using a neighbors wifi: is it stealing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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.

But the router authorises it.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

[..] 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The ocean isn't mine. Yet I swim in it.

---

Alle vergelijkingen lopen mank (all comparisons are crippled) :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Did you get explicit permission to use what is not yours? No.

---

yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

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