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.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

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.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

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?

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

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.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

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.

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.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

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

It sounds like a case ofWillful Blindness or 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.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

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.

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

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

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.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

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.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

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.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

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.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

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

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

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

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

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.

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.

__________________

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.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

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.)

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

1. Yes, if you know you're doing it against the wishes of the owner then it's theft.
2. Yes, antisocial if you know the owner wouldn't approve.
3. No, I'd be angry at myself for having installed such a ridiculous system.
4. Not knowingly except in an emergency.
5. 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.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

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.

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

__________________
________________________________________
Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true. -- Niels Bohr --

Ipsa scientia potestas est. ~ Knowledge itself is power.---- Bacon
--------
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit.


Hint: this is at heart a scientific forum, and underneath the fooling around there are some diamond-hard minds hanging about, ready to tear you to shreads. -- mike alexander --

Mine is gray.

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.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

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.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

So you agree it's stealing, now?

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

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.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

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

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