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

[/dev/null]

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.



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.



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 )

What if I have it open because I have legacy devices (say VOIP phones, old pda's, etc) don't support encryption? That doesn't mean you can use it just because I have it open....And why is monitoring my own traffic illegal? What if I have all traffic monitored on the open wap interface because I am worried about tresspassers? What if I am troubleshooting a VOIP issue & capture your traffic?

What I do'nt get is the people say "If you don't want to share, don't leave it open...." but theN i come and say "if you don't want your traffic sniffed, use your own networK".

Why does it go one way and not the other?

Traffic monitoring on my own network isn't illegal.

 

[kllrnohj]

What if I have it open because I have legacy devices (say VOIP phones, old pda's, etc) don't support encryption? That doesn't mean you can use it just because I have it open....And why is monitoring my own traffic illegal? What if I have all traffic monitored on the open wap interface because I am worried about tresspassers? What if I am troubleshooting a VOIP issue & capture your traffic?

What I do'nt get is the people say "If you don't want to share, don't leave it open...." but theN i come and say "if you don't want your traffic sniffed, use your own networK".

Why does it go one way and not the other?

Traffic monitoring on my own network isn't illegal.

I was more talking about the sniffing for passwords and sending reset packets. Monitoring your own traffic is cool, but monitoring others isn't. If you are monitoring your traffic and notice someone else on your network, kick them off - don't spy on them. As for legacy devices, 802.11b included WEP in its specification, so it should be supported. Of course, there are other methods of securing a network that don't require the client to support it, such as MAC filtering.

 

[Ren H]

How do you know if the router is intentionally vs. accidentally left open?

The onus is on you to find out, not just assume it's free for you to "use".
Any unauthorized use is abuse.

Random House defines "rationalize" this way

"#3. to invent plausible explanations for (acts, opinions, etc., that actually have other causes)" (oh, right, you're not inventing, you're pointing out)

To help oneself to something that someone else has paid for without asking is inherently wrong. (Didn't your mother teach you that?)

To try to justify or otherwise explain it away is rationalizing.

-Now to wait for the copyright infringement suit

ah, but I'm actually engaging in free publicity for Random House and not harming them at all, the dictionary is still there to be used, I haven't prevented the anybodyelse from using it, I haven't devalued it in any way actually I've enhanced the value of it's purchase by putting it to further use, it was just lying there unprotected in the library being offered up for anyone to use, etc etc

A fine example of rationalizing, in case you didn't notice

 

[BinarySynapse]

The onus is on you to find out, not just assume it's free for you to "use".
Any unauthorized use is abuse.

Random House defines "rationalize" this way

"#3. to invent plausible explanations for (acts, opinions, etc., that actually have other causes)" (oh, right, you're not inventing, you're pointing out)

To help oneself to something that someone else has paid for without asking is inherently wrong. (Didn't your mother teach you that?)

To try to justify or otherwise explain it away is rationalizing.

-Now to wait for the copyright infringement suit

ah, but I'm actually engaging in free publicity for Random House and not harming them at all, the dictionary is still there to be used, I haven't prevented the anybodyelse from using it, I haven't devalued it in any way actually I've enhanced the value of it's purchase by putting it to further use, it was just lying there unprotected in the library being offered up for anyone to use, etc etc

A fine example of rationalizing, in case you didn't notice

That definition works both ways. Like I said, you rationalize why you consider it wrong. I'll rationalize why I think it isn't.

 

[Decibel]

I have nothing to add to this discussion, but there is no rationalization needed to use an open network.

It's in my house. It's not locked. It's fair game.

It is not unethical. If someone has a network they want private, at least make the effort. Ignorance is no excuse.

To keep Ren's terrible rationalization analogy going... You come to my house, you leave a dictionary on the table. I'm going to use it when I need to look something up.

