View Full Version : using a neighbors wifi: is it stealing?
Hooahguy
05-24-2009, 19:17
a friend of mine asked me my opinion: sometimes when his parents ban him from wifi, he uses his neighbors unlocked wifi. i think that while it is stealing, since you are stealing bandwith, it shouldnt be punished by the police.
he says that since his neighbor is dumb enough to keep it unlocked, its ok to use it.
thoughts?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-24-2009, 19:34
It's stealing and he should teach his neibour to to lock the wi-fi as well.
HoreTore
05-24-2009, 19:36
I wouldn't mind someone "stealing" my bandwidth, so long as it doesn't hamper my own bandwidth needs.
Ie., I have way too much bandwidth anyway. Most of the time I only need a small part of it, I couldn't care less if someone used what I don't use.
For the record, my wifi is unlocked, but my neighbors live around 200m away, so my signal isn't strong enough for them to use. However, I live just next to a playground, and there are plenty of people there at times, if some guy there needed teh intarwebs a little to check his mail or something(it's not like you'd do much else on a playground), I could not care less.
Encryption is really easy to do. If I didn't want someone to "steal" my bandwidth, it would be easy as hell to stop it. I say that if it's not encrypted, it's ok. Because 1. if he cared about it he would encrypt it and 2. if he doesn't know how to encrypt a network, he isn't smart enough to notice decreased bandwidth anyway, and what people don't know can't hurt them.
KukriKhan
05-24-2009, 19:38
a friend of mine asked me my opinion: sometimes when his parents ban him from using the family car, he uses his neighbors unlocked car. i think that while it is stealing, since you are stealing bandwith, it shouldnt be punished by the police.
he says that since his neighbor is dumb enough to keep his car unlocked, its ok to use it.
thoughts?
Substitute "car", or any other object or service, for "wifi", and the issue becomes clearer, for me.
InsaneApache
05-24-2009, 19:42
Agreed Kukri.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-24-2009, 19:47
Substitute "car", or any other object or service, for "wifi", and the issue becomes clearer, for me.
I don't agree with substituting other objects--seems to oversimplify the issue.
I would say that you shouldn't use your neighbors wifi, and that they "he doesn't encrypt it so he deserves it" rationalization is hooey. But I also think that it's wrong to make a big deal out of it being wrong. It's like crying wolf.
Don't sweat the small stuff.
Tell his parents that next time they want to ban him from the internet, they should just take away his laptop/a few cables + mouse and keyboard from his desktop.
Substitute "car", or any other object or service, for "wifi", and the issue becomes clearer, for me.
So where does a hotshot fit into that analogy? Either the neighbour does not know about security or he wants to be nice guy or use the open wifi as an excuse in case someone discovers all his downloading porn from torrents.
CBR
I like how it looks like CBR has really thought through this situation. From personal experience? *tease*
rasoforos
05-24-2009, 20:07
People have the choice to leave their wireless unlocked or lock it. What is important is that they are informed about the risks of an unlocked wireless by their ISP.
I tend to find a lot of unlocked networks and I think it is more of out of the ignorance than the generosity of the proper owners.
I like how it looks like CBR has really thought through this situation. From personal experience? *tease*
Heh. Well I remember reading about such a (successful) defense not long ago. Hotspots are becoming more widespread so there are an awful lot of "unlocked cars" these days :beam:
CBR
Hooahguy
05-24-2009, 20:10
Tell his parents that next time they want to ban him from the internet, they should just take away his laptop/a few cables + mouse and keyboard from his desktop.
id prefer not to meddle in the affairs of him and his parents.
Reverend Joe
05-24-2009, 20:10
I'm sure if he just asked his neighbor,t he guy would be OK with it; but the fact that he doesn't ask bothers me.
rory_20_uk
05-24-2009, 20:19
I think it depends on the usage.
The extremes would be
checking emails every 1/2 hour / light surfing
torrenting gamez / applicationz / p0rn / kiddie picz
The first is not going to be noticed whatsoever. The second is not only going to saturate the link, but is breaching several laws at the same time.
Ergo, the first is fine, the second is not.
~:smoking:
Gregoshi
05-24-2009, 20:19
In the grand scheme of the universe, it is a minor thing. However, from the standpoint of the right thing to do, what your friend is doing is the wrong thing. He is using something that has value and someone else has paided for. If he asked for and received his neighbor's permission to use the wifi first, then it would be okay. However, your friend has no incentive to say anything to the neighbor because he is using this "free" wifi to get around a punishment handed to him by his parents. If his parents catch him, I imagine his punishment will be even worse - the original offense + "stealing" from a neighbor + violating the wifi ban.
kiddie picz
kiddie picz are not very heavy (I suppose). Unless the double crime inherent to that makes the file even bigger. OR they have Super-Uber-Hi-Res-of-Doom! OR they took a hi-res pic of a Titan's child.
In any case it is stealing. One of my uncles is one of them leet hackers (He's like 58 years old), and he betayed my aunt, took a long trip around Europe with his escapee, got into trouble and came back to my semi-abandoned grandmothers house (Its like a vacation house. Sorta.) a km away from his original home. Since he had loads of computers (Like 5.) but no internet at my grandmother's house, he got a 10 day trial from one of those USB pen-nets. Bought a few amplifying antenas (To pick the wifi better), and cracked most of the wifi encryptions he could pick up in my grandmother's house. Then he turned it into a fricking informatic station (He was careful to check the bandwidth he spent from each wifi). A few days after he accomplished that, he was pardoned by my aunt and came back to his original house. He still "stole" some bandwidth. I remember a few years ago, he would hijack transmitions TV satelites to his house. He basically was seeing every channel in the world at will.
HoreTore
05-24-2009, 20:43
In any case it is stealing.
Quite irrelevant, since not all stealing is bad in any way, as it may be either justified or irrelevant. IMO, this is a case of the latter.
Quite irrelevant, since not all stealing is bad in any way, as it may be either justified or irrelevant. IMO, this is a case of the latter.
I never pronounced myself it is legitimate or not to steal wifi. I just said it was stealing. And for all legal purposes and matters, it is.
HoreTore
05-24-2009, 21:13
I never pronounced myself it is legitimate or not to steal wifi. I just said it was stealing. And for all legal purposes and matters, it is.
