Flip open and fire up your laptop, find an unsecured wi-fi signal and check your email ... have you just stolen wi-fi? It may be illegal in some places, but is it immoral? Can wi-fi be stolen?
Here's an interesting article by Finlo Rohrer of the BBC News Magazine about whether "stealing" wi-fi is wrong:
So here's the thing.
You're walking down the street in Hypotheticalville and in front of you is a gentleman who, when he walks, spills seemingly endless torrents of golden coins on to the pavement behind him.
He seems unconcerned by this and you notice that if not picked up, these magic coins quickly evaporate. Is it moral for you to pick a few up?
It's the kind of tree-falls-in-the-forest whimsy that an undergraduate philosopher might mull over for a moment, but back in the real world a not entirely dissimilar debate is being played out.
The man arrested in a street in west London is at least the third person to be accused of breaching the law by taking internet service without permission. [...]
There are also suggestions using somebody else's wireless could come under the Computer Misuse Act, usually used to combat hacking and electronic fraud.
But if it can be interpreted as illegal, can it be truly said to be immoral?
Heavy downloading might affect the unsecured person's speed of access or download limit, but a use like checking an e-mail is hardly likely to be noticed. Most "victims" will suffer no loss.
What do you think? Is it wrong to use someone else's unsecured wi-fi connection without permission?
"dog dicks look funny"
Seriously, that was their network name.
With RIAA, 'terrorism scare' and 'porn patrol', my open acess IP could be targeted as the one to prosecute, for illicit usage, without my knowledge.
Just like the proverbial mother sued by RIAA...
Otherwise, no problem sharing my Internet. If not by the 'Powers that Be'
We secure our wifi because we feel we would be partially morally responsible if someone used our signal to do something reprehensible online - somewhat akin to giving booze to an alcoholic, but that's a personal choice.
That being said, it's unlikely someone piggybacking on your signal is going to inconvenience you in any way.
And finally i would say telling people it's illegal to use open wifi is like saying it's illegal to listen to copyrighted music playing on a loudspeaker or reading a billboard asking someone else to marry someone. It's public and therefore fair game.
People who say it's not, are the same as criminals that try the "but the door wasn't locked" defense. Locked (or locked down) or not - if you're taking something without asking - it's stealing.
Geesh, wtf is happening to people these days - didn't your parents teach you ANY morals?
It's stealing even if unprotected and not intended for public use.
Worse if encrypted and hacked.
To push the analogy, it's as if you are playing music that you've purchased loudly enough for your neighbors to hear and enjoy it. You can't get mad at them for listening--if you didn't want them to listen, you'd turn down the volume. (Yes, I do understand that listening is passive and accessing the internet is active, and that there is a difference. Again, I just think that ethically, it's not clear cut.)
For the record, my wireless signal at home is secured, and when I'm out, I only use signals when the access is granted intentionally.
Like everything else, the world isn't entirely black and white and there's a lot to be said for "Lock it or lose it" but in the end I'd prefer to have a widely understood tag - perhaps OA in the SSID for Open Access.
An internet subscription is not free and offers two very basic things: transmission of data at a certain speed. Both properties are not unlimited. Hence; if somebody else is using my connection they are affecting my data limit and decrease my speed.
About security: stealing something from an unlocked car is still stealing.
(And take note that many people are unaware about wireless security.)
(It would be ok if the name of the wireless network is something like: "Free for all wireless network!" or something to that effect.)
This argument is a fallacy right from the start, and its almost offensive the way its phrased "Of course its not stealing!"
Its the same argument that pirating games and music isn't 'stealing' because you aren't depriving anyone of anything (and this is assuming that you aren't ruining someones speed, or their download limit). Just because there isn't a physical object to TAKE, doesn't mean it isn't stealing.
Its the same as stealing cable, and that's illegal. If you take or USE property belonging to someone else, without their consent, its theft. You might say that wireless is floating around in the ether, which is is, but its being operated by a machine, the wireless modem. At the very least you're stealing electricity.
Why is it any different than if you plugged your device into a cable and just used it that way? Just because there is nothing tying you to the theft (physically speaking), doesn't make it any less of a theft.
Sure, its only a 'little' theft, but theft is theft "it was only a little bit" is by no means an excuse to take something that someone else paid for (the download limit, the modem, the right to use and access the connection.
