Free internet. - Page 11

Ara Pacis · #**301** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

If someone stole a baseball bat from his neighbor's garage to use to stop a dog from mauling a child then the theft wasn't wrong. It would have been wrong to not do it.

I think you're confusing the concept of right and wrong with the concept of wrong and wronger, also known as "the lesser of two evils".

Nicolas · #**302** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 05:25 PM

Also, that guy would have returned the baseball bat afterwards. I assume you don't send money afterwards to the internet provider who's internet connection you illegally used?

Your example was what we call "nood breekt wet": "emergency breaks law", or in English "the lesser of two evils". It doesn't mean the guy would be allowed to keep his neighbour's baseball bat afterwards without asking it, that would still be stealing.

Chuck · #**303** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ara Pacis

I think you're confusing the concept of right and wrong with the concept of wrong and wronger, also known as "the lesser of two evils".

There is no wrong or wronger. Either I should take the bat or I shouldn't. What would be an evil act is not evil at all under different circumstances.

LotusExcelle · #**304** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 06:10 PM

People with your concept of right and wrong scare me, Chuck.

Chuck · #**305** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas

Also, that guy would have returned the baseball bat afterwards. I assume you don't send money afterwards to the internet provider who's internet connection you illegally used?

It would have been right to take the bat even if it had been an irreplaceable souvenir and had been broken. This is now about stealing satellite TV, not an Internet connection. The satellite signal reception doesn't use anyone's bandwidth and would have been wasted if not received.

Quote:

Your example was what we call "nood breekt wet": "emergency breaks law", or in English "the lesser of two evils". It doesn't mean the guy would be allowed to keep his neighbour's baseball bat afterwards without asking it, that would still be stealing.

It was an example that theft isn't always wrong as someone seemed to imply on the previous page.

Chuck · #**306** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LotusExcelle

People with your concept of right and wrong scare me, Chuck.

If I did something that you consider wrong and no one else if affected in any way nor even knows about it then why is that scary? Do you live in a constant state of fear because such things might be going on that you don't know about?

LotusExcelle · #**307** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

If I did something that you consider wrong and no one else if affected in any way nor even knows about it then why is that scary? Do you live in a constant state of fear because such things might be going on that you don't know about?

I live in fear of very little but willful ignorance.

I'll put it to you like this: Your ability to steal satellite TV rests on the shoulders of law-abiding citizens that DO pay for it. If suddenly everyone subscribed to your idea of right and wrong the satellite TV company would go out of business.

HenrikOlsen · #**308** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 06:36 PM

In the emergency case, the result of everyone thinking that way is that more people survive, which is a good thing.

In the cable tv stealing example the result of everyone thinking that way would be that no one would have cable, which would be a bad thing.

This is why the two examples are not equal and the one can't be used to justify the other.

Theft is still theft and both illegal and wrong.

bunker9603 · #**309** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 06:53 PM

So Chuck, based on your logic if you visit a friends house and you are sitting there alone on the couch and you happen to notice a jar of change sitting on the coffee table, it would be ok for you to reach in and help yourself?

Afterall I doubt anybody knows how much change is in there.

Chuck · #**310** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 07:07 PM

If nobody wanted to pay for cable or satellite TV then we wouldn't deserve to have it. Or they'd have to make it more secure. Someone who could not or will not pay for it has no effect on the current system if he steals the signal and no one else knows about it. Only people who are willing to pay for it have an effect.

Stealing coins is different because they'd lose money even if they didn't know about it. A satellite broadcast that arrives in someones home is lost to the sender whether anyone watches it or not. The sender can't get it back so he loses nothing more if someone watches it for free.

Ara Pacis · #**311** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

There is no wrong or wronger. Either I should take the bat or I shouldn't. What would be an evil act is not evil at all under different circumstances.

So, you think "the ends justifies the means"?

Chuck · #**312** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 10:03 PM

Not any means. Means that don't harm anyone are fine.

captain swoop · #**313** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 10:11 PM

It seems to me that you are saying it's ok as long as you don't get found out.

Chuck · #**314** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 10:13 PM

If I harm someone and don't get found out then it's still not all right. If no one is harmed then it's fine.

Ara Pacis · #**315** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

Not any means. Means that don't harm anyone are fine.

Ah, but the owner of the bat was harmed.

Chuck · #**316** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 10:54 PM

In that situation someone else would have been hurt worse.