Alright-y then :2thumbsup:
Rhyfelwyr
05-24-2009, 21:31
It's stealing, but if he's on friendly terms with the neighbours maybe he could ask if its OK to use it and maybe they will play dumb.
Oh yeah, and DO NOT tell his parents about it! :sweatdrop:
Substitute "car", or any other object or service, for "wifi", and the issue becomes clearer, for me.
Disagree. If I take your car, you have no car. If you log onto my wifi, I still have my wifi. Your bandwidth changes my monthly bill not at all. Analogy fail.
Look, it's 2009. Most people who do not apply WPA to their wifi are either (a) terminal tech idiots or (b) deliberately sharing. And there are more people doing (b) than you might suspect (http://www.sharemywifi.com/). Variety of motivations -- some people just want to share to feel good, some have political motivations, some believe that unlocked wifi is a defense against filesharing prosecution. That's just for starters.
I think the concerns you should feel about using open wifi points should be pragmatic, not moral. Odds are very high that you visit wesbites with passwords (like, say, the Org). Be advised that such passwords and activity are easy to sniff by someone who has access to the open wifi access point. Frankly, any activity you engage in while on open wifi should be vanilla in the extreme. You are in public, from a networking perspective.
Theft? Not exactly. But there are concerns.
Using unlocked wireless is gray at best. Sure, some people leave their wireless deliberately open for guests- just like I'm sure there are people who deliberately leave their front doors unlocked in case someone wants to stop by.
However, just like leaving your door unlocked doesn't mean an open invitation to strangers, neither does an open wireless AP. You're still accessing someone's network without their express permission.
Sure, I've done it a few times before when travelling, but I don't delude myself into thinking they've given me their permission just by not using encryption.
InsaneApache
05-24-2009, 22:28
Quite irrelevant, since not all stealing is bad in any way, as it may be either justified or irrelevant. IMO, this is a case of the latter.
I'd just love to hear you expand on why stealing is fine.
It is wrong.
It destroys wealth.
It's antisocial.
It causes deprivation and hardship.
It rewards wrong doing.
Like the thread in the frontroom about the 'free' telly. Nothing except fresh air is 'free', neither should it be.
Yes, tell me your thoughts on this HoreTore, I'd really like to know.
Hosakawa Tito
05-24-2009, 22:52
Man, I did a double take on the thread title, at first I read wifi as wife. :laugh4: I'm not stealing just borrowing for about 10 minutes...whoops didn't even take that long.
Borrowing/using a neighbor's property without their consent or acknowledgement is wrong. Yes, it's piggy-backing on a signal and usually doesn't affect the owner's use, but that's a slippery slope of a justification. Your friend is in double jeopardy because he's not supposed to be online as a disciplinary restriction...in for a penny in for a pound.:smash:
How far does a signal typically reach? I don't have mine password encrypted because we live in an area with just one neighbor who is within 75 feet of the house; all the rest are 200-300 yards distant.
KukriKhan
05-24-2009, 23:21
2005 CNet article on wifi "mooching" (http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-Wi-Fi-mooching-and-the-law/2100-7351_3-5778822.html)
What happens if someone does something unsavory with my Wi-Fi connection? Can I get in trouble?
This is another area of ambiguity. "I don't think you would ever be held vicariously liable for unwittingly allowing someone to use your network even if they're trafficking in child pornography. You're just considered a victim in that case," says Christian Genetski, an information security lawyer at Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal. "It'd be different if you set up your own open relay server and looked the other way while spammers sent billions of messages through your open relay, and you were put on notice and did nothing to stop it."
Still, one reason to tighten up your Wi-Fi security is that an open wireless connection can be used for mischief. In September, a California man pleaded guilty to spamming people through open Wi-Fi hot spots.
Look, it's 2009.... Theft? Not exactly. But there are concerns.
Is that not the same rationalization that justifies copying movies and music? Everybody does it, so it must be OK? Especially if it's digital-related property?
@HosakawaTito: I think about 300 feet is the usual radius of transmission for most home-based systems.
Kralizec
05-24-2009, 23:29
a friend of mine asked me my opinion: sometimes when his parents ban him from wifi, he uses his neighbors unlocked wifi. i think that while it is stealing, since you are stealing bandwith, it shouldnt be punished by the police.
he says that since his neighbor is dumb enough to keep it unlocked, its ok to use it.
thoughts?
I don't approve, but on the other hand I don't approve of ratting out someone after he just confided in you either. I'd try to convince him to stop, or alternatively tell his neighbour to lock his wifi without telling him about your friend.
Disagree. If I take your car, you have no car. If you log onto my wifi, I still have my wifi. Your bandwidth changes my monthly bill not at all. Analogy fail.
Taking advantage of another persons wifi is getting a free ride on another person's expenses. It's not technically theft but not that much different either, IMO.
Alexander the Pretty Good
05-25-2009, 00:33
Quite irrelevant, since not all stealing is bad in any way, as it may be either justified or irrelevant. IMO, this is a case of the latter.
Please elaborate. If you are justified in "stealing" something, is it still stealing?
IE, I imagine that committing injustice is inherent to the definition, but maybe I'm committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy...
Just as rape isn't rape if there isn't a breach of consent (ignoring statutory rape for this example).
Technically it is stealing, but unless he is invading their privacy, it really isn't a big deal and the police better not waste their time dealing with it.
Adrian II
05-25-2009, 01:50
Man, I did a double take on the thread title, at first I read wifi as wife. :laugh4:So did I, so I asked myself what the fuss was about. Then it turned out to be Wai-Fai, an electronic gadget. Now that's male territory, that's serious business.
Turns out I was wrong again, apparently. It seems a man was actually arrested for Wi-Fi piggybacking in Michigan in 2007. He was sentenced to a 400 buck fine or 40 hours of community nose-picking. This blog (http://www.myhotspots.co.uk/2007/08/is-it-theft-to-use-someone-elses-wifi.html) had a nice comment on it at the time:
If you buy a newspaper and read it whilst sitting on a train, very often people might look over your shoulder and have a look at the headlines. They are consuming information you just paid for - are they stealing? No, of course not.
Some people may have their wifi connection open and secured because they actually want people to share it. How can we tell what someone's intention is when they decide to transmit an open network?
