Internet Piggy Backing....

[tdowns]

Did we talk about this yet???

I don't remember....

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...UKOC_0_US-BRITAIN-WIRELESS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Basically, using your wireless to tap into internet through homes and/or business.

Is it considered illegal here in the U.S.A. I do it sometimes, and may have to stop.....when cruising around in my car, I know of a bunch of places where I can pull in, and check the internet....now some are the free coffee shops, so that's fine......some are businesses.....I figure, if they don't want people using it, they'll password it, which is easy......what do you all think?

Won't be long, wireless will prob. be city wide in most areas, I know some cities already have it.

 

[ReformedWretch]

If you can't use a password I don't feel sorry for you having your signal used. It would be like leaving your laptop on the street up and running and getting angry if someone sat and used it.

 

[tdowns]

Yeah.....

and it's not "taking away" anything, even if you used somebodies item, it would be "used" more, so technically, taking something away, but, internet airwaves...nothing lost...so to me, it's not a problem, but as the article stated, in Britain they are calling it a "crime"......interesting I think. I guess there is a debate in the internet tech world about it......many saying, if the signal goes out of the boundaries of the property, free to use....unless password protected of course.

 

[Civbert]

If someone else paid for the bandwidth, and you are taking it without permission - it theft. It may be a minor sin - the equivalent of taking home paper clips from the office - but it's still theft plain and simple. It doesn't matter if the bandwidth is not being used, or that is doesn't increase the cost to the owner - it still bought and paid or by someone else and your taking someone else's property.

 

[Dagmire]

I know someone who uses his neighbor's wireless constantly. He doesn't have his own service, he just uses theirs. That, to me, is wrong. I don't see the harm in checking your email on someone else's wireless, but purposely placing your computer in a location in your house so that you can use for free what your neighbor pays for strikes me as wrong.

 

[JonathanHunt]

Mine is password protected, but before I got it my new laptop found four other available connections - no passwords. It amazes me that folk don't protect. It does not rob you of anything if someone piggybacks, but it might slow your connection down a tad, and that I do not like.

I'm sure it cannot be made illegal ultimately, as it would be unworkable to enforce especially with many 'free' networks open. However, I do tend to agree that deliberately using what is someone elses without permission is theft.

JH

 

[Civbert]

When you steal bandwidth - you are stealing something. You are taking what doesn't belong to you. And it does have a cost. You are adding traffic to the net, reducing the bandwidth and connection speed of the owner and everyone else. But at the heart of it is that no matter how we try to rationalize things like cheating on taxes or not giving back the extra 50 cents in change, it's theft and a violation of God's law. This "no harm, no foul" ethics is really sad coming from Christians.

 

[crhoades]

There is also the issue of what others are surfing for under your i.p. If illegal sites are hit you could be culpable. Secure your networks.

 

[tdowns]

Huh.....

When you steal bandwidth - you are stealing something. You are taking what doesn't belong to you. And it does have a cost. You are adding traffic to the net, reducing the bandwidth and connection speed of the owner and everyone else. But at the heart of it is that no matter how we try to rationalize things like cheating on taxes or not giving back the extra 50 cents in change, it's theft and a violation of God's law. This "no harm, no foul" ethics is really sad coming from Christians.

I don't hear anybody rationalizing cheating on taxes, or not giving back money......the idea is, many people do not password protect, for the purpose of sharing.....at least that is what's assumed.....that people know others can use their internet wireless if it's not protected, but they leave it unprotected......I'm not saying it's right to do.....but, as the connections are flying out there....OPEN....for use.....what if you have a cable tv set-up in your yard, so that passerby can watch, are they wrong for watching?

The purpose is not to rationalize sin, it's to deal with the new tech that's out there......if it were made "Legal" to use non-protected wireless connections, then would you still think it is a sin?

 

[Civbert]

The purpose is not to rationalize sin, it's to deal with the new tech that's out there......if it were made "Legal" to use non-protected wireless connections, then would you still think it is a sin?

Yes it's still a sin. Legalizing a sin does not make it morally OK.

Do you really think the implied invitation for viewing by of purposely setting a TV facing an open window is the same as failing to secure a wireless network?

I know if I leave my bicycle outside that someone will steal it. Does that mean when you see a bicycle outside I've given you permission to steal it? This is what I mean by rationaling sin. Taking that doesn't belong to you is theft. It's quite simple.

 

[tdowns]

Yes.....