 

[Ren H]

It's only a rationalization if you don't accept that using somebody else's stuff without their permission is wrong.
Saying it's fair game pretty much shows that you do accept that it's wrong, but not withstanding that, to think that a networks being unsecured implicitly gives permission is just silly.
If people don't behave responsibly then inveitibly the courts are going to intervene, create more draconian laws, and have this kind of behaviour as just cause for doing so.
In other words, stop it or somebody's going to stop it for you, and take the rights of all of us at hte same time.

 

[/dev/null]

I have nothing to add to this discussion, but there is no rationalization needed to use an open network.

It's in my house. It's not locked. It's fair game.

It is not unethical. If someone has a network they want private, at least make the effort. Ignorance is no excuse.

To keep Ren's terrible rationalization analogy going... You come to my house, you leave a dictionary on the table. I'm going to use it when I need to look something up.

I say the same...if you are on my network, open or not, I am going to sniff traffic and apply my network policies. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

 

[/dev/null]

I have nothing to add to this discussion, but there is no rationalization needed to use an open network.

It's in my house. It's not locked. It's fair game.

It is not unethical. If someone has a network they want private, at least make the effort. Ignorance is no excuse.

To keep Ren's terrible rationalization analogy going... You come to my house, you leave a dictionary on the table. I'm going to use it when I need to look something up.

What if it is on purpose and intended to be kept private? If I leave an open network with the ssid "private_keep_out" you have no right to use it. I may have it open for VARIOUS reasons, including my own study, using legacy devices, etc.

 

[kllrnohj]

The onus is on you to find out, not just assume it's free for you to "use".
Any unauthorized use is abuse.

Random House defines "rationalize" this way

"#3. to invent plausible explanations for (acts, opinions, etc., that actually have other causes)" (oh, right, you're not inventing, you're pointing out)

To help oneself to something that someone else has paid for without asking is inherently wrong. (Didn't your mother teach you that?)

To try to justify or otherwise explain it away is rationalizing.

-Now to wait for the copyright infringement suit

ah, but I'm actually engaging in free publicity for Random House and not harming them at all, the dictionary is still there to be used, I haven't prevented the anybodyelse from using it, I haven't devalued it in any way actually I've enhanced the value of it's purchase by putting it to further use, it was just lying there unprotected in the library being offered up for anyone to use, etc etc

A fine example of rationalizing, in case you didn't notice

Ah, but by leaving it open and by BROADCASTING ITS SSID, it IS inviting me to use it. It is implied, yes, but it is still very much an authorization (and a DHCP response confirms it).

As for your copyright infringement that you tried to rationalize, you are failing to remember that using an open network is not illegal, so I don't have to rationalize/defend using an open network to begin with.

What if it is on purpose and intended to be kept private? If I leave an open network with the ssid "private_keep_out" you have no right to use it. I may have it open for VARIOUS reasons, including my own study, using legacy devices, etc.

You could at least turn off SSID broadcasting so that you aren't making an invitation that you have no intention of keeping

 

[/dev/null]

Ah, but by leaving it open and by BROADCASTING ITS SSID, it IS inviting me to use it. It is implied, yes, but it is still very much an authorization (and a DHCP response confirms it).

As for your copyright infringement that you tried to rationalize, you are failing to remember that using an open network is not illegal, so I don't have to rationalize/defend using an open network to begin with.



You could at least turn off SSID broadcasting so that you aren't making an invitation that you have no intention of keeping

Turning off ssid broadcasting is useless. People can see the network anyway. No reason to turn it off.

 

[Ren H]

You're assuming that the owner has the knowledge of and expertise to secure it.
Perhaps even the person/people/store entrusted with the task aren't competent or just made a quick buck off the sale.
To think that it is their responsibility to ensure that it's secure (while that may be true) and if it isn't makes it fair game or otherwise ok, is a rationalization/justification, and you're doing nothing more than taking advantage.

My copyright example was applying earlier arguments in the thread to a not too similar or dissimilar example, point was merely that these arguments are nothing more than rationalizations.
Using an open network may not be illegal but using the service that network is connected to almost surely is.

kllrnohj also makes a good point.

