners can deal with it themselves there's no need to make everyone pay for it. The providers can charge their heavy users more money and the wireless owners can secure their networks.

[mugaliens]

but its still all the justification i need to know in myself im not a thief.

Even with your uncle's permission, both you and he are violating your uncle's service contract. Contractual violations are against the law. The law would consider this to be "stealing." In addition, it would uphold your uncle's ISP termination of your uncle's contract under these circumstances. If that happened (and I have seen it happen) your uncle would be without internet service and whatever else came with the contract (cable TV, phone service, etc.).

Is that really what you want?

[Chunky]

dang it. your right. i just read the terms and policy. i was hoping to save 50 a month this way! hahahaha... welllllllllll. i tried.

Merry Christmas

[BetaDust]

dang it. your right. i just read the terms and policy. i was hoping to save 50 a month this way! hahahaha... welllllllllll. i tried.
Bold mine

Merry Christmas

:)
Merry Christmas, Johnathan.

[djellison]

the legality of the issue is separate from the ethics of it.

It's unethical AND illegal.

It's unethical because you're stealing a service from someone who's paying for it.

It's illegal because ... see above.

[Musashi]

Which doesn't change the fact that they are separate issues. If congress passed a law tomorrow that made it legal, it still wouldn't make it ethical.

[nauthiz]

You're forgetting here that the company has to pay for upstream bandwidth just as you have to pay them, and by putting more people on your line you're incurring an additional expense for the company without paying extra for it.
That's why all ISP's have restrictions on who can use it, unless you explicitly pay for a connection that you may resell which will cost more.
If they didn't, would you think that it would be fair that all the users who don't share should pay so you can?

I was remembering that, but I was also working with the unstated assumption that ISPs would structure a pay-per-megabyte billing option along the same lines as phone companies' pay-per-minute billing options: You pay a flat fee for up to a certain amount of usage, and then stick you with very high fees for using more than that amount. Presumably they would set the price for extra usage high enough to more than cover what they end up paying for the extra bandwidth.

[nauthiz]

It doesn't matter if it's illegal unless the law is enforced and enforcing laws cost taxpayer money. Since the providers and wireless owners can deal with it themselves there's no need to make everyone pay for it. The providers can charge their heavy users more money and the wireless owners can secure their networks.

That's a great defense!

Mind if I borrow it for next time I go around taking mail out of people's mailboxes and stealing milk crates from behind stores?

[Chuck]

That's a great defense!

Mind if I borrow it for next time I go around taking mail out of people's mailboxes and stealing milk crates from behind stores?

It's a good defense if you ask for the milk crates and their owner puts them in your car, just like you request information from a wireless network and its owner has it set up to honor your request.

[ravens_cry]

It's a good defense if you ask for the milk crates and their owner puts them in your car, just like you request information from a wireless network and its owner has it set up to honor your request.
But should you assume, simply because the milk crates are available, out in the open, that you can take them? Because people don't put a lock and key on their mailbox, it's alright to steal the mail? Everything is setup for you to take it, nothing is physically stopping you, so why shouldn't you just take it? Because it is theft.
Now, the store may very well not mind you taking the crates and someone in this mad world may not mind you taking their mail. But because of a lack of physical impediments, should one assume they are free to be taken?
No, one should ask permission.
The way this logic leads, in my view, is that if your a skillful enough thief, it is alright to steal. After all, to someone extremely skilled with lockpicks, opening a locked door is just as easy as an unlocked one. The security device provides no impediment. They might as well have set it up with no lock at all. I they really didn't want you coming in, they would have used a better lock.
That's wrong, and I hope you can see that.
Taking from someones wi-fi without asking the PERSON who owns it, is theft. You yourself said that you would ask the store owner for the milk crates. Why then won't you ask the network owner for permission? Physical accessibility is not enough in the former, so why is it in the latter? Their is no physical difference between a network intentionally set without a password and one set up this way because of laziness or a lack of understanding on the part of the owner. You are no more granted permission by the network, then an unlocked mailbox automatically grants permission to take.

[Chuck]

If the milk crate owner puts up a sign that says I can take the crates then it's not stealing. I don't have to talk to a person. His prior actions give me permission, just like the prior actions of someone who sets up a wireless network so that it's open to the public gives everyone permission to use it.

[Tinaa]

Remember the store owner does not own the milk crates. The supplier of milk owns the crates and I assure you they do not give them away!

[Chuck]

The store owner might not know this. Then he'd be stealing them if he gave them away.

[nauthiz]

It's a good defense if you ask for the milk crates and their owner puts them in your car, just like you request information from a wireless network and its owner has it set up to honor your request.

Except that in the case of open wireless networks, chances are the owner has not set it up to honor your request. Chances are, the WAP is set to be open by default and the owner has left it that way, possibly because of sloth or intent but also quite likely because they don't have the technical know-how it takes to be aware that they should be securing their network.

Besides, consent of a person and "consent" of a machine that has no agency and therefore cannot do anything that can properly be called consent are two very different things. Trying to conflate the two is an absurd stretch. You might as well say that your neighbor's outdoor spigot has, by being unlocked and letting water flow when you turn the knob, given you implied permission to use their water, possibly running up their water bill in the process, without asking them first.

