using a neighbors wifi: is it stealing?

[Adrian II]

Man, I did a double take on the thread title, at first I read wifi as wife.

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 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]

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]

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

Um, there's a Lemur dangling above you. From branch 21 to be precise. Could you address some of the points he raises?

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Strike For The South]

A minor crime but a crime.

We stop people from stealing groceries all the time and we have plenty of those.

[pevergreen]

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]

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]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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 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".

[Lemur]

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]

How legitimate is deliberately sharing wifi though? Sharing cable is illegal, yes?

[Lemur]

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.

[Fragony]

I use my neigbours wifi, just ask. Internet is pretty fast here an extra taker doesn't really hurt anyone.

[Lemur]

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]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.....

[Andres]

And yes, I have told an individual reading my paper over my shoulder on the Washington Metro to "Go buy your own paper,"

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...