question about wirelss

[corleone]

My question is concerning wireless internet:

I am a DSL user.... When i started up my laptop it recognized a wireless internet connection in my room. The box informed me that the connection was not secure and asked me if i still wanted to procede........i clicked yes and low and behold i have wireless internet in my house....


Is it ok/safe/ethical to use this?

C.

[G-Man]

Well, if you don't use secure wireless, your neighbors will be able to hijack your connection. Or I might have misunderstood your post... Is it your wireless connection?

Regards,
G-Man

[Chun-Yu]

Well, it depends on if it's your wireless access point or not. I know around here, many DSL modems have wireless APs built in, but they usually come with WEP enabled. So I'm guessing it may not be your AP then...

Is it ok to use it? As far as I know, in most places in the US it is, as long as you don't try to break into anyone's computer or anything I have no idea about the situation in any other country.

Is it safe? Who knows. If it is your neighbor's AP, they could be sniffing all your traffic.

Is it ethical? Depends on who you ask. Personally, I find it ok, as long as you aren't downloading huge amounts of stuff (since it is an open AP after all...now if it had WEP enabled and you broke in that would be another story).

[carbon_unit]

Really! Wow, I thought it is a felony to use someone elses connection even if they are dumb enough to leave it wide open for all to see EXCEPT for when they give you permission.
But I could be wrong (I hope I am).

[hausman]

I am a DSL user.

Wireless has nothing to do with DSL.

When i started up my laptop it recognized a wireless internet connection in my room. The box informed me that the connection was not secure and asked me if i still wanted to procede........i clicked yes and low and behold i have wireless internet in my house....

Unless you have a WiFi router in your home then you must have connected to someone else's insecure router and you're using their Internet connection.

Is it ok/safe/ethical to use this?

OK? Sure, if it works.
Safe? For you yes. For the owner of the router, probably not. (Suppose you start to download kiddie porn using this connection. G-man's friends will come knocking on the router owner's door, not yours )
Ethical? Well, it depends. If the owner of the router has left his system open as a public service then yes. If it's a case of ignorance/naivete then what you're doing is no different than entering someone's home just because their front door was ajar.

See http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,a ... g,1,00.asp and especially http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,a ... g,4,00.asp

[corleone]

Is taking advantage of this "free" wireless connection any different than going to Starbucks or a similar "hot spot?


Is my computer vulnerable?


I have noticed that is considerable slower than when i am plugged in.... but chit, its cool to be able to roam the house w/o wireless router...

[edelrc]

One person that I helped with the wireless had four unprotected wireless connections from the neighbors plus her own. She has been paying $40/month for more than a year for the cable internet. Nevertheless, it came down to that during the past year she was using the neighbors connection rather than hers!!! I laughed to death...

You guys won't believe how frequent this is in apartment buildings!

[Txiasaeia]

Is it ok/safe/ethical to use this?

Ethical? Well, it depends. If the owner of the router has left his system open as a public service then yes. If it's a case of ignorance/naivete then what you're doing is no different than entering someone's home just because their front door was ajar.

I'd say it's a *bit* different than breaking & entering. The guy is broadcasting his signal on an unencrypted wireless router. It's dirt easy to even restrict via MAC address, which will stop 90% of the people out there from using your router -- and I know next to nothing about wireless routers, having only got mine about a month ago.

If I can sit comfortably in my living room and there's an unprotected wireless signal being projected into my space, and if all I'm doing is *turning on my comptuer*, I don't think I'd have any problems with using said wireless signal.

*However*, I have unlimited net access, including upload and download, so if somebody leeched off of me, I would be mildly annoyed, but I'd shut it off fairly quickly (again, MAC filter). If this guy's internet access is limited and it's gonna cost him more if I leeched off of him, then yeah, it would be wrong.

But these are *your* ethics we're talking about. not mine. My guess is that you wouldn't ask whether such an action is ethical if you didn't have a few twinges of guilt.

