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?

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

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.

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

*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.

__________________

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.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
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 ►

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.

__________________
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.

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.
No, you didn't send it to me. If you send a wireless signal into my apartment then you are sending me something.
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.
All the more reason to have locks. If the thief sees a decent lock he won't bother trying to take the bike.

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

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.
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.

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

Actually, the government was the final authority on that, by force of arms.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Judging from what's in the Icelandic sagas, the use of excessive or deadly force was an extremely popular way to secure property in the best historical example of a radially libertarian society.

That is not an invitation, that is temptation, or envy. Acting according to that temptation or envy is theft. Invitation is no part of the equation. You are not being invited.

__________________
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.

Of course you don't see it as an invitation. That's not the problem. Alternate opinions are the problem.

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

analogies. so many analogies.

__________________
"The purpose of life is not just to be happy; the purpose of life is to be useful, to be responsible, to be compassionate. It is, above all to matter, to count, to stand for something, to have made some difference that you lived at all."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
-Albert Einstein-

A flood of analogies?

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

Good point!

More particularly, alternate opinions about whether one has a responsibility to treat others with respect are the problem.

That's why we give nice men with big guns the authority to enforce majority opinion.

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

The nice men with big guns don't always stay nice and don't always worry about what the majority thinks.

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

Would you like an analgesic cream? — Emergency Medical Hologram

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
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 ►

good one!

But actually in this case, it's more like a trainload of analogies.

They are a problem indeed, because they are against company rules and the law.

So can we conclude that detecting somebody else's wifi signal in your room is not an invitation and acting as if it is an invitation is wrong?

__________________
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 nice, but you have to realize that a lot of people will see it as an invitation and treat it as such. It would be better to prevent them from using your network before they become a problem. Many of them won't even know they're doing something that you'd rather they didn't do and many more won't care about your opinion until the police show up.

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

I can agree with that, but while that is a good reason for protecting your wifi, it is not a justification for using somebody else's wifi.

__________________
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.

"War-driving" ( http://www.wardriving.com/ ) (I'm too tired to do it right)

Is nothing new but it *is* illegal. At the very least it is in this state and I'm sure others as well. If you want your brownie-points back you should man-up and go up to their front door and help them protect their network. Hell maybe they'll make you dinner in return.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

No one should use unprotected wireless networks without authorization but I don't think the police should investigate claims from the victims. Victims should be told to secure their networks and then complain if someone is getting in anyway. After all, if I were to leave a material possession on my lawn every day and people stole them, the police would soon get tired of my phone calls. People have to take some responsibility for their own security.

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

Looong time lurker first time poster.

I want to say up front that the "You" I am using is just a general person and is not meant to be an attack as my comments are not directed at anyone in particular.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++

Did you pay for the internet service? No.

Are you receiving the internet service without paying for it? Yes.

Seems like stealing to me.

You can try and justify it all you want but it's pretty clear.

Let me guess, you have a cracked satellite dish too don't you?

"Well, Bell is sending all those signals into my apartment".

Does that mean people on welfare are stealing?

Do you pay for the government services? No

Are you receiving the government services without paying for them? Yes.

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

No, because they are granted permission to receive that money by the people responsible for the money. It is no more theft then your friend lending you money is you stealing from your friend. Note that the above examples involve people.
The server is not a person. While it can grant access, just as an unlocked door will open to all, it doesn't grant permission to go in. With welfare, you have access with permission. With unlocked wi-fi and the unlocked door, you have access, without permission.
It is foolish to leave your wi-fi unlocked, just at it is foolish to leave your door unlocked. But that doesn't change the fact that if you take from inside the door, it is still theft. Trying to justify stealing from a house because the door was unlocked will not work as a defense in court, why should it work for stealing wi-fi? I don't want this to be a crime either, but I do think it is wrong, and if the only way to make people stop is to have a severe enough penalty to make it not worth it, then so be it.

__________________

Umm Chuck, its costs money (let's just say $50 a month) to get internet from an ISP.
If you don't pay for it but you get it anyways from someone who IS paying $50 a month then aren't you stealing from them...?

Just wondering, how in the heck are you getting from there to Welfare?
In communist Russia Welfare pays you!! lol, sorry couldn't resist.

Twist it around all you like, it's not going to change the facts.

It doesn't matter if my uncle is brain dead and has no idea how to setup his router or if he just forgot to change the defaults, he paid for the internet and you didn't.

That being said I totally agree that he should be more responsible and secure but that still does not give you the right to rob him does it?

I "borrowed" some open wlan after i moved into a new appartment and had to wait a couple weeks before getting my own connection got installed..

Signal quality was rather poor so I had to make a better antennae to get it working properly. Spending that additional effort certainly made it seem more "wrong"
(To calm my conscience, its pretty much standard that at least around here the cost is not dependant on traffic, so I didn't feel too dirty, knowing it was wrong/illegal)

Getting something without paying for it isn't necessarily theft as Spyke's post seems to suggest.I don't have the right to rob him, but I don't think I should have to pay taxes for police to assist someone who has allowed someone else to rob him by not making a reasonable effort to protect his property.

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