In fact, it points to the opposite:
In actual fact, by broadcasting your connection details you are almost tampering with my laptop or wireless device. If someone set their wireless access point's SSID as the worst obscenity possible and caused that word to appear on your screen by broadcasting it to your Wifi equipment, are you in the wrong for receiving it, or are they in the wrong for sending it? Who is it that has committed the crime?
So I think it's not like stealing KukriKhan's car after all. Or his yak.
Crazed Rabbit
05-25-2009, 02:03
It's stealing and it is wrong. Relatively minor, however.
I don't believe everyone who's got an open wi-fi is doing so intentionally. They hardly sell routers without wif-fi nowadays. People walk in to a store, buy a router, hook it up, get it working and then pay no more attention. They don't know or don't even think about the fact that their neighbors may start mooching. We here at this forum are quite different from the average person.
And for some people bandwidth can be a finite monthly resource.
CR
Adrian II
05-25-2009, 02:16
It's stealing and it is wrong. Relatively minor, however.
I don't believe everyone who's got an open wi-fi is doing so intentionally. They hardly sell routers without wif-fi nowadays. People walk in to a store, buy a router, hook it up, get it working and then pay no more attention. They don't know or don't even think about the fact that their neighbors may start mooching. We here at this forum are quite different from the average person.
And for some people bandwidth can be a finite monthly resource.
CRUm, there's a Lemur dangling above you. From branch 21 to be precise. Could you address some of the points he raises?
Crazed Rabbit
05-25-2009, 02:22
Well, I thought I partially had...
Look, it's 2009. Most people who do not apply WPA to their wifi are either (a) terminal tech idiots or (b) deliberately sharing.
I would disagree about the idiots thing; see my previous post.
I think the concerns you should feel about using open wifi points should be pragmatic, not moral.
I said the concern about theft and the moral issues was minor.
Disagree. If I take your car, you have no car. If you log onto my wifi, I still have my wifi. Your bandwidth changes my monthly bill not at all. Analogy fail.
Aren't some companies thinking about putting monthly bandwidth caps on?
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
05-25-2009, 04:06
So did I, so I asked myself what the fuss was about. Then it turned out to be Wai-Fai, an electronic gadget. Now that's male territory, that's serious business.
Turns out I was wrong again, apparently. It seems a man was actually arrested for Wi-Fi piggybacking in Michigan in 2007. He was sentenced to a 400 buck fine or 40 hours of community nose-picking. This blog (http://www.myhotspots.co.uk/2007/08/is-it-theft-to-use-someone-elses-wifi.html) had a nice comment on it at the time:
If you buy a newspaper and read it whilst sitting on a train, very often people might look over your shoulder and have a look at the headlines. They are consuming information you just paid for - are they stealing? No, of course not.
Sounds like nonsense to me. People who try to justify their position by analogy are usually rationalizing. How is this any better than the car analogy? Worrying over whether it is stealing or not is pointless.
Some people may have their wifi connection open and secured because they actually want people to share it. How can we tell what someone's intention is when they decide to transmit an open network?
Being careful with assumptions is a basic rule of human interaction...
I believe that broadcasting an open network is an invitation to use it. People on the other side of the argument might say "If I leave my front door open, does that mean you can walk in?". And the answer is no, of course not - but if you leave your door open with a sign above it saying "Open House - Party Inside", don't be surprised if people come in.
And this is the most ridiculous statement of all. An invitation to use it? Pure ignorance.
If he'd spent more than 5 seconds thinking about his analogy, he'd realize that a more direct parallel would be a network called "free to use" vs a network called "943948ddbeude8".
Agreed on this point -- someone who is deliberately sharing their wifi will have a custom name for their station. So "Bub's Wireless Funhouse" is likely someone sharing on purpose, whereas "linksys" is probably not.
Make me think that those who share wifi with the public ought to adopt a naming convention, just to make legitimate shares easier to identify.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-25-2009, 05:16
How legitimate is deliberately sharing wifi though? Sharing cable is illegal, yes?
Very fuzzy legally. Yes, sharing cable TV is illegal, but inviting others over to watch it is not. Allowing others to copy your CDs is illegal, but having the neighbors listen to your thumpin' stereo isn't.
I suspect that sharing wifi without asking for money is legit, while attempting to resell would be verboten.
Many, many businesses now offer free wifi in their stores/hotels/car dealerships/restaurants. I would be interested to know if there are any legal hurdles they have to jump to clear themselves before they offer wifi to anyone in range.
I use my neigbours wifi, just ask. Internet is pretty fast here an extra taker doesn't really hurt anyone.
Yeah, actually my neighbor and I exchanged passwords so that either of us can log into the other's router if our connections go down for some reason. Won't help us if the whole neighborhood blacks out, but it will help if, say, raccoons decide to chew through my cable box.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-25-2009, 05:27
Yes, I see what you mean. I imagine that restaurants and such that offer free wifi have to pay based on bandwidth.
It would seem that when you pay for wifi, they are nominally providing it just for your house...but you can't restrict it like you can cable. I guess it's pragmatically moral.
Yes, I see what you mean. I imagine that restaurants and such that offer free wifi have to pay based on bandwidth.
I know exactly one hotel manager, and I'm pretty sure this is not the case. He pays for a "business" connection, which does cost more, but he's not aware of any bandwidth meter or restriction.
But then again, I live in the sticks.
Strike For The South
05-25-2009, 07:30
A minor crime but a crime.
We stop people from stealing groceries all the time and we have plenty of those.
pevergreen
05-25-2009, 07:35
I think the original issue is fine, depending on how you are charged for internet.
Down under you are charged x amount for a month, in which you get y amount of usage at z speed.
For example, I pay $100 a month to get 25gb at ADSL2+ speeds, which, at the exchange, is 24MB/ps.
So down here, I'm against it, but in america (if I'm right, not sure) you just pay for internet and not the amount you use? which would make it ok.
(on an unrelated note, im trying to get to switch to a plan that gets 150gb a month for $80. Plus no line rental. Same speed)
Crazed Rabbit
05-25-2009, 07:45
Most ISP plans in the US just give a bandwidth limit. But somebody mooching a wi-fi would slow it down for the owners. It may not be as severe of an action as in Oz, but it isn't a victimless crime.
