Why It's OK To 'Steal' Wi-Fi

Nemesis999 said:
Yup, hence they reason why I not only said "usually", but further stated "That's not to say there aren't some rich idiots, or poor geniuses, but on average the trend holds." To make sure someone doesn't get their panties in a twist. Apparently you've maged to do that anyway.
Click to expand...

You said "usually" but offer no evidence to support it. The main problem with your statement is that it suggests causality - that intelligence causes wealth. I contest this, and challenge you to offer some evidence. I agree that education has a correlation with wealth, but I think you will find the causality is likely the reverse in this case (i.e. wealth causes education).

At any rate, there seems to be a bit of an issue in this discussion with respect to the meaning of "ethical." Ethics is very much a personal thing, except part of socialization is also the imposition of a set of ethical values. Now it's hard to say what those values are in our society without being too general, but personally I consider using other people's wireless signal to be unethical.

First of all, the analogies are mostly ridiculous and at best have many flaws. Ultimately, ethics does not care about the nature of wireless signals nor how accurately they can be compared to stealing various physical objects. My values (because I would not presume to have the same values as others) tell me that I cannot automatically assume an open and available network is that way due to intent, just as I cannot assume anything is being given away for free, unless it is explicitly stated. Since I have never had a neighbor explicitly state that their wireless would be available for my use, I do not feel that it is appropriate to make such an assumption.

Many of the explanations in this thread strike me as little more than an excuse or a defense of the use of open wireless networks. That's fine. But I don't think ethical behavior requires any defense at all. As Kierkegaard said (in regard to Christianity, but I believe it is applicable to almost any idea), "To defend something is always to discredit it."

It is totally unnecessary to argue on and on about whether or not a wireless network signal is like throwing money at people (it's obviously not), nor whether DHCP is the same as explicit permission (it's obviously not). These are not ethics, these are technicalities and the sorts of things upon which laws are based. But this discussion was clearly never about legality; it was about ethics. And for me, the ethical consideration only requires the question, "Can I reasonably and respectfully assume that this is in line with the intent of the owner (originator) of the signal?" And while this is certainly often the case, I don't think such an assumption is reasonable nor respectful.

Just saying.
 
Heres my turn at an anology! Yay

Its like leaving a sofa outside on the lawn. How surprised would you be if some hobo was sleeping on it?
 
Syndicated_Death said:
If I left my front door unlocked and I came home and someone I didn't know was on my couch watching tv I think I would be shocked and hostile at first. once I got a chance to look around and take stock that nothing was missing who am I to be pissed at someone watching a little tv if I was stupid enough not to lock my front door.

There Suckas!!!! that's the appropriate analogy
Click to expand...
Stop lying! Yo ass would be fittin to plant a foot firmly up said random tv viewer's ass! :D
 
Y'know, I used to park my car in the same spot every day when I lived in downtown St. Louis. One day I was walking up to my car and heard a few people talking, when I came in it went like this

"he leaves it parked here every day and it has that nice stereo in plain sight..."

When I went over there 3 guys were trying to break into the car that I left parked there, everyday. I flipped open my cellphone, dialed 911 ran over and said "Cops are on their way" and the guys ran. It was an apartment parking lot, so it could be considered "open."

If you're using your neighbors network are you going to their house and asking permission first? Would you be willing to tell them if your neighbor caught you using it? The best analogy that I can come up with is if you leave the cover to your gas tank opened and your car sitting on the street is it OK to siphon the gas out because of an honest mistake? Also, the reason cable companies are imposing caps on their service is because it DOES COST more for them to give you more information. I do not believe DSL works the same way, that's why you only see caps from the cable companies.
 
LaChupacabra said:
Y'know, I used to park my car in the same spot every day when I lived in downtown St. Louis. One day I was walking up to my car and heard a few people talking, when I came in it went like this

"he leaves it parked here every day and it has that nice stereo in plain sight..."

When I went over there 3 guys were trying to break into the car that I left parked there, everyday. I flipped open my cellphone, dialed 911 ran over and said "Cops are on their way" and the guys ran. It was an apartment parking lot, so it could be considered "open."

