Is stealing wireless internet wrong?

[Mustard]

Ok, so there are a few schools of thought on this one.

A) It isn't stealing, er go, the taking of wireless internet from a source that isn't yours is just fine and dandy, both in an ethical sense and in a moral sense.

B) While you recognize that it is indeed stealing, you still would do it w/o even really having a problem with it. So by this standard, while you might have a moral problem with actually stealing wireless internet, its like going out into a huge orchard and taking a few apples each month, which you could find ethical. Morally wrong, but ethically ok.

C) Again, it isn't stealing, so you wouldn't have a moral qualm about stealing the wireless internet, but ethically you would feel concurently that you shouldn't take it because it might affect them consequentially, by possibly raising their bandwidth and therefore the price they pay per month. Morally ok, but ethically wrong.

D) It is stealing, and nobody should steal it for the above reasons and beyond. It is both immoral and unethical.

Or perhaps you have a better way to explain it?

In any event, how do you feel about this?

[The GWD]

C.

Final Answer.

[freegood]

You could ask for the owner's consent to remove all doubt. If you don't because you're afraid he'll say no or get wise to put up encryption, then you already know your answer.

This is like stealing cable, but greyer because there's no wires to splice. Similar becxause you are siphoning off the owner's bandwidth, so a midday pr0n session from you might make his online trading slow to a crawl.

By not asking, it's dishonest, so imo, it's unethical. If you think it's stealing, then it's immoral. Maybe not on the scale of killing someone, but petty lying can be considered immoral too.

Now what if you're in an apartment building and you don't know who owns the connection? At that point, you could hack into their computer, maybe turn on their webcam if they have one, and see if they're worth asking. If they're hot, start downloading their emails and personal photos.

If they're stupid enough to leave everything wide open to a building of strangers, they deserve it. amirite?

[wonderllama]

Down here in paradise we are pretty ruthlessly ruled by the monthly download limit.
So if some hacking scumbag manages to hook into someone's wireless connection, they are risking putting that person over their monthly limit and thus being speed capped for the remainder of the month.

That in my books is a huge fucking pain in the arse.

So if the stealing element of it wasn't bad enough, which it is...cos...it's stealing, the inconvenience to the other person is the icing on the cake (where the cake is made from vomit and the icing is a thin layer of turd).

[Jack Bauer]

they should have the connection protected

[wonderllama]

So if there are no guards at a bank, it's okay to rob it?

[mongo]

i only steal others wireless signals to dl cp.

[Jack Bauer]

So if there are no guards at a bank, it's okay to rob it?

my wireless connection is protected so i have no problems. when i was at university and living in a house we used to do it all the time before we got internet ourselves. if you dont want something robbed then protect it. would you leave your mobile unprotected on a table while you went for a piss. think not. same as bank statements, you dont just throw them out, you destroy them. ifyou dont protect yourself then your in for a shock.

[Morfin]

Old curmudgeon answer: It is wrong no matter how you try to rationalize it. Unlike radio, wireless internet costs money. You are surreptitiously taking something for free that someone else has paid for.

Quick analogy: A guy parks his car and leaves the keys in it. You take the car, run an errand, and return it, so that the owner never knows it is gone. You have illegally used his car -- stolen it.

[Stax]

To me it depends on if they have unlimited service or not. If they have unlimited service, what exactly are you 'taking' from them?

[NoGravitas]

Yes it is stealing. Yes it is wrong to steal. Will you do it anyway? Yes. Yes you will. Because you are a bad person.

[Kerjack]

I liken it to drinking some water from the faucet in their yard and they have a well.

You should ask first but the cost is negligible unless its your only source for water. If I steal wireless internet for an hour chances are it won't effect them in anyway. If I steal wireless internet for 3 months because I'm too lazy to get mine set up they will probably be affected.

You know, like that movie they are illegally downloading on Rapidshare will take another 5 minutes because of me.

[mdaddyrabbit]

I don't thinks it right morally or ethically but on the hand should they have locked their system down? If the band leaves the door wide open when no one is there and the money laying out; You go in and figure out no one will ever catch you, what do you do in that situation. I would not be there in the first place.

But it boils down to this for me "Who gives a shit about anything"


I see more negative reps coming! Hook me up people!

[Morfin]

To me it depends on if they have unlimited service or not. If they have unlimited service, what exactly are you 'taking' from them?

I liken it to drinking some water from the faucet in their yard and they have a well.

You should ask first but the cost is negligible unless its your only source for water. If I steal wireless internet for an hour chances are it won't effect them in anyway. If I steal wireless internet for 3 months because I'm too lazy to get mine set up they will probably be affected.

You know, like that movie they are illegally downloading on Rapidshare will take another 5 minutes because of me.

To me, the issue isn't so much "taking" from the person with the wireless internet account, it is the taking from the wireless provider. Like stealing cable -- you aren't hurting the person that has the cable, you are hurting the cable company.

Yeah, yeah, I know: Fuck Comcast/ATT/whoever. They deserve it/They can afford it. Maybe they can afford it and maybe they are assholes. But you are taking something you should be paying for.

(Don't get me wrong, I "might" also have a Rapidshare account and "might" download things. But I know what I "might" be doing is wrong -- I don't try to rationalize it.)

[BIG PIZZLE]

What's the difference between morally and ethically? This poll is stupid.

[Hoser]

I think it is wrong, but I would have no problem doing it if it wasn't going to affect anyone. I wouldnt live off it, but if my connection went down and I used theirs for an hours I would be able to live with myself.

[wacker]

I often stole from my old next door neighbours but they were a group of university students who either should know to protect their wireless or don't give a shit if someone is using it. In that case I didn't feel bad about it but if my next door neighbours were an old couple who didn't know any better then I wouldn't use it unless I really needed to.

Its technically stealing but in this case most people who leave it unprotected are asking for it to be taken.

[Strega]

Both morally and ethically OK.

Any asshole that does not password protect his wifi is 'open for business' under the Idiot Code.....i.e. I would not break into his house to take his money...but if he left $50.00 on the street, it's mine!!!

[Hoser]

Both morally and ethically OK.

Any asshole that does not password protect his wifi is 'open for business' under the Idiot Code.....i.e. I would not break into his house to take his money...but if he left $50.00 on the street, it's mine!!!

/thread

[redsox39]

What's the difference between morally and ethically? This poll is stupid.

You need to watch the movie, Election!

They address that Question.

PS- I also am in that movie, and there are very few times I feel I can pimp it out. lol

[Morfin]

Both morally and ethically OK.

Any asshole that does not password protect his wifi is 'open for business' under the Idiot Code.....i.e. I would not break into his house to take his money...but if he left $50.00 on the street, it's mine!!!

/thread

You two have missed the point: You are not stealing from the "asshole that does not password protect his wifi," you are stealing from the internet provider.


