using a neighbors wifi: is it stealing?

[Fragony]

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]

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.

[Andres]

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]

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.

[Andres]

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

Alle vergelijkingen lopen mank (all comparisons are crippled)

[drone]

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]

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[Fragony]

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

yes

[drone]

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.

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]

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!

I'll be turning myself into the police today for basking in the glow of half a dozen neighbor's wifi radiation.

[PowerWizard]

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]

And you aren't paying for that either. See the slippery slope? The crime gets worse by the minute. Freeloaders!

I'll be turning myself into the police today for basking in the glow of half a dozen neighbor's wifi radiation.

Anyone think our Gregoshi may have been tiny bit over-exposed?