Stealing WiFi is, well, stealing

Regardless of the law and the legality of it... it's not ethical, in my humble opinion.

If I use someone else's WiFi, I have no idea what it is costing him.  However, it is costing him ? and I'm using his bandwidth for free ? that's not ethical, unless he is willing to share it.  I don't care if it has no impact on his costs or on anything else.  It's still not right.

I'm not using wireless, yet.  I'm in the planning phase of getting ready to retire and travel and our intent is to have wireless capability.  I certainly will learn what I have to do to secure my system.

It's not unusual for business services to be priced on usage, while consumer service is flat rate.  Telephone services are an example.  So the business could be paying for your usage.

Connecting to a wifi system without the owners permission is Theft of services plan and simple.  By connecting to somebodies wifi you are reducing the available bandwidth to the owner.  Now this bandwith reduction may not be noticed or it could very well affect the owner depending on what they are doing for example attempting to download a rather large file which could take longer if there is a thief poaching his wifi thus reducing the bandwidth available to him that the owner has paid for and possibly even get him fapped if he is using a satellite system.  Yes there can be a loss to the owner in either time or the capability to perform a function that the owner has paid for.

Now some argue that since the wifi is not secured it makes it free for the taking.  Lets say someone taps into their neighbors telephone line that is or install a splitter on the TV cable and run a line to their living room these actions woulds also be considered theft of service.  Just because a service is not under lock and key or secured does NOT imply that it is free.

If one is so sure that connecting to somebodies wifi without permission is not unethical or theft of service then why not just ask permission.

ALL,

One thing we need to recognise in this discussion is that we should not compare walking into an unlocked house or business and taking something tangable.  Using bandwidth is not the same as taking a physical item from someone.

In the 1970s, 80s, and 90s when I was a computer security consultant both federal and state laws addressed the problem of taking non-tangible items, e.g., electronic bits of data.  The law at first even questioned whether "bits" in a computer were something that could be stolen.  In this case you are using someting not taking it.

For the record, there now are laws that specifically state that illegally entering someones computer, data base, or whatever and removing bits-of-data is a crime.

In this case, the question for the law courts may be, can a person be convicted of a crime if they transmit data over someone elses WiFi where they did not physically interconnect to the WiFi, add or remove bits-of-data from that system, or in some cases they did not even enter the WiFi user's computer.

Here is a case concerning my next door neighbor.  He complains that sometimes when using his own personal "in-his-house" WiFi sometimes his system automatically connects to someone elses WiFi called Belkin and he finds himself using an unknown WiFi system.  In this case the Belkin WiFi is interfering with a user in his "private" home.

Ned, I know that you could stop this from happening but what about the millions of not-to-technical users around the country.  Could this be considered some form of entrapment by the WiFi user called Belkin or the police??? 

Maybe, just maybe, the user who allows his or her unsecured WiFi signal to be broadcast should be held liable for disturbing others (such as in the case of second hand smoke) or for entrapment or possible sting operations by the police. 

Who knows...this is a somewhat new area of law.  Remember, any city or state can write a law but it's the courts that determine whether it really legal and enforceable.

Oh well...Happy Days are here again

JerryF     

It is difficult to apply old laws to new situations, and this is one of those times.  I was only pointing out that a precedent has been set in one jurisdiction, and it's conceivable that it will be used as a reference in other cases that arise.  As for the analogies, I think that trespass is more applicable than theft, but the courts will determine that.

My point is do you want to risk being one of the next test cases?  Use common sense and your own ethics to decide what YOU do.

We could also put some of the blame on Microsoft for defaulting the Wireless Zero Configuration to Automatic for every connection it sees, but there are valid reasons for the way it was done.  The long term solution is education of the less knowledgeable (or ignorant, if you must) by the more knowledgeable.

Computer are a long way from being appliances, but that is a much broader subject than this thread was intended for.

Ned,

You make a good point, probably it will be trespass and not stealing bandwidth...whatever the law decides bandwidth is.  Also, the law needs to decide who is trespassing on who as in the case of my neighbor who may feel that the mysterious Belkin WiFi network is trespassing on his private in-house network. 

JerryF

Ned,

I just thought of another aspect to this dilemma.  Even the police should get a phone tap court order before listening to someones WiFi messages if they are going to prosecute others for that same offense.  The police may be killing a good source of info and for what benefit to themselves.

