Unsecured WiFi - Fair Game??

[DMacomber]

Just my $.02 on the matter.

I don't see it as a usage issue as much as a privacy issue.

Sure, the owner may be ignorant of the fact that his/her wifi is unsecured, but that isn't a free pass onto their network.

I really hate that sprinkler argument because it assumes that because you are bombarded with his wifi signal, you are obligated to use it. You cant stop water (practically speaking) from seeping into your yard, you CAN let wireless signals pass through your home without using them.

Frankly, most of the people I see making the argument for using unsecured wifi are people trying to justify what they do.

It's closer than the analogy of physically entering someones house.
I have my own net and other nets around are secured so for me its not an issue. It is however the owners responsibility to secure their property digital or otherwise.

 

[DMacomber]

That isn't costing the owner though. The owner of the wifi may well be paying for a set download limit and you taking it for free may be downloading films in which case you are costing him.

It most certainly is costing the owner of the venue charging. The band is not playing for free, so any "free" listeners are taking money out of the owners pocket more directly or as directly as wifi signal.

For those who have bandwidth limits it is especially stupid not to secure your network. My argument applies to the US as I don't know the international law in that respect.

 

[Deleted member 13571]

It most certainly is costing the owner of the venue charging. The band is not playing for free, so any "free" listeners are taking money out of the owners pocket more directly or as directly as wifi signal.

For those who have bandwidth limits it is especially stupid not to secure your network. My argument applies to the US as I don't know the international law in that respect.

http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wirelessfaqs/f/legal_free_wifi.htm

Just as entering a home or business without the owner's permission is considered trespassing (even if the doors are unlocked), likewise accessing wireless Internet connections (even open access ones) can be considered an illegal activity. At a minimum, obtain consent from the operator of any Wi-Fi access point before using their service. Read any online Terms of Service documentation carefully when signing on, and contact the owner offline if necessary to ensure compliance.

 

[red12049]

Except that wifi broadcasts. the unsecured signals are traversing boundaries, if my neighbor is sprinkling his yard and sets the hose close to my property line and water sprays over, am I stealing his water? Or if he does not want to water my yard, would he need to move the sprinkler or turn it off.

Most of the analogies put forth seem to state that you would have to cross over and turn the spigot on, when in fact your neighbor is hosing the neighbors yard.

Is this ethical? no. is it illegal? not from where I can see.

Taken another way, if there is an outdoor concert is is legal to stand outside the wire and listen to the music? or are you stealing from those who paid to go inside the fence?

If you are within listening range of a concert, then you have done nothing proactive to steal from that concert.

There are many signals that may traverse your premises. Some of them may be legal and correct to use (public tv), others may not (pay tv). ALL of them require you to be proactive to utilize them. You have to turn something on in order to receive them. Years ago, satellite TV signals used to be unscrambled. It was as illegal to receive them then (without paying), as it is now. It was also as morally/ethically wrong then as now. Same thing with wireless.

Rick

 

[DMacomber]

If you are within listening range of a concert, then you have done nothing proactive to steal from that concert.

There are many signals that may traverse your premises. Some of them may be legal and correct to use (public tv), others may not (pay tv). ALL of them require you to be proactive to utilize them. You have to turn something on in order to receive them. Years ago, satellite TV signals used to be unscrambled. It was as illegal to receive them then (without paying), as it is now. It was also as morally/ethically wrong then as now. Same thing with wireless.

Rick

I agree with the moral/ethical but as to legality....
NY disagrees with you putting the impetus on the network owners.

 

[Martyn]

It most certainly is costing the owner of the venue charging. The band is not playing for free, so any "free" listeners are taking money out of the owners pocket more directly or as directly as wifi signal.

For those who have bandwidth limits it is especially stupid not to secure your network. My argument applies to the US as I don't know the international law in that respect.

I meant the water not the wifi.

 

[vdub12]

Frankly, most of the people I see making the argument for using unsecured wifi are people trying to justify what they do.

Maybe your right. I have an access point that I leave unsecured that is setup to only allow specific protocols. This network will not work with torrents and other things that i feel I don't want going over them. So maybe I do support it because I participate in it. However it is not for justification.

A good example of why I think everyone is off base right now is imagine finding a $20 bill on the ground. If you pick it up and spend it would you be a thief? You did not earn the money so its not rightfully yours right? So whats the difference. Is it not the owners responsibility to secure his money. If he leaves it siting unsecured on the sidewalk does that not making it free for the taking.

 

[Deleted member 13571]

A good example of why I think everyone is off base right now is imagine finding a $20 bill on the ground. If you pick it up and spend it would you be a thief? You did not earn the money so its not rightfully yours right? So whats the difference. Is it not the owners responsibility to secure his money. If he leaves it siting unsecured on the sidewalk does that not making it free for the taking.

Now imagine the guy who dropped it is less than 25 feet away and too infirm to pick it up

 

[red12049]

Maybe your right. I have an access point that I leave unsecured that is setup to only allow specific protocols. This network will not work with torrents and other things that i feel I don't want going over them. So maybe I do support it because I participate in it. However it is not for justification.

A good example of why I think everyone is off base right now is imagine finding a $20 bill on the ground. If you pick it up and spend it would you be a thief? You did not earn the money so its not rightfully yours right? So whats the difference. Is it not the owners responsibility to secure his money. If he leaves it siting unsecured on the sidewalk does that not making it free for the taking.

If you saw someone drop it, sure you are. If you didn't, and want to do the right thing, turn it into the cops. Ethically, it does not make it "free for the taking."

WiFi signals aren't "lost."

Vastly different scenario, VDub.

By putting "Public" into your SSID, you are granting those who come across your wireless "explicit permission" to use it. Without being concerned over whether you actually have the right to do that with your Service Provider's bandwidth, those who use your router are assured that you, at least, gave them permission to do so. Otherwise, as I said before; If you take what is mine without my permission, you are stealing from me. Morally/ethically, and usually legally, nothing else matters.



Rick