CR
Duke of Gloucester
05-25-2009, 08:10
I am not sure it is a crime. Theft is taking something with the intent to permanently deprive. Clearly the neighbour is not permanently deprived of anything. This is why there is a separate crime for taking a vehicle without the owner's consent. It was too easy for car theives to claim they had only borrowed the vehicle.
However I sure that it is wrong. Whilst taking your neighbour's car is not a good analogy, how about sitting in your neighbour's garden on his/her nice patio chair whilst he/she is at work without permission. This is bad manners and bad neighbourliness. Using the wifi without permission is the same and just as you can't argue that using the garden is ok because your neighbour doesn't close his back gate, you can't use the excuse that the wifi is unsecured for your wifi access.
In fact a really good neighbour would warn the person next door that their practice was insecure. Your friend might only be using it to avoid a punishment but someone else could be reading his hard disc and theiving his identity.
HoreTore
05-25-2009, 08:14
I'd just love to hear you expand on why stealing is fine.
It is wrong.
It destroys wealth.
It's antisocial.
It causes deprivation and hardship.
It rewards wrong doing.
Like the thread in the frontroom about the 'free' telly. Nothing except fresh air is 'free', neither should it be.
Yes, tell me your thoughts on this HoreTore, I'd really like to know.
I said "not all stealing is bad", I didn't say "stealing is bad". Like what I said in my first post in this thread; people might be stealing bandwidth from me all the time, but I won't notice it, and as such it's quite irrelevant. When people don't even notice it, I can't honestly say that there's a problem with amounts so small that nobody will notice. Bandwidth isn't like a normal item, it's limitless in supply. If you take my sweater when I'm not wearing it, I won't have it when I need it. If you take my bandwidth when I'm not using it, I will still have just as much when I need it.
As for justifying crime, well, there are plenty of examples. Like I won't consider it a bad thing if Starvin' Marvin nicks a slice of bread from Mugabe's plate. I would actually consider that a just action.
Some people may have their wifi connection open and secured because they actually want people to share it. How can we tell what someone's intention is when they decide to transmit an open network?
If anyone is ever in Norway around my house and spots a network called "Lovernet", I hereby declare that you're all welcome to exploit it ~:)
Bit of a difference between leeching and using an acces point. I have permission to use my neighbour's wifi for small stuff, e-mail, browser and the playstation. If I went on dowloading big files he probably wouldn't be very pleased for obvious reasons. There is always a free acces point lying around somewhere. If you don't secure it I will use it, that's pretty much the point of wifi.
Adrian II
05-25-2009, 10:53
It might be piggy-backing, but where's the pig, whose pig is it, who feeds it? If it's leeching, then what, in this analogy, is the blood?
Seriously, the Interwebs give rise to new legal issues all the time and some of them are very intricate. Take for instance virtual property; there has been an ongoing debate about its nature or status, and it is still unclear what the duck test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test) says, in other words: to what extent virtual property is real property.
So can we establish some basics here? Wi-Fi is a wireless datanetwork using radio frequencies, usually in the 5.0 or 2.4 GHz band. So far so good. In order to establish what's what, we need some more legal and technical expertise on radio signals and their effects, on jurisprudence about bandwidth licenses, public access, that sort of stuff.
Any volunteers?
The thing is, the problem with the anti-piracy adverts if that they compared getting illegit copies as comparison to stealing a handbag or stealing a car. It isn't the same thing at all.
It would only be the same if you can go up to a car, right click, copy and paste, then drive off in the copied car. Ultimately, no one would care as they still got their car, etc. So copying the model isn't a problem to them.
If anything, if you could copy and paste things like cars, also do delete, the whole world would be a very economically viable, it would get rid of things such as selfishness and greed and envy and all sorts of things. You could copy and paste food into Africa, and clean water supplies. Even factories and good housing. The facilities and economical develop would occur over night.
It would only be the same if you can go up to a car, right click, copy and paste, then drive off in the copied car. Ultimately, no one would care as they still got their car, etc. So copying the model isn't a problem to them.
But you wouldn't buy a new car since you already own one. Piracy is different, I consider it to be stealing-light, a lot of people have worked on these products, if the copy-nostra wouldn't be such pricks I would have sympathised with them.
The thing I hate is how they punish legitimate consumers. You ever bought a DVD and had to wait through 10 minutes of "STEALING IS WRONG" ? I own plenty of DVD's like that and it drives me insane. I feel like getting a copy of it through privacy just so I can watch the thing when I want to watch it, opposed to having adverts and various other crap forced onto you
Then there were games like Spore by EA. They put so much protection on, you need a degree in Computers just to install it correctly and have the programme working for you. Obviously, the pirate copies come out the next day without all the nonsense which then again, could convince legitimate consumers to go through other paths.
The best anti-piracy measure would be to just have the games work from Steam. Steam being the only programme per se as other programs of similar nature would just upset everyone or making a co-operative joint venture based on the same system and actually sell people games on prices they are worth opposed to the default $60 price tag as you see in the shops and $30 for movies.
rory_20_uk
05-25-2009, 12:14
But you wouldn't buy a new car since you already own one. Piracy is different, I consider it to be stealing-light, a lot of people have worked on these products, if the copy-nostra wouldn't be such pricks I would have sympathised with them.
I agree, but since the anti-copying adverts make an incorrect comparison this correct reasons that stealing isn't great are neglected.
First with DVDs it was the fact that the quality is rubbish, or the DVD you're getting isn't the one you wanted, when in fact they can often be better as the movie starts straight away without the 10 minutes of rubbish first. Next it was the "stealing is bad" which is inaccurate. Now there's the more vague don't be a "knock off Nigel" :inquisitive:
Why is windows so successful? Because everyone uses it. I am sure Microsoft is aware that many Uni students will copy 7, but they are OK with that so when they go for their jobs they are up to date with the latest windows OS, and there are not thousands who are telling their employers that in fact they've years of experience with Ubuntu, and to increase the corporate pressure to upgrade and not use XP for another decade.
