[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I can't accidentally steal your bike by turning on my computer. That is the entire point. I have stolen people's bandwidth totally unwittingly before. If I notice it, I'll switch to the network I meant to be on. But the point is, it's his fault for not locking his network.

It's his fault for not locking the network, but it's also the fault of those who take advantage of the situation. Just like it would be your fault if you didn't lock up a bike, but that wouldn't excuse the guy who stole it.

Obviously, this would not apply in the case where you did so unwittingly. However, that is not what the majority of people in this thread have been talking about.

[abe]

ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW I LEARNED IN KINDERGARTEN

(a guide for Global Leadership)

All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sand pile at school.

These are the things I learned:
Share everything.
Play fair.
Don't hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don't take things that aren't yours.
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
Take a nap every afternoon.
When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together.
Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned - the biggest word of all - LOOK.
Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation. Ecology and politics and equality and sane living.

Take any one of those items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your family life or your work or government or your world and it holds true and clear and firm. Think what a better world it would be if we all - the whole world - had cookies and milk at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon and then lay down with our blankies for a nap. Or if all governments had as a basic policy to always put things back where they found them and to clean up their own mess.

And it is still true, no matter how old you are, when you go out in the world, it is best to hold hands and stick together.

[Source: "ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW I LEARNED IN KINDERGARTEN" by Robert Fulghum. See his web site at http://www.robertfulghum.com/

http://www.peace.ca/kindergarten.htm

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by euchomai

I don't need you to be my "holy spirit" telling me what is right and what is wrong.

I know you don't. You should have your own conscience telling you it is.

The thing is, if you keep ignoring it, it stops talking to you.

We'll continue to see how this plays out in the courts across America. It will be hotly debated, hopefully not as rude as you've been, but still hotly debated.

Naw, it will be made law, and nerds that still want to get bandwidth they didn't pay for will whine about it on the interweb.

[Spliffdaddy]

Typing this post on somebody else's unsecured wireless connection....

[starman]

I haven't read this whole thread, but the argument of "stealing" is complete bullsh*t.

Why?

Every OS automatically picks the strongest signal. What if your neighbor's is the strongest? Your OS switches without telling you, and now you're a thief?

Get bent.

[Kevin]

star I would say in that case no, you arent WILLINGLY taking something. I am talking about the people that knowingly use someone else's bandwidth, and then trying to justify it.

[Doofy]

If you ask me, the whole argument should be about actually having neighbours living close enough to steal bandwidth through WiFi. Like, no thanks.

[ghporter]

Take a look at this article from the Harvard Law School for some revealing information on "computer trespass."

It is apparent that both the U.S. Congress and the several states' legislatures have attempted to criminalize unauthorized use of computer systems, but have been stymied to some extent by the specificity with which they define "computer system." The intent is obvious, even if the word of such statutes has prevented effective enforcement.

Further, THE NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION ACT OF 1995 attempted to address these problems with limited success. Read the cited page for some very illustrative details on both legislative intent and reasoning.

Finally, a clueless noob with a wireless router left in its default configuration (wide open) and with file sharing enabled for is convenience at home should NOT risk the security of his internal files because he has not been instructed about how to lock down his network, any more than a new homeowner who forgets to close his garage door should risk the contents of his home. Note that the above addresses INTENT (as in ChuckIt's statements that he has accidentally used open networks). The dirtbag that walked into my garage and took my bike and air compressor trespassed AND stole stuff; a jerk in his car parked outside my house who somehow achieves access to my network and reads private material therefrom, or uses that connection to commit other crimes such as passing child pornography similarly tresspasses and commits a crime. The law should protect the homeowner and network owner from such intentional trespasses.

[krillbee]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Finally, a clueless noob with a wireless router left in its default configuration (wide open) and with file sharing enabled for is convenience at home should NOT risk the security of his internal files because he has not been instructed about how to lock down his network, any more than a new homeowner who forgets to close his garage door should risk the contents of his home. Note that the above addresses INTENT (as in ChuckIt's statements that he has accidentally used open networks). The dirtbag that walked into my garage and took my bike and air compressor trespassed AND stole stuff; a jerk in his car parked outside my house who somehow achieves access to my network and reads private material therefrom, or uses that connection to commit other crimes such as passing child pornography similarly tresspasses and commits a crime. The law should protect the homeowner and network owner from such intentional trespasses.

So what is your take on it if the stranger is using the wireless connection just to access the internet and to not read personal files?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

star I would say in that case no, you arent WILLINGLY taking something. I am talking about the people that knowingly use someone else's bandwidth, and then trying to justify it.

But that is exactly my point: It is no more harmful when done willingly than when done accidentally. It is pretty much bound to happen accidentally if you don't lock down your network, so to complain when it happens intentionally seems rather disingenuous. If you don't want it to happen, you are the one responsible for stopping it. That's just where I think the burden should be.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

But that is exactly my point: It is no more harmful when done willingly than when done accidentally. It is pretty much bound to happen accidentally if you don't lock down your network, so to complain when it happens intentionally seems rather disingenuous. If you don't want it to happen, you are the one responsible for stopping it. That's just where I think the burden should be.

Well, yeah. And if you don't want your bike stolen, you should lock it up. But if you don't, the guy walking by who sees the unlocked bike is still a thief if he takes it, and if a cop happens to catch him taking the bike, he's not going to get off just because you should have locked it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

But that is exactly my point: It is no more harmful when done willingly than when done accidentally. It is pretty much bound to happen accidentally if you don't lock down your network, so to complain when it happens intentionally seems rather disingenuous.