Nicolas · #**317** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain swoop

It seems to me that you are saying it's ok as long as you don't get found out.

Cats use this logic. "you get mad when you see me doing this. I'll be a good cat and make sure you won't ever see me doing this again. Next time, I'll do it out of your view."

Wim Mertens - We Are The Thieves -*- youtube
(live with strings, due to the power and softness the best combination he's ever done IMHO, more energetic and organic than on CD and not as harsh as with the wind instruments he used in the past)

Tinaa · #**318** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 10:59 PM

We have a ferret now. They do the very same thing.

captain swoop · #**319** (**permalink**) 30-December-2008, 11:03 PM

The English law that covers stealing someone elses broadband internet

1. Dishonestly Obtaining Electronic Communications Services - Section 125 Communications Act, 2003

An offence under the Communications Act 2003 section 125, applies to a person who has obtained the benefit of a telephone or obtained access to the internet when there was no intention to pay for that service.
It is also covedred by a charge of obtaining services dishonestly contrary to section 11 Fraud Act 2006; or a section 1 Computer Misuse Act 1990 unauthorised access offence.

Ara Pacis · #**320** (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

In that situation someone else would have been hurt worse.

That doesn't negate the harm that was done to someone else.

Chuck · #**321** (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 02:23 AM

Life's rough sometimes. We do the best we can.

TrAI · #**322** (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 04:27 AM

Hmmm... This thread reminded me of this Bash.org quote: http://bash.org/?202477 (This site contains quotes from chatrooms, and the quotes may contain offensive, sexualized, NSFW or mind draining language, so viewer discression is adviced)

If I found that someone was using my network, without my permission, I might be tempted to attempt some active defence, too. But then I use WPA and MAC access lists, so they would have to do some cracking, and would probably be smart enough to use protection.

It is a bit hard to find a valid analogy to the use of some unprotected network, the nearest I can think of is one of those wireless phone networks that many companies use, if one of those were set up so that any out of the box handset could associate with it, and the people next door used it for their own calls, it would be a similar situation.

These days many new access points come preconfigured with encryption as a response to the problem of users not turning it on themselves.

TrAI · #**323** (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Actually, any conductor in the field of the high tention lines are loading it to some extent, you experience the same field gradient as the tube in your hand, and when you hold it up, the current flows through you too. Though, of course, the current needed to light up a fluorecent tube is very low, I suspect that people are subjected to the same level of currents from just static electricity by walking around, I wonder if the people that think that fluorecent tube under the HT line is an example of the dangers of these have ever seen the demonstration where you rub a tube to light it up by static electricity.

Nicolas · #**324** (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

Life's rough sometimes. We do the best we can.

Such as cracking satellite dishes to get illegal access to the signal?

Ara Pacis · #**325** (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

Life's rough sometimes. We do the best we can.

That almost sounds like honor. It might be helpful to define "best", since I think an assumption based on our actual system may vary from that of an imaginary anarcho-capitalist system.

Chuck · #**326** (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 01:05 PM

If someone must be harmed then you might have a tough choice to make. An action that doesn't harm anyone is fine. If it's having people know that you took an otherwise harmless action that's doing the harm and no one knows then no one was harmed. If someone who could not or would not have paid for satellite steals the signal then the satellite provider was not financially harmed by the theft. It would not have received any money in either case. If knowledge of his theft would encourage others to steal satellite television but no one knows he stole it then no one is harmed at all.

Ara Pacis · #**327** (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

If someone must be harmed then you might have a tough choice to make. An action that doesn't harm anyone is fine. If it's having people know that you took an otherwise harmless action that's doing the harm and no one knows then no one was harmed. If someone who could not or would not have paid for satellite steals the signal then the satellite provider was not financially harmed by the theft. It would not have received any money in either case. If knowledge of his theft would encourage others to steal satellite television but no one knows he stole it then no one is harmed at all.

What's with the continuation of the satellite TV analogy? those signals are no longer sent in the clear, they are encrypted. You'd need special hardware and cracked codes to receive it.

What don't you understand about protected services and government ability to secure means and methods of commerce for the greater good? The legitimate government has legally decreed that it owns the airwaves for the public good and has apportioned them for specific uses in specific methods and manners. The government has also defined circumstances for which those who use such systems can be held liable in both civil and/or criminal law. If you have an issue with that, then you might as well abandon the particulars of this argument and focus on the concept of legitimacy of governance, if the the mods allow.