~:smoking:
The thing I hate is how they punish legitimate consumers. You ever bought a DVD and had to wait through 10 minutes of "STEALING IS WRONG" ? I own plenty of DVD's like that and it drives me insane. I feel like getting a copy of it through privacy just so I can watch the thing when I want to watch it, opposed to having adverts and various other crap forced onto you
You and me buddy, drives me insane as well, especially the unskippable ones should be punishable by death. That's why I don't mind piracy, just not something I would do myselve. But we were talking wifi :yes:
KukriKhan
05-25-2009, 14:23
So we do all agree that using a neighbor's wifi connection is, in fact, stealing.
We're just trying to measure "how much" stealing it is, and whether it should be punished; and if so, how so.
I don't think I've seen anyone here suggest the OP's friend should be guilliotined, or imprisoned, or even arrested. Some think the theft should be ignored, as it's so small, and the harm done to the owner is hard to discern. Others think ignoring it would be a slippery slope, leading to bigger, badder stealing later. A "gateway" theft, as it were.
Lost in all this is the other thing that the young man is stealing: parental prerogative. He's not openly challenging his punishment for some unknown-to-us offense, he's just sneaking around behind his parents' back to obtain by theft, what his parents intend to deny him.
So we do all agree that using a neighbor's wifi connection is, in fact, stealing.
No just rather impolite if you don't ask first, but open is open, if I am on a terras and someone doesn't have it secured, then I regard it as a public network, like we have in trainstations and airports and bars.
KukriKhan
05-25-2009, 14:51
if you don't ask first
If it's not stealing, why the need to ask?
Seamus Fermanagh
05-25-2009, 15:00
Very fuzzy legally. Yes, sharing cable TV is illegal, but inviting others over to watch it is not. Allowing others to copy your CDs is illegal, but having the neighbors listen to your thumpin' stereo isn't.
I suspect that sharing wifi without asking for money is legit, while attempting to resell would be verboten.
Many, many businesses now offer free wifi in their stores/hotels/car dealerships/restaurants. I would be interested to know if there are any legal hurdles they have to jump to clear themselves before they offer wifi to anyone in range.
I don't see the fuzzy thing there.
YOU invite your neighbors to use YOUR equipment/service on an INVITATIONAL basis without seeking to use that equipment/service as a revenue generator for you. All very reasonable.
I agree that offering, on an INVITATIONAL basis, your wifi to a neighbor is directly analogous and would be covered under that same interpretation -- even if such an invitation were functionally open-ended (after all, your neighbor can, if you so allow, come over and camp out in your living room in front of your TV and watch cable 24-7).
I not only suspect re-selling would be verboten, but would have little or no sympathy for either the re-seller or the clients thereof. All would be and should be criminally/financially liable.
I also believe that anyone seeking to use your connection without receiving your invitation to do so is stealing and should be liable for prosecution/damages as appropriate.
And yes, I have told an individual reading my paper over my shoulder on the Washington Metro to "Go buy your own paper," and I have already gone to a neighbor to suggest they change their system name from linksys to something else.*
*I freely admit that that was just to get my own laptop from trying to connect to his service on its own -- it kept thinking I was installing a new router/wifi and would offer me the chance to set up the new connection. Once a new wifi system name was in place the issue ceased. I do not know if it ever was encrypted...haven't checked. After all, you see, it doesn't belong to me.....
If it's not stealing, why the need to ask?
Because you are using his acces-point. If I can't ask wether or not I can use it, different story. Neighbour has protected network and I asked his password. Sure! If it wasn't protected I would have asked anyway it's my neighbour after all.
And yes, I have told an individual reading my paper over my shoulder on the Washington Metro to "Go buy your own paper,"
:laugh4:
I guess the real message was "go take a shower" or "go brush your teeth" and I assume the individual was not a hot brunette in her twenties slightly touching your upper leg while smiling at you...
rory_20_uk
05-25-2009, 15:23
Look at what the WiFi says before connecting. It requests access which is granted. If the network was secured it would be denied
~:smoking:
Hooahguy
05-25-2009, 15:27
rory and frag have a good point. if i hacked and got his password, THAT would definitly be stealing.
KukriKhan
05-25-2009, 15:33
Because you are using his acces-point. If I can't ask wether or not I can use it, different story. Neighbour has protected network and I asked his password. Sure! If it wasn't protected I would have asked anyway it's my neighbour after all.
Exactly. You are respecting your neighbor's ownership of a service by politely asking to share it. Not doing so = stealing. Albeit, a petty theft.
Hooahguy
05-25-2009, 15:42
but now, you have a problem. what if you live in a densly populated area and you cant find out who the owner of the router is?
I don't think using the wifi of his neighbour is that bad. Ok, it's not done, but not worth to make a drama of it, let alone to call the police for it.
What bothers me more is the lack of respect the kid shows to his parents by circumventing the punishment (but then again, at that age, I would probably have done the same :grin:).
I do hope his parents find out and punish him a bit more thoroughly, by just taking away the kids' PC for a whole month.
but now, you have a problem. what if you live in a densly populated area and you cant find out who the owner of the router is?
Then he should have secured it, how should I know it isn't a public network?
Kukri, I think you also need to consider the responsibility of a person who chooses not to secure their own "property," which in this case is broadcast well beyond the borders of their physical home. Let's say a hot brunette chooses to dance naked in front of her window. Is it voyeurism to look at her lithe body? Yes. But shouldn't she have considered closing the freakin' drapes?
The one does nothing to excuse the other, but I find your exclusive focus on the CRIMINALITY of using wide-open wifi to be a little monomaniacal.
I'd also like to point out that the only criminal case in which a man was charged for leeching a coffee shop's wifi was an extreme case. The staff even told the dude that if he would just buy a cup of coffee, they'd leave him alone; but he sat in his car leeching for days and days, and refused to patronize the business even slightly. In other words, he was a jerk, and was charged under conditions no normal person would provoke.
KukriKhan
05-25-2009, 17:36
Is that even possible, to be "a little monomaniacal"? Like "a little pregnant"? :)
I think our disconnect on this is (I may be wrong; I can't read your mind, but your words lead me to believe that you think:) stealing must, by definition, involve some level of harm to the one who is stolen from.
I don't think stealing has to satisfy that requirement. The taking of that which is known to be owned by another, without permission, is enough.