[jkirch]

Sure you can use the connection, you just have to think about a couple of things:
You are using the connection of some other person. This person might not know that his/her router's connection is wide open for everybody to use since most routers come without encryption enabled from the factury.
Wireless lan equipment has dropped in price and so a lot of people run to the stores and get this stuff without knowing how to configure it.

If this person has a flat rate for internet service without any limitation on download/upload or time then you may probably use the connection without causing costs for that person. Unless you download ethicaly doubtfull stuff or conduct fake ebay auctions with a fake address you should be fine.
Here in Germany many DSL-Users have rates with time limitation or traffic limits. This means that if you use the connection you will probably put the original user over his limit and add to his bill.
As for your computer you should keep your firewall active and the virus scanner current. This network connection can also distribute viruses, if the provider is really that knowlagable about IT as security of his router shows.

P.S. I also have a router and despite the fact that I have a flat rate for internet access the first thing I did upon receiving the router was to enable WPA encryption and MAC address filtering.
Cheers
Jens

[hausman]

Is my computer vulnerable?

I thought about my previous answer some more. Potentially, yes. You're using someone else's Internet connection through their wireless router.

It's conceivable that someone might leave a WiFi router open in order to attract people like you, then "wiretap" your keystrokes. That would allow them to obtain personal information about you, including IDs, passwords, CC numbers, etc., especially if they travel unencrypted. That should be rare now with most web sessions SSL, but there are ways to crack encrypted data. e.g. ZxSniffer will display POP3 e-mail passwords.

[hausman]

I'd say it's a *bit* different than breaking & entering. The guy is broadcasting his signal on an unencrypted wireless router. It's dirt easy to even restrict via MAC address, which will stop 90% of the people out there from using your router -- and I know next to nothing about wireless routers, having only got mine about a month ago.

Most WiFi routers default to no security, i.e. they broadcast SSIDs, don't filter MAC addresses, don't encrypt data, etc. That's intentional in order to make it as easy as possible to set them up. It's also dangerous as we all know (or should now know.) I suspect that most customers leave the router as is, as soon as they get it to work. That's dangerous.

If I can sit comfortably in my living room and there's an unprotected wireless signal being projected into my space, and if all I'm doing is *turning on my comptuer*, I don't think I'd have any problems with using said wireless signal.

If someone leaves a bicycle unlocked in a public area, is it ethical for you to take it? What if you find a bicycle on your lawn (or a car on your driveway)? Is it yours?

But these are *your* ethics we're talking about. not mine. My guess is that you wouldn't ask whether such an action is ethical if you didn't have a few twinges of guilt.

Correct. The standard test here is: What if your behaviour was published in the local newspaper? Would you be embarrassed? Would you want your mother to see the article?

See also http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/file ... rchalking/

[budder]

If I can sit comfortably in my living room and there's an unprotected wireless signal being projected into my space, and if all I'm doing is *turning on my comptuer*, I don't think I'd have any problems with using said wireless signal.

If someone leaves a bicycle unlocked in a public area, is it ethical for you to take it? What if you find a bicycle on your lawn (or a car on your driveway)? Is it yours?

This is the point I'm surprised no one else has made. Yes, it is illegal. I'm very surprised about the ignorance on this matter. You are stealing right now. The person likely has a Cable/DSL connection as well, and you're taking away valuable bandwidth from such a narrow pipe. You should be ashamed of yourself.

However, if the guy is running an unsecured network (as I usually do, unless I'm downloading a lot and want to have all the bandwidth to myself), he may be intending for others to use it. If so, he probably changed the SSID to reflect this generosity. If it's still 'linksys', 'comcomcom', 'WLAN', 'Wireless', or a few others, it's likely that he doesn't know that he's sharing his connection. When I want it to myself, I run my network dark (not broadcasting SSID) and restricted to certain MAC adresses. This keeps everyone out at my apartment complex, and since we're not in a prime spot for wardriving, pretty much is perfect for me.

I am 99% sure that your situation involves someone that's not terribly smart unintentionally running an unsecured network. Even though he's the one with the security breach, you aren't allowed to use it, by law. Now, did I leach off of my neighbors before I got cable installed? Of course. They're stupid. Almost everyone running unsecured networks are either providing a service or incompetant, and I don't feel bad about taking advantage of either.