Fucking casting pearls before swine.

[hatepoppy]

ive got a shitty comcast modem/old router that i need to replace, but never get around to. you know how you have to cycle your shits once in a while? like all of a sudden your internet isnt working and you have to power down/power up to restore it?

shit like that happens, ill usually flip over to some unsecured dbag nearby and fix mine later.

its it still wrong if im only doing it bc im lazy to fix my shits?

[Hoser]

You two have missed the point: You are not stealing from the "asshole that does not password protect his wifi," you are stealing from the internet provider.


In that case I am defiantly for it. They screw enough people around, fuck them.

[Kerjack]

You two have missed the point: You are not stealing from the "asshole that does not password protect his wifi," you are stealing from the internet provider.


Fucking casting pearls before swine.

Are the people on the second floor of a apartment building stealing from the gas company when they absorb the heat from below?

Am I stealing from my math teacher when I teach someone else what i have learned?

There is no (real) additional cost to the ISP of someone hitting up a unsecured hot spot for an hour.

Do you consider it stealing even if the homeowner gives you the OK?

In virtually all locations do not have the choice to purchase access from the ISP when away from home. So no loss of sale.

[Morfin]

I thought Canadians were supposed to be all pussies who followed the rules. You must be the one bad ass (other than Messier, of course)

[Kerjack]

In that case I am defiantly for it. They screw enough people around, fuck them.


Yes. PS. The US government GAVE SHITLOADS of cash to phone companies on the condition that we where all suppose to have fiber optic connections years ago. They stole from us first. (two wrongs don't make a right but they make an even)

[Morfin]

Are the people on the second floor of a apartment building stealing from the gas company when they absorb the heat from below?

No, you are doing nothing therefore, no stealing.

Am I stealing from my math teacher when I teach someone else what i have learned?No, there is no sale, nothing purchased.

There is no (real) additional cost to the ISP of someone hitting up a unsecured hot spot for an hour.

Do you consider it stealing even if the homeowner gives you the OK?Yes. No different than if you by a DVD and make a copy for someone else. There is no add'l cost to the movie studio, but because of the potential lost sale, that person is getting something for free that he should be paying for. There is a lost sale.

In virtually all locations do not have the choice to purchase access from the ISP when away from home. So no loss of sale.You do have a choice: don't use something that you know is available only because someone paid for it.

You know it is wrong, just like speeding is wrong. But in the grand scheme of things, it is a tiny wrong, unlike say, oh, a wide receiver who chooses to get drunk and then kills a pedestrian. (And gets only 30 days in jail.)

In absolute -- yes or no -- terms: It is wrong. In relative terms: it is a minor offense.

[Kerjack]

You know what else is robbery? Alltel charging $30 a month to tether your phone to your laptop/desktop. Fuck you Alltel (and others), I can't believe that is even legal.

[Morfin]

Maybe if you lived within 100 miles of another human being, Alltel wouldn't have to charge so much.

[Kerjack]

No, there is no sale, nothing purchased.


The loss of students threatens her job.

Yes. No different than if you by a DVD and make a copy for someone else. There is no add'l cost to the movie studio, but because of the potential lost sale, that person is getting something for free that he should be paying for. There is a lost sale.Refer to my last question, there IS no loss of sale. Should GM sue because people are causing loss of sales when they give other non-vehicle owners a ride?


You do have a choice: don't use something that you know is available only because someone paid for it. Sure, if it where a banana I would agree with you.


You know it is wrong, just like speeding is wrong. But in the grand scheme of things, it is a tiny wrong, unlike say, oh, a wide receiver who chooses to get drunk and then kills a pedestrian. (And gets only 30 days in jail.)

In absolute -- yes or no -- terms: It is wrong. In relative terms: it is a minor offense.Disagreed. The only wrong I see is in MAYBE not asking the homeowner. And that is slightly iffy since people do leave unsecured wireless connections open for other peoples use.

Do you think people should be forced to use WPA on a wireless router? Do you think it and its device should have to be manually paired to protect ISPs?

[Kerjack]

Maybe if you lived within 100 miles of another human being, Alltel wouldn't have to charge so much.

I already paid for my connection, there should be no legal reason why I should not be allowed to let the phone which I paid for and the pc that I paid for talk to each other. They where made to do that. They sold me a phone and are locking out a feature then wanting to charge me a monthly fee for something that literally has zero cost to them in any way.

[Kerjack]

Its like selling me milk then turning around and telling me I have to pay $30 a month to open the carton.

[redsox39]

The loss of students threatens her job.


What about a Private School Morfin? Or College? If my buddy comes home and discusses Quantum Physics with me over a beer or 10, because of something he learned in his college classes, isn't that stealing?

[redsox39]

I already paid for my connection, there should be no legal reason why I should not be allowed to let the phone which I paid for and the pc that I paid for talk to each other. They where made to do that. They sold me a phone and are locking out a feature then wanting to charge me a monthly fee for something that literally has zero cost to them in any way.


No one lives in montana, so they have to charge you something to make it profitable for them to do business in that area. Or else maybe you don't have Cell phones and wireless laptops!

[Kerjack]

Then they should charge me more for the internet service. See, money is used for the exchange of goods and services.

I've already paid for the goods/services so what right to they have to charge me $30 a month to do nothing on top of that? They are not giving me anything more at this point.

[Kerjack]

I'd even go as far to say they might have a case if it was a one time fee to 'unlock' the ability. And that is even a huge stretch. But its fucking monthly! Pay us or we will take something away from you!

[Morfin]

Not to go all Archangel on you but... if you guys really do not see this as stealing, then there is no sense in me posting further in this thread. In the words of Andy Dufresne in Shawshank Redemption, "How can you be so obtuse?"

[Kerjack]

Not to go all Archangel on you but... if you guys really do not see this as stealing, then there is no sense in me posting further in this thread. In the words of Andy Dufresne in Shawshank Redemption, "How can you be so obtuse?"

You just committed a crime against Arch.

I think Morfin you are confusing intellectual property with physical. An ISP is not selling intellectual property. They are selling the use of a truck to get an item from A to B. The item is not theirs before or after they deliver it. You are paying for the size and the speed of that truck.

If I go to the post office and get one of those boxs that ship at a flat rate it doesn't matter if the items are intended for different people, as long as it fits and it all goes to the same address then its not stealing.

[Claydon]

I fail to see how it is 'stealing' at all. How do you steal radiowaves?

Is it stealing if a person leaves their garden hose running into the street 24/7 and one day you walk by and fill your bucket?

[freegood]

I fail to see how it is 'stealing' at all. How do you steal radiowaves?

Let's say you stole your friend's phone and cloned his SIM card Then you put that clone in your empty phone before you sneak it back. If you only use it while he sleeps, it's okay right?

For simplicity, he has unlimited minutes.