Okay, let me come at this from another angle, since reading another person's newspaper seems like the best analogy so far:
You're at a coffeeshop reading your paper. You leave for a while. Do you, as the owner of that copy of the paper, have any obligation to, say, take your paper with you, or put it behind the counter, or do something to secure your own property? Or should you wait until someone picks it up and looks at it before you storm back in to declare that stealing is wrong?
I think "theft" is an inexact term for this situation, just as it would be not-quite-right for someone reading the paper over your shoulder. If another man sleeps with your girl, likewise, he's done you wrong, but "stealing" isn't quite right. I'm open to a better, more precise term.
Had to read that 3 times. More like using a little washing powder someone left behind imho.
And as a term, what id wrong with 'using', nice term, and it already exists.
Adrian II
05-25-2009, 18:53
Look at what the WiFi says before connecting. It requests access which is granted. If the network was secured it would be denied.There you go.
Like I said, someone is going to have to do the dirty work and unearth case law, technical protocols, industry standards. And it ain't me. I am working myself through a stack of secret emails that were passed to me and some of them have very interesting senders and receivers.
Yup, this could be an all-nighter. https://img199.imageshack.us/img199/3547/hack1.gif (https://img199.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hack1.gif)
HoreTore
05-25-2009, 19:09
And it ain't me. I am working myself through a stack of secret emails that were passed to me and some of them have very interesting senders and receivers.
Oh oh oh oh!!!
Pass them on!
Hooahguy
05-25-2009, 19:53
I am working myself through a stack of secret emails that were passed to me and some of them have very interesting senders and receivers.
i had nothing to do with this.
:holmes:
Gregoshi
05-25-2009, 20:06
Let's fix this little Lemur analogy to fit the wifi scenario:
Let's say a hot brunette blonde chooses to dance naked in front of her window. She doesn't know how to operate the drapes nor is she even aware that people outside might be able to see her. Is it voyeurism to look at her lithe body? Yes. And the proper thing to do is the tell her that she can be seen by people on the street and teach her how to operate the drapes (or at least attempt to teach her).
My apologies to women and blonde women in particular for the above remarks. However, as you well know, you often have to speak to men in a language they understand. ~;)
~D
Banquo's Ghost
05-25-2009, 20:10
My apologies to women and blonde women in particular for the above remarks. However, as you well know, you often have to speak to men in a language they understand. ~;)
Uh-oh. That's curtains for Greg. :eeeek:
Gregoshi
05-25-2009, 20:58
Uh-oh. That's curtains for Greg. :eeeek:
Justice is blinds. :7judge:
Or so I hope cuz that means its aim is bad...
Adrian II
05-25-2009, 22:07
Oh oh oh oh!!!
Pass them on!Um, that would be bad form. :mellow:
Seriously, there's not much in it that's newsworthy, but God this stuff is hilarious. My oh my, some of the people that govern this country are soooooo stoopid. Weeeeee! :laugh4:
Anyway, did anyone look into the jurisprudence on bandwidth use and abuse yet? Come on, there's gotta be an online library with that sort of stuff.
Crazed Rabbit
05-25-2009, 23:22
Well, in terms of the law, here's a discussion (http://volokh.com/posts/1179938755.shtml) from some knowledgeable people about that fellow in Michigan who got sentenced to some community service, where they doubt if any crime was committed in the first place:
But did Peterson actually commit a crime? The answer hinges on Michigan's somewhat unique computer crime law, and in particular on its definition of the meaning of "authorization." Like every state — and like the federal government — Michigan has an unauthorized access statute that serves as the basic computer crime law. (For my take on these statutes, see this article.) Here's Michigan's law, Section 752.795(a):
A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization . . . Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
So far, this is a pretty standard unauthorized access statute. But Michigan does something that is pretty unique; it has a statutory presumption against access being authorized:
It is a rebuttable presumption in a prosecution for a violation of section 5 that the person did not have authorization from the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission to access the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network or has exceeded authorization unless 1 or more of the following circumstances existed at the time of access:
(a) Written or oral permission was granted by the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission of the accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
(b) The accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network had a pre-programmed access procedure that would display a bulletin, command, or other message before access was achieved that a reasonable person would believe identified the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network as within the public domain.
(c) Access was achieved without the use of a set of instructions, code, or computer program that bypasses, defrauds, or otherwise circumvents the pre-programmed access procedure for the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
If I had been Peterson's attorney, I would have had a bunch of arguments in his defense. First, I would argue that having a statutory presumption is unconstitutional under Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979). A presumption that a material element of a criminal statute has been satisfied violates the Due Process clause, which requires the government to provide each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 524. Second, I would argue that even if the presumption is constitutional, it doesn't apply here: under (c), "[a]ccess was achieved without the use of a set of instructions, code, or computer program that bypasses, defrauds, or otherwise circumvents the pre-programmed access procedure for the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network." And finally, the access was not unauthorized or in excess of authorization because the coffee shop intentionally made the wi-fi available to anyone. What's the rule — no hopping on wifi from a coffee shop unless you enter the shop? Unless you actually buy something? What if you're outside waiting for a friend to join you for a latte, but you haven't gone in yet? Where do such rules come from, and what notice does a defendant have before being held criminally liable? I've written before about how unauthorized access statutes threaten to punish an incredible amount of conduct online, and this seems like the latest evidence in support of the point.
So legally, it seems like it could be quite hard indeed to prosecute someone for using your wi-fi.
CR
Hooahguy
05-26-2009, 02:26
but the main problem with everything is this:
lets take my area. im on my laptop right now. i have a powerful wifi antennae. i detect 7 networks right now- one is mine (locked down), 5 other locked down networks, and an unsecured network called "linksys." about 100 meters behind my house there is an apartment complex. i also have 2 neighbors. i know what my neighbors networks are called, and the unsecured one isnt theirs. now, if i was in my friends position, how would i find whos network was unlocked? the name of the network is a brand name, so its very hard to find out. my neighbor has her network as her name+"house" so its easy, but not here. the only thing i can think of is to go to every person in the apartment complex and asking whos network is "linksys."
Okay, let me come at this from another angle, since reading another person's newspaper seems like the best analogy so far:
You're at a coffeeshop reading your paper. You leave for a while. Do you, as the owner of that copy of the paper, have any obligation to, say, take your paper with you, or put it behind the counter, or do something to secure your own property? Or should you wait until someone picks it up and looks at it before you storm back in to declare that stealing is wrong?