If you really want to use an open network, the only way to really get consent without asking anyone first is by finding a "free wifi" sign or warmark.

[ravens_cry]

If the milk crate owner puts up a sign that says I can take the crates then it's not stealing. I don't have to talk to a person. His prior actions give me permission, just like the prior actions of someone who sets up a wireless network so that it's open to the public gives everyone permission to use it.

Yes, but that signs shows his intent. A wide open network is the pile of mlk crates, without a sign. Wide open is to the best of my knowledge the default setting. One could simply have not set up a password for three reasons: a) They don't mind people using the network on their dime, b) they haven't set one up yet, or c) they don't know how. And even if, if mind you, you guess right and they are giving it out to the public, it may not be ethical for them to give it out, any more then 'sharing' a 'free pizza for a year' coupon is ethical. 'But Raven' the internet hippies cry, 'There a big company, they can take it.' Maybe, maybe not, but that still doesn't make it right.

[Chuck]

People are responsible for their actions no matter what their intentions might be.

[Ara Pacis]

I remember about 20 years ago that some coin machines at a local landr-o-mat gave out quarters if you put in a photocopy of a dollar bill. I think some other dispensers may have given out merchandise if you used slugs instead of coins. Obviously this is completely legal and ethical because if they had intended you to insert real money instead of something that just resembled money, they would have set up the system to authenticate the inserted paper and metal discs. *rolls eyes*

[ravens_cry]

People are responsible for their actions no matter what their intentions might be.
As are you.
Do we have to lock everything up before you realize it is wrong to take things without asking? How is the milk crates without a sign different to you then an unlocked network?

[Tinaa]

The store owner might not know this. Then he'd be stealing them if he gave them away.

Yes, he knows it. He has to return the crates at every delivery. THey keep count.

[Chuck]

As are you.
Do we have to lock everything up before you realize it is wrong to take things without asking? How is the milk crates without a sign different to you then an unlocked network?
I don't take someone's network. I request that it allow me to connect to it. Whether or not it does is up to its owner. I'm not forcing it to do anything and I'm not trying to trick it like I would be if I used counterfeit money in a vending machine. It's a simple request to see if it's allowed.

[Chuck]

Yes, he knows it. He has to return the crates at every delivery. THey keep count.
He might be new to the retail business or just absentminded. No matter what his thoughts were at the time, he's responsible for their loss if he gives them away.

[ravens_cry]

He might be new to the retail business or just absentminded. No matter what his thoughts were at the time, he's responsible for their loss if he gives them away.
IF he gives them away. Besides, accepting them means accepting stolen property. That is also a crime by the way.
But I don't see the connection between him physically giving them away, even if it was ethical for him to do so, and grabbing 'free' internet off the airwaves.

[Chuck]

I wouldn't be grabbing free Internet, I'd be requesting it.

[Tinaa]

Some muggers make requests too.

[Chuck]

Muggers threaten retaliation for refusal. If my request were refused that would be the end of it.

[ravens_cry]

I wouldn't be grabbing free Internet, I'd be requesting it.
I have thought of it further, and there are actually 4 reasons someone may have an open Internet wifi, and only one of them is consistent with an actual consent on the part of the person who is paying for the service. This 'new' reason is if that person is paying for 'free' internet for the customers on their premises. Again, not permission for you if your not, even though by your definition of 'permission' you are. It's only requesting if you go and ask the person paying for it. You no more have permission just because they don't have a password then you have permission to snoop around in someones computer if they don't have a firewall.
Accessibility does not equal entitlement.

[nauthiz]

I don't take someone's network.

As has been discussed ad nauseam previously in the thread, you may in fact be taking part of their bandwidth allotment. Which would be taking something that, while not tangible, is limited in supply and cannot be used by the owner if you take it. In which case the act isn't all that different from taking a physical object without asking.

Going back to the water analogy: If you use your neighbor's water without asking you aren't stealing their plumbing. But you might be taking their money.

[Chuck]

His intent is to provide access just for his customers. His action provides access for everyone. Regardless of his intent, he's responsible for his actions. Society doesn't owe everyone a guarantee that every business plan will work. It might be my intent that only people who pay me a fee are allowed to look at some amusing billboards that I put along the side of a road. Tough luck for me.

[Chuck]

As has been discussed ad nauseam previously in the thread, you may in fact be taking part of their bandwidth allotment. Which would be taking something that, while not tangible, is limited in supply and cannot be used by the owner if you take it. In which case the act isn't all that different from taking a physical object without asking.

Going back to the water analogy: If you use your neighbor's water without asking you aren't stealing their plumbing. But you might be taking their money.
I'm not taking their bandwidth. I'm requesting the use of it. If they set up their system to say no then I won't be using it. It's entirely up to them. I'm just making a request.

[pzkpfw]

I'm just making a request.

Would you claim that if they have not set up security properly, that by default that means they want you to join their network?

Would you claim that you are not knowingly taking advantage of their laziness/lack of knowledge/... ?


You can claim that the owner of the WiFi router should know enough to secure it properly. Don't you think the person conecting to it should know enough to know whether their access is "wanted" or "ethical"?