If you're using your neighbors network are you going to their house and asking permission first? Would you be willing to tell them if your neighbor caught you using it? The best analogy that I can come up with is if you leave the cover to your gas tank opened and your car sitting on the street is it OK to siphon the gas out because of an honest mistake? Also, the reason cable companies are imposing caps on their service is because it DOES COST more for them to give you more information. I do not believe DSL works the same way, that's why you only see caps from the cable companies.
Click to expand...

How does it cost more to give more information? If they wouldn't sell beyond their capacity, then there wouldn't be a problem.
 
I leave mine at home in PA open,but when I'm in NJ during the week, that one is locked down.
 
LaChupacabra said:
The best analogy that I can come up with is if you leave the cover to your gas tank opened and your car sitting on the street is it OK to siphon the gas out because of an honest mistake?
Click to expand...

if I start up my car and your gas goes into my tank, yeah, its mine..:p
 
Alright, ENOUGH WITH THE ANALOGIES!

Christ, most of them aren't even close to anything reasonable. I've been hearing this "free wi-fi" debate raging on ever since the technology started to spread in popularity, and it seems that everyone is so obsessed with finding something to compare wi-fi leeching to, that the vast majority of people skip over the real issue.

The fix for all of this is so simple, you'll feel dumber after reading this:

Wireless router manufacturers need to simply start shipping their products with the wi-fi turned off by default, and not allowing you to enable it until it has a chance to inform you about wireless security.

There, is that so hard? The REAL problem here, is that the majority of people who buy a router have no idea that they're broadcasting an unprotected wi-fi signal, or what that even means. Most of the slightly older, highly popular routers out there came with an unprotected wi-fi signal running by default. That is exactly why we have millions of wireless connections available all over the world which are ripe for the leeching.

If the router manufacturers were to make all new routers require the above wi-fi initialization, and if they made an effort to educate all former customers (website ads, email for those who registered, etc) about how to either disable, or secure their wireless connection, then any wi-fi connection still remaining unprotected should be fair game.

I'm already of the belief that there's nothing wrong in taking advantage of an unprotected wireless signal. To me that's like getting scolded for turning on my car radio, and listening to music for free without calling the station to ask permission first, however the real blame here needs to be put on router manufacturers for massively screwing up here.

They need to be the ones held responsible for this, even if by no one else but their customers.
 
Blu_Haze said:
Alright, ENOUGH WITH THE ANALOGIES!

Christ, most of them aren't even close to anything reasonable. I've been hearing this "free wi-fi" debate raging on ever since the technology started to spread in popularity, and it seems that everyone is so obsessed with finding something to compare wi-fi leeching to, that the vast majority of people skip over the real issue.

The fix for all of this is so simple, you'll feel dumber after reading this:

Wireless router manufacturers need to simply start shipping their products with the wi-fi turned off by default, and not allowing you to enable it until it has a chance to inform you about wireless security.

There, is that so hard? The REAL problem here, is that the majority of people who buy a router have no idea that they're broadcasting an unprotected wi-fi signal, or what that even means. Most of the slightly older, highly popular routers out there came with an unprotected wi-fi signal running by default. That is exactly why we have millions of wireless connections available all over the world which are ripe for the leeching.

If the router manufacturers were to make all new routers require the above wi-fi initialization, and if they made an effort to educate all former customers (website ads, email for those who registered, etc) about how to either disable, or secure their wireless connection, then any wi-fi connection still remaining unprotected should be fair game.

I'm already of the belief that there's nothing wrong in taking advantage of an unprotected wireless signal. To me that's like getting scolded for turning on my car radio, and listening to music for free without calling the station to ask permission first, however the real blame here needs to be put on router manufacturers for massively screwing up here.

They need to be the ones held responsible for this, even if by no one else but their customers.
Click to expand...

Router manufacturers use to do exactly what you're suggesting. The problem was that their tech support costs blew up because people were calling to get their wireless routers fixed because they didn't know the wireless part was turned off. So then they started turning it on, but enabling WEP by default. Well, people were still complaing that their fancy new routers's wireless function wasn't working. So the manufacturers started shipping them with wifi on, encryption off, and a little blurb in the Getting Started manual stating that the wireless access point was unsecured and anyone woudl be able to access it.
 
ryan_975 said:
How does it cost more to give more information? If they wouldn't sell beyond their capacity, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...