[wacker]

I fail to see how it is 'stealing' at all. How do you steal radiowaves?

Is it stealing if a person leaves their garden hose running into the street 24/7 and one day you walk by and fill your bucket?

I'd say that is stealing but its a theft that no one will fault you for.

[dick_darlington]

if no one wants their wireless internet to get stolen, then they should put passwords to enter the network!!

[Kerjack]

Let's say you stole your friend's phone and cloned his SIM card Then you put that clone in your empty phone before you sneak it back. If you only use it while he sleeps, it's okay right?

For simplicity, he has unlimited minutes.

I could be wrong but I don't think cloned phones are actually illegal in and of themselves, because they arn't separate lines and can't be used at the same time.

But it is illegal to monitor the radio waves in order to do it, and illegal to have a cloned phone without the person who gets the bills consent.

I think.

[Claydon]

I could be wrong but I don't think cloned phones are actually illegal in and of themselves, because they arn't separate lines and can't be used at the same time.

But it is illegal to monitor the radio waves in order to do it, and illegal to have a cloned phone without the person who gets the bills consent.

I think.

You are correct cloning a sim is illegal. Places like peets coffee etc offer wifi but only if you purchase something, then they give you a pw to access it. fair enough, want my wifi in my business then you have to buy something. But if someone allows it to be wide open then why not? It is like my water hose analogy that you just let run freely into the street 24/7.

[freegood]

The point is that even if it's easy to do it doesn't mean it's not wrong.

I see chair I like on someone's lawn. It's fucking mine now. Some lazy kid left his bike outside. His loss is ebay's gain.

[Kerjack]

I don't want any of you using the light from my porch dang nabbit! That is my light that I paid for! If you look at my lit up porch you are taking the light that I use to see.

[Stax]

The point is that even if it's easy to do it doesn't mean it's not wrong.

I see chair I like on someone's lawn. It's fucking mine now. Some lazy kid left his bike outside. His loss is ebay's gain.

No, there you are taking a physical thing away from someone else such that afterwords they can't use it.. If someone is paying for an unlimited service (and thus you are not increasing their charge), you are merely enjoying the water that would hit the ground (to use Claydon's example) or the light flowing out into the world (to use Kerjack's).

[Morfin]

There are two entities here -- the person with the unlocked network and the ISP from whom he contracts to have access to the internet and to use the ISP's pipes to upload and download.

The majority of you are focusing on the person with the unlocked network. But that is not the issue. The issue is that you are stealing something from the ISP. You, a second user, are transmitting over the ISP's pipes. You are not harming the person with the unlocked network, you are harming the ISP -- instead of paying for what Unlocked Network Man has paid for, you are taking it for free: you are stealing from the ISP.

[Stax]

If someone owns a DVD they are allowed to show the movie to their friends. Ditto for a CD. A book. Etc. And that's FAR MORE intellectual property than waves are.

[Morfin]

Well, we're not talking about sharing, are we? We're discussing someone surreptitiously signing on to someone else's network.

[Stax]

Well, we're not talking about sharing, are we? We're discussing someone surreptitiously signing on to someone else's network.

If you watch a movie through someone's window you are invading their privacy, but you are not stealing that film. You won't be getting a letter from the production company. If someone blasts music and you hear it you won't have RIAA on your ass.

[UNC]

It's totally wrong....but I would if I could.

With all the shit I do...If I go to hell for free internet, it would suck

[Kerjack]

There are two entities here -- the person with the unlocked network and the ISP from whom he contracts to have access to the internet and to use the ISP's pipes to upload and download.

The majority of you are focusing on the person with the unlocked network. But that is not the issue. The issue is that you are stealing something from the ISP. You, a second user, are transmitting over the ISP's pipes. You are not harming the person with the unlocked network, you are harming the ISP -- instead of paying for what Unlocked Network Man has paid for, you are taking it for free: you are stealing from the ISP.


Lets take my porch light example again. If I have a porch light that also lights up the sidewalk and you come along and choose to not carry your own flashlight while you walk on said sidewalk you are stealing from the electric company (and the flashlight company, and the battery manufacturer)?

[mongo]

fuck that. the isp is stealing $79.99 per month from me. i hope everybody steals their shit.

[Claydon]

There are two entities here -- the person with the unlocked network and the ISP from whom he contracts to have access to the internet and to use the ISP's pipes to upload and download.

The majority of you are focusing on the person with the unlocked network. But that is not the issue. The issue is that you are stealing something from the ISP. You, a second user, are transmitting over the ISP's pipes. You are not harming the person with the unlocked network, you are harming the ISP -- instead of paying for what Unlocked Network Man has paid for, you are taking it for free: you are stealing from the ISP.

leave it to a lawyer to gum up the works

[Claydon]

fuck that. the isp is stealing $79.99 per month from me. i hope everybody steals their shit.

it pains me to say this...


..... i agree 100%

[STDSkillz]

fuck that. the isp is stealing $79.99 per month from me. i hope everybody steals their shit.

it pains me to say this...


..... i agree 100%

You guys think Internet service should be offered for no charge?

[mongo]

You guys think Internet service should be offered for no charge?

i'm sorry, where did i say that?

what i think is that they are fucking pwning the customer at those kinds of prices.

[STDSkillz]

i'm sorry, where did i say that?

what i think is that they are fucking pwning the customer at those kinds of prices.
Well, when you said that they're stealing $79.99/month from you, I took your intention to be that the service should be free, rather than a reduced price.

[mongo]

Well, when you said that they're stealing $79.99/month from you, I took that to be an indication that the service should be free, rather than a reduced price.

maybe i pay $84.99 per month. you ever think about that? huh? punk?

[STDSkillz]

I DON'T DO ILLOGICAL.

[HAWK]

Niiiice. That makes the $14.99/month I pay even sweeter.

[STDSkillz]

What kind of Internet is it? And how fast?

[HAWK]

It's Verizon DSL at 1mbps.

[mongo]

slow internet is slow.

also, you have to be getting that deal as some kind of bundle w/ cell or landline.

[HAWK]

Nope. And 1mbps is plenty fast for me.

BTW, no landline...telephone that is.

[Claydon]

Im paying 69.95 for TW cable and they are always going down and tend to slow down horribly at night.

I can't get Fios even though it is available 2 miles away.

[mongo]

god damn it cano, just put it in the of already.

[Stax]

god damn it cano, just put it in the of already.

lol wrong thread

[Stax]

god damn it cano, just put it in the of already.

Look what you did!

[mongo]

god.fucking.damn.it.

[freegood]

No, there you are taking a physical thing away from someone else such that afterwords they can't use it.. If someone is paying for an unlimited service (and thus you are not increasing their charge), you are merely enjoying the water that would hit the ground (to use Claydon's example) or the light flowing out into the world (to use Kerjack's).

