Free internet. - Page 12

PetersCreek · #**331** (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

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.

Perhaps my memory is faulty...but didn't you use this exact argument in a discussion about music downloads a while back? Perhaps it was another forum but regardless, I've heard it before. It's a circular rationalization for taking something that doesn't belong to you.

Instead of using that rationale here, try it out at your local satellite office. I envision it going something like this:

You: How much is your service?
SatCo: $100 per month.
You: Oh, I won't pay that. Can I have it for free, instead?
SatCo: I'm afraid not.
You: Well, I wasn't going to pay for it in the first place, so it's not like you'd actually be out any money if I get it for free. So, you might as well give it to me for free. How about it?
SatCo: Well, since you put it that way...um...NO!

The way a contractual agreement usually works, is the provider offers a service at a price. If you don't like the price, you're free to shop around for a better one. Or, if the market allows, you can negotiate a better price. Either way, if both parties don't reach an agreement, the provider withholds his service and you keep your money.

You seem to argue, however, that you're perfectly entitled to unilaterally write your own contract so to speak, without the consent of the service provider, to have both his service and your money. That you don't see a problem with that is...disappointing.

Chuck · #**332** (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 01:39 AM

I don't think I ever discussed music downloads anywhere.

No one is writing his own contract. Since only one person is involved there is no agreement to be made or rejected. No one else's situation is changed and no one else knows anything about it so no one else need be consulted. You might be offended by my attitude but if such an event actually occurred you would have no opinion about it because you wouldn't know about it, nor would anyone else. It's only my posts that are bothersome.

jt-3d · #**333** (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 01:55 AM

I'm not all that hardware savy but if you're downloading a movie on my wireless, does that not cut into my download speed? And I'm not talking you specifically but a hypothetical war driver.

As I understand it I have so much bandwidth and if a good chunk of that is being used by somebody on my network it comes off of my tap, no?

PetersCreek · #**334** (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

No one is writing his own contract. Since only one person is involved there is no agreement to be made or rejected. No one else's situation is changed and no one else knows anything about it so no one else need be consulted.

Yes, behind their backs...while they aren't looking...without their knowledge or permission...that's how things that belong to others are most often taken. But don't kid youself. It's not all about you. There's you and the person(s) whose service you would be taking. Whether you value their investments and ownership rights or not, they remain in the picture.

Chuck · #**335** (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 03:55 AM

There's nothing wrong with doing something behind a person's back if that person is not affected in any way.

PetersCreek · #**336** (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 04:07 AM

That's beginning to sound like a mantra. Whatever makes you happy, I guess.

TrAI · #**337** (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jt-3d

I'm not all that hardware savy but if you're downloading a movie on my wireless, does that not cut into my download speed? And I'm not talking you specifically but a hypothetical war driver.

As I understand it I have so much bandwidth and if a good chunk of that is being used by somebody on my network it comes off of my tap, no?

If someone used your wireless for downloading a movie experience a loss of speed and possibly a noticable increase in latancy on the internet access, and you would have to share your wireless connection too, so that would be slower than usual.

Also,as a more serious sidenote that is not exactly the topic but kind of related, you may be held responsible for what your connection is used for, if the person has a little knowledge of wireless networking, there may be little proof that anyone else used the connection, as it is rather trivial to remove the logs from a wireless access point with default settings, or he/she may spoof the address of one of the machines that are connected to the network already, so the logs would appare to show that one of your machines was the one connected at the time. And he/she used a high gain directional antenna, so no need to sit in a car in front of your house, a nice place half a kilometer away overlooking the area and with few inquisitive people hanging about could work just fine.

What would happen if, say, this person decided he/she didn't like some webforum and proceded to flood it with pictures showing children being sexualy abused? You might end up getting your door kicked in at 3 in the night by armed police, getting dragged outside along with your family, have your stuff searched, all computers and accessories taken of, and spend time in jail, at least until they have a look at your computers to see if they can find anything there. If there is nothing, then, of course, the case might drop for the lack of evidence, but you wouldn't be cleared in the eyes of other people. If your machines were not secured, the person that used your network might have provided some evidence...

It has not, to my knowledge happened to anyone, but each of the things is possible there have been instances of forum warfare with the kind of images I mentioned, there have been instances of people getting hauled of by the police after someone gained access to a computer on their network(trojans mostly) and used it for illegal stuff, it is quite possible to erase the logs on a wireless AP if you can log into it, and spoofing MAC adresses is a well known practice for certain things.

Running a open access point without having some other security in place is quite risky, even using default settings should be avoided.

Grashtel · #**338** (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrAI

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.

This XKCD comic also seems appropriate http://xkcd.com/341/. As does this site http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/upside-down-ternet.html which gives instructions for how to have fun with people freeloading on your network, with a bit of tech savvy and the stuff from there there are numerous ways of making things interesting for anyone on your network and there is very little that they can do to stop it as they are going through your hardware.