If their cap is 250GB a month, assuming 31 days
31 days x 24 hours = 744 hours
744 hours x 60 minutes = 44640 minutes
44640 minutes x 60 seconds = 2678400 seconds

250 GB x 8 = 2000 Gbits a month

So, 2000 GBits divided by 2678400 seconds = 0.000746714456 Gbits/s. Multiply that by 1024 if they're using Bits or 1000 if the company is onwed by Seagate (which i'm assuming it's not) and you get ~ .765 Mbit connection.

Their capacity is only limited by their fastest connection. It would be ridiculous for a cable comapny to actually serve data at that rate. Their margins are probably pretty good but their's nothing wrong with making money. Penny Arcade put it pretty well http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/4/29/.
 
LaChupacabra said:
If their cap is 250GB a month, assuming 31 days
31 days x 24 hours = 744 hours
744 hours x 60 minutes = 44640 minutes
44640 minutes x 60 seconds = 2678400 seconds

250 GB x 8 = 2000 Gbits a month

So, 2000 GBits divided by 2678400 seconds = 0.000746714456 Gbits/s. Multiply that by 1024 if they're using Bits or 1000 if the company is onwed by Seagate (which i'm assuming it's not) and you get ~ .765 Mbit connection.

Their capacity is only limited by their fastest connection. It would be ridiculous for a cable comapny to actually serve data at that rate. Their margins are probably pretty good but their's nothing wrong with making money. Penny Arcade put it pretty well http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/4/29/.
Click to expand...

Well, I have no idea what you're going on about or how it applies to ISP over selling their bandwidth abilities.

My current ISP sells me an 8M/768k line for $37 (before an $8 discount for also having digital cable). I have no caps. I can download 2.5 TB a month, which the most an 8mb line can transfer, if I wanted to and they wouldn't care. All they ask is that I don't allow an open relay mail server to exist in my network and that I run a mini-ISP from my connection. In fact, DOCSIS 2.0 maximum bandwidth is somewhere around 40-50Mbits per second. DOCSIS 3.0 ups it to something like 200+MB/s. I'm not sure if that per customer or per node though.

This whole bandwidth capping has to do with big companies overselling their network capabilities. If they tell customers that they can download at 10mb/s, but only up to 10GB in a month, most of their customers are going to be carefule of what they download so the bandwidth they use will be vastly smaller than what they bought. This frees up their network to stuff more customers into the same hardware limitations. Does it save them money, well yeah. But it's dishonest.
 
ryan_975 said:
My current ISP sells me an 8M/768k line for $37 (before an $8 discount for also having digital cable). I have no caps. I can download 2.5 TB a month, which the most an 8mb line can transfer, if I wanted to and they wouldn't care. All they ask is that I don't allow an open relay mail server to exist in my network and that I run a mini-ISP from my connection. In fact, DOCSIS 2.0 maximum bandwidth is somewhere around 40-50Mbits per second. DOCSIS 3.0 ups it to something like 200+MB/s. I'm not sure if that per customer or per node though.
Click to expand...

If the comapny you buy your pipe from is asking you to run a "mini-ISP" it doesn't sound like a typical residential line, straight from Charter's ToS:

http://www.charter.com/Visitors/Policies.aspx?Policy=6
1. USE
The Service is designed for personal and family use within a single household. Customer agrees that only the Customer and co-residents living in the same household will use the Service. The term ‘single household’ means the Customer’s home and includes an apartment, condominium, flat or other residential unit that may be used as a residence in any multiple dwelling unit. The Service is being provided solely for use in Customer’s household and any unauthorized access by a third party to e-mail, Internet access, or any other function of the Service relieves Charter of any affirmative obligations it may have, and is in violation of this Policy. Customer is responsible for any misuse of the Service that occurs through Customer’s account whether by a member of Customer’s household or an authorized or unauthorized third-party.
Click to expand...

If you want to leave your connection hooked up to an access point more power to you. That's what it's intended for. It's funny that charter doesn't make a claim to the legality of someone else using a residential connection. They do make sure to cover their ass incase it happens.

