unsecured access

[Brother Adam]

This likely neednt be a debate as there is probably a simple enough answer (I think there is) but none-the-less I've heard a few opposing sides.

It is common knowledge that if you buy a TV and plug an antenna into your TV that any broadcast signals you can recieve you are allowed to use (to watch) free of charge. Likewise, with the radio, any stations that are being broadcast through your home are free to listen to. If a radio station or TV station wants to charge for use, they simply choose a different medium, such as cable, to broadcast.

The question here is that of unsecured wireless networks. Let's give an example at first which is quite obvious. If I go to a coffee house and they have wireless internet, obviously I can buy a coffee sit down, and check my email. The example in question though is this: If a company or person sets up a wireless device and they configure it to have no passwords (unsecured access) and a wide range of reception, is it immoral /unethical /illegal to use that signal if there is reception in your home / car / or other place (park bench, so on)?

I think the answer is pretty clear...[i]I've heard some people say it is illegal, some people say it is not, some people say it is a morally grey area, some people say it is unethical, and some say it is not unethical, but what do you think?[/i]

Edited January 31, 2006 by Brother Adam

[Brother Adam]

Hmm...no responses so far. Here are some examples of justification for various sides I've heard:

"It is not stealing because it is obvious to anyone setting up a network that it is unsecured and anyone could use it. If their intention wasn't for anyone to use it they would set up a password"

"You can't know the intention of the person setting up the network, if they want you to have free access or not, and someone, somewhere is paying for the wireless so it is best not to use it."

[scardella]

Difference here as I see it is that Radio/TV signals are meant to be broadcast, ie free to anyone who can recieve the signal. Oftentimes wireless users don't necessarily intend for others to jump on it, they just aren't competent to secure it.

My rule of thumb is to ask/offer to pay if you know where it's coming from. If it's someplace like in your house, (someplace you'd likely be able to use it regularly) and you don't know, find out and ask/offer to help pay for the service. If it's a one-time sort of use and you don't know who owns the signal, only use it if it's necessary (directions, urgent email, etc.).

[Birgitta Noel]

I posted this on FF, but I'll put it here for the PM debate

The signals that are broadcast in cafes are intended for the customers, thus one is allowed to use them. However most of the places that have wireless charge for them, Starbucks and Borders are TMobile, and Barnes & Noble is Cingular I believe. Panera allows customers to access their wireless.

The reason we can access any broadcast signal on radio or tv is because it is basically public access so to speak. No one pays to receive those signals, and advertisers pay to keep them on the air. With wireless someone is paying to recieve the signal. They aren't paying to broadcast it per se, so perhaps you're stealing from the original company.

If you receive cable in your house for which you're not paying you're stealing. How is this different?

I know you think setting up passwords is basic, but many don't know how to or don't understand the risks and so don't bother. Also, you may be firewalled, but by sending out info over the unsecured network I believe you are setting yourself up for a security risk.

As for people being prosecuted:
[quote]Man Charged With Stealing Wi-Fi Signal Wed Jul 6, 2005 8:15 PM ET

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Police have arrested a man for using someone
else's wireless Internet network in one of the first criminal cases
involving this fairly common practice.

Benjamin Smith III, 41, faces a pretrial hearing this month following
his April arrest on charges of unauthorized access to a computer
network, a third-degree felony.

Police say Smith admitted using the Wi-Fi signal from the home of
Richard Dinon, who had noticed Smith sitting in an SUV outside Dinon's
house using a laptop computer.

The practice is so new that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement
doesn't even keep statistics, according to the St. Petersburg Times,
which reported Smith's arrest this week.

Innocuous use of other people's unsecured Wi-Fi networks is common,
though experts say that plenty of illegal use also goes undetected: such
as people sneaking on others' networks to traffic in child pornography,
steal credit card information and send death threats.

Security experts say people can prevent such access by turning on
encryption or requiring passwords, but few bother or are unsure how to
do so.