What's your opinion on the scheme where the person clones the other guy's sim card?

[Kerjack]

What's your opinion on the scheme where the person clones the other guy's sim card?

Without permission? Its wrong. Why? Because the phone is secured and you have to actively break it. Because when you are using it he can't make or receive calls. And depending on the number you dial or his plan you will use up/or have charges apply to his phone. Because it is actually against the law to do so.

Last I checked a unsecured internet connection is unsecured, in fact I have to actively tell my pc not to connect to it by default if no other preset connections are present. You will use bandwidth, but he/she is unlikely to be using it all at the time or suffer any reasonable delay because of it. (One reason why I voted ethically wrong) Otherwise the service will be as normal. Because barring doing something actualy illegal on that connection they won't see a penilty for it.

And there is no present law (in my state at least) that I know of that outlaws wirelessly tapping into a network gateway that has made no effort to protect itself from public use.

Its like you can't charge someone with trespassing if you don't have a fence with a gate. You can't charge a hunter with hunting on your private land unless you have signs clearly posted every 'X' far around your entire property. Steps have to be made to protect/notify others that it is not for open use.

[freegood]

More Devil's Advocate...

Without permission? Its wrong. Why? Because the phone is secured and you have to actively break it. Because when you are using it he can't make or receive calls. And depending on the number you dial or his plan you will use up/or have charges apply to his phone. Because it is actually against the law to do so.

...
And there is no present law (in my state at least) that I know of that outlaws wirelessly tapping into a network gateway that has made no effort to protect itself from public use.

Its like you can't charge someone with trespassing if you don't have a fence with a gate. You can't charge a hunter with hunting on your private land unless you have signs clearly posted every 'X' far around your entire property. Steps have to be made to protect/notify others that it is not for open use.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking

There you go. Some jurisdictions have criminalized against it by labeling it an unauthorized access to a computer network.

If it's illegal in some parts, then there is consideration that the act itself is wrong. I'm not saying everyone who has done it should be arrested. That's not the point.

I have a problem with the idea that if it was legal (or not prosecuted), then it would imply that it is not wrong by default.


Last I checked a unsecured internet connection is unsecured, in fact I have to actively tell my pc not to connect to it by default if no other preset connections are present.


Doesn't prove a damn thing. There's different encryption standards available out of box. Instead of forcing a choice the user might not like or know how to use it, nothing is preset instead.

It's like saying that I logged in your network by using Admin/Admin so it's your fault I stole your internets and hacked your PC.


You will use bandwidth, but he/she is unlikely to be using it all at the time or suffer any reasonable delay because of it. (One reason why I voted ethically wrong) Otherwise the service will be as normal. Because barring doing something actualy illegal on that connection they won't see a penilty for it.

How would you know that? Let me throw out my own scenario: If there's one neighbor has a shitty connection but is the only open network in the entire block, would the piggybacker not borrow his connection? If there were three other neighbors looking to borrow that sweet dripping water, would all of them share the same courtesy by not accessing the net at all?

[Okie Medicvet]

What's the difference between morally and ethically? This poll is stupid.

jmo, but I think morally is aligned with what you believe are society's rules for living. And ethically is more aligned with your own personal conscience.

[defprophet]

Someone who's "suffering" from having their internet stolen make's the theif the asshole, if no one is seeing any lag or if they had it planned to just use the network when they know their neighbor was sleeping or out or whatever then I see no problem. I say fuck the ISP they charge WAY to fucking much already. But I do feel bad for the guy who lags out in a game because some other jackass is stealing their net connection.

[Stax]

What's your opinion on the scheme where the person clones the other guy's sim card?

In theory it's the same, but in practice it feels different. Rather than the porch light/water hose/music blasting through the walls examples where it's the purchaser's careless excess allowing others to experience the product (as leaving a network unsecured is), the SIM card example seems far more like THEFT. There may be a similar lack of impact, but it's now you actively doing something wrong to get it. Cloning a SIM card to get free access feels more like you find a network that IS secured and you break into someone's house and unsecure it (somehow), rather than the person simply leaving the network unsecure in the first place.

[wonderllama]

I do find it remarkable, however not terribly surprising, that so many people here are attempting to justify theft because either the price is too high or because the person who bought the product is careless with security.

And seriously, the argument claiming that watching a movie with a friend is the same thing is just ridiculous.

Sneaking into a cinema and watching the film is more the comparison I think you are looking for...the cinema buys the film and charges for people to see it. If you sneak in, you are stealing.

With a DVD, the sale has already been made, so you are free to watch a friend's dvd without breaking the law.

ISP = Movie Company (They are providing the product)
Internet Subscriber = Cinema (They have paid for the product)
Hacker = Cinema Hopper (They are stealing the product)

You can't justify theft or any other crime because the provider charges too much, nor can you justify it because the person who purchased the product was lax in their security.

[Stax]

I do find it remarkable, however not terribly surprising, that so many people here are attempting to justify theft because either the price is too high or because the person who bought the product is careless with security.

And seriously, the argument claiming that watching a movie with a friend is the same thing is just ridiculous.

Sneaking into a cinema and watching the film is more the comparison I think you are looking for...the cinema buys the film and charges for people to see it. If you sneak in, you are stealing.

You are violating a business rule with specific security set up to enforce that rule? Where is that security in an unsecured network? As I learned from Rounders many moons ago, Canada Bill Jones nicely put it:

"It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money."

The theater wants their movie secured and paid for by viewers so they secure it, have ticket agents, lock the doors behind the ticket agents, etc. If the owner of the network wants security all they need to do is type in a password.

ISP = Movie Company (They are providing the product)
Internet Subscriber = Cinema (They have paid for the product)
Hacker = Cinema Hopper (They are stealing the product)

Accessing an unsecured network is double clicking, not hacking.

[mongo]

i have no problem w/ hacking either.

[wonderllama]

You are violating a business rule with specific security set up to enforce that rule? Where is that security in an unsecured network? As I learned from Rounders many moons ago, Canada Bill Jones nicely put it:

"It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money."

The theater wants their movie secured and paid for by viewers so they secure it, have ticket agents, lock the doors behind the ticket agents, etc. If the owner of the network wants security all they need to do is type in a password.



Accessing an unsecured network is double clicking, not hacking.

Oh I agree, if there're suckers out there, getting their money is good...legally. Otherwise, you are putting your own moral standards above the law for personal gain and that is wrong.

And my use of the word Hacker is more in the action rather than the description of the person. Non-paying Internet User may be more appropriate.

[mongo]

hacking prove that me>you.

[hatepoppy]

srsly tho, fuck ppl. i stole cigs from the gas station i worked at the whole time i was there. would slide my friends like three for one. who gives a fuck about some dipshit company already raing me for service?