Whether its a big deal or not, is another question, but it is by no means NOT theft, in any way.
"Of course its stealing, IF the person isn't knowingly sharing it."
These quotes show exactly why I consider using open access points to be a gray area. In a perfect world, people would understand what wireless routers do and how they work before setting up their networks, but too often, they don't have the first clue, and so aren't aware that the settings they use make their personal connection into a de facto free ISP.
In that perfect world, only the willing would leave their networks open, and those who weren't wouldn't.
That said, in most european countries it is considered as theft and thereby punishable by law, so be careful...
If you are clueless about wireless networking, then the person who set it up for you should have told you that an open network allows people in, and those of us who can set up know how to secure it to keep people out.
Stealing, is when you go into a secured network without permission, such as breaking WEP or WPA, no matter how 'insecure' it really is, the owner MEANT to secure it, so keep out, people. Just because they locked their goodies in a crappy safe still doesn't give you permission to take it.
And, on top of all that, if you have 'permission' to use a network, be nice, you wouldn't read porn or steal music, in a public place, so don't do it on other peoples networks.
What happens if the people 'borrowing' your wifi blow your cap? You either get metered or with one ISP in Autralia, you infamously get charged thousands of dollars. Then there is definitely an impact on someone else.
Sorry if this didn't make sense it's late.
What happens if the people 'borrowing' your wifi blow your cap? You either get metered or with one ISP in Autralia, you infamously get charged thousands of dollars. Then there is definitely an impact on someone else.
Sorry if this didn't make sense it's late.
The point I'm trying to make is you can't rely on some people to fairly use you bandwith. Some people are too selfish.
If anything, shouldn't the one paying have some legal consequences? If I purchased one buffet meal and brought back enough for 10 people to eat at my table, and everyone started eating, I would be in trouble. So if I have internet and make it so that people can check their email outside without having to pay for it, how am I all of a sudden the victim? They make it out to be leaches vs. the paying user. In actuality, if anything, it should be leaches and paying users vs. the ISP. Because would they feel better if the guy who wanted to check his email dropped the paying user $5? Not in any other case they wouldn't. They wouldn't be cool with two neighbors hooking up their cable TV to one box and splitting the bill. They would consider that stealing. And if I make copies of a cd and sell them, I'm in trouble. So the only proper legal case would be for the ISP to sue.
This doesn't directly address the ethics question, except to say in some situations it's like speeding to the hospital with your wife about to deliver. You make exceptions, and would be glad to continue the kindness to someone else in the future.
There are plenty of people out there committing crimes, blasting spam, and downloading porn and copyrighted material. Do you REALLY want this activity tracked back to your IP address?
I once knew someone who would wardrive, find open connections, do whatever he cared to, and when he was done, he would enter the router, enable the encryption, change the SSID to something like "Lock it next time, idiot", and then change the router's password. These people got a quick lesson on internet security.
1. I don't pick my neighbors fruit but if his tree lets fruit fall on MY side of the fence, I'm gonna pick it up. Our wi-fi isn't limited to the bounds of our home - we are beaming it out through the neighborhood and as such making it available to all my neighbors. It is wrong to make something available and accessible and then be surprised when people acess it and make use of it.
2. If XM Satellite Radio beamed an "open" signal to every vehicle in the USA and then pouted when nonpaying subscribers tuned into the signal, we would all laugh at the XM people. Satellite & Cable television has known this for years: if you want only paying customers to access your service, do SOMETHING about it.
If for any reason you don't want people to use your open wifi, stop waving the "criminal" card and start locking down your wifi with passwords. Otherwise, you're the laughing stock.
By BROADCASTING an OPEN Wi-Fi signal, you are effectively inviting everyone within it's effective range to connect.
If you are broadcasting an open connection into a public space, or even my residence, who owns them then?
Is it trespassing to have your network in my home?
When I view a webpage on my computer screen, the browser has placed copyrighted material on my computer from the internet service provider. Who did the actual stealing?
Its such a gray area, its easier understood by the intent rather than black and white / right or wrong.
If the intent is to have a secure network, then it should not be accessible from a public space or my couch. If you dont want to be responsible for what other people download then password protect the wi-fi.
If it was fundamentally stealing and illegal then the isp and wireless hardware companies should not allow anyone to connect to the internet without the use of a password.