[ravens_cry]

I'm not taking their bandwidth. I'm requesting the use of it. If they set up their system to say no then I won't be using it. It's entirely up to them. I'm just making a request.
So if a thief can get in with out the alarm saying 'no' it's the person he steals from fault, and the thief can take what he wants because the owner was unable to stop him?:doh:
The only way it is ethical for you to take at all is if they have a pay by bandwidth basis, and if you take THAT without asking, you are costing them money. And if it's an 'unlimited' plan, your stealing from the ISP, again stealing from people.
Face it, your taking. If a door doesn't have a lock, does that mean you should go in?
If someone was careless enough to leave a safe unlocked, does that mean you can take the contents of the safe? Would it be ethical to convince yourself that it was left unlocked on purpose? After all, all your doing is asking the safe's permission, and look, it's open, you must be allowed to take whatever inside. Who cares if it contains next weeks payroll, society doesn't guarantee anyone a successful business, if he was careless to leave it unlocked, it's his fault, right?

[Chuck]

Would you claim that if they have not set up security properly, that by default that means they want you to join their network?

Would you claim that you are not knowingly taking advantage of their laziness/lack of knowledge/... ?


You can claim that the owner of the WiFi router should know enough to secure it properly. Don't you think the person conecting to it should know enough to know whether their access is "wanted" or "ethical"?

All I know of their intent is what they do. I don't claim to know what they want. I don't know how much they know about security. I don't know who owns the network nor where it is. All I can do is make my request.

Ignorance can be expensive. If someone sells a $10,000 painting for $10 it doesn't mean he was robbed.

[Chuck]

So if a thief can get in with out the alarm saying 'no' it's the person he steals from fault, and the thief can take what he wants because the owner was unable to stop him?:doh:
The only way it is ethical for you to take at all is if they have a pay by bandwidth basis, and if you take THAT without asking, you are costing them money. And if it's an 'unlimited' plan, your stealing from the ISP, again stealing from people.
Face it, your taking. If a door doesn't have a lock, does that mean you should go in?
If someone was careless enough to leave a safe unlocked, does that mean you can take the contents of the safe? Would it be ethical to convince yourself that it was left unlocked on purpose? After all, all your doing is asking the safe's permission, and look, it's open, you must be allowed to take whatever inside. Who cares if it contains next weeks payroll, society doesn't guarantee anyone a successful business, if he was careless to leave it unlocked, it's his fault, right?

If the safe delivers its contents to my apartment and dumps it at my feet then I'm not stealing. If someone's safe does that then they should probably get a more secure safe.

[pzkpfw]

All I know of their intent is what they do. I don't claim to know what they want. I don't know how much they know about security. I don't know who owns the network nor where it is. All I can do is make my request.

I quite simply don't believe you.

If you find your neighbours WiFi to be open, the likelihood of them wanting you to connect, as opposed to having forgotten to secure it (or not knowing how) can only be much much less.

No different to finding an unlocked car: the likelihood that the owner wants you to take it is obviously less than that they forgot to lock it.

You are still arguing that lack of security is implicit permission to take/use. That's wrong. (Regardless of the fact that networking protocols involve computers "requesting" permission to connect.)

Ignorance can be expensive. If someone sells a $10,000 painting for $10 it doesn't mean he was robbed.

Yes, ignorance can be expensive.

But in the context of the point I was making it's more about the buyer knowing that the old lady selling the painting she found in her attic is worth $10,000 but letting her sell it for $10 as she didn't know better.

All is fair in business, maybe, but few would call that an ethical action.

[ravens_cry]

All I know of their intent is what they do. I don't claim to know what they want. I don't know how much they know about security. I don't know who owns the network nor where it is. All I can do is make my request.

Ignorance can be expensive. If someone sells a $10,000 painting for $10 it doesn't mean he was robbed.
Why then don't you go ask them, in person? It would be relatively easy to find the source of the signal you have found I would think, Wi-Fi isn't exactly long range.

[Chuck]

Why then don't you go ask them, in person? It would be relatively easy to find the source of the signal you have found I would think, Wi-Fi isn't exactly long range.

Not everyone can find Wi-Fi sources just as not everyone can secure one. To many people it's magic. All they know is that they're accessing the Internet somehow. If network owners shouldn't be penalized for their ignorance then why should anyone else?

[Chuck]

I quite simply don't believe you.

If you find your neighbours WiFi to be open, the likelihood of them wanting you to connect, as opposed to having forgotten to secure it (or not knowing how) can only be much much less.

No different to finding an unlocked car: the likelihood that the owner wants you to take it is obviously less than that they forgot to lock it.

You are still arguing that lack of security is implicit permission to take/use. That's wrong. (Regardless of the fact that networking protocols involve computers "requesting" permission to connect.)



Yes, ignorance can be expensive.

But in the context of the point I was making it's more about the buyer knowing that the old lady selling the painting she found in her attic is worth $10,000 but letting her sell it for $10 as she didn't know better.

All is fair in business, maybe, but few would call that an ethical action.

The unlocked car doesn't show up in my apartment like the WiFi signal. If someone's car security is so bad that his car comes after me and offers me a ride then he has a serious problem.