[BiōHazard]

I think its actually the fault of the person who paid for it. They are paying for a service and if they have a brain in their head they would encrypt. its not that hard. Its like leaving your car running in a bad part of town and being ignorant about locking it... The car gets stolen but its not a "loss of sale" to the dealer because some crackhead needs to get his fix.. and besides if your taking internet, its justifiable for surfing/messenger as this is minimal bandwith..However it is NOT ok for DL porn and movies/music. Thats like double whammy- stealing net and movies/music.


On a side note... my provider charter has not posted a profit SINCE IT WAS FOUNDED.

How is that possible?

[freegood]

In theory it's the same, but in practice it feels different. Rather than the porch light/water hose/music blasting through the walls examples where it's the purchaser's careless excess allowing others to experience the product (as leaving a network unsecured is), the SIM card example seems far more like THEFT. There may be a similar lack of impact, but it's now you actively doing something wrong to get it. Cloning a SIM card to get free access feels more like you find a network that IS secured and you break into someone's house and unsecure it (somehow), rather than the person simply leaving the network unsecure in the first place.

I don't know... an unlocked door or an open window to a car isn't a license to steal.

On the interwebs, if there's a backdoor or loophole to a shopping and/or pr0n site, that's usually open game for a lootin, but the topic in question (and the reason I've been persistent) is whether it's wrong or not. In terms of a game, it's cheating or being dishonest, so it's unethical.

[Hoser]

Who would not take $50 they found on the street?

[wonderllama]

It is almost impossible to identify the owner of a lost $50 on the street, unless you see them dropping it, in which case I assume you'd still keep it?

I think all we are establishing here is that pretty much everyone here is prepared to break the law if you think you won't get caught...which is a bit tragic really.

Actually, the most tragic part is those who feel they DON'T have to justify their actions as opposed to those who attempt to.

I wonder how far this lack of empathy would go...I mean, we've all see how most of you would also be prepared to have someone killed for cash simply because you don't know the person.

[mongo]

Stfu wonderfaggot. Just cause you like getting you checking acct raped and we don't doesn't make you>us.

[wonderllama]

Blow me cock splat, you have no right to be in a Philosophy section anyway given your monotonously moronic posts...

[mongo]

So what is your answer? Just keep paying retarded fees? Rebel now or bend over!

[TheSpotlightKid]

It might be wrong, but that won't stop me from doing it and feeling no remorse.

[Mustard]

Here is my answer:

I recognize the unauthorized taking of wireless internet from a source that I didn't contribute towards as stealing. Therefore, because I feel that stealing is morally wrong, then stealing wireless internet is morally wrong.

However, as an opportunist, I recognize that if a person who has willingly set up a wirelss internet source hasn't taken the very simple precaution to protect what is theirs, then in that case, I don't have a problem with capitalizing on another's error in judgment.

For me, this is almost as gray as an area can get. The moralist in me says its stealing and is wrong, but the opportunist in me says, "hey, its ok, and besides, they should know better, so their stupidity is our gain." Dilema, thy name is wireless internet.

In this case, I wouldn't feel right about taking wireless internet from another unwillingly. Morals trump ethics.

[Claydon]

I refer everyone to my water hose analogy....

/thread

[Mustard]

Claydon is a faggot.

/internet

[schnapps87]

It doesn't feel like stealing. More like borrowing. At no point does it become my Internet and the person paying for it can easily pull the plug.

[noahsdove]

paying for wireless internet is like paying for the radio. Its there to use so use it.

[mongo]

i like people that are taking the moral high ground of "it's wrong to steal internetz" here at gmf. oh sweet irony.

[Mustard]

i like people that are taking the moral high ground of "it's wrong to steal internetz" here at gmf. oh sweet irony.
I wonder if you could elaborate on the specific irony in this case. I just don't see your point of view.

[Claydon]

I wonder if you could elaborate on the specific irony in this case. I just don't see your point of view.


because of the FSF you worthless fat fuck.

[Mustard]

Did I ask you, faggot? No, so STFU and die in a fiery car accident.

[Morfin]

paying for wireless internet is like paying for the radio. Its there to use so use it.

Radio waves are broadcast free of charge; the internet is not. Huge difference.

i like people that are taking the moral high ground of "it's wrong to steal internetz" here at gmf. oh sweet irony.

As one of the people who say it is wrong, I will also state that I use the FSF as much as anyone. And I speed on the freeway. The difference is that I admit I'm doing something illegal -- I'm not trying to rationalize it.

[Hoser]

Thats the thing, it should not be rationalized. I don't do it (no need too), but I have done it before in the past (at work, I used another companies because ours was down). I know it wasn't right, but I didn't care. I am not perfect, at least in this sense, and I am ok with that.

[Candycane]

yeah I'd rather "steal" internet than rip off a million dildos (dildi?) from the local sex parlor.

[Jack Bauer]

my friend is seeing a chick that works in ann summers..we're telling him hes fucked in the bedroom

[BiōHazard]

So do you feel bad that you are taking internet from a coffee shop or the library? They pay for the internet that you "don't take"

[hatepoppy]

im stealin rite now!

[Jack Bauer]

im stealin rite now!

internetz?

[hatepoppy]

yes.

[Weenis]

If an unsecured signal is literally outside the walls of a business or home, I dont see the problem with using it. It's like tossing a can of soda into someone's trashcan when they've put it on the street for pickup.

They've made the decision to not secure their connection. It's not like someone has hacked them.

[Stax]

As one of the people who say it is wrong, I will also state that I use the FSF as much as anyone. And I speed on the freeway. The difference is that I admit I'm doing something illegal -- I'm not trying to rationalize it.

Illegal doesn't = wrong. Maybe it was just a quick typing hand that you used those words interchangeably, but they are not the same. I speed, I steal some TV shows and movies, I drink under 21. I'm perfectly aware those acts are ILLEGAL, but their wrong-ness is far more in the eye of the beholder.

[Weenis]

Radio waves are broadcast free of charge; the internet is not. Huge difference.

They're more alike than you're implying. Radio waves are free to pick up, but not free to broadcast. Wifi is the same.

Radio stations pay to broadcast radio signals. The person who chose to broadcast an unsecured wifi signal is also paying to broadcast it. Whether you have a radio or laptop, the signals are free to pick up.

[Stax]

They're more alike than you're implying. Radio waves are free to pick up, but not free to broadcast. Wifi is the same.

Radio stations pay to broadcast radio signals. The person who chose to broadcast an unsecured wifi signal is also paying to broadcast it. Whether you have a radio or laptop, the signals are free to pick up.

And if they wanted a secured signal they could get it, just like Sirius does.

[freegood]

Illegal doesn't = wrong. Maybe it was just a quick typing hand that you used those words interchangeably, but they are not the same. I speed, I steal some TV shows and movies, I drink under 21. I'm perfectly aware those acts are ILLEGAL, but their wrong-ness is far more in the eye of the beholder.