Everyone should read their isp service agreement.
It's hard to make an analogy because there really isnt any comparison. Its not anything tangible that you can point to like an apple or some water. Maybe it would be like if I set down my cell phone in your house and you made a bunch of calls.
It comes down to you using something that someone else is paying for without their permission. Sure sounds like stealing to me. Every argument Im hearing just sound like people trying to justify the fact that they steal on a regular basis. I'm guessing you would eat someone's lunch you found in the company fridge.
There are a lot of people that leave there signal open to share with their neighbours but I dont think you should assume this is the case when you come across an open signal. I think that a lot of others do not even have a clue that they should secure their signal because its a relatively new technology. Just because they do not know their door is unlocked does not make it ok to steal from them.
Encrypting your wireless signal is a trivial matter. It is because of this triviality that I feel leaving your network open is tantamount to "not caring if someone else is using it." Most analogies to this topic collapse because of the ethereal, yet instantaneously limited, nature of the signal and bandwidth.
The "unlocked car" or "unlocked house" falls apart because the item stolen completely and permanently changes possession.
If it IS theft, who is it theft from? Typically, we consider the broadband account holder the "victim", since their paid-for bandwidth is being reduced. However, you could say it's theft from the broadband provider, in which case they could hold the account holder responsible for broadcasting their signal unsecured.
There have been instances where I needed it and kicked everyone off for a few hours to get work done, but that is within my right. However, since there are large swaths of time during the day where it would go unused otherwise, it seems selfish and weird to hoard it to myself when I'm not even using it.
I figure if you've changed the name from "Lynksys" or "user" you know enough to knowingly secure it and have not and are therefore sharing it. My neighbor and I have never spoken about this, but since I know for certain that the gent above me uses my signal in the back of the apartment, I feel no compunction to not use his in the front. We both get decent coverage throughout the entire floor as a result. Win, win.
We don't need or use other people's unsecured wifi and secure our own for the ip responsibility reasons listed above, but if we trusted or didn't care what people did with our signal we'd leave it open.
As for the ISP, they are selling you wifi at a certain level of bandwidth. As long as you (or the people you let use your service) don't exceed that, i think they really shouldn't have any reason to complain.
I understand the ISP or local laws may say otherwise, but the question wasn't whether it's legal - just whether it's moral.
As long as you're not hijacking a secured signal, it should be reasonable to assume you are welcome to use it. I also agree that if iSPs don't want their signal shared they should require password protection as part of the setup.
If the ISP wants to penalize someone for having free-for-all wi-fi access, they should require all wireless access to be encrypted in their contract with the user, and provide tech support for encrypting it as part of initial installation of service.
As others have pointed out, watching a TV show in a public store, or through a window is not stealing. Splicing the neighbor's cable to avoid paying a cable bill is stealing.
Watching a neighbor's fireworks display is not stealing. Sneaking into his yard and nabbing a few bottle rockets to set off in your yard is.
Accessing a wireless signal that is not encrypted is not stealing. Hacking the router and password of a secured network is stealing.
So if the network is named something rather unique and it's still open to the world you can assume it is intentionally left open and use it (within reason). If they catch you and charge you it would be rather easy to prove gross negligence on their part and leave doubt that they hadn't opened it intentionally.
Legality doesn't equal morality.
Several tried to liken this problem to stealing apples or water from a pond. They fail to realize that in such cases the act of trespassing would become an integral part of the problem where easily delineated property lines exist. We universally accept that property lines are just that, lines that separate our property.
What if the interior walls of my abode were infiltrated by an unlocked wireless connection?
Is the originator of the signal trespassing?
At a minimum how is this any different from a donut showing up in my refrigerator?
The law of my castle is pretty clear in this situation:
Unclaimed donuts are fair game!
If you don't want public use of your WiFi then lock it up, elsewise I'm gonna eat your donuts.
I have done it a few times when internet goes down in our house, but I can log onto a neighbor's signal, and I make sure the load is light and brief.
I guess it also depends what people do when they "steal" a wi-fi connection. If they do something questionably or illegal, such as downloading movies or hacking, it is obviously immoral.
Or, conversely, do the opposite.