Why I'm continuing with in this debate I don't know, (other than to verify that my system is working again, lol)

I can therefore I will is all what you're saying amounts to.

 

[Gott]

The SSID broadcasting simply states that there's a wireless connection somewhere "close" by.

If you see Wireless1 and Wireless2 and they clearly aren't yours, you still have to manually connect to them by pressing "Connect."

Not to contradict myself here but if you use someone's wireless AP for a few minutes to check whatever, then I can see how that's OK.

If you use someone's wireless AP as your primary Internet connection, then that's where I see it as a theft of service.

 

[Ren H]

All this sounds very similar to the "She asked for it by the way she dressed", rational

 

[/dev/null]

All this sounds very similar to the "She asked for it by the way she dressed", rational

QFT. If it isn't yours and it isn't clearly marked as allowed to use, then you should stay off, encryption or not. if the SSID says "Public" or "FeelFreeToUse" or something similar, I wouldn't imagine the owner minds you using it. Otherwise you should stay off IMHO.

 

[SexTreX]

I've been trying to think of a good metaphor for this situation. I finally got one, but to be honest, it only proves that I'm undecided on the subject.

I'm a college student, and I usually walk to class. If, on my way to class, I pass a bicycle that isn't locked up (the unsecured network, for the ones that are a little slow on the uptake), should I take it and ride it to class? It is obviously wrong to take the bike and not return it, or damage it somehow, and taking the bike is technically stealing, but it probably won't matter if I don't interfere with the bike owner's intended usage.

If I did take it and got caught with it, would it be the bike owner's fault for not locking it? Of course not, I'd be a jackass to even attempt that arguement (and by that I mean the people making this arguement are jackasses).

 

[Decibel]

All this sounds very similar to the "She asked for it by the way she dressed", rational

What. The. Fuck.

How can you possibly imply that rape is anywhere on the same planet as using an open wi-fi connection?

* * *

Rob, sniff away. They're on your equipment. Nothing changes that.

As to the whole open connection with the keep out SSID... Come on, you know that's an invitation to get your network checked out.

* * *

How it is that we keep getting these physical objects brought into this discussion about intangible services? Using an open wi-fi connection is no more stealing than listening to the radio.

You want your wireless network secured, lock it down.

I keep my connection secured for this exact reason.



And the robot I'm testing and supposed to ship today is only at 32% on it's test run...

 

[Ren H]

The difference is only one of degree.
The principal is the same.

 

[AncientTechno]

That definition works both ways. Like I said, you rationalize why you consider it wrong. I'll rationalize why I think it isn't.

Your post just doesn't seem rational.

 

[AncientTechno]

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.

Originally Posted by kllrnohj
I have to say, so long as you don't invade their privacy (man in middle attacks, lootin' and pludnerin' their network shares, etc...), and just use light web usage, its fine. They pay the same amount whether or not you use it, and so long as you don't interfere with their usage, whats the problem? Its broadcasted out, it isn't like entering a house with an open door at all.

The closest similarity I can think of would be if someone had a light on their back porch that also lit up your back porch (although its dim). Are you "stealing" their light? Of course not, its a ridiculous notion. I'd say the same applies to wifi - so long as it stays "dim" (minimal usage).

I just picked you randomly as you're one of those people siding on the it's okay bandwagon.
You're using what they pay for no matter how you slice it... Point, Blank , Period.

Now add this variable into the equation since it's being talked about in a lot of the big IT / Computing magazines.

Meter Starts To Tick On Internet Access Pricing

Is Time Warner abusing its monopoly and whoring for profits, or just going after its fair share?

By Rob Preston
InformationWeek
June 7, 2008 12:00 AM (From the June 9, 2008 issue)

Judging from the outcry, you'd have thought that martial law had been imposed on the Lone Star State. The news: Time Warner Cable plans to test metered pricing for its Internet access service, starting in Beaumont, a city of 114,000 in eastern Texas.