The theft/piracy of intellectual property rights results in the damage of denying the owner proper compensation for the receipt of their product. Whether that is the patent for a device or formula for a life-saving drug that you make yourself without paying royalties or purchasing from a licensed manufacturer, or the downloading of copyrighted material, or the accessing of electromagnetic systems that don't belong to you and to which you have not recieved legal authorization, the harm is not paying for what you have received. "There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch", because someone, somewhere is paying for it and when people don't pay for what they have received, it perverts the utility of the economic law of supply and demand upon which the market operates.

Some systems may not be as secure as they can be, then they may rely upon the honor system, an assumption that good people will abide by social expectations when not otherwise forced to abide, but that's no guarantee since, as your posts so clearly illustrate, some people have no honor.

Chuck · #**328** (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 03:06 PM

The satellite example is just a modification of the Internet access theft discussion that doesn't use anyone's bandwidth. I brought it up because people were complaining that wireless pirating was costing the network owners and ISPs money and I wanted to see if the argument would continue if that expense were removed from consideration.

Only someone who could or would pay for satellite signals can deprive the company of any payments. Someone who wouldn't have satellite television if he had to pay for it doesn't deprive the company of anything since the company would not have gotten any money from him no matter what. If someone steals a converter box to decode the signal then someone else loses that box. If someone builds his own then no one else has lost anything. I don't see how anyone can claim to be harmed if there's no change at all in his situation, including even knowing about the crime. I don't question that it's illegal, but illegal doesn't mean someone else was affected in any way. It just means that there's a law on the books that's been violated. I also know that someone had to pay to broadcast that signal, but that expense is paid whether the signal is received or not.

I know that the government claims the airwaves, but governments claim a great deal. The U.S. government used to return escaped slaves to their owners and used military force to move native Americans off their land, so I'm not all that impressed by a decision solely because it was made by the government. I'm not sure what a legitimate government might be unless maybe all of the governed agree to it. Majority rule seems to work better than other forms of government but being popular doesn't mean it's always right.

jt-3d · #**329** (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

I know that the government claims the airwaves, but governments claim a great deal. The U.S. government used to return escaped slaves to their owners and used military force to move native Americans off their land, so I'm not all that impressed by a decision solely because it was made by the government. I'm not sure what a legitimate government might be unless maybe all of the governed agree to it. Majority rule seems to work better than other forms of government but being popular doesn't mean it's always right.

So now you're freeing slaves by using unsecure wifi? Are you next going to compare it to wiping out naziism? Come on. You know it's wrong.

I just got back form a long drive, visiting the relatives. I kept my speed well above the posted speed limit most of the way. I decided that my time was more valuable than crawling along at a mere 70mph. Nobody was harmed, there were no close brushes with death. Not even any close shaves with fender benders (except in Austin, where I wasn't even speeding. You have to know Austin traffic.). In short noone was harmed and I probably saved a whopping 20 minutes. But I don't entertain the notion that I wasn't doing something wrong and I knew if I got caught, I'd pay a substantial penalty. It was my choice but I also knew I was doing wrong.

I like what a few people posted before: Let's not make them have to enact a law. We have enough laws already.

Chuck · #**330** (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jt-3d

So now you're freeing slaves by using unsecure wifi? Are you next going to compare it to wiping out naziism? Come on. You know it's wrong.

In a slave owning society, people would say "Come on. You know it's wrong." about helping them to escape. When declaring something to be wrong, it means it seems wrong to you. Is someone else always wrong if he disagrees with you?

Quote:

I just got back form a long drive, visiting the relatives. I kept my speed well above the posted speed limit most of the way. I decided that my time was more valuable than crawling along at a mere 70mph. Nobody was harmed, there were no close brushes with death. Not even any close shaves with fender benders (except in Austin, where I wasn't even speeding. You have to know Austin traffic.). In short noone was harmed and I probably saved a whopping 20 minutes. But I don't entertain the notion that I wasn't doing something wrong and I knew if I got caught, I'd pay a substantial penalty. It was my choice but I also knew I was doing wrong.

I like what a few people posted before: Let's not make them have to enact a law. We have enough laws already.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Internet For Sale!!! NOOOO!!!!!	Knowledge_Seeker	Off-Topic Babbling	74	30-July-2007 06:13 PM
FREE "Opera" browser information	imported_Astrono	Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories	0	06-September-2003 04:06 PM