"Everyone should encrypt their wifi. Period. If you leave it open, and someone uses your connection for a nefarious purpose, you can be held responsible"
Leaving it open provides you with plausible deniability. This is important because security like WEP is trivial to crack, yet you'll have a harder time convincing someone that it could have been compromised. Open is easier to understand.
Is that illegal?
l2 internet plz
I have wifi. when I first set it up, I experimented with leaving it open. then, on finding four networks connecting, I secured it. Buy your own, dammit.
But if I'm visiting my mother's house, there's a neighbour with a handy signal.
If you don't want others to connect, then password your access point. It's that simple.
Or get a plain wrapper to cover your newspaper on the train.
I sniff all those email passwords and then use those "free" accounts to email "hints & suggestions" to the government, movie stars, and people I don't like.
Is that wrong? If those people didn't want me to use their email, they should have used a secured (SSL) connection.
Right?
Of course not. Stealing is stealing. Justify it any way your conscientious demands - you're still a thief.
Nobody has requested that these wireless networks be BROAD CAST into my airspace over my property. In fact, I have half a mind to charge YOU for sending your wireless transmission into my "space", my home or residence, without my permission. If you're so bloody worried about theft, encript it. If not, shut up.
One day wireless "radiation" (because that's exactly what it is) may be shown to be harmful in ways we do not yet imagine. I wonder how willing all these whiners with a modem will be to standing up and assuming legal liability.
Your WiFi is on my property so I can do what I please. If you do not like it secure and hide the SSID. If I see your tree limb on my property I would cut it down.
If you leave your wireless access insecure it is your fault. The manuals tell you this. It is not illegal or wrong for someone else accessing it unless it is a secure connection.
If people really do not want others to access it just hide the SSID, password it and only allow MACIDs you allow access it. If not you are sharing your connection and if I come across it I will secure it for you unless you made a attempt to secure the router.
Your opera singing is disturbing the peace because I'm not actively trying to listen to it. I don't have to intentionally log in through a computer to be able to hear you. Nor can I simply turn off my ears if I want to shut you out. You are also not adversely affected if one or more people listen to your singing. None of that can be compared to wireless internet.
If you want to think of invisible signals that way... YOUR cell phone's signal is being broadcast through my home! I demand the immediate cessation of all cell phone, radio, satellite, and other electronic device usage around my home!
Please.
Excepting laws about usage, I believe this falls into the moral category of discernment and good community citizenship. As kids, we would take extra apples from our neighbors trees without asking explicitly, because we knew them and they knew we wouldn't abuse the privilege. I think wi-fi use gets into that area of honor system where abusing or exploiting something is the point where it becomes a moral issue. Putting high demands on another's network, using it as your primary source to avoid getting your own, or using it for something knowingly nefarious is where you get into being in a morally wrong state.
When Wi-fi first showed up, it's more understandable that someone may unintentionally have his network open. Now, basic encryption is so standard that leaving a network open defaults more to communicating that one is ok with others jumping on or one is at the least unconcerned with others sharing. This isn't 100% yet, but we're not far from being there.
I am paying for a service. If you are benefiting from that service without my knowledge or consent, you are stealing from me.
It's not like I'm setting up a TV screen on my driveway and expecting people walking by to avert their eyes while I'm watching House. If you access my internet connection, you do so intentionally. It isn't invading your space or inconveniencing you.
That being said, people are going to do it no matter what. Whether it's illegal or not doesn't particularly matter, and I don't think it's the most heinous thing in the world for someone to access an open wifi connection. I would hope the people who DO would exercise some common courtesy and stick to low-bandwidth activities.
This is about a service you pay for, and other people hooking into your service without paying anyone.
If you have a satellite dish, and a total stranger hooks into the signal that's decoded just for you, without your knowledge or permission, that's theft. Why would this be any different than someone stealing cable or any other signal?
Yeah, you can say, "if you don't want people to access your internet, use password protection." Well, that's great, but it's a bit beside the point of this discussion. People seem to be saying "hey, if it's not password protected, it's as good as giving me permission!"
"It's not like I'm setting up a TV screen on my driveway and expecting people walking by to avert their eyes while I'm watching House. If you access my internet connection, you do so intentionally. It isn't invading your space or inconveniencing you."
See the difference?
(Radio is free, by the way.)
What is the difference between a radio or computer that can tune into an unprotected broadcast, such as a radio station or open wifi?