[Txiasaeia]

If I can sit comfortably in my living room and there's an unprotected wireless signal being projected into my space, and if all I'm doing is *turning on my comptuer*, I don't think I'd have any problems with using said wireless signal.

If someone leaves a bicycle unlocked in a public area, is it ethical for you to take it? What if you find a bicycle on your lawn (or a car on your driveway)? Is it yours?

You cannot equate physical objects with services. There's no "theft" because there's no "loss." If somebody takes my bike, then I don't have one. If somebody uses somebody else's bandwidth, then the owner can still use the bandwidth too, especially if said bandwidth is unlimited. The laws concerning copyright infringement and service theft (in the US and to a lesser extent Canada) are based on tangible property laws from the 19th century. Piracy, for example, is not illegal; it is copyright infringement, which ultimately could end in a civil suit and not jail time (hence music downloaders being fined and not tossed in jail).

There are no current laws on the books (in Canada for sure; US i'm not so sure) that says that using the internet connection from an unprotected wireless point is illegal. Your article mentions this. On the contrary, stealing a bike is a crime. Long story made short: your metaphor, or any other metaphor equating physical objects with intangible goods or services, is non-applicable.

his is the point I'm surprised no one else has made. Yes, it is illegal. I'm very surprised about the ignorance on this matter. You are stealing right now.

How can you make a blanket statement like "it is illegal" without knowing where this guy is from? He could be in Mali, where there are no laws surrounding copyright infringement, let alone service "theft."

Besides, just because something is illegal, it doesn't mean that it's immoral. Do you really agree with every single law that's on the book in the US? We're talking about ethics here, not letter of the law legality. Anyway, I thought I'd throw out these points for the "lawful good" among us.

[budder]

As to your first point, yes it's stealing. The guy is taking some bandwidth. And while there are "umlimited" bandwidth connections, there is still a limit on the rate. His neighbor mostly likely is not going to have much more than a 5Mbit connection, more like 3. And if he takes part of that, he is still stealing. Equate it to water from a spring: only a bit comes out at a time, but for all intents and purposes, the water is unlimited. What he's stealing is as physical as the data stored on his hard drive.

As to your location agrument, you're right. I remembered thinking that the guy didn't have a location after I posted. However, I'm assuming that he and most people here are from the US, where it is illegal. I find it a safe assumtion that he's from the US, as a vaery large portion of the internet community is, and it's pretty much the US people that are too afraid of the big, bad, scary internet to post locations.

I'm arguing legality. I've already said that I will condone wardriving and even the occasional piggybacking, so I thought you'd see that I wasn't arguing ethics. The whole argument isn't ethics. The OP asked if it was ok/safe/ethical. To me, breaking the law sets off my "not ok" alarm. Maybe it doesn't do the same for you.

[Txiasaeia]

The whole argument isn't ethics. The OP asked if it was ok/safe/ethical. To me, breaking the law sets off my "not ok" alarm. Maybe it doesn't do the same for you.

Warchalking isn't illegal, nor can you be arrested in the US for using bandwidth that isn't yours.

http://usatoday.jiwire.com/warchalking-legality.htm

[budder]

From your link:

It's also technically illegal to connect to a network that you are not authorized to access, in most jurisdictions. In many places, it is a felony, and may have associated mandatory jail sentences and fines.

[jkirch]

You cannot equate physical objects with services. There's no "theft" because there's no "loss."

Well, in my opinion this is theft. Imagine you had a DSL connection with a limit of 30 hours. For every hour additional use you would have to pay extra. Usually the router disconnects fromt eh network if there is no traffic accessing WAN recourses. Now there is some 3rd person accessing your network and thus making the router open a connection to the WAN and counting down your usertime to 0 hours left in the middle of the month. Now you are left with having to pay additional money for the use of service for the rest of the month. In that case you will probably be very happy, since money to pay for the service is no physical object for you.

The same case is applicable for data transfer limits.
Wandwidth alone is not the problem, but this is always directly connected to transfer limits or time limits.