I think "theft" is an inexact term for this situation, just as it would be not-quite-right for someone reading the paper over your shoulder. If another man sleeps with your girl, likewise, he's done you wrong, but "stealing" isn't quite right. I'm open to a better, more precise term.
Analogies are a tricky business, but I think accessing someone else's network would be more akin to tresspass than reading a paper that they've left lying around. By using someone's wi-fi you're accessing their home network. If you're doing it without their permission it's not much different than accessing any other property without permission. You could cross someone's yard without their permission if they didn't put up a fence. But, just because they don't have their yard encased in razor wire doesn't mean its open for public use.
Call it what you want, but what it really boils down to is that you're using someone's property without their permission. Not a capital offense, but it's not exactly good manners either and could be illegal in many jurisdictions.
HoreTore
05-26-2009, 07:21
Um, that would be bad form. :mellow:
Seriously, there's not much in it that's newsworthy, but God this stuff is hilarious. My oh my, some of the people that govern this country are soooooo stoopid. Weeeeee! :laugh4:
You bloody tease.:sweatdrop:
From the US standpoint: I still adhere to the principle that the airwaves are public (regulated to prevent interference, but still public). Anything broadcast should be fair game to any citizen that has the ability and knowledge to receive and translate it (don't get me started on my state's ban on radar detectors...).
The wifi routers and network cards are all approved for use by the FCC. How they get used beyond that approval is up to the owners. Some people like to leave their wifi access open, either out of kindness or for plausible deniability purposes. Others are ignorant, but that's no real excuse. And then there are those that lock down their access points as tight as possible.
I had my connection open for a while, then some neighbor started chewing up obnoxious amounts of my bandwidth (must have been downloading movies and such, it got really slow). So I fixed it. Turned on the best encryption offered and added MAC filtering. If you don't want your connection used, take the antenna off your router and put a terminator on the connector. Or at least turn on some form of encryption. Plug your PCs into the router with Cat5. Don't buy cordless phones, don't use cell phones. Otherwise don't be too surprised if your transmissions are intercepted or manipulated.
From the US standpoint: I still adhere to the principle that the airwaves are public (regulated to prevent interference, but still public). Anything broadcast should be fair game to any citizen that has the ability and knowledge to receive and translate it (don't get me started on my state's ban on radar detectors...).There's a difference between monitoring a signal and transmitting thru/communicating over their equipment.
By connecting to their access point, you are communicating with their wireless network (not just monitoring) and are connecting yourself to their home network- without permission. Using your cordless phone example- it'd be the difference between listening to their calls vs using their cordless phone's base station to place your own phone calls from your house.
Using the victim's stupidity is no justification for doing something to them that you shouldn't be doing. :no:
edit: Again, to be clear, I'm not advocating that wifi freeloaders should be given the death penalty. I'm just pointing out that it's a very gray area at best and probably technically illegal in most jurisdictions. I've done it before and may even do so again(though I don't make a practice of it)- but I recognize it for what it is.
The law here is pretty clear. Unauthorised access isn't allowed.
rory_20_uk
05-26-2009, 20:12
But the router authorises it.
~:smoking:
There's a difference between monitoring a signal and transmitting thru/communicating over their equipment.
By connecting to their access point, you are communicating with their wireless network (not just monitoring) and are connecting yourself to their home network- without permission. Using your cordless phone example- it'd be the difference between listening to their calls vs using their cordless phone's base station to place your own phone calls from your house.
Using the victim's stupidity is no justification for doing something to them that you shouldn't be doing. :no:
If you weren't calling long distance, why would it be a problem? It doesn't cost anything. ~;) If you call long distance, then you are stealing, because that will cost the equipment owner money.
My views on the fair use of the electromagnetic spectrum are somewhat extreme. By removing the physical aspect (wires) from the equation, communications security is non-existent. This is compounded by the desired "ease of use" aspect of computer products. If you are going to buy something that has potentially huge implications, you should learn how to use it properly.
KukriKhan
05-27-2009, 02:09
If you weren't calling long distance, why would it be a problem? It doesn't cost anything. ~;) If you call long distance, then you are stealing, because that will cost the equipment owner money.
My views on the fair use of the electromagnetic spectrum are somewhat extreme. By removing the physical aspect (wires) from the equation, communications security is non-existent. This is compounded by the desired "ease of use" aspect of computer products. If you are going to buy something that has potentially huge implications, you should learn how to use it properly.
But that is it, right? If you buy something (in this case, both hardware, and monthly broadband service), do you not have the right of ownership of that product/service? And the right of assent/refusal to share that product/service? And if someone besides you uses that product/service, without your assent, is he not stealing?
That was the question posed by the thread title:
using a neighbors wifi: is it stealing?
and OP.
The past 3 pages of tech discussion is why I switched "wifi" for "car". Not because I tried to make car a universal analogy (Lemur was right, it was weak), but because as soon as the topic involves 'tech', we get caught up in the minutiae of what is possible, instead of what is right. You guys are correct IMO, that anyone who buys, installs, and uses devices that employ the IIEE 802.11 a thru n protocols ought to rtdm and understand the implications of broadcasting, and appropriate measures for security. If they don't, shame on them. But they are protected by the same concept that protects mini-skirted girlies from being harrassed, fondled, brutalized, or worse. Her selection of clothing is no invitation to rape, no matter her ignorance.
But in the end, all that is irrelevant to whether the 'taking' of something not your's is stealing. It is. It has been for at least 6000 years, and it is today.
If I were an active duty cop, would I arrest the kid? No. It costs too much to prosecute such a petty offense against humanity, and laws are unclear.
If I were the lad's father, and found out about this? No computer for 6 months, bread and water for a week.
But that's just me. :)
But isn't sharing really the whole point of wi-fi? That's what people with interesting glasses and haircuts have been telling me.
KukriKhan
05-27-2009, 03:04
But isn't sharing really the whole point of wi-fi? That's what people with interesting glasses and haircuts have been telling me.
Sharing = permission/ assent. yes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking
Here it is anyway, in the UK, it comes with fine and conditional discharge.