Is using my neighbors porch light to read stealing his light?
To steal is to take something without the intention to return it. Its not stealing unless the person using the wifi has no intention of every giving back the borrowed band with.
That is also why there are no laws against it, because it is not stealing.
If someone feels otherwise they should secure their wifi and petition the government to actually define open wifi as illegal.
If there is an option to password protect/close the wifi and this is not done, the general internet industry standard is to assume it is fair game.
Which it is according to my understanding of the law.
http://www.cybertelecom.org/broadband/wifisecurity.htm
**Natey, radio is not free for the broadcast station. Just like paying for an ISP the radio station pays royalties for their content.**
Missing the point. I was responding to Zook's comment about stealing his neighbor's radio. Listening to radio is as free for his neighbor as it is for Zook. Neither of them are paying. Furthermore, there's the issue of "playing it so loud that you can't expect others not to hear." Again, it's a form of encroachment when someone's tree branch comes into my yard, or when they play music so loud I can hear it with my windows shut. This is emphatically NOT the case with wifi internet.
You'd have to go out of your way to access my specific internet connection. And, unlike radio stations, I don't get paid when people access my internet. Would be cool if I did, but more than likely you would be doing me a disservice by slowing my connection speed.
**What is the difference between a radio or computer that can tune into an unprotected broadcast, such as a radio station or open wifi?**
Again, the point of radio is to get as many people as possible to listen. They WANT you to, because that's how they make their money. With wifi internet, you're talking about tapping into a service that someone is paying for themselves, and they make no money from it. Just because it's there for the taking doesn't give you the right to do so, even if it's technically not illegal. The whole "if they don't want people using it, they should put a password on it" argument is just a hollow justification for entitlement.
**Is using my neighbors porch light to read stealing his light?**
Well, if you're on his property without permission, you're probably doing something wrong. But, again, there's a distinction. There's no potential for adversely affecting your neighbor. If his porch light is so strong that you can sit across the street and read by it, that's cool. You aren't making the light any less dim. You aren't costing him more electricity by using that light to read.
Like I said above, it's irrelevant if this is legal or illegal. That's not really the point of this post. I call it stealing, but not in the criminal sense. Are people actually going to mention to their neighbors that they're using their internet? No, because these people are afraid the neighbors will "get wise," or they think "yeah, they probably wouldn't want me using their internet like this."
I guess common courtesy doesn't enter into the equation in this day and age.
I can make one up too; if you don't want people to see what's going on in your house, then put up curtains. ;)
I say, you are responsible for securing your network if you do not want neighbor to access it. However, anyone abusing a neighbor's wifi to do activities that require a lot of bandwidth is not a crimial, but simply an asshole.
The only time I agree this is definitely wrong, is when someone finds a way to access a secured network, then yes that should even be against the law if it's not already. I know that someone in my neighborhood somehow breaks my router's security and yes that pisses me off at times because he's definitely not just checking his emails, he's slowing our connection like crazy. Changing passwords almost everyday does seem to help a bit. I could simply get a better router or find out how to secure better, but it doesnt bother me enough, I prefer to see all this in an humorous way. Let's just say that if I can ever figure out which one of my neighbor is guilty, I would have no shame in doing the ring-at-the-door & paperbag-on-fire trick. ;)
But when you're trying to answer the question "is it wrong?" then it doesn't particularly matter whether or not they take the necessary precautions.
So yes, if you don't want someone looking in your house, put up curtains! But the absence of curtains doesn't (or shouldn't) give peeping Toms the go-ahead to press their faces up to the glass. (See? Analogies are perfect for explaining this stuff!)
My opinion is this if a person is so concerned about someone using his bandwidth then secure the f**** thing.
Maybe they should make it illegal for a person to have an unsecured signal.....
So you won't mind if I use any of your property that's not properly secure. I think I'll come and take the plants and a few tons of topsoil from your yard. I'll tow your car from outside the store and sell it for scrap. And so on and so forth.
The reason we don't take things belonging to others is not that they are secure, it is because we have developed certain "rules" about what is socially acceptable. Your reasoning sounds like good old fashioned Marxism to me.
You sir are hoisted on your own petard:
"Okay, that fruit tree analogy needs to be dropped. It implies physical encroachment or other inconvenience upon the neighbor who doesn't have internet. That is simply not the case. Nor do you "own" the radio waves constantly being broadcast through your home."