Stealing is not wrong? That's news to me.

The flaw in the running water analogy is when several thieves borrow from the same source. Someone gets boned and it's usually the owner.

So you might have the perception or even the appearance that your contribution is small and meaningless, but there'd be no difference to the victim.

But if wrongness is a matter of opinion to you, Morfin had the right idea at the beginning of the thread...

[BiōHazard]

Stealing is not wrong? That's news to me.

The flaw in the running water analogy is when several thieves borrow from the same source. Someone gets boned and it's usually the owner.

So you might have the perception or even the appearance that your contribution is small and meaningless, but there'd be no difference to the victim.

But if wrongness is a matter of opinion to you, Morfin had the right idea at the beginning of the thread...
and in this case its the moron who didnt encrypt.

So your telling me if you saw a $20 you would not pick it up? Your that good of a person?

I like to look at it this way: I steal someones internet and someone steals something of mine(maybe not the same person). We've all lost some shit or had it stolen(and now they benefit while i lose) so what comes around goes around.Temptation is a bitch and everyone gets the full circle. Victim and crook.

[freegood]

So your telling me if you saw a $20 you would not pick it up? Your that good of a person?


I'm not saying I'm better or whatever. I'm discussing what is wrong.

Some people, like me, know it's wrong and do it anyway.

[wonderllama]

Didn't we already cover the $20 being dropped in the street.
It's generally impossible to identify the owner. Plus, you can't PLAN to go find $20 in the street.

Someone stealing wireless internet does so INTENTIONALLY, so you are making a conscious decision to break the law.

Just like with the speeding analogy before, if you're a few over the limit it's unintentional and you may get away with it...if it's 20 over, you're intentionally breaking the law.

As for BioHazard's suggestion that the purchaser of the Internet can steal something of yours, how about he steals your car in return. Fair trade?

I see it as simply as this.
I'm at the bar and buy a drink.
I take a sip and put it down on the bar.
While I'm reaching for the pretzels, someone else sips my drink.

I bought the drink. I own the drink. It's my frickin drink!
Would anyone do that in a pub? No, cos you'd get your face punched in.

[BiōHazard]

Didn't we already cover the $20 being dropped in the street.
It's generally impossible to identify the owner. Plus, you can't PLAN to go find $20 in the street.

I was pointing out the fact that all you "moral" people would take it. I wasnt talking about this direct analogy dealing with who owns it.

Someone stealing wireless internet does so INTENTIONALLY, so you are making a conscious decision to break the law.

Just like with the speeding analogy before, if you're a few over the limit it's unintentional and you may get away with it...if it's 20 over, you're intentionally breaking the law.

So how about my library/coffee shop analogy? Thats pretty fucking intentional and its not your internet.


As for BioHazard's suggestion that the purchaser of the Internet can steal something of yours, how about he steals your car in return. Fair trade?
I said it doesnt have to be the same person(if you can read) A car really? I'm talking about useless things that arent a big deal if someone takes it(which wireless internet is also something useless), like $20 in an ATM or a pair of killer sunglasses you left at the ballpark. your loss/my gain stuff, not grand theft auto.

[Stax]

Stealing is not wrong? That's news to me.

Isn't that like the oldest moral question cliche in the book, the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed a starving family... Is that really wrong?

And this one is even better, there the breadmaker still loses a loaf of bread. If you steal from someone with unlimited service and don't slow down their browsing, they lose NOTHING.

[mongo]

http://i42.tinypic.com/2vtwmtw.jpg

[Weenis]

Didn't we already cover the $20 being
I see it as simply as this.
I'm at the bar and buy a drink.
I take a sip and put it down on the bar.
While I'm reaching for the pretzels, someone else sips my drink.

I bought the drink. I own the drink. It's my frickin drink!
Would anyone do that in a pub? No, cos you'd get your face punched in.

The problem is, you have a finite amount of beer in that glass. When someone sips it, you can't get it back. That's not the case for a wireless internet signal that's floating around the neighborhood.

Now, if you were to have a bandwidth cap in your area... then that analogy does kind of work. Of course if you have a bandwidth cap and you don't encrypt your signal, you're stupid.

[wonderllama]

True Weenis, but I'm not debating the stupidity of the person involved...they're clearly stupid.

The owner of the signal shouldn't really be the issue is sort of what I'm suggesting.

BioHazard - the Coffee shop is providing a service for their customers, as is the Library, don't think that you aren't paying for it by increased coffee prices or through Council rates which support your Library.

And yes, I can read ;)

Oh yeah, the beer analogy...does the amount of beer change the criminal/illegal action of the person taking the sip from my glass? I don't think it does.

[BiōHazard]

True Weenis, but I'm not debating the stupidity of the person involved...they're clearly stupid.

The owner of the signal shouldn't really be the issue is sort of what I'm suggesting.

BioHazard - the Coffee shop is providing a service for their customers, as is the Library, don't think that you aren't paying for it by increased coffee prices or through Council rates which support your Library.

And yes, I can read ;)

Oh yeah, the beer analogy...does the amount of beer change the criminal/illegal action of the person taking the sip from my glass? I don't think it does.
increased prices? I'm pretty sure I can find about 3 or more coffee shops/internet cafes that dont charge you a single penny to use thier internet, and the ones who do charge have the same price for a coffee as ones who don't even have internet.

[wonderllama]

Do they advertise the wireless and say "customers, for your convenience"?

Or is this something you just happened to come across?

[Okie Medicvet]

32wmepTVM3I

[mongo]

Do they advertise the wireless and say "customers, for your convenience"?

Or is this something you just happened to come across?

if you are the isp, does that fucking matter?

[wonderllama]

if you are the isp, does that fucking matter?

No it doesn't.
But we're talking about the Coffee Shop providing a service, just like the Library provides the service.

Jim Bob in the apartment above you isn't willingly providing the service I'd suggest.

[freegood]

Isn't that like the oldest moral question cliche in the book, the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed a starving family... Is that really wrong?

And this one is even better, there the breadmaker still loses a loaf of bread. If you steal from someone with unlimited service and don't slow down their browsing, they lose NOTHING.

The rationale thrown in this thread would make it seem like the store owner is lazy or unwatchful of his bread, so he deserves to have it stolen.

I think we're derailing a little bit into the semantics of wrongness, and I could ultimately find a good reason for pilfering someone's internet. I could also find a good reason for killing someone.
Is it normally wrong? Could I use the excuse to do it all the time? Are those reasons good enough to evade punishment?

As for "unlimited service", I guess that excuse can be used from the standpoint that it's an easy thing to detect. I doubt a piggybacker would know the connection has unlimited service. And if he did, then he have enough information to know who the owner is in order to ask for consent to use the connection.