JerryF

wendycoke said:

BYW, I now see the error of my previous argument....if someone breaks into my house and watches my TV and that TV wouldn't otherwise be on, there's an electricity cost and I've been financially damaged.

Click to expand...

I think we are strating to reach aggrement.  There is another cost in many cases as well to using the Hotel's or my Wi-Fi.

Most (nearly all) ISP's have rules, violate those rules and you can loose your access... Getting new access can be expensive.  One of those rules is DO NOT SPAM.

So, say someone parks in the hotel parking lot just long enough to send out 1,000,000 E-mails because he is a Stupid Person who Annoys Millions (S.P.A.M.) Well.... the hotel stands a chance of loosing it's access

And if he uses your internet connection... What's the odds that he has access to your hard drive, or at least part of it (Very high) and thus,  Well, as I said, you don't get on here lessen you have both the access key and the right hardware address

If one leaves his WiFi open and it is used by a passerby, I do not feel there should be any recourse in the courts. ?If their sprinkler is showering the sidewalk and a passerby cools off, is that a theft? ?Is there any action by the user to breach security? ?If not, it should be open. ?If an unauthorized user is continually using the wifi, and has breached security, then by all means they ought to be prosecuted. ?Jail time? ?Not in my mind, jail time would be ludicrous! ?Let the punishment fit the crime, and jail time does not fit. ?

By leaving security off, you are implicitly welcoming users. ?If you do not have the technical savvy to close your network, then turn it off when not being used, or call the 800 number and get walked through by the experts.

To all of this, if someone is getting into your wifi and then getting into your PC with ill intent, and it can be proven, prosecute, this is intentional harm or fraud.

Hi Guys

Im reading this topic at a Thousand Trails in California.

Sitting in the Adult Lodge, Im accessing a signal which happens to be clearly labelled as '1000trails'

What if it werent so clearly labelled ? - how am I to know where that signal comes from ?

BTW, as my laptop is plugged into the mains supply, am I stealing that power ? - I know that Im allowed access to the site hookup but I havent read anywhere which states Im entilted to the electric in the Lodge too.

Personally, I believe ignorance to be no defence in law - so it is upto the wifi owner to secure thier signal if they dont wish others to have access to it.

Paul

John In Detroit said:

I think we are strating to reach aggrement.?

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think we'll ever really agree on this. There are too many variables, too many differences of opinion. There are differences of scale (is signing on for 5 minutes to check my email the same as dumping 1,000 spam emails through your system). There are differences of thought on who owns invisible things that travel through the air. There are differences in interpretation (is it 'stealing' or is it 'trespass'? and if it's 'trespass,' aren't you also trespassing by having your bandwidth passing through my house or car or RV or hotel room?). I don't see the issue as clear-cut on either side. But it sure does generate some heated discussion.

That's why I posted the original message with the link to the article.  The courts will eventually decide the issue and so far, it's not looking good for the "borrowers".

But the guy in this case pled guilty, so who knows what would have happened if it had gone to trial or gone further in the court system. The courts won't decide the issue until someone fights it when they're charged. It'll be interesting to see where and how it ends up.

A guilty plea is because you don't think you can do better at trial.

Let us know how you do

A guilty plea can mean anything, including that you just don't want the hassle and expense of a trial.

As for me volunteering as the test case, if I was going to get arrested to make a point, there are plenty of other things I'd choose first.

Yep, avoiding a trial that you think will find you guilty.  That would be hassle

Ned said:

A guilty plea is because you don't think you can do better at trial.

Click to expand...

More often than not a guilty plea for something minor like this means that the accused doesn't have the money to fight it. He couldn't get a lawyer to talk to him on the phone, let alone represent him in court, for less than what the fine was. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is the next time someone is charged if they have the money to fight it.

Assumiing my home wifi not password protected, how would I know if someone was using my signal?

You should be able to get a list of devices accessing your access point/router if that's what you have.  If you're using Windows ICS, then there are some command line commands that can be used, but they're not as convenient.

BruceinFL said:

Assumiing my home wifi not password protected, how would I know if someone was using my signal?

Click to expand...

Easiest is to go to your router's DCHP or STATUS pages,  one of them will list all currently connected users