Ara Pacis · #**339** (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

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.

Except now, you've added patent infringement and possibly other federal law violations to the act. If you've neutralized encryption or other logic systems in the construction of such a receiver, you might be in violation of national security laws as well.

You're still not seeing the issue. No man is an island: society, government, and commerce is a set if interconnected systems. Your actions do have an effect because they don't occur in a vacuum, no matter how much you try to isolate them. If you wanted to watch the content on satellite tv but didn't want to pay for it, instead of stealing it you might:
a) contract for cable tv, the networks would receive remuneration that way
b) watch broadcast tv, the networks receive remuneration through ad sales
c) rent on the internet, the networks receive remuneration through direct view purchases
d) rent the DVDs, the specific publishers receive remuneration through rental
e) purchase the DVDs, the specific publishers receive remuneration directly
f) read a book, the money gets circulated to another sector of the economy
g) go for a walk and buy an ice cream, same as f above
h) do something productive that is a net benefit to the economy
i) do nothing and be bored, at least then you're not being a net drain on the economy

Quote:

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.

And your point is what? Do you think the government should not claim right to regulate the airwaves or aspects of intellectual property? The "negative rights" of copyright, patents, and "invitation to treat" may be disliked by some, but they are the basis of a capitalist system.

You seem to think you're right because you have a small bit of anarchy philosophy to back you up and a lack of physical security to prevent you, yet you ignore that the much larger portion of philosophy, legality, and morality are arrayed against you. It has been shown how such willfully anti-social behavior is ultimately harmful. That it is not always diligently protected and prosecuted is evidence only of a cost-benefit analysis that deems the harm is small, but that is not the same as non-harmful.

jt-3d · #**340** (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrAI

If someone used your wireless for downloading a movie experience a loss of speed and possibly a noticable increase in latancy on the internet access, and you would have to share your wireless connection too, so that would be slower than usual.

....

Running a open access point without having some other security in place is quite risky, even using default settings should be avoided.

That's prettty much my understanding of how it works. If accurate, then it's pretty clear that it is indeed wrong to use somebody's wireless without permission.

Which reminds me, I turned on logging the other day. I should pop in and see if I got any nibbles.

Chuck · #**341** (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ara Pacis

Except now, you've added patent infringement and possibly other federal law violations to the act. If you've neutralized encryption or other logic systems in the construction of such a receiver, you might be in violation of national security laws as well.

You're still not seeing the issue. No man is an island: society, government, and commerce is a set if interconnected systems. Your actions do have an effect because they don't occur in a vacuum, no matter how much you try to isolate them. If you wanted to watch the content on satellite tv but didn't want to pay for it, instead of stealing it you might:
a) contract for cable tv, the networks would receive remuneration that way
b) watch broadcast tv, the networks receive remuneration through ad sales
c) rent on the internet, the networks receive remuneration through direct view purchases
d) rent the DVDs, the specific publishers receive remuneration through rental
e) purchase the DVDs, the specific publishers receive remuneration directly
f) read a book, the money gets circulated to another sector of the economy
g) go for a walk and buy an ice cream, same as f above
h) do something productive that is a net benefit to the economy

If I were going to do any of these if I couldn't steal satellite then I'd be depriving someone of something by stealing it instead. If I were not going to do any of them if I couldn't steal satellite then stealing satellite doesn't cost anyone anything. They wouldn't be getting my money or services in either case.

Quote:

i) do nothing and be bored, at least then you're not being a net drain on the economy

There is no drain unless I would have paid if I couldn't steal.

Quote:

And your point is what? Do you think the government should not claim right to regulate the airwaves or aspects of intellectual property? The "negative rights" of copyright, patents, and "invitation to treat" may be disliked by some, but they are the basis of a capitalist system.

I'm fine with the laws, but it doesn't always follow that someone is harmed if a law is broken. Sometime people are harmed due to laws being obeyed. In the satellite case under discussion, no one is harmed by the disobedience.

Quote:

You seem to think you're right because you have a small bit of anarchy philosophy to back you up and a lack of physical security to prevent you, yet you ignore that the much larger portion of philosophy, legality, and morality are arrayed against you. It has been shown how such willfully anti-social behavior is ultimately harmful. That it is not always diligently protected and prosecuted is evidence only of a cost-benefit analysis that deems the harm is small, but that is not the same as non-harmful.

It's not anti-social behavior if society isn't affected. It is illegal but not harmful to society. It's not immoral nor even moral since no one else is affected. If no one knows about something and no one loses anything then morality questions don't apply at all.

Nicolas · #**342** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 08:26 AM

But still in the satellite example, if everyone would do it, the company would go bankrupt. So if everyone would tap the signal without paying for it, some people would be harmed. On what basis do you justify that it is OK for you to tap the signal, while you know that it would harm society if more people would do the same thing you do?