The old lady has $10 that she didn't have before. Some art gallery has a painting that they value more than $10,000 or they wouldn't have paid me $10,000 for it. I'm up $9,990. Everybody wins. I'm not really up $9,990 though. I probably spent a lot of time learning to appraise paintings so I've earned that money. I've served the community by identifying a good painting and returning it to the art lovers environment.

[nauthiz]

The unlocked car doesn't show up in my apartment like the WiFi signal.

Guess what would show up in your apartment like a WiFi signal, though: Cordless phone signals. Do you think it would be ethical to take advantage of this fact to make use of your neighbor's telephone system?

After all, you're just sending a request. And by making that call to Aruba when you request it, your neighbor's phone is giving you their consent (by proxy) to use their phone line to make international calls.

If they didn't want you to do so, then they should have installed non-cordless telephones or something. It's entirely up to them. You just dialed a number.

[pzkpfw]

Nice point.

Guess what would show up in your apartment like a WiFi signal, though: Cordless phone signals. Do you think it would be ethical to take advantage of this fact to make use of your neighbor's telephone system?

After all, you're just sending a request. And by making that call to Aruba when you request it, your neighbor's phone is giving you their consent (by proxy) to use their phone line to make international calls.

If they didn't want you to do so, then they should have installed non-cordless telephones or something. It's entirely up to them. You just dialed a number.

It was being done 'round here a few years ago, by people driving around with common handsets waiting to see if they got a dial-tone. (Handsets have gotten more clever about coding themselves to base-stations).

People would get these huge phone bills they had no idea were coming.

I guess the people doing the scam would take the Chuck way out and say "we didn't know it was costing the phone owner so much". Or would Chuck say the older less-secure phones were an open invitation to usage.

[nauthiz]

Or would Chuck say the older less-secure phones were an open invitation to usage.

That would certainly seem to be the logical implication of the arguments presented.

[Ara Pacis]

It sounds like a case ofWillful Blindness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness) or Reckless Disregard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_disregard). Contrary to the notion that society is not setup to deal with business plans, I suggest that such is precisely why society is setup. The argument in favor of anarcho-capitalism is ironically attempting to use it to bolster the defense of a free-rider. With that layer of argument self-negating, we see the concept of stealing wi-fi for what it is, parasitism, pure and simple.

[djellison]

I don't know who owns the network nor where it is. All I can do is make my request.

You do know that accessing any network without explicit permission from its owner is illegal right? And just because somone doesn't know how to use a WEP code, that does not mean they're giving you permission.

If you wish to use someone's WiFi, then find the source and ask them. Infact, I once did just that. I found where the signal was strongest, knocked on the door, showed them the network with my laptop and asked them if I could tell them how to secure it, and could I borrow it. They gave me permission to use it while I was staying over the road.

I would not just use it without asking, because that would be stealing.

Stealing WiFi is stealing. Fact.

Stop trying to defend your desire to break the law and steal from people.

[Chuck]

Guess what would show up in your apartment like a WiFi signal, though: Cordless phone signals. Do you think it would be ethical to take advantage of this fact to make use of your neighbor's telephone system?

After all, you're just sending a request. And by making that call to Aruba when you request it, your neighbor's phone is giving you their consent (by proxy) to use their phone line to make international calls.

If they didn't want you to do so, then they should have installed non-cordless telephones or something. It's entirely up to them. You just dialed a number.
It's certainly not nice but it should not be illegal. If someone insists on using equipment that invites such abuse and makes no attempt at any kind of security it to prevent it then it's not up to the taxpayers to make it work for him by enforcing laws against the abuse.

It would be too expensive to have the police guard everyone's possessions at all times no matter where they choose to leave their stuff. If I store my possession on my lawn it would not be fair to other taxpayers to have the police make sure they're never stolen. That's what doors and locks are for. It's the same for communications equipment that allows remote access. Why should I pay extra tax money to protect a neighbor who's inviting abuse? Let the cordless phone industry iron out its own problems rather than have the taxpayers bail them out by paying for the extra law enforcement that is needed to make their product work

[Chuck]

Nice point.



It was being done 'round here a few years ago, by people driving around with common handsets waiting to see if they got a dial-tone. (Handsets have gotten more clever about coding themselves to base-stations).

People would get these huge phone bills they had no idea were coming.

I guess the people doing the scam would take the Chuck way out and say "we didn't know it was costing the phone owner so much". Or would Chuck say the older less-secure phones were an open invitation to usage.
If a piece of technology doesn't work as you'd like then don't use it. It's not up to the rest of society to make sure it works just because you like it.

[Chuck]

That would certainly seem to be the logical implication of the arguments presented.

If I think I'm using my own wireless phone but I'm standing closer to my neighbor's base unit I wouldn't know I was using their phone line. If some technology doesn't work as you'd like then don't use it.

[Chuck]

It sounds like a case ofWillful Blindness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness) or Reckless Disregard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_disregard). Contrary to the notion that society is not setup to deal with business plans, I suggest that such is precisely why society is setup. The argument in favor of anarcho-capitalism is ironically attempting to use it to bolster the defense of a free-rider. With that layer of argument self-negating, we see the concept of stealing wi-fi for what it is, parasitism, pure and simple.