Under the pilot program, instead of charging a flat fee for unlimited service, Time Warner plans to charge customers an additional $1 per month for each gigabyte of content they download or send over their allotment. Its service starts at $29.95 per month for speeds of 768 Kbps, with a limit of 5 GB, which Time Warner estimates would amount to some 340,000 e-mails, 170 hours of online games, or 1,300 downloaded songs. At the premium end, customers pay $54.90 a month for speeds of 15 Mbps and a limit of 40 GB, which amounts to 124 hours of standard-definition video or 11,000 song downloads. Comcast has been considering a similar pricing scheme for select markets.

More Services Insights
White Papers

* InformationWeek associate editor Elena Malykhina interviews Gary Mueller, CEO of Digital Now, supplier of a secure document communications service.
* LongJump Reveals Its SaaS Business Application Suite

Time Warner told the Associated Press that metered pricing is "the fairest way" to finance needed investments in its network infrastructure. The cable company estimates that 5% of customers now use half of the capacity on its local lines without having to pay more than low-usage customers.

Critics of the Time Warner plan argue that the company is abusing its monopoly (it evidently has one in Beaumont), is whoring for "excess profits," and that its plan would damage the commercial "ecosystem" that depends on cheap Internet access. Read some of the hundred-plus comments posted to Antone Gonsalves' story "Time Warner Cable To Test Metered Internet Access" for some thoughtful perspectives (and a few rants) on the Time Warner initiative. This issue isn't clear-cut.

On one hand, some readers note, 5 GB will barely get you a few movies before the surcharge meter starts ticking. Even customers with modest usage patterns, at least by today's standards, will end up paying plenty more than before. And in an economy ever more dependent on the Internet for commerce and telework, ratcheting up its pricing--if much higher access pricing becomes widespread--could constrain what economic growth hasn't been choked off by rising energy prices and unstable financial markets.

On the other hand, let's not be so quick to portray profit-motivated service providers as capitalist pigs while the profit-motivated spammers and pleasure-motivated gamers and P2P fanatics who hog much of the providers' bandwidth get a free pass. Actually charge people for the Internet capacity they consume? Next thing you know, airlines will charge passengers per flight, utilities will charge by the watt, and lawyers will bill by the hour!

If Internet access is becoming unaffordable, the solution is for local governments to pave the way for competition, not dictate pricing models. If "excess profits" really are to be had in providing Internet access in places like Beaumont, then competing DSL, wireless, and/or satellite providers will move in and keep prices in check--as long as those competitors are unfettered by government-brokered deals that protect incumbents.

Meantime, if Time Warner and other providers considering metered pricing want to make a good-faith gesture, they should consider setting their caps to reflect modern Internet usage patterns. If customers will exceed their cap by downloading a couple of movies or sending several PowerPoint presentations a month, the cap is too low. And if Internet providers are aiming to extract more money from the biggest capacity hogs, they also could lower the all-you-can-eat price for those customers who barely nibble.

In the end, though, an open market must decide how much providers can get away with charging. If we had a dollar for every time someone told us that he's the last person in the world to call for government intervention in free markets, but this time ... we'd all be able to afford Internet service no matter the pricing.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208402432


So say you're using in a one month time 1 GB of their (Not Yours) 5GB allowed download allotment / capacity. Does it now make it stealing ? I mean come on, this shit is coming to a city near soon enough. Why ? Greed of course, I mean to finance needed investment! Point is the AP is a physical device and borrowing it's service is theft of service even if the laws haven't caught up to the crime. Since the laws haven't caught up to the crime, it just makes it bad ethics to assume using it is remotely okay. If it was a big company this was happening to there would be a law. But it's not big companies so the law makers could care less. Corporate America FTW!

 

[mr_zen256]

Yes, It's unethical to freeload on someones unprotected wifi, plain and simple. Yes, If someone doesnt protect their wifi and someone steals all their bandwidth, it's their own stupid fault.

 

[MrGuvernment]

No, it's not the same at all. I don't broadcast my car or my safe to the neighborhood. Those are physical items that once taken, the owner has no ability to use until he gets them back.