No sir, and neither do you. You own the "waves" being downloaded via the cable, but when you decide to generously spread them around the neighborhood without encryption, there is neither legal nor moral constraint for me not to help myself.
What really gets to the wifi owners is that they can't beat this argument, and can't figure out a way to prevent others from helping themselves. I'd relax, or encrypt.
/f.y.i., Ipay for my internet, have a modem, have no problem people helping themselves
100% correct. And it is illegal to access a secure connection.
People can talk all they want. If they leave a connection unsecured it is their responsibility for who uses that connection.
A nun and a stripper are both raped. Both men are caught. Did the man who raped the nun commit a worse crime than the man who raped the stripper? The stripper was dressed in a skimpy outfit - does that make it less wrong to rape her?
Because someone is foolish enough to be vulnerable to an attack, it doesn't justify the crime.
Stealing implies some loss to the "victim". Having a material item stolen is a loss, and therefore stealing. Sharing a network without suffering slowdown or having to pay a higher bill because of it is not stealing, It's common courtesy.
Yeah it sucks when everyone starts hopping on your connection, but that's exactly why all networks should be open, or that at the very least cities should supply free internet (not that cock and bull "free" net we used to have to in my town of Fullerton, which turned to a pay service shortly after it was instituted). If people want private networks they should have to pay for that, and not the internet itself.
There is a difference between using an open WI-FI network and pirating games. While I participate in occasional minor piracy (mainly old movies which I don't feel like paying five bucks to rent) I also understand that downloading copyrighted property is stealing, because it's depriving the owner of income. WHEREAS linking up to a wireless network costs the owner nothing, and therefore they suffer no loss as long as their signal is not interrupted to the point of terrible slowdown.
The internet was designed with the intention to be able share knowledge with everyone, therefore, I submit that it is against the very nature of the internet to block personal networks which serve no purpose greater than browsing the web.
P.S. I'm posting this via an open network.
Anyway, using the front door open and someone enters and watches your TV for a while and then leaves scenario, this is trespassing so if someone access an open wi-fi node without permission, this should be trespassing as well.
If you want to let others use your wi-fi node, why not set your SSID to say"Free Wi-Fi"?
People who have wireless networks should not object to others use unless they secure them or not broadcast them outside their own personal space.
It's disheartening to me that so many people believe that using an unsecured network is stealing. NONE of the analogies above are accurate for the situation.
If you leave your network unsecured, anyone and everyone has the right to use it as they see fit. That includes every use from checking email to downloading massive amounts of torrents.
The fact that the host is paying for the bandwidth is irrelevant. The host HAS the option of securing their network and preventing others from using it if they so desire. Ignorance of technology is NO excuse. By broadcasting an unsecured wifi connection, you ARE offering your bandwidth for free. There is ZERO gray area there.
If your connection has a bandwith cap, and someone exceeds that cap, it is YOUR responsibility for leaving your connection unsecured.
That being said, unsecured network usage is based entirely on the honor system. While you CAN download gigs of porn on someone else's dime, it is considered extremely improper to do so.
There are also inherent risks to the user. As VonSkippy pointed out, the host may sniff out network packets and use the gathered info for nefarious purposes. If you are genuinely concerned about such risks, then simply do not use unsecured wifi.
If someone asks you for a dollar (without coercion) and you give it to him, did he steal from you?
If I ask a machine to transmit some bits for me (without coercion) and it does it, what did I do wrong?
---
How about this one? If I pay my ISP to send some packets for me and it drops one, did my ISP steal from me?
---
Also, I'm curious, do people's opinions on it being stealing correlate with what type of service they pay for (ie. Unlimited Data, Limited Bandwidth VS. Unlimited Bandwidth, Limited Data)
These usually work because of generally accepted community guideline. That would be, don't take more than you need, or pay a fair price. If it gets abused (and some higher traffic stands do) they usually go away. We've had lots of trouble recently with people stealing the moneyboxes.
Anyway, I guess the point is that the situation will fix itself. Either having an open connection won't ever be a problem, or abuse will grow and it will go away.
None of those analogies absolve the criminal of responsibility, and are no different from what you're saying. Crime is crime, despite the stupidity or naivete of the victim.