[BiōHazard]

Do they advertise the wireless and say "customers, for your convenience"?

Or is this something you just happened to come across?
http://www.wififreespot.com/minn.html has locations for free wifi. Some have obvious prices like motels, but i'd be willing to bet at least ONE of those locations near me has just Free wifi. For instance, yeah at the airport I paid a ticket to fly but they dont charge me EXTRA just to use wifi, so I consider that free. I get to my next destination and I can steal internet...


Interesting:


A Michigan man has been fined $400 and given 40 hours of community service for accessing an open wireless Internet connection outside a coffee shop.

Under a little known state law against computer hackers, Sam Peterson II, of Cedar Springs, Mich., faced a felony charge after cops found him on March 27 sitting in front of the Re-Union Street Café in Sparta, Mich., surfing the Web from his brand-new laptop.

Last week, Peterson chose to pay the fine instead as part of a jail-diversion program.

"I think a lot of people should be shocked, because quite honestly, I still don't understand it myself," Peterson told FOXNews.com "I do not understand how this is illegal."

• Click here for FOXNews.com's Personal Technology Center.

His troubles began in March, a couple of weeks after he had bought his first laptop computer.

Peterson, a 39-year-old toolmaker, volunteer firefighter and secretary of a bagpipe band, wanted to use his 30-minute lunch hour to check e-mails for his bagpipe group.

He got on the Internet by tapping into the local coffee shop's wireless network, but instead of going inside the shop to use the free Wi-Fi offered to paying customers, he chose to remain in his car and piggyback off the network, which he said didn't require a password.

He used the system on his lunch breaks for more than a week, and then the police showed up.

"I was sitting there reading my e-mail and he came up and stuck his head inside my window and asked me who I was spying on," Peterson told FOXNews.com.

Someone from a nearby barbershop had called cops after seeing Peterson's car pull up every day and sit in front of the coffee shop without anybody getting out.

"I just curiously asked him, 'Where are you getting the Internet connection?', you know," Sparta Police Chief Andrew Milanowski said. "And he said, 'From the café.'"

Milanowski ruled out Peterson as a possible stalker of the attractive local hairdresser, but still felt that a law might have been broken.

"We came back and we looked up the laws and we figured if we found one and thought, 'Well, let's run it by the prosecutor's office and see what they want to do,'" Milanowski said.

A few weeks later Peterson said he received a letter from the Kent County prosecutor's office saying that he faced a felony charge of fraudulent access to computer networks and that a request had been made for an arrest warrant.

The law, introduced in 1979 to protect Internet and private-network users from hackers, and amended in 2000 to include wireless systems, makes piggybacking off of Wi-Fi networks, even those without a password, illegal.

"It wasn't anything we were looking for, and it wasn't anything that we frankly particularly wanted to get involved in, but it basically fell in our lap and it was a little hard to just look the other way when somebody handed it to us," said Lynn Hopkins, assistant prosecuting attorney for Kent County.

Under the statute, individuals who log on to a Wi-Fi network with the owner's permission, or who see a pop-up screen that says it's a public network, can assume they're authorized to use the network, Hopkins said.

If they don't, they could be subject to prosecution.

Peterson was given two choices: He could try to fight the felony charge and face a sentence of up to 5 years in jail or a $10,000 fine; or he could enroll in the diversion program, which would require paying a $400 fine, doing 40 hours of community service and staying on probation for six months.

After consulting two lawyers — both of whom were until then unaware of the law — Peterson decided last week to take the diversion program.

If he fails to complete it, the arrest warrant will be issued and felony charges will be filed, Hopkins said.

"A lot of people tell me I should fight this, but they're not the ones looking at the felony charges on their record if it happens to go bad," Peterson said.

The case has surprised locals, including the owner of the barbershop that initially called police, as well as Donna May, owner of the coffee shop.

"He could have just come in the cafe, even if he didn't have any money, I would let him get on it," May said.

May said that the wireless connection is free for customers to her cafe.

The barbershop owner defended his decision to call police.

"I felt bad about it, but we've had problems in the past," said the man, who declined to give his name. "I'd rather be safe than sorry."

For Peterson, who's never had a criminal record, the experience has been an eye-opening one.

"All over the TV, all the commercials and whatnot you see, they're all trying to get you to buy all these laptops and things that are wireless," he said. "They're trying to get you to buy this wireless stuff because you can go anywhere and still be connected.

"Well, they don't happen to tell you that it's illegal," he continued. "And I guess obviously you're just supposed to know that."

It's up to the consumer to figure that out, said Hopkins, the prosecuting attorney.

"When you buy a Wi-Fi equipped device, it's your responsibility to find out what you can and can't legally do with that device, just as it would be if you were buying a radar detector or any other piece of electronics," she said.

But don't look for a flurry of prosecutions anytime soon.

"We're not going to be running stings to go out looking for people who do this," Hopkins said. "But people should be aware that if we come across them, and it is a violation of the statute, then we will enforce the statute."

[wonderllama]

I think in an airport lounge where it is provided to passengers you'd be foolish to think you aren't paying for it somehow, be it in the ticket price or whatever.

Same with the coffee shop. The place down the road without wifi charges the same as the place with wifi? Umm...this doesn't mean you are being given a discount at the place that has it you know...

Free to customers...I'm sure this would be written somewhere, and from memory, ignorance to the rules or the law is no excuse for breaking it...

[postalcop]

Never really thought about it as stealing when it's a coffee shop or another place that provides wireless. Interesting article and it makes sense. Guess I'll be more careful where I pick up my connection from.

[Jack Bauer]

"We came back and we looked up the laws and we figured if we found one and thought, 'Well, let's run it by the prosecutor's office and see what they want to do,'" Milanowski said.

love how they looked up laws so they could charge the guy. instead of warning him. fuck them[QUOTE]

I'd steal wireless broadband if there wasnt a password on it. did it before will do it again. the cops in ireland wouldnt give two fucks. why dont cops in the states solve proper cases.

[jakeoff13]

My thoughts are that any person that is worried about their internet getting stolen should protect it. It is kind of like a car alarm. You get one if you dont want your shit stolen. If a person doesn't protect their wireless connection I would assume they really dont care about people using it.

When I worked at Best Buy I would always recommend that people get their network secure and most people were too cheap ass or lazy to do anything about it.

[jakeoff13]

Sorry I think alot of that was retail rage...=)

[Hoser]

Never really thought about it as stealing when it's a coffee shop or another place that provides wireless. Interesting article and it makes sense. Guess I'll be more careful where I pick up my connection from.

I just died a little inside.

[Archetype]

Fuck reading seven pages.

Taking wireless internet you didn't pay for is stealing. Why? Because the internet requires investing and work in order to run, investing and work done in this case by ISPs. It doesn't matter if it's wireless you're stealing, or if you're sticking your dick in their router and getting youtube through the back of your brain, you're taking something that you neither bought nor created. Stop being a retard, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean you aren't staling it. You wanna not pay for it? Build a server, and access the internet yourself.