Gregoshi
05-27-2009, 04:22
The sharer usually knows he is sharing. And a "thank you" is usually in order from the recipient. But that might tip off the "friendly neighbor" who doesn't realize he's sharing anything. :oops:
This whole issue boils down to what assumptions you are willing to make about the situation.
When I got Verizon fiber optic service a couple of years ago they provided their own wireless router. From what I read and what I was told, when the tech set it up the router would be secure and protected. I took them at their word. Several months later I had to tweak the router settings to play an online game and when I went into the router setting for the first time I realized I had been broadcasting free internet to the whole neighborhood. I was rather annoyed with Verizon and told them so.
Some of the assumptions made above would have me labelled as "one heck of a nice guy" or "an idiot that should know how to secure his router" - both wrong.
Adrian II
05-27-2009, 07:37
[..] as soon as the topic involves 'tech', we get caught up in the minutiae of what is possible, instead of what is right.In this case, we get caught up in the question of what it is that we've bought. It's not just a gadget, it's a gadget that offers access to the GHz 2,4 band which is free, but probably subject to intricate legislation or jurisprudence.
Most property analogies fail. Even the yak.
Sharing = permission/ assent. yes?
Maybe we have a cultural NOT ON MY LAWN type of difference here, but when someone doesn't secure his acces-point I take that as an invitation to use it.
pevergreen
05-27-2009, 13:37
Friend leaves car keys in car, you use car, return in perfect shape.
Only difference is, now he's got less fuel.
Kinda the same thing.
Why are you guys always making comparisons?
Is it yours? No.
Did you get explicit permission to use what is not yours? No.
Then don't touch it.
"It doesn't harm", "he hardly notices it" or "he should be less idiotic and secure it" are irrelevant.
It's not yours and you don't have permission.
Louis VI the Fat
05-27-2009, 14:53
Is it yours? No.
Did you get explicit permission to use what is not yours? No.
Then don't touch it.
"It doesn't harm", "he hardly notices it" or "he should be less idiotic and secure it" are irrelevant.
It's not yours and you don't have permission.The ocean isn't mine. Yet I swim in it.
The ocean isn't mine. Yet I swim in it.
Alle vergelijkingen lopen mank (all comparisons are crippled) :balloon2:
But that is it, right? If you buy something (in this case, both hardware, and monthly broadband service), do you not have the right of ownership of that product/service? And the right of assent/refusal to share that product/service? And if someone besides you uses that product/service, without your assent, is he not stealing?
That was the question posed by the thread title and OP.
If we are going to compare an illegal act to piggybacking, stealing is not it. Assuming the owner of the wifi router has unlimited, unmetered internet access, using the connection without permission would be more akin to trespassing. Nothing is being taken, but someone is on your "property" without your permission.
Don't forget the flip side. The owners of wifi routers are irradiating you, possibly without your permission. [/tinfoilhat] :creep:
Banquo's Ghost
05-27-2009, 16:22
Assuming the owner of the wifi router has unlimited, unmetered internet access, using the connection without permission would be more akin to trespassing. Nothing is being taken, but someone is on your "property" without your permission.
That's a big assumption. Here, many people have cheaper deals for broadband based on capped limits. Even so-called "unlimited" bandwidth is nothing of the sort, subject to a "fair use" cap. If one exceeds the usage cap, one gets an extra charge.
So a piggybacker may well cost someone real money by exceeding the owner's bandwidth. Still not stealing?
This is where, I think, arguments for "no injury, no crime" fall down. They assume bandwidth is an infinite resource. I would not be happy if someone linked their home up to my electricity supply, and nor would I be keen on freeloaders on my bandwidth. I would consider both thieves, however sophistic their excuses.
Did you get explicit permission to use what is not yours? No.
yes
That's a big assumption. Here, many people have cheaper deals for broadband based on capped limits. Even so-called "unlimited" bandwidth is nothing of the sort, subject to a "fair use" cap. If one exceeds the usage cap, one gets an extra charge.
So a piggybacker may well cost someone real money by exceeding the owner's bandwidth. Still not stealing?
This is where, I think, arguments for "no injury, no crime" fall down. They assume bandwidth is an infinite resource. I would not be happy if someone linked their home up to my electricity supply, and nor would I be keen on freeloaders on my bandwidth. I would consider both thieves, however sophistic their excuses.
Exceeding a bandwidth cap would constitute stealing, just like hijacking a cordless phone base to make long-distance calls. These acts cost the owner of the equipment money. Bandwidth caps are coming, but at the moment those connections are a minority here in the US. This is why I specified "unlimited and unmetered". For this type of internet connection, the piggybacker is trespassing, not stealing. The owner should lock the door if he doesn't want random stangers walking through his house. :yes:
Once bandwidth caps become more common, maybe people will take their wifi security (and PC security in general) a little more seriously. Probably better for everyone in the long run. At the moment, having a zombified PC spamming and DoSing as part of a botnet is not an upfront cost for the owner (aside from the probable identity theft). If the internet bill has lots of bandwidth cap charges on it, maybe the clueless owners will wake up and do something about locking down their PCs and connections.
Gregoshi
05-27-2009, 16:51
The owners of wifi routers are irradiating you...
And you aren't paying for that either. See the slippery slope? The crime gets worse by the minute. Freeloaders! :flybye:
I'll be turning myself into the police today for basking in the glow of half a dozen neighbor's wifi radiation. :shame:
PowerWizard
05-27-2009, 17:49
a friend of mine asked me my opinion: sometimes when his parents ban him from wifi, he uses his neighbors unlocked wifi. i think that while it is stealing, since you are stealing bandwith, it shouldnt be punished by the police.
he says that since his neighbor is dumb enough to keep it unlocked, its ok to use it.
thoughts?
It is theft of course, but so minor one, it doesn't need police action, let alone investigation unless done on a larger scale and for profit.
KukriKhan
05-28-2009, 02:30
And you aren't paying for that either. See the slippery slope? The crime gets worse by the minute. Freeloaders! :flybye:
I'll be turning myself into the police today for basking in the glow of half a dozen neighbor's wifi radiation. :shame:
Anyone think our Gregoshi may have been tiny bit over-exposed?
https://jimcee.homestead.com/greg.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.