I'm not against all laws of conduct but there has to be some limit to what taxpayers must pay to protect people from their own indiscriminate use of technology. If I have to pay tax money into law enforcement because my neighbors aren't securing their WiFi that makes them the free-riders.

[Chuck]

You do know that accessing any network without explicit permission from its owner is illegal right? And just because somone doesn't know how to use a WEP code, that does not mean they're giving you permission.

If you wish to use someone's WiFi, then find the source and ask them. Infact, I once did just that. I found where the signal was strongest, knocked on the door, showed them the network with my laptop and asked them if I could tell them how to secure it, and could I borrow it. They gave me permission to use it while I was staying over the road.

I would not just use it without asking, because that would be stealing.

Stealing WiFi is stealing. Fact.

Stop trying to defend your desire to break the law and steal from people.

I have no wish to break the law but I don't think my tax dollars should be spent on protecting people who use technology without any regard for the consequences. If you don't want people using your WiFi then stop inviting them rather than inviting them and making the acceptance of such invitations illegal at taxpayer expense.

[Nicolas]

The problem here is that you interpret an unsecured wifi signal in your house as an invitation. It is not.

[Chuck]

It's not intended as an invitiation, but it is.

[nauthiz]

It's certainly not nice but it should not be illegal. If someone insists on using equipment that invites such abuse and makes no attempt at any kind of security it to prevent it then it's not up to the taxpayers to make it work for him by enforcing laws against the abuse.

It would be too expensive to have the police guard everyone's possessions at all times no matter where they choose to leave their stuff. If I store my possession on my lawn it would not be fair to other taxpayers to have the police make sure they're never stolen. That's what doors and locks are for. It's the same for communications equipment that allows remote access. Why should I pay extra tax money to protect a neighbor who's inviting abuse? Let the cordless phone industry iron out its own problems rather than have the taxpayers bail them out by paying for the extra law enforcement that is needed to make their product work

You certainly are a squirmy eel.

Could I implore you to at least stand in one place long enough to give straightforward answers on a few simple questions?

1. Is deliberately using someone else's cordless telephone system to make calls without asking first a form of theft?

2. Is it a socially desirable or an antisocial behavior?

3. Would you be angry if someone did it to you?

4. Would you do it to someone else?

5. Are your answers for wi-fi any different? If so, which ones, and what are the relevant differences between cordless telephones and wi-fi that you think make such a difference justified?


For preference, I'd like to see every question answered with a clear "Yes" or "No" before continuing on to any explanations.

[ravens_cry]

It's not intended as an invitiation, but it is.
Your taking it as an invitation. Just like someone may justify taking an unlocked bike when passing it by. It's accessible, nothing is stopping except your morals. And that's just it. You complain how their shouldn't be a law against these things, but it is your, frankly juvenile, attitude of entitlement why we sadly need these laws. Ever heard the phrase "If everyone obeyed the law, we wouldn't need it."? You're insistence that taking from others, and you are taking, bandwidth is a finite thing, isn't wrong if it is is in this instance is hypocritical. Again, how is it different from taking something physically? If you walk down the street and see an unlocked car with the keys in, is just as accessible as wi-fi in your apartment. Neither are things you have paid for or have permission to use from the person who owns it. Yet because it is accessible, and you think, incorrectly to boot, it isn't hurting anybody, it is OK to take the Wi-fi.
If you don't like an overabundance of laws, stop breaking the unwritten ones.

[Nicolas]

It's not intended as an invitiation, but it is.

It's not intended as an invitation. And it is no invitation. When the wifi connection shows up in the list on your computer, it doesn't say "please use me". It just says "You can see me from your place". When this connection is unprotected, it still just says "You can see me from your place and you can see I'm unprotected". It still doesn't say "please use me". When there's a car on the parking lot of your apartment building and you see it, the car says "you can see me from your place". When its door is not locked, it says "You can see me from your place and you can see I'm unprotected". It doesn't say "please use me". It is not inviting you to be used. It belongs to its owner, just like the wifi connection.

This wifi connection is not asking you to use it, it is not inviting you. It is possible to use it, that's it. Just like it's possible to use anything that is not locked up. Possible to use does not equate invited to use or legal to use. The fact that it is unprotected, that you can see it from your house and that you don't have to leave your house to use it, still doesn't mean it is inviting you. It is not inviting you.

[pzkpfw]

It would be too expensive to have the police guard everyone's possessions at all times no matter where they choose to leave their stuff. If I store my possession on my lawn it would not be fair to other taxpayers to have the police make sure they're never stolen.

The police don't guard stuff in that way, they catch (hopefully) and punish those who steal stuff - after it's been stolen. No one here is asking the police to guard WiFi.

If someone takes a bike left on someone elses front lawn, is that stealing?
If the stealer were caught, would they be punished by the law?


In some ways this whole thread is off topic anyway - the OP was about someone knowingly using other peoples' WiFi without permission.

Even you seem to agree this is basically wrong.