It's still a line that's meant for a single customer/dwelling and a sticky bit of law. To tell another quick story, I had a customer at Best Buy who I sold a wireless router too with a Geeksquad install of their network. We got to talking and it turned out they already had a router and had a wireless network earlier. But one of their neighboors was using their connection to do things that weren't legal. The FBI showed up at my customer's house, fully intending to arrest them. My customers were able to convince the investigators that they were not the ones responsible, but the FBI did set up equipment at their appartment to find and catch the neighbors who were doing illegal things over the connection. These were good people who didn't know they were doing anyting wrong until they were almost arrested. You can't blame someone for not knowing how to setup a password on their router. Which seems to be an underlying trend of this thread. However, if you are not the one on the contract with whatever ISP, you should not be using that connection unless you own a connection that is intended for resale. It may not be stealing. But whoever is using the connection is profiting from whoever owns the connection without the owner getting anything back. It makes you a mooch. Freaking mooches need to get off my lawn!
 
twice i have tried to open up my connection to others to be nice-

both times some asswipe clogs up my connection - i go to a bandwidth monitor and it is maxed. (apartment community)

Doesn't make sense to me. Just use to browse the internet, maybe even play a game on a medium-small server... but people can't just do that....
 
Cash, Grass, or Ass, Nobody Rides For Free

This would be an underlying foundation of our capitalist system wouldn't it.
except, it seems, when it comes to digital media or wi-fi...

This is why we have laws, Up against the car! Spread 'em! (option #3)
 
I don't have any issue with the people that are opening their connections just to be nice to other people but I think that the people who complain after getting their bandwidth siphoned, because they didn't secure their connection, should bear the responsibility for not securing their network. At the same time, I don't think that it's OK to steal Wi-Fi because someone else is obviously paying for the connection. Just like the argument that people make all the time about stealing music over BitTorrent, it's not OK just because its available and no one is looking. A crime (albiet a very minor one in this case) is still a crime regardless of whether you are caught.
 
Zoogle said:
A crime (albiet a very minor one in this case) is still a crime regardless of whether you are caught.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, it is *not* a crime to use someone else's open WiFi (otherwise places like starbucks and such with open wifi hotspots would be in big trouble ;) ). This whole discussion is on whether or not it is ethically/morally OK to do so, not legally :)
 
Physical things you can see (wallets, cars, etc) is hard to compare to a technology that's quickly being available to anyone.

Ever since I got my iPod touch, I've been sitting at stoplights quickly visiting various websites.

The wireless router has instructions to secure their connection - if they don't follow it, then its their fault. Its not like I'm breaking in to their router with their default password and changing their settings.
 
ryan_975 said:
Router manufacturers use to do exactly what you're suggesting. The problem was that their tech support costs blew up because people were calling to get their wireless routers fixed because they didn't know the wireless part was turned off. So then they started turning it on, but enabling WEP by default. Well, people were still complaing that their fancy new routers's wireless function wasn't working. So the manufacturers started shipping them with wifi on, encryption off, and a little blurb in the Getting Started manual stating that the wireless access point was unsecured and anyone woudl be able to access it.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, the REAL problem is people not RTFM.
 
To clarify my opinion:

engaging in such behaviour does undermine a key underpinning of our capitalist system (you have to pay for what is provided, we're not a communist society)

it also provides a reason and justification for enacting more laws which will undermine what we cherish most of all: our freedom

Cash, Grass, or Ass, Nobody Rides For Free

Now to get on with my life so I can afford to pay my way.
 
I'm sure the ISP's out there will go with the "it's illegal ..very illegal" angle as then that's one person not paying them for their serivices .. like having your neighbor run an extra cable to your tv so you can have free access to all those extra channels ..
 
ThreeDee said:
I'm sure the ISP's out there will go with the "it's illegal ..very illegal" angle as then that's one person not paying them for their serivices .. like having your neighbor run an extra cable to your tv so you can have free access to all those extra channels ..
Click to expand...

Except, there's actually a law against doing that. There's no law against using an open network.
 
ThreeDee said:
I'm sure the ISP's out there will go with the "it's illegal ..very illegal" angle as then that's one person not paying them for their serivices .. like having your neighbor run an extra cable to your tv so you can have free access to all those extra channels ..
Click to expand...