Wi-Fi, short for Wireless Fidelity, has enjoyed prolific growth since
2000. Millions of households have set up wireless home networks that
give people like Dinon the ability to use the Web from their backyards
but also reach the house next door or down the street.

It's not clear why Smith was using Dinon's network. Prosecutors declined
to comment, and a working phone number could not be located for Smith.[/quote]

This seems similar to mp3 sharing in someways....

[crazymaine catholic]

does it make a difference what kind of activity you are using someone else's wireless internet for? like, if you're downloading illegal materials or pornography, something that could get the other person in trouble, that's obviously wrong. you can get someone into trouble for it. but if you're using the internet in a clean way, such as checking email or going on phatmass, would it still be wrong to do so? i would hope that people who set up wireless internet are aware of the risks and that they will set up security to protect against those risks.

after seeing what was posted while i was posting, i think i have to reconsider my position.

Edited January 31, 2006 by crazymaine catholic

[Brother Adam]

[quote]Innocuous use of other people's unsecured Wi-Fi networks is common,
though experts say that plenty of illegal use also goes undetected: such
as people sneaking on others' networks to traffic in child pornography,
steal credit card information and send death threats.[/quote]

Interesting. Is it saying that any use is illegal, or only malicious use is illegal? It seems that the person that was prosecuted was maliciously using it. . .

[Birgitta Noel]

I dunno, it's badly written there and I don't think I'd trust a news story to determine the legality of the act....

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Jan 31 2006, 10:41 AM']I posted this on FF, but I'll put it here for the PM debate 

[right][snapback]870964[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yeah, like I said on our private forum, I gladly received the correction, but I wondered how widespread knowledge of this practice was, and how it was understood in light of the law and morals.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jan 31 2006, 10:50 AM']Yeah, like I said on our private forum, I gladly received the correction, but I wondered how widespread knowledge of this practice was, and how it was understood in light of the law and morals.
[right][snapback]870978[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Whoops, my apologies, forgot I was in the forum. Sorry!

[scardella]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jan 31 2006, 09:50 AM']our private forum[/quote]

private forum?

[Quietfire]

I see it as stealing.
Someone else is paying for the wi-fi service. You are essentially tapping into it to use it for your own purpose without their knowledge or consent.
The fact that they (the person who is paying for the service)do not encrypt it or use passwords should not make a difference. It is still stealing something that "belongs" to someone else. You are stealing a service. A paid service.

It wouldnt matter to me whether its clean or not. If I found that you were using my 'signal' to receive free internet access, I would be very upset. I'm the one paying for it, and you would have no right to access through me.

On the other hand, if you were to ask me if you could access it, (whether we worked out a payment or not) and I agreed then that is a horse of a different color altogether.

Just put yourself in the place of the person who is paying for the service and its obvious that you would not want someone tapping into your service without your knowledge.

As far as cyber cafe's. Dont they require a credit card to charge you to use their computer's? Or is buying a cup of coffee all thats required. ( I dont use them)
We had one here where I live for a while and they required payment for time spent on their computers.


Pax

[Theoketos]

Upon further consideration I apply this analogy:

Just because some one leaves town for two years, and does not know how to lock their doors, does this give you the right to sit on thier couch?

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Jan 31 2006, 11:16 AM']Upon further consideration I apply this analogy:

Just because some one leaves town for two years, and does not know how to lock their doors, does this give you the right to sit on thier couch?
[right][snapback]870998[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No...

No...

No...

As for cyber cafes those are different from what's being described here. Cyber cafes traditionally provide computers for their customers and they charge for the use of the computer and the access. Or require a purchase.

Places such as Panera are providing (for thier customers) wireless access free of charge. You cannot pay for it. You are just supposed to be a customer. So, if I am at Starbucks, but can access a Panera signal should I use it?

[Quietfire]

Does it make the analogy more sanctified if its asked three times? :

[Theoketos]

muhaaaa

Apparently Church Scholars can delete their posts.

On topic:

Justice is giving to others that which is justly theirs.