My connection came already password secured....I would have to un-secure it on purpose, there are internet sites that show where spots are to get internet access, in a world, where coffee shops, my local grocery, and many people, like the idea, of giving away their internet service to others, it's reasonable to say, that someone is leaving their internet open for others to use if needed......it's not stealing from them if they are offering it up.....so I don't see how, if it's legal, and in the agreement with the internet company, that if you wish to allow others to use your internet through wireless.....leave it unprotected...if not, protect it....and you think this would be a sin?

Now, what I see is the problem, is that the Internet Company is getting robbed, because more than one household is using it, so there, I see the problem, but not in the individual who choses to broadcast his wireless......that's why I used the cable scenario.....It's wrong to sell your cable, or to split it, but it's not wrong to let someone use (watch) your cable with your permission.......

As it stands though, I agree....that we don't know that they are offering up their internet, and we also (I don't) know the laws in regards to the internet companies.....so better safe than sorry, and unless specific permission is granted, then it's a no go.

I'm just discussing how things might play-out with this medium.....luckily I have plenty of sinless and lawful ways to get on the net.......

 

[jfschultz]

It looks like a number of PBers are on an ethical slippery slope.

I don't hear anybody rationalizing cheating on taxes, or not giving back money......the idea is, many people do not password protect, for the purpose of sharing.....at least that is what's assumed.....that people know others can use their internet wireless if it's not protected, but they leave it unprotected......I'm not saying it's right to do.....but, as the connections are flying out there....OPEN....for use.....what if you have a cable tv set-up in your yard, so that passerby can watch, are they wrong for watching?

Just because a wireless access point is unprotected the does not mean owner is sharing it. Many, or even most, wireless routers come out of the box with protection turned off. If there is a default password, it is just to access the configuration features. (A default password is just as good as no password, anyone with a similar unit knows the default password.)

The owners go through the quick start guide to get it working. The manual is left unread so they don't know about MAC access control, WEP, or WPA, much less do anything about it.

There is no objective ethical difference between saying that an unprotected network is permission to use it and an unlocked door is permission to enter and take what is found.

BTW, my network uses both MAC access control and WPA with a long password.

 

[Dagmire]

I would say that most networks are unsecured out of ignorance and not charity.

 

[turmeric]

Our city is deliberately providing free wi-fi access. I learned yesterday that one antenna will be on the roof of my building! I'm pretty psyched!

 

[Davidius]

I would say that most networks are unsecured out of ignorance and not charity.

If I leave my house unlocked does that mean it's okay for you to walk in and steal my stuff?

Stealing wireless internet is like stealing cable, that is, it's stealing. Even if issues of bandwidth, etc. weren't considered it'd still be stealing. But what Anthony has been saying about you slowing down their network by taking up bandwidth is also true.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

I agree with those who say that "piggybacking" on someone else's internet service, certainly without their explicit permission, is theft.

It's probably a violation of the terms of agreement with the ISP.

I guess it is defrauding the ISP. I guess there are commercial and residential accounts. If a coffee shop has free wireless for their customers, haven't they paid the ISP to be able to offer that inducement to customers. If you are using someone else's residential account, you're depriving the ISP of revenue they would otherwise earn.

Someone else's carelessness is not a license to steal.

rsc

 

[staythecourse]

Bud, that's rationalizing sin!

but they leave it unprotected......I'm not saying it's right to do.....but, as the connections are flying out there....OPEN....for use.....what if you have a cable tv set-up in your yard, so that passerby can watch, are they wrong for watching?

The purpose is not to rationalize sin, it's to deal with the new tech that's out there......if it were made "Legal" to use non-protected wireless connections, then would you still think it is a sin?

In the middle of your sentence I'm thinking "He's rationalizing sin" and your next sentence "The purpose is not to rationalize sin..." Man, listen to that God-given conscience!.

Somebody's paying for it and it aint you and you didn't ask! That's stealing! STOP!

B

 

[crhoades]

Can't wait for the day it becomes like FM radio. Paid for by the advertisers and all we have to do is tune in, turn on, and drop out. Or something like that...

 

[panta dokimazete]

I agree with those who say that "piggybacking" on someone else's internet service, certainly without their explicit permission, is theft.

It's probably a violation of the terms of agreement with the ISP.

I guess it is defrauding the ISP. I guess there are commercial and residential accounts. If a coffee shop has free wireless for their customers, haven't they paid the ISP to be able to offer that inducement to customers. If you are using someone else's residential account, you're depriving the ISP of revenue they would otherwise earn.