No, its not similar. ISPs charge for a fixed size pipe, NOT per computer like is often the case with, say, satellite TV where you also pay per TV. In the comcast terms of service it only states the the high speed internet is limited to a single outlet, it says nothing of how many computers may be using it. Then again, the router will only appear as one computer to the modem anyway. It doesn't matter how many people are using it, as it is a fixed size pipe, which is all that I am paying for. This is also, of course, why saying it is "stealing" is stupid, because it is not stealing. If anything, its helping the owner maximize his purchase by using otherwise wasted bandwidth.
 
kllrnohj said:
No, its not similar. ISPs charge for a fixed size pipe, NOT per computer like is often the case with, say, satellite TV where you also pay per TV. In the comcast terms of service it only states the the high speed internet is limited to a single outlet, it says nothing of how many computers may be using it. Then again, the router will only appear as one computer to the modem anyway. It doesn't matter how many people are using it, as it is a fixed size pipe, which is all that I am paying for. This is also, of course, why saying it is "stealing" is stupid, because it is not stealing. If anything, its helping the owner maximize his purchase by using otherwise wasted bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Time Warner had some text in there that pretty much said that you could not share the connection outside of the residence where it's installed. So if the computer is not in your house then it shouldn't be on the connection. I have to check the VZ TOS and see if they have something similar. I never give a shit about those clauses because I keeps my router locked down (as locked down as an Actiontec can be).
 
kllrnohj said:
No, its not similar. ISPs charge for a fixed size pipe, NOT per computer like is often the case with, say, satellite TV where you also pay per TV. In the comcast terms of service it only states the the high speed internet is limited to a single outlet, it says nothing of how many computers may be using it. Then again, the router will only appear as one computer to the modem anyway. It doesn't matter how many people are using it, as it is a fixed size pipe, which is all that I am paying for. This is also, of course, why saying it is "stealing" is stupid, because it is not stealing. If anything, its helping the owner maximize his purchase by using otherwise wasted bandwidth.
Click to expand...

I would word that last part a little differently:

It is the person who is not a party to the contract that is helping themselves to the service in order to minimize/eliminate his (or her) costs.

Call it what you like, rationalize it any way you like, eventually the results are going to be bad for us all.

Oh, and by the way,
Protected by Smith and Wesson
Click to expand...
 
First of all how did they have the knowledge to know it was being used and lacked the knowledge to secure it in the first place? Puzzling, isn't it...
 
adri1456 said:
Physical things you can see (wallets, cars, etc) is hard to compare to a technology that's quickly being available to anyone.

Ever since I got my iPod touch, I've been sitting at stoplights quickly visiting various websites.

The wireless router has instructions to secure their connection - if they don't follow it, then its their fault. Its not like I'm breaking in to their router with their default password and changing their settings.
Click to expand...

I think the last part of that made this argument clear enough.

If you stop to think about it, who's going to complain? It's not like you're standing on the street corner and shouting "LOOK AT ME I'M STEALING INTERNET! LOLOL!"

Put it to rest already.
 
Ren H said:
It is the person who is not a party to the contract that is helping themselves to the service in order to minimize/eliminate his (or her) costs.
Click to expand...

Sharing is caring ;)

Call it what you like, rationalize it any way you like, eventually the results are going to be bad for us all.
Click to expand...

I highly, highly doubt open wifi will have any negative effects until it gets abused (if it gets abused). Bittorrent is having a much larger impact on available bandwidth than a couple of people surfing the web using one connection. Ten people all using one connection to do moderate web surfing and e-mailing are much easier on the network than one person using one connection to download and torrent all day... Of course, in the end it shouldn't matter what people are using their connection for, but that is a different discussion for a different thread ;)
 
So I have read most of this discussion and I may have missed this......

So lets say me, being a technical geek allows people to use my open access. Because you are connecting to MY AP and MY LAN, you are bound by my rulees, no?

What do you guys think if I sniffed any smb shares you had open on your computer? How about sniffing your passwords, capturing your web traffic, sending connection reset packets randomly....should I be allowed to do that? What about throttling?

If not, why not?
 
New routers should have a led that next to the words "Unsecured" that would light up if the wireless is unsecured.

Tech savy people will already secure there wireless if they want.
Non-tech savy will see the light and be like Oh no! And look at the manual, call IT, etc. to get them secure from the hackers of the internet.

My mom thought she'd be less secure on the internet if she used wireless. It took a while to convince her that it'd be only if someone was in range of our router and I turned off the protection.
 
flegg said:
twice i have tried to open up my connection to others to be nice-
Click to expand...

Wait until you are served a subpoena by the RIAA, MPAA hauled into court for child porn or the likes. Drive by spammers, hackers and virus authors love the free wireless too. Having people hog all your bandwidth is the least of your worries when you leave your connection open.