WiFi is completely different. Just because Joe-blow next door to me is browsing the web on my dime, that doesn't mean I can't use my internet. He's not taking anything, Hell, he may not even know where the signal is coming from. It's no differnt than radio or TV signals.

And ignorance is no excuse. If you're not competent at computer, then get someone who is to make sure it's set up right.

So then it is okay to download movies, games and apps because they are online and someone is letting you get it, since your not physically taking anything from the person and they can still use their copy..

 

[MrGuvernment]

Perhaps the person is broadcasting it for their own personal usage outside of their house.... doesnt mean you can just use it, pay for your own internet....

hey why not split the cable line too and get free TV from them, since your not denying them of their service.. ....

 

[BinarySynapse]

So then it is okay to download movies, games and apps because they are online and someone is letting you get it, since your not physically taking anything from the person and they can still use their copy..

No, those things are specifically illegal.

 

[Ren H]

A question of enforcement

Perhaps if the school systems got back to basics and taught reason and ethics (the basis of law) then our society could return to it's roots of freedom.
Instead it seems the only recourse is to force people to behave morally under threat of punishment ((making something illegal on paper,(or the threat of hell or the promise of heaven)) and to enforce it by such means as what will surely, if not already, be proposed as behaviour tracking firmware and the "right" of access to logs.
Instead what we have is an ethos of survival not of the fittest, but of those least constrained by principals.

Problem is, the laws only apply to people willing to live by them, hence the matter of enforcement. Remove the freedoms of all to enforce the behaviour of those not willing to live by a common moral code.

R.I.P. Freedom

I haven't the time (or the will) to write a shorter or longer arguement, because it's pretty straight forward, stop it or it will be used against us all.

 

[Ren H]

Don't give them the excuse!

 

[Alienraptor]

Using an open wireless network is like a box of chocolates. If you leave it out in the sun for too long, its contents will melt and you're left with overpriced cardboard.

It's unethical because you feel obligated to defend the practice. Moreover, the defense focuses on reasons why the action was defensible, not why it was right. There is a difference between something that can be defended and something that is appropriate.

 

[Alienraptor]

The absence of an EDIT option is rather obnoxious.

The great failure of all of the defenses I have read here regarding why it is acceptable to use open wireless networks is that they all condemn the "victim" (assuming there is one). The defense for the action is that the owner of the network did not adequately act to prevent and dissuade the action. Does this sound like a defense of an ethical action to you?

An ethical action is easily defended. For instance, if we assume a broad, vaguely utilitarian system of values, then any ethical action is the one that has, to the best knowledge of the agent, the greatest likelihood of producing the greatest well-being for the greatest number of valued beings. Any alternative action, then, based on the knowledge available to the agent, is likely to result in less well-being. At any rate, any ethical action is easily defended on its own merits, and need not rest upon the passive party's failures or shortcomings.

 

[Funcoot]

I still think it is absurd just to use someones wi-fi, encrypted or not.

You have no right to walk into someones house even if the door is open.

 

[Alienraptor]

I have increasing thoughts. Apologies.

Here is an action that I think is ethical, and how I would defend it. You will find that the defense is simple, and is based entirely on the merits of my own actions; it does not require criticism of any other parties.

Suppose there were a potential medical emergency, involving many dozens of people. I somehow witness an imminent threat that would cause such a catastrophe (e.g., a leaking gas main). I, lacking any rapid means of communication, spot a cell phone on a nearby table and use it to call 911 (without permission of the owner). I believe such an action would be ethical.

It would be ethical because it was the quickest and most effective way, given the knowledge and materials available to me, to contribute the greatest well-being to the greatest number of people. I had good reason to believe that not using that cell phone would have likely decreased the well-being of many people.

Notice that I do not need to bring the owner of the phone into the discussion. It doesn't matter what the owner of the phone did or did not do to secure it against my using it; I would go so far as to say that it would have been ethical for me to override a security code because the value of this cell phone is outweighed by the value of dozens of lives (based on my rudimentary and ill-defined system of values, for the purpose of this discussion).