Your arguements about why it shouldn't be specifically illegal seem to be about 2 main things:
1) Someone could unknowingly use someone elses WiFi and shouldn't be punished for accidentally doing something wrong.
2) Someone unknowingly making WiFi accessable deserves what they get.

The counterpoints as I see them are:
A) The contradiction implied by your wanting the unknowing user of WiFi to be protected while the unknowing provider deserves whatever they get. That doesn't seem all that fair, especially when it seems (to me, at least) much much more likely that someone unknowingly supplies WiFi than that someone unknowingly uses it.
B) Lack of knowledge (of the law) is no defence. You can't get off a speeding ticket by saying "I didn't know there was a limit" or "I didn't see the sign". The perceived need to have limits on the road is more important than protecting the few genuine cases of missing the change in speed limit (not seeing the sign) so the law is made, and is clear.
C) Lack of protection is no excuse for theft. If you enter someones unlocked home and take something from it, it is clearly theft. You can not claim the unlocked door was an invitation to enter and take things.

There is a point where someone may "invite" trouble (e.g. leave GPS device in the front window of their car*, which gets broken into...) but that doesn't make it right, moral or legal (...and the stealer of the GPS is punished if caught). Most people today know to lock their car and hide their valuables. Not everyone knows (yet) how to secure their WiFi. As there are people such as in the OP who gleefully and knowingly steal WiFi access, I am happy for it to be illegal and punishable.


(* It would be nice to live in a world where this wouldn't be a problem. But we don't. So we have laws.)

[Chuck]

You certainly are a squirmy eel.

Could I implore you to at least stand in one place long enough to give straightforward answers on a few simple questions?

1. Is deliberately using someone else's cordless telephone system to make calls without asking first a form of theft?

2. Is it a socially desirable or an antisocial behavior?

3. Would you be angry if someone did it to you?

4. Would you do it to someone else?

5. Are your answers for wi-fi any different? If so, which ones, and what are the relevant differences between cordless telephones and wi-fi that you think make such a difference justified?


For preference, I'd like to see every question answered with a clear "Yes" or "No" before continuing on to any explanations.
Yes, if you know you're doing it against the wishes of the owner then it's theft.
Yes, antisocial if you know the owner wouldn't approve.
No, I'd be angry at myself for having installed such a ridiculous system.
Not knowingly except in an emergency.
The main difference is that a WiFi network can easily be configured to block outsiders so not doing so can be considered an invitation to use the system, even if wasn't intentionally left open.Another antisocial behavior is taxation. It takes money from people by threat of punishment. Apparently we can't figure out how to get by without it but making excessive use of someone else's tax money is not a polite thing to do. Leaving your WiFi open and then expecting the police and courts to protect it for you at taxpayer expense is also antisocial. So while using someone's WiFi without permission is not something someone should do, it should not be illegal. If someone gains access despite your reasonable efforts at security then it's time for the police to get involved. If you make no effort to secure your network then I shouldn't have to pay law enforcement to do it for you. Also, if it's so easy to use someone else's cordless phone then people shouldn't buy them until the problem is fixed.

[nauthiz]

The main difference is that a WiFi network can easily be configured to block outsiders

I don't accept that difference. A telephone system is much easier to reconfigure to block outsiders: all you have to do is unplug the cordless receiver. Unlike setting up WEP or WPA protection, doing this requires a level of technical knowledge that almost everyone shares.

[BetaDust]

I'd be angry at myself for having installed such a ridiculous system.

No. That you can easily configure a WiFi network, does not mean that everyone can.

I now a lot of people who are just glad that they got the thing working, and don't even think about securing it.
They are oblivious to things like, other people logging onto their routers, or even simple things like passwords.
There is just that "Wonderous Blue Box" that gives them "The Internet".

--Dennis

[nauthiz]

Mine is gray.

[Ara Pacis]

I'm not against all laws of conduct but there has to be some limit to what taxpayers must pay to protect people from their own indiscriminate use of technology. If I have to pay tax money into law enforcement because my neighbors aren't securing their WiFi that makes them the free-riders.

No, they are not free-riders if they are also paying taxes.

Moreover, law enforcement is based mostly on deterrence, as others here have indicated. The police won't actively prevent you from stealing wi-fi anymore than they will likely prevent you from committing robbery, assault or murder. What law enforcement and the judicial system will tend to do is make you pay for the crime after the fact and, if necessary, prevent repeats through incarceration, or in certain cases, termination.

[Chuck]

Your taking it as an invitation. Just like someone may justify taking an unlocked bike when passing it by. It's accessible, nothing is stopping except your morals. And that's just it. You complain how their shouldn't be a law against these things, but it is your, frankly juvenile, attitude of entitlement why we sadly need these laws. Ever heard the phrase "If everyone obeyed the law, we wouldn't need it."? You're insistence that taking from others, and you are taking, bandwidth is a finite thing, isn't wrong if it is is in this instance is hypocritical. Again, how is it different from taking something physically? If you walk down the street and see an unlocked car with the keys in, is just as accessible as wi-fi in your apartment. Neither are things you have paid for or have permission to use from the person who owns it. Yet because it is accessible, and you think, incorrectly to boot, it isn't hurting anybody, it is OK to take the Wi-fi.
If you don't like an overabundance of laws, stop breaking the unwritten ones.
An unsecured network and an unlocked bicycle in a public place are invitations. It might be unethical to accept them but not everyone will see it that way. I don't see why it's the governments job to protect property when the owner of that property doesn't care enough to bother securing it. If no one bothered to protect their own property the cost of investigating all of the crime would be enormous. If you don't want something stolen, don't leave it unprotected.