Someone else's carelessness is not a license to steal.

rsc

It's like saying that it is ok to steal someone's car if they leave the keys in it.

For those that think piggybacking is ok - please explain how that expresses love for your neighbor?

 

[Kevin]

I have a bit of a problem with people saying that piggbacking is "stealing".

Any definition of "stealing" that I can think of includes depriving the victem of some object or the utility of some object that he lawfully owns. The case law in the OT set out specific restitution plans based on the value, and loss of use, as well as the loss of future use.

My difficulty is I can not imagine how I would "restore x-fold" to some one the value of my piggybacking. After all they never lost the object (internet access) or the future utility of the object.

Am I wong to think that a person who invites a bunch of the teens from church over to watch a dvd that is clearly marked "licensed for private home viewing ONLY" is also guilty of stealing liscencing fees from the distributer of the movie? This seems to me to be an analogous situation.

Civbert, you are the logic teacher what do you think?

 

[Davidius]

I have a bit of a problem with people saying that piggbacking is "stealing".

Any definition of "stealing" that I can think of includes depriving the victem of some object or the utility of some object that he lawfully owns. The case law in the OT set out specific restitution plans based on the value, and loss of use, as well as the loss of future use.

My difficulty is I can not imagine how I would "restore x-fold" to some one the value of my piggybacking. After all they never lost the object (internet access) or the future utility of the object.

Am I wong to think that a person who invites a bunch of the teens from church over to watch a dvd that is clearly marked "licensed for private home viewing ONLY" is also guilty of stealing liscencing fees from the distributer of the movie? This seems to me to be an analogous situation.

Civbert, you are the logic teacher what do you think?

You're getting service from a provider for which you are not paying. In this sense you are first stealing from the Internet Service Provider. It's the same reason why burning your friend's cd is stealing. The artists should've gotten $30 for the sale of two cds but they only got $15 for the sale of one, yet two people still get the benefits. This is analgous to "piggybacking" internet.

Secondly, as has already been said several times, when multiple users are on the same connection bandwidth is used up. That means that you are slowing down the person's internet connection when you use it. If I live in a culdesac and everyone's using my internet, that means I'm going to download more slowly, etc. So the utility is being degraded for the person who is actually paying. Most people just don't realize this because it's more specialized knowledge of how technology works. If I pay for a 384 kb/s internet connection but only get 192 kb/s because people are "piggybacking," there is a problem.

 

[staythecourse]

Piggy backing slows computers down

I didn't realize that. Another good reason not to do it as a follower. It's inconsiderate and selfish in a more than theory. It has an effect.

 

[Civbert]

I have a bit of a problem with people saying that piggbacking is "stealing".

Any definition of "stealing" that I can think of includes depriving the victem of some object or the utility of some object that he lawfully owns. The case law in the OT set out specific restitution plans based on the value, and loss of use, as well as the loss of future use.

My difficulty is I can not imagine how I would "restore x-fold" to some one the value of my piggybacking. After all they never lost the object (internet access) or the future utility of the object.

They lost the bandwidth taken. You should pay for that percentage of bandwidth you took.

Am I wong to think that a person who invites a bunch of the teens from church over to watch a dvd that is clearly marked "licensed for private home viewing ONLY" is also guilty of stealing liscencing fees from the distributer of the movie? This seems to me to be an analogous situation.

Well this is a private home viewing isn't it?

Civbert, you are the logic teacher what do you think?

Consider me more of a advocate for logic. If I teach someone something about logic, that's great. But I'm not a logic teacher.

Here's an analogy. Take a water slide. What if you went to one on a slow day and slide down it a couple times. You don't keep anyone else from using it, or cause anyone to go slower or slide later. It doesn't cost the owner anything more than he's already paying for electricity to run pumps. You caused no discernible wear on his equipment. You just walk in, slide a couple times and leave. You have not cost anyone anything at all. Is that theft?

 

[tdowns]

Sounds good....

All sounds good, like I said earlier, unless it becomes a publicly stated policy, that by sending your signal out to others, you are allowing them to use it, ...then we have to assume it's wrong. I never really thought of it until I saw that article. Most the connections around me are from local businesses that advertise it for free anyway, just have to make sure it's that connection that I'm on.