(going by the example, I'm not claiming that you actually are hacking satellite dishes)

Chuck · #**343** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 10:42 AM

In my example, only people who would not or could not have paid for the satellite television are stealing it, and even those stealing it don't tell anyone so no bad example is set that others might follow. Those who pay for it are those who would do without it if they couldn't afford it. Since only those who wouldn't be paying in any case are stealing it, it makes no difference to anyone else whether they steal it or not as long as no one knows about it.

Ara Pacis · #**344** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

If I were going to do any of these if I couldn't steal satellite then I'd be depriving someone of something by stealing it instead. If I were not going to do any of them if I couldn't steal satellite then stealing satellite doesn't cost anyone anything. They wouldn't be getting my money or services in either case.There is no drain unless I would have paid if I couldn't steal.I'm fine with the laws, but it doesn't always follow that someone is harmed if a law is broken. Sometime people are harmed due to laws being obeyed. In the satellite case under discussion, no one is harmed by the disobedience.It's not anti-social behavior if society isn't affected. It is illegal but not harmful to society. It's not immoral nor even moral since no one else is affected. If no one knows about something and no one loses anything then morality questions don't apply at all.

Wrong. As has been pointed out several times already, taking something that has been offered for sale without paying for it is wrong. Whether is is constructed of atoms and molecules or photons and electromagnetic fields makes no difference.

Chuck · #**345** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 01:20 PM

Wrong. As I have pointed out several times already, you can't have done something wrong if you haven't harmed anyone.

captain swoop · #**346** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 02:47 PM

But stealing in and of itself is wrong. Didn't your parent's teach you that when you were a child? Surely they didn't say don't steal but it's ok if no one finds out.

Chuck · #**347** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 03:07 PM

I was taught that stealing is wrong. Since then I've come to realize that that's not always true, nor is something necessarily stealing just because someone says it is. I've freed myself of some of my societal conditioning. I see things more clearly now.

Ara Pacis · #**348** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

I was taught that stealing is wrong. Since then I've come to realize that that's not always true, nor is something necessarily stealing just because someone says it is.

Stealing is always wrong. Sometimes people don't care, but that doesn't change things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

I've freed myself of some of my societal conditioning. I see things more clearly now.

It doesn't look like it to me. After all, you're trying to justify your actions in light of the laws of that society of which you claim to be free. No, if you were really free of that societal conditioning, you'd do like me and steal without having to justify it. If it makes you feel better to do mental and emotional gymnastics then go ahead, but don't try to trick others into agreeing with you.

Chuck · #**349** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 03:29 PM

I don't claim to be free of the law, but only that some violations of the law don't harm anyone so some illegal actions aren't wrong.

HenrikOlsen · #**350** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 03:59 PM

You can't steal cable without degrading the signal, you are causing harm.
Case closed.

Chuck · #**351** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 04:01 PM

We're discussing satellite, not cable.

PetersCreek · #**352** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 05:13 PM

Violating a person's property rights isn't wrong?

Chuck · #**353** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 05:42 PM

Not always.

PetersCreek · #**354** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 06:03 PM

Perhaps not by those who put their desires above the rights of others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

Since only those who wouldn't be paying in any case are stealing it, it makes no difference to anyone else whether they steal it or not as long as no one knows about it.

But others do know about it. People talk. They always do. They can't resist sharing their success, good fortune, or just how wonderfully clever they are in getting something for nothing. Some people even make a little money helping others with the theft. In my early days in avionics, I knew a couple of guys who made and sold blocking filters to strip the interference signal from HBO...and it started with them just doing it for themselves.

But I can see you're frmly entrenched.

Chuck · #**355** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 06:07 PM

If a satellite thief did any of those things then he would be harming others, but that's got nothing to do with the question of the thief who remains unknown and doesn't harm anyone.

PetersCreek · #**356** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 06:18 PM

Under your construct, what's the difference between one person stealing in secrecy and two? Twenty? A legion?

Chuck · #**357** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 07:05 PM

No difference if none were going to pay for the service anyway. If 10 million subscribers pay and no one steals then the satellite company gets the same money as it would if 10 million pay and 100 million steal.

PetersCreek · #**358** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 07:08 PM

Well, as long as that person gets what he wants, I guess that's the important thing, eh?

Nicolas · #**359** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 07:13 PM

And how do you justify for yourself the difference between:

-"I'm allowed to hack it, because I wouldn't pay it anyway as I can't afford it"
-"I'm stealing it, because I'm too selfish to pay it"

It seems to me that it's very easy to convince yourself of the first option to justify your behaviour for yourself. But is it always true? Aren't there other non-essential costs you could cut so you can afford the satellite tv? Where is the line between the two? WHY is it justified to do illegal things for luxury services you can't afford; shouldn't you just not have it until you can afford it? Not everyone has everything in life, that's reality.

Chuck · #**360** (**permalink**) 02-January-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

Well, as long as that person gets what he wants, I guess that's the important thing, eh?

The important thing is that no one was wronged.

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