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.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

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/...n%2006#0815.06

I read both webpages at those two links and I think the interpretation is ambiguous, if not the opposite: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 Under the next sub-heading Primary Theft, they saySo, 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??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.

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.

__________________

Ah yes, we must think of the children.

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

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

See my post #122. it definitely is in Florida.

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*

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

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

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

Fullerton and Hermosa Beach in California, for example.

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

Mine doesn't.

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

Mine does, but only for authenticated users.



What was completely irrelevant, period.

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.

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

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

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.

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:

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

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....

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

__________________
If I set the budget, we'd have Ares and more. Unfortunately, I don't set the budget, and Ares is just too expensive and too far out for us to accomplish our goals within the budget we were given.

If we halt the ISS, all versions of Ares, and transport Orion and Altair aboard DIRECTv3's Jupiter family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, we just might make it back to the Moon by 2020.

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.

__________________

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.

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.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

My apologies. I should have read more closely.

__________________

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.

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.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

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.

__________________

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.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

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.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

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.

__________________

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.

*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.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

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...

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.

__________________

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

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

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.

__________________

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.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

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.

__________________

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.

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.

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

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►