[wonderllama]

Was worth waiting for your post man.... ;)

[wonderllama]

Was worth waiting for your post man.... ;)

[Archetype]

Was worth waiting for your post man.... ;)

[DjAg]

False. It was worth waiting for wonderllama's post(s).





CCCCCCCCCCombo Breaker!

[wonderllama]

Not sure how I managed the double posted there....frickin frick.
Must be this wireless internet I'm hooked into.

[BiōHazard]

Well fuck. people invested time in planting/caring for trees that supply us with air. Just saying.

[BiōHazard]

Also is it stealing, if I inhale second hand smoke? I certainly didnt pay for those cigs, so that means I'm going to hell for stealing. (We're all going to hell anyway, but just for this topic, we'll say)

[wonderllama]

I'd suggest second hand smoke is a bi-product of the actual item purchased whereas the wireless is in fact the same initial product.

Also not sure of anyone who goes out to intentionally inhale second hand smoke, however if you sat next to someone and sniffed them I'm sure they'd be unimpressed.

[Das Kahlua]

My thought is this: once you start broadcasting wireless internet, you lose control of how you control it; if you want it controlled, put a password on it or don't use wireless internet.

If I blared music in my apartment, my neighbor shouldn't be charged with illegally downloading music. Same principle applies to wireless internet.

[BiōHazard]

I'd suggest second hand smoke is a bi-product of the actual item purchased whereas the wireless is in fact the same initial product.

Also not sure of anyone who goes out to intentionally inhale second hand smoke, however if you sat next to someone and sniffed them I'm sure they'd be unimpressed.

Actually, Wireless IS a bi-product, of regular internet. You cant have smoke without cigs, and you cant have wireless without internet.

[hatepoppy]

*byproduct

srsly, is you all be retarded?

[Das Kahlua]

*byproduct

srsly, is you all be retarded?

I think he was referring to products that swing both ways.

[wonderllama]

*byproduct

srsly, is you all be retarded?

Right you are, I work with mathematics too much.

Now shove off.

The music example is not the same as you do not have a choice. You are hearing the music but the product remains the owners.

The smoke from the cigarette is the BY-product, the cigarette is still the owners.

The wireless internet, again, you have a choice to hook in to it. You affect the owner's supply (your downloads may slow it down, make them go over the limit etc).

If you wanted irony, you could hook into their internet, get streaming music and turn it up loud so it annoys them!

[theAlbinoWine-O]

A. Both morally and ethically ok.

But I dont let anyone use mine..

[TylerDurden]

If they're stupid enough to leave everything wide open to a building of strangers, they deserve it. amirite?

exactly.

technology comes with a price. whether it be monetary, knowledge, or both... nothing is free, nor should it be. having wireless internet these days is akin to having the newest iphone: everyone else has it, thus so should i. it's horseshit.

if you can't even spare the five fucking minutes to hit google for a three-step tutorial on how to correctly set up wep/wpa/mac filtering/etc you're essentially inviting people into your house. this is a case where ignorance is not an excuse.

know what you're buying when you buy it, or pay someone to do it for you. else don't fucking buy it. i certainly don't leave my car/house/office/cell/etc unlocked for anyone to happen by and let themselves in.

with that said... stealing is wrong. no matter which way you cut it. but when a neighbor tells me that their brand-new television was just stolen from their unlocked apartment i have no sympathy for them. they chose to leave their doors unlocked, and just like basic wireless security the simplest of things will discourage a would-be thief 90% of the time.

[Ninja Pope]

I think the real question here is whether or not Anita will beat me in our race.

[WET HOT MESS]

RIIIIGHT

[Trident]

If your gorgeous neighbour doesn't takes steps to ensure her bedroom curtain closes properly then you have every right to peer in with high-powered binoculars. If your neighbour doesn't take steps to prevent their stereo from being heard then you have every right to listen to their music. Much the same goes for those who fail to encrypt their wireless.

[Trident]

You guys think Internet service should be offered for no charge?

You know what, yes... I think it should. Governments, local authorities and other public bodies now use the Internet for the vast majority of their business. It saves them money by doing so, so if they want us to help them, they should help us. Rightly or wrongly, the Internet is now one of our primary forms of communication and it should be a universally accessible service. Sure, they should throttle the speed to allow subscription services to offer high-speed broadband, but yes - free Internet for all.

Luckily my city is beginning to install wireless in lamposts to offer wireless wherever I am in the city; I still have to pay for my home connection, but that gives me access anywhere.

[maby652]

right and wrong are things that i assume people know, at least the ones subject to the law.
unfortunately, the law is an expression of what is practical for a government to enforce and pursue.
many laws are unenforceable, yet serve a political purpose to say what was once considered right and wrong.

"stealing internet" access may be wrong in the great poll of the human population, but even more people would agree it is enforced by the provider of the internet access, and the government only has a advisory role. asking the gov to enforce internet access protections to prevent "stealing" would be a huge burden, and therefore impractical cost.

and the enforcement by the gov. is through the justice section, which opens a idealistic-world-shattering upper jab by asking the practical questions. Does the thief know they are steaing? Does the owner know they lost something? Does the owner steal internet access themselves ( funny, that happened to me and friends )? Is there a clear intent to allow/disallow access, regardless of the law? those little details often make a "classic case" of theft much more grey.. and usually not worth the cost of the courts and lawyers...

if you're using it without asking, don't surprised of the consequences. and if you're not locking it down to the best of your abilities, don't be surprised of the consequences. personal responsibility is NOT the government job.

[maby652]

oh and I always wanted to say....

"I'm so sorry for stealing the smell of your food when you carry it across the street in front of me. For this, I judge the appropriate payment to be the sound of all my money."

[CunningRunt]

If someone hasn't protected their connection they're asking for it.

[BiōHazard]

SOMEONE BAN THIS HO!

Noone bumps this and gets away with it.

[bdjlo09]

No, nothing wrong. If someone wants to control, they can make their network private.

[gilliath]

Hell yeah its wrong.

[splinter]

it's kind of wrong, but that won't stop me.

[freefire]

it seems as though if they aren't going to secure it, they must want it taken

[yogih27]

yes, it's always the poor who pays

[qwkphkr]

I compare the unsecured wireless network to a ball stadium which can be seen from a taller building. If the game is visible from the balcony of your apartment and you watch it, did you steal from the team owner? So if the internet is available, in your home, it's not stealing.

[scottydoesntkno]

It is both immoral and unethical.


but i do it sometimes anyway. depending on where im at.

[BiōHazard]

You fuckers need a life.

[scottydoesntkno]

at 1 in the morning drunk? you know there isnt shit to do but drink till you puke.