Best regards,

Jens

[hausman]

If somebody uses somebody else's bandwidth, then the owner can still use the bandwidth too, especially if said bandwidth is unlimited.

1. If your illicit downloading consumes 1/2 of my line's capacity, then I only get 1/2 of what I'm paying for. Call it what you will. I call it a "loss" of 1/2 of my capacity (or loss of 1/2 the value I receive from what I pay my ISP for the line.)

2. If you do something with my DSL line that causes my IP address to be blocked by some website or ISP then I'm prevented from using my line to access that website or websites hosted by that ISP. That's a "loss" of service to me.

3. Finally, if you commit a criminal act using my line I may be held partly responsible criminally. I could suffer a "loss" from that too: loss of liberty.

There are no current laws on the books (in Canada for sure; US i'm not so sure) that says that using the internet connection from an unprotected wireless point is illegal.

The kiddie porn downloader was charged with "Theft of Telecommunications" among other things. True, that statute hasn't been tested with WiFi and true, he used the WiFi to commit a crime (download kiddie porn) but (since we're both in Canada) here's an extract from the Canadian Criminal Code:

326.
(1) every one commits theft who fraudulently, maliciously, or without colour of right,
o (A) abstracts, consumes or uses electricity or gas or causes it to be wasted or diverted; or
o (B) uses any telecommunication facility or obtains any telecommunication service.
(2) In this section and in section 327, "telecommunication" means any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images or sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, visual, or other electromagnetic system.

Now it may be that an innocent user of someone else's WiFi could use a "colour of right" defense, but not if they were wardiving, i.e. if they knew they were using someone else's WiFi. Disclaimer: IANAL.

Long story made short: your metaphor, or any other metaphor equating physical objects with intangible goods or services, is non-applicable.

The original question relates to ethics. Are you suggesting that a civil offense (e.g. a tort) is ethical because it's not criminal or that only criminal acts are unethical?

[Txiasaeia]

From your link:

It's also technically illegal to connect to a network that you are not authorized to access, in most jurisdictions. In many places, it is a felony, and may have associated mandatory jail sentences and fines.

Gotta love selective quoting. You forgot the rest of the paragraph: "However, there still hasn't been a court case where a network owner has charged another party with theft of services just for connecting to an access point. Without one, there's no precedent for busting small-time wardrivers, warchalkers, and rogue users of open Wi-Fi networks."

It might be a law on the books, but if nobody's ever been charged with it then technically it's not even illegal. Going 1 km over the speed limit is technically illegal, but how often do you or I get busted for that?

Hausman: you and I both know that this guy was busted for kiddie porn, not for the illegal use of a wifi network. This is a totally different instance than just using a wifi network and getting charged, arrested and sent to jail because of it.

"The original question relates to ethics. Are you suggesting that a civil offense (e.g. a tort) is ethical because it's not criminal or that only criminal acts are unethical?"

I don't think that everything the law, criminal or civil, considers to be wrong is wrong. Conversely, I think that there are some things that the law considers to be acceptable that are, in actuality, wrong. My ethical code is *not* based on what the law says is right or wrong; our government is screwed up beyond belief (gun registry, sponsorship scandal; hell, its position on abortion and gay marriage), and as such I tend to look at our country's laws with quite a bit of scepticism.

[hausman]

It might be a law on the books, but if nobody's ever been charged with it then technically it's not even illegal.

Absolute, total garbage! So following your logic, if there's a new law that, say, explicitly prohibits blowing up an airplane, it only comes into effect when someone actually blows up an airplane and is charged?

What if they're not convicted? Does that give everyone else the right to blow up airplanes with impunity?

Going 1 km over the speed limit is technically illegal, but how often do you or I get busted for that?

Exceeding the speed limit is still illegal (and punishable if caught and convicted) whether or not it's commonly (or even selectively) enforced.

Hausman: you and I both know that this guy was busted for kiddie porn, not for the illegal use of a wifi network. This is a totally different instance than just using a wifi network and getting charged, arrested and sent to jail because of it.