This is why I find the defenses of using unsecured wireless networks to be weak at best. They cannot rest on the merits of the action alone.

 

[AncientTechno]

No, those things are specifically illegal.

There is plenty of free movies, games, apps that can be downloaded all over the internet.Of course doing so on someone else's wireless access point would be wasting resources that they must pay a monthly fee to use. I find it rather humorous that you try and justify yourself by stating that downloading stuff on the internet that you don't have an actual authorization (proof of purchase, receipt, COA)
for is illegal but then turn around and say accessing an open wifi / virtual trespassing is okay when you don't have genuine authorization. But because it let you, and it's not yet a crime, it's okay (Don't mean to imply it ever will be a crime).


I can cut in front of someone in a line, it's not okay, but it's not a crime either. Maybe that nice old lady deserved it for being too stupid to properly defend her place in line! Even if she did try to stop me, I could just push her away from me. Pushing isn't a crime, it's only a violation.

When you get on someone's open wifi unauthorized. It's just like cutting in front of your grandma in line for dinner and then pushing her for letting you do it! You're just an asshole.

 

[ZaC851]

So then it is okay to download movies, games and apps because they are online and someone is letting you get it, since your not physically taking anything from the person and they can still use their copy..

if I wasn't gonna buy them in the first place, then who am I stealing from?

 

[SexTreX]

if I wasn't gonna buy them in the first place, then who am I stealing from?

The corporation who owns the movie; just because you weren't going to buy it doesn't make it alright to take it.

Are you saying it would be alright for me to go into Best Buy, snatch a nice laptop and run? I wasn't going to buy it in the first place...

 

[SexTreX]

...You're just an asshole.

/thread

 

[ZaC851]

The corporation who owns the movie; just because you weren't going to buy it doesn't make it alright to take it.

Are you saying it would be alright for me to go into Best Buy, snatch a nice laptop and run? I wasn't going to buy it in the first place...

You would be stealing an actual item. Sorry, but your analogy is straight up fail. Try harder next time.

So I ask again, Who is losing anything if I download a game/movie, that I wasn't going to buy anyway?

 

[Gott]

You would be stealing an actual item. Sorry, but your analogy is straight up fail. Try harder next time.

So I ask again, Who is losing anything if I download a game/movie, that I wasn't going to buy anyway?

Intellectual property rights. You pay for a game to use it and abide by whatever EULA/ToS/IP they have associated with it. If you don't pay for the game and download it illegally, the people who made the game and were associated with the game lose out in money that they deserve.

Justifying that it's OK to download movies/game/applications that you weren't going to buy anyways makes me think you're an asshole.

 

[ZaC851]

Intellectual property rights. You pay for a game to use it and abide by whatever EULA/ToS/IP they have associated with it. If you don't pay for the game and download it illegally, the people who made the game and were associated with the game lose out in money that they deserve.

Justifying that it's OK to download movies/game/applications that you weren't going to buy anyways makes me think you're an asshole.

no one is losing ANYTHING.

I buy games that are worth buying. I download games/movies that i wasn't going to buy anyway. If they are decent, ill buy it so im able to play online, or buy the original so its not a low quality bootleg.

so, by the way I do things, its actually BENEFICIAL to the maker :rofl:

 

[SexTreX]

no one is losing ANYTHING.

I buy games that are worth buying. I download games/movies that i wasn't going to buy anyway. If they are decent, ill buy it so im able to play online, or buy the original so its not a low quality bootleg.

so, by the way I do things, its actually BENEFICIAL to the maker :rofl:

Its beneficial to you, not anyone else.

If I create something (write software, make a movie, etc.) I have the right to give it away or sell it. If I decide to sell it and you don't want to pay for it, tough shit, you don't get to use it.
If you use it without paying, you are stealing from me. Its mine unless I give or sell it to you.

lern2ethics.