[pzkpfw]

If you don't want something stolen, don't leave it unprotected.

So you agree it's stealing, now?

[Chuck]

It's not intended as an invitation. And it is no invitation. When the wifi connection shows up in the list on your computer, it doesn't say "please use me". It just says "You can see me from your place". When this connection is unprotected, it still just says "You can see me from your place and you can see I'm unprotected". It still doesn't say "please use me". When there's a car on the parking lot of your apartment building and you see it, the car says "you can see me from your place". When its door is not locked, it says "You can see me from your place and you can see I'm unprotected". It doesn't say "please use me". It is not inviting you to be used. It belongs to its owner, just like the wifi connection.

This wifi connection is not asking you to use it, it is not inviting you. It is possible to use it, that's it. Just like it's possible to use anything that is not locked up. Possible to use does not equate invited to use or legal to use. The fact that it is unprotected, that you can see it from your house and that you don't have to leave your house to use it, still doesn't mean it is inviting you. It is not inviting you.
Unlike a parked car that I see outside, the wireless network is sending its signal into my apartment. If someone doesn't want me to use something they shouldn't send it to me. If they must because that's the nature of the technology then they should let me know that they don't want me to use it. They easiest way is to set it up so that I can't use it.

[Tinaa]

So if the postman accidentally gave you the package I ordered, it is yours to keep because you received at your apartment?

[nauthiz]

Why do we keep conflating between whether something is right or wrong and whether so-and-so likes having his tax money spent on enforcing laws related to it?

And why is the cost of police enforcement such a big issue in the first place? Frankly, wanting to micromanage the details of government like that strikes me as rather silly. It's also useless for the sake of argument. I'm not a big fan of how money is being spent to enforce our drug policy, but it's not really something worth making a big deal of when I'm trying to argue with others about drug policy. The only people who have any chance of agreeing with me on that point are people who already agree with my more relevant points. Everyone else would just take such statements as further evidence that I'm lost in the jungle. Why talk about something that has no chance of helping your case but is guaranteed to make it harder to get any intellectual respect from the folks you're talking to?

[matthewota]

i fixed my friends computer and as payment he gave me a wifi pci router. niceeeeee. slow. but free! yay for unsecured networks!

You still need some form of internet coming in to your router in order for it to transmit wireless signals.

[Ara Pacis]

An unsecured network and an unlocked bicycle in a public place are invitations. It might be unethical to accept them but not everyone will see it that way. I don't see why it's the governments job to protect property when the owner of that property doesn't care enough to bother securing it. If no one bothered to protect their own property the cost of investigating all of the crime would be enormous. If you don't want something stolen, don't leave it unprotected.

Okay, so someone finds an unlocked bicycle in a public place and assumes it is an invitation to take it. As he starts to walk away with it, he feels a sharp pain in his chest and a split second later the supersonic crack of a rifle. The someone falls to the ground, dead. It does appear that the owner of the bicycle has, indeed, protected his property.

There are two sides of the coin to police protection, victim's right and offender's rights.

[ravens_cry]

An unsecured network and an unlocked bicycle in a public place are invitations. It might be unethical to accept them but not everyone will see it that way. I don't see why it's the governments job to protect property when the owner of that property doesn't care enough to bother securing it. If no one bothered to protect their own property the cost of investigating all of the crime would be enormous. If you don't want something stolen, don't leave it unprotected.
*sigh*
Not everyone may see murder as unethical. Does that mean if we don't all go around in body armor and bodyguards, it is an invitation to be killed?
Yes, people should protect their property,but people also shouldn't have to live in fear of it being stolen. Unfortunately, people do steal from other people ,and that is why we have laws against it, to discourage this sort of behavior. Ironically the anti-law ethics you present is the very reason we sadly need them. Wi-fi bandwidth is a finite resource. By taking it you are directly harming someone else, either the person paying for it, or both them the people at the company that is providing it, depending on the type of service. Pay per bandwidth in the former or unlimited in the latter.
It isn't yours, don't take.
Some may have a different point of view to serve their own needs, but that doesn't change that it's wrong. Your harming someone without providing an equal or better benefit in return or with the owners permission. The server no more counts, then taking from unlocked safe, even in your home, if it isn't yours, is ethical.
I don't know how many ways I can say this, but you shouldn't take what isn't yours. Did you pay for the access? No? Then don't touch. If you kicked your computer and all the sudden you could access Pentagon servers, would that make it ethical to snoop around? After all the server is giving you permission, and it's being piped into your home. By your reasoning it would be. For all I know you may very well think so.

[PetersCreek]

Aside from whether or not the Wi-Fi owner realizes a tangible loss, I like to think that most of us learned the answer to the question by the time we were 5 years old. If it doesn't belong to you, don't touch it, don't play with it, don't take it...unless you ask...nicely.