As for the analogies, you are all trying to say the same basic thing, just because someone leaves their house unlocked / keys in the car (either by stupidity or accident) you are still breaking the law if you go into that house / drive that car. People arguing against that are just rationalizing. It’s not yours, don’t use it.
 
Steve said:
As for the analogies, you are all trying to say the same basic thing, just because someone leaves their house unlocked / keys in the car (either by stupidity or accident) you are still breaking the law if you go into that house / drive that car. People arguing against that are just rationalizing. It’s not yours, don’t use it.
Click to expand...

Analogies to physical objects simply don't work. If you connect to the internet, you're not preventing anyone else from using it, there's still internet there.

And again, it's not analogous to leaving one's house unlocked, your access point is actively broadcasting "Hey! Come connect to me!". Why should I turn down such an offer?
 
unhappy_mage said:
Analogies to physical objects simply don't work. If you connect to the internet, you're not preventing anyone else from using it, there's still internet there.

And again, it's not analogous to leaving one's house unlocked, your access point is actively broadcasting "Hey! Come connect to me!". Why should I turn down such an offer?
Click to expand...


When most ISPs charge for bandwidth overages, and people (like mentioned earlier) are maxing someone's connection, that's just wrong.

There are at least 4 open networks in my area and, as an ADULT, I don't log on to them because I know better and I give strangers the same common courtesy I would like.

AGAIN, saying anything different is just rationalizing. It is not yours. You didn't pay for it. You shouldn't use it.
 
Steve said:
When most ISPs charge for bandwidth overages, and people (like mentioned earlier) are maxing someone's connection, that's just wrong.

There are at least 4 open networks in my area and, as an ADULT, I don't log on to them because I know better and I give strangers the same common courtesy I would like.

AGAIN, saying anything different is just rationalizing. It is not yours. You didn't pay for it. You shouldn't use it.
Click to expand...

Everything in this thread is rationalization. You rationalize why we shouldn't, we rationalize why it's ok.
 
Robstar said:
So I have read most of this discussion and I may have missed this......

So lets say me, being a technical geek allows people to use my open access. Because you are connecting to MY AP and MY LAN, you are bound by my rulees, no?

What do you guys think if I sniffed any smb shares you had open on your computer? How about sniffing your passwords, capturing your web traffic, sending connection reset packets randomly....should I be allowed to do that? What about throttling?

If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Outside of questionable legality, I wouldn't connect to anyones Open AP PRECISELY for the above reasons. When I use public access (say...panera bread when I am a customer there), I will vpn or tunnel everything out. If I browse clear text web pages I will _NEVER_ browse anything that requires a password unless it's ssl encrypted.
 
Steve said:
When most ISPs charge for bandwidth overages, and people (like mentioned earlier) are maxing someone's connection, that's just wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, abusing an open connection is wrong, but is simply hopping on to check your e-mail wrong? How about light web browsing? Then again, where do you draw the line, or is there a line? I say its fine up until the point where you interfere with the service of and/or cause charges to the owner.

AGAIN, saying anything different is just rationalizing. It is not yours. You didn't pay for it. You shouldn't use it.
Click to expand...

I propose this question to you. How do you know if the router is intentionally vs. accidentally left open? Others here have said that they have an open connection that is highly restricted, locked down, and bandwidth limited - sounds like an awesome service to me where someone could just hop on and check in real fast, without the ability to abuse it. Do you take issue with that?

I propose that the way to tell if it is OK to use is if it is an open connection. Its pretty simple. Open == free to use, WEP/WPA(2) == fuck off.

So I have read most of this discussion and I may have missed this......

So lets say me, being a technical geek allows people to use my open access. Because you are connecting to MY AP and MY LAN, you are bound by my rulees, no?

What do you guys think if I sniffed any smb shares you had open on your computer? How about sniffing your passwords, capturing your web traffic, sending connection reset packets randomly....should I be allowed to do that? What about throttling?

If not, why not?
Click to expand...

You should be able to throttle, but not the other things, because AFAIK, some of that is illegal... Besides, if you let people use your open router, why would you be a dick about it? I realize such a thing is likely to happen (hence I personally stick to using my cell phone's internet when I'm not home), but it isn't OK (unless they start fucking with your traffic/network, then get them back ;) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top