The main charges relate to kiddie porn, but if he's convicted of Theft of Telecomm it may set a precedent against more innocuous but still unauthorized use of an open WiFi AP.

I don't think that everything the law, criminal or civil, considers to be wrong is wrong.

You had better accept that if you break the law and are caught, you will be held to account, whether or not you agree with that law. Otherwise you're going to have some real "shocks" in your life

Conversely, I think that there are some things that the law considers to be acceptable that are, in actuality, wrong.

You're free to lobby your elected representatives to change/repeal such laws.

My ethical code is *not* based on what the law says is right or wrong

Nor should it be nor is that what we're arguing about. The question was if using an open WiFi AP is ethical. You may believe that it is, yet it may still be a criminal offense to do it. Alternatively you may believe that it isn't yet there may be no law that prohibits it.

our government is screwed up beyond belief (gun registry, sponsorship scandal; hell, its position on abortion and gay marriage), and as such I tend to look at our country's laws with quite a bit of scepticism.

What does a government screw-up have to do with this? That a government "is screwed up" gives you no right (legal or moral) to flaunt its laws. There are democratic means at your disposal to change to another government that is presumably less "screwed up." (Good luck.)

[Txiasaeia]

Absolute, total garbage! So following your logic, if there's a new law that prohibits, say, terrorism, it only comes into effect when someone performs a terrorist act and is charged?

What if they're not convicted? Does that give everyone else the right to be a terrorist with impunity?

Way to swallow the party line hook, line and sinker. Care to give a more concrete example than the nebulous term "terrorism"?

If you follow every single law merely because the government created them, well, I've got nothing to say to you. For the rest of us that like to *think*, we know that warchalking is not illegal because the law hasn't been tested in court. This is how the US legal system works - the lawmakers make a law, the lawyers & judges use it in court, and a jury decides whether the law is valid or not. If a law has not been tested in court, then it's really not been through the whole process; so, warchalking might be technically illegal, but not practically so.

[hausman]

Do you really believe this? If you do, I feel sorry for you.

What does this have to do with the topic under debate? But in any case, note the "(Good luck)" at the end of my statement.

[jkirch]

Hey everybody,

how about a trip to Txiasaeia's neighbourhood. We'll have a nice sit in in the garden and use our wireless devices on his network, while he is trying to upload an urgent presentation to his customer. Unfortunately this will delay delivery beyond his deadline. Too bad that the customer will never give him a new contract. Well, but using service is no theft, right?

Best regards,

Jens

[Txiasaeia]

Hey everybody,

how about a trip to Txiasaeia's neighbourhood. We'll have a nice sit in in the garden and use our wireless devices on his network, while he is trying to upload an urgent presentation to his customer. Unfortunately this will delay delivery beyond his deadline. Too bad that the customer will never give him a new contract. Well, but using service is no theft, right?

Best regards,

Jens

Good luck. My network is restricted by MAC address, and there's only one allowed - my X31. What's your point?

[Txiasaeia]

Look, this has gone on far enough. I already said that the original poster probably thinks that he's doing something wrong because he raised the issue of ethics. If he uses the WAP without permission, he might go to jail, he might not. Whatever. This isn't about me or what I believe. Nobody here is going to change my mind. Enjoy the conversation - I'm done.

[corleone]

Response was overwhelming, but expected....

btw i am a law student studying intellectual property law... this is all very VERY amusing to me......

C. (grins sheepishly)

[hausman]

i am a law student studying intellectual property law... this is all very VERY amusing to me......

So what IP-related conclusions did you reach?

[K. Eng]

I don't think it is ethically wrong to use someone's unsecured access point here in the U.S. so long as one does not abuse the AP.

As far as I can tell, broadband access in the U.S. is a flat monthly fee (where I live it is $35 for DSL and $50 for cable) and there are no bandwidth or time limitations. Using someone's AP in my area will not incur extra charges on them.

On the rare occassions that I do use someone's connection, I use it only to check the news or other low-bandwidth applications. I don't think it is fair to consume so much bandwidth that the owner of the connection could notice a drop in their network performance. Also, I don't do anything that I wouldn't do on my own network.