I know in tech circles, the ones I've been to as a teacher, it's spoken of as a normal thing to do......When they first gave us our wireless laptops, they gave us permission to use them for home and personal use, knowing that running around with two laptops is a pain, and they gave a demonstration on how to find wireless signals, and even talked about websites that showed where signals are found......AM I SAYING THEY WERE RIGHT...NO...based on our discussions, I see where you're coming from, but, until I read that article, I never really considered it, and sounds like, many out there don't consider it, a wrong thing to do.....I stand corrected......but here in Los Angeles, I can tell you, it's the normal thing to do.....doesn't make it right....I'm not saying that.....just painting the picture of the culture that is developing.....when I pull into the curb, and five connections pop up, In the past, I was not worried about which one was the coffee shop, I'm just grabbing the strongest signal. Now I'll make sure it's the "Advertised Free" one.

I could def. see, like the reverse of paid radio, that grew out of free radio, that paid internet will evolve to "Free" internet, but it'll be loaded with commercials.

I will say this, that yes, it is stealing if you don't have permission....it seems about the extent of stealing water from someone else's hose, if you stop and take a drink......which, of course, in the state of AZ is your legal right.

 

[Poimen]

I am ashamed to say that I have been guilty of this in the past. I agree with the thought that it is theft and I have resolved not to do it again. Thank you for the discussion.

On a tangent, how does one secure a wireless signal to bar people from accessing it without a password? Software/hardware?

 

[tdowns]

Moving on to the tech side.....

Yeah, I will def. password mine from now one, I didn't realize people could use it for bad purposes.....so I figured, let it fly.....what exactly happens, if someone uses my wirless to connect, from their computer....would not the connection still show (somehow) that it was not my computer.....so what are you guys saying when you say, people can use my connection to hide behind, or are you saying that?

 

[Civbert]

I should say I've also stolen wireless access. It was just a couple weeks ago and at the time I knew I was doing something questionable. But I told myself that I knew who's Internet I was using and they occupied with other activities - so I figured I wasn't hurting their connection - and I was done in a few minutes. Just checking my email. I actually thought that I really should ask them if it was OK - but I didn't want to bother them and yadda yadda yadda. I rationalized the situation until I talked myself in to it. Hey, no harm no foul, right?

So I'm just of guilty as anyone. I hope next time I won't give in to temptation. At that time I could have run over to the local coffee shop were the offer free wifi connections or asked the owners if it was OK. Those little sins are just soooo easy to give in to.

 

[Civbert]

I am ashamed to say that I have been guilty of this in the past. I agree with the thought that it is theft and I have resolved not to do it again. Thank you for the discussion.

On a tangent, how does one secure a wireless signal to bar people from accessing it without a password? Software/hardware?

It's one of the hardware settings on the wireless router or wireless access point. It's a pain to do and I think most wireless hardware defaults to unsecured.

And I suppose if you live in a quite neighborhood where you're not too concerned about people occasionally checking their email - it's still not unreasonable. I don't know how to crack into a network computer through the wireless Internet access. That's beyond me. I've had all sorts of problems see my other computers on our home wireless network. Internet works great but file sharing and printing is hit or miss.

 

[Kenneth_Murphy]

What you could always do is go up to the house or business and ask if they mind you using their unsecured wireless access. If they really intend it to be "free" they will surely tell you yes. If you don't go ask them, then it seems you are really saying they will say no if asked in which case it's back to stealing. Also, many businesses pay for internet by amount of data transfered. So you looking at your email is costing them directly. Just because someone fails to adequately protect their resources doesn't excuse others from taking it.

The argument is the same one many criminals give after cops place a new bicycle next to a building unlocked and go wait for someone to come along and steal it. Those people say, "the bike was just sitting here unlocked so they must have wanted me to ride it or didn't want the bike." The cops still arrest the person for stealing.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Murphy
covenant of Grace Church - member
MO

 

[Kevin]

Thanks, Civbert.

I would think that what we are talking about here is more akin to a tresspass issue then theft. Your water slide analogy is a good one. The slide/internet access is not removed or taken, the future utility is not diminished so the only "loss" to the owner is inability to enjoy the full potential of their property AT THAT TIME.

This sounds more like tresspass than theft. If you tresspass on my property all I am deprived of is the opportunity to occupy the same space at the same time. This tresspass may (but this is incidental, not primary to the act of tresspass) diminish my future value or enjoyment of my property. If this is the case then a tort has ensued and but this is not always the case in tresspass.

BTW according to the legal definition of "public performance" of a dvd/movie inviting a group into your home to watch a movie is a violation. When in student government many years ago at a christian college we looked into this issue and the jist of it is a group (even a small one) watching a video aught to pay a licensing fee according to the law.