[Nicolas]

An unsecured network and an unlocked bicycle in a public place are invitations.

According to that reasoning, where does "invitation" end and where does "protection" start? If it's easy to take, it's an invitation, right? Is a 3 number bike lock an invitation or a protection? A 4 number lock? Is a window protection or or invitation, after all it only takes one brick to get access to the house? Is reinforced glass protection or invitation? It only takes a large car to get access. Is an easy to guess password an invitation or a protection? Is a mother who looks away from her child for a brief moment an invitation to take the child away?

Your reasoning is the perfect path to chaos. That's why there's this simple rule: if it's not yours, don't take it unless you ask nicely and get permission. That rule counts both in ethics and law.

The fact that you do not have to leave your room to take it doesn't matter at all. What you take is not yours.

[Chuck]

There is no absolute security. If you own anything then someone will see it as an invitation to take it by whatever means he can. That doesn't mean all security is worthless. We can use reasonable locks on homes, cars, and bicycles so that the police won't be overwhelmed with thefts to be investigated. Any kind of lock will make your possession less inviting even though it won't provide perfect security.

It's the same for wireless networks. People should secure them instead of expecting law enforcement to investigate their unauthorized use later. If someone can't figure out how to do it then he can hire someone or have a knowledgeable friend do it for him. Then there would be no need for police investigations later which would save tax dollars for other things.

If people aren't securing their networks then they are inviting unauthorized use whether such use illegal or not, or unethical or not. They can prevent it without too much expense on their part so I don't see why other taxpayers should finance police investigations of unauthorized use of wireless networks. If someone is using yours then put a stop to it yourself.

If your provider is suffering financial loss due to your lack of security then they should charge you for it. If they can't make a profit by offering unlimited access for a flat fee then they can stop offering it.

Whether or not it's classified as stealing is a matter of opinion. It used to be illegal to help runaway slaves to escape. Not everyone agreed. The government is not the final authority on everything.
So if the postman accidentally gave you the package I ordered, it is yours to keep because you received at your apartment?
No, you didn't send it to me. If you send a wireless signal into my apartment then you are sending me something.
No, they are not free-riders if they are also paying taxes.
They are paying taxes and receiving the same tax supported benefits as everyone else. They're not paying enough to have unauthorized wireless users found, arrested, convicted, and maintained in prisons. That's expensive and would be unnecessary if they secured their networks. A less expensive way would be for the police to not investigate unauthorized use of unsecured networks.
Okay, so someone finds an unlocked bicycle in a public place and assumes it is an invitation to take it. As he starts to walk away with it, he feels a sharp pain in his chest and a split second later the supersonic crack of a rifle. The someone falls to the ground, dead. It does appear that the owner of the bicycle has, indeed, protected his property.

There are two sides of the coin to police protection, victim's right and offender's rights.
All the more reason to have locks. If the thief sees a decent lock he won't bother trying to take the bike.

[Ara Pacis]

To follow up the discussion of "invitation" by Nicolas and others above, let us consider that the wi-fi signal is, in fact, an "invitation" to join the network. Under law, that is an Invitation to Treat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat).
Or as Professor Burrows writes, an invitaton to treat is

"an expression of willingness to negotiate. A person making an invitation to treat does not intend to be bound as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom the statement is addressed."
Under that law is the understanding that an invitation to treat does not constitute a contractually binding offer. So, a shopkeeper offering a good or service is not contractually obligated to actually provide the service or good to anyone merely because they want it, even if the price is free. Similarly, anyone with an unsecured wi-fi signal might, through some rhetorical argument, be construed to be advertising free access to their network, yet that is not a bonafide offer until negotiation is acknowledge and transaction completed.

Now, if the network does, in fact, identify itself as "Bob's private Wi-Fi, log on for free", you might be okay, at least with Bob, but maybe not with his ISP. So be careful, if it identifies itself as "Bob's private wi-fi, log on for free and stick it to my ISP" then you may not have a problem with Bob, but a potential problem with the ISP and law enforcement for consipiracy to commit a crime.

[Ara Pacis]

Whether or not it's classified as stealing is a matter of opinion. It used to be illegal to help runaway slaves to escape. Not everyone agreed. The government is not the final authority on everything.Actually, the government was the final authority on that, by force of arms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War).

They are paying taxes and receiving the same tax supported benefits as everyone else. They're not paying enough to have unauthorized wireless users found, arrested, convicted, and maintained in prisons. That's expensive and would be unnecessary if they secured their networks. A less expensive way would be for the police to not investigate unauthorized use of unsecured networks.Tax revenue and government services, such as defense, are notoriously not frangible. For example, you can't get out of paying taxes to a public school district just because you don't have any kids currently enrolled.

All the more reason to have locks. If the thief sees a decent lock he won't bother trying to take the bike.Bikes with locks can be and are also stolen. Moreover, in the imaginary land of anarcho-capitalism in which you seem to wish to operate, securing property with the use of deadly force may be just as effective as using a lock, maybe more so.

[Chuck]

As I said, no security is perfect. Locking something doesn't guarantee theft prevention. The idea is to keep it manageable, not prevent it completely.