As a society we differentiate between rules broken with intent, and without intent. I don't believe in punishing someone that didn't specifically choose to break said law. Or broke it out of ignorance. And neither does society for the most part.

If you don't want it to happen, you are the one responsible for stopping it. That's just where I think the burden should be.

It goes both ways. Some people are gullible and easily taken advantage of. We protect those people.

That is like saying that it's not phone scammers fault that they take advantage of the elderly, but the elderly should be at fault for letting it happen!

Silly

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Well, yeah. And if you don't want your bike stolen, you should lock it up. But if you don't, the guy walking by who sees the unlocked bike is still a thief if he takes it, and if a cop happens to catch him taking the bike, he's not going to get off just because you should have locked it.

But there is not a near certainty that your bike will be stolen by accident if you don't lock it. I see this as being more similar to owning an empty plot of land — if you don't fence it or mark it as "no trespassing," you really don't have a right to shoot at people for walking there. There is such certainty that not keeping people out will result in people coming in (completely by accident) that not to lock them out is basically inviting this.

Whether or not it's rude, this would happen all the time even in a completely honest world. If we are OK when these accidental intrusions happen, it seems pretty disingenuous to claim grievous harm when it's done intentionally. Yes, we don't punish people for accidental crimes and blah blah. But if somebody doesn't care enough to block out the accidental intruders, I'm not really inclined to believe him when he all of a sudden is mortally wounded by the exact same action committed intentionally.

I'm basically just saying how I think the law should be. If somebody hacks into a network, by all means, send him to the guillotine. But I'm inclined to hold the owner responsible for setting the limits of what he wants people to be able to do on his network. Not protecting it is tantamount to letting any Joe connect as he walks by.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by krillbee

So what is your take on it if the stranger is using the wireless connection just to access the internet and to not read personal files?

How can I be assured that's ALL he's doing? Intentionally using a wireless network without permission means you KNOW that you don't have permission, implying (I know others will disagree with me on this) that you don't care about such things as permission. That to me is a very small step from "I'll see what's shared on this network," and then to "I'll see what I can take from this network."

If I didn't invite a user, I do not want him using my network-period.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

But there is not a near certainty that your bike will be stolen by accident if you don't lock it. I see this as being more similar to owning an empty plot of land — if you don't fence it or mark it as "no trespassing," you really don't have a right to shoot at people for walking there. There is such certainty that not keeping people out will result in people coming in (completely by accident) that not to lock them out is basically inviting this.

Holy crap. A near certainty that your bike will be stolen by accident? What the hell? First of all, how does a bike get stolen by accident? Secondly, how can you say that it is a near certainly that the bike would be stolen accidentally? I'd say it would be a near certainty that the bike would be stolen intentionally since there are people that cruise around just looking for bikes that are either unlocked or locked using a chain they can cut easily.

Anyway, your 'accidental' bit is quite irrelevant. Do you really think this guy who was cruising around in his car with his laptop open looking for a wireless connection to abuse did so accidentally?

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by ghporter

How can I be assured that's ALL he's doing? Intentionally using a wireless network without permission means you KNOW that you don't have permission, implying (I know others will disagree with me on this) that you don't care about such things as permission. That to me is a very small step from "I'll see what's shared on this network," and then to "I'll see what I can take from this network."

If I didn't invite a user, I do not want him using my network-period.

The problem is that the airwaves are a public resource, not a private resource.

It's like having a locker in a public area. You can lock it, and no one will take your stuff. Or you can leave it unlocked, but don't complain when someone tosses your stuff out to make room for theirs. Or someone might come in and put their stuff next to yours in the locker if they are polite.

In summary, my position is that public airwaves that haven't shown at least an effort to be made locked down are fair game in my book.

[turtle777]

I'm dissapointed in this thread. Everyone stays on topic.
Nobody wants to derail.

-t

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

The problem is that the airwaves are a public resource, not a private resource.

Air itself is. The wavs or information or service used in them is not public resource. You are wrong.

It's like having a locker in a public area. You can lock it, and no one will take your stuff. Or you can leave it unlocked, but don't complain when someone tosses your stuff out to make room for theirs.

That isn't what is happening. Someone is going in and taking part of the stuff in there. And it's not that this person simply didn't lock it. He has no idea it NEEDS locked. Taking advantage of that makes you a slimeball.

In summary, my position is that public airwaves that haven't shown at least an effort to be made locked down are fair game in my book.

Well your book is wrong.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Holy crap. A near certainty that your bike will be stolen by accident? What the hell? First of all, how does a bike get stolen by accident? Secondly, how can you say that it is a near certainly that the bike would be stolen accidentally? I'd say it would be a near certainty that the bike would be stolen intentionally since there are people that cruise around just looking for bikes that are either unlocked or locked using a chain they can cut easily.

I think you read that backwards. My point was that bicycles are pretty much never accidentally stolen, but it's a near certainty that your bandwidth will be accidentally leeched if you leave your network open. If people don't care enough to stop that accidental leeching, I don't think they have any right to complain about intentional leeching.

[OldManMac]

I have to give some of you credit; you've been very creative and inventive in finding ways to justify using something that doesn't belong to you!

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by KarlG

I have to give some of you credit; you've been very creative and inventive in finding ways to justify using something that doesn't belong to you!

Yeah, it's just that simple , that's why we've had a three page discussion so far. Well, some people have discussed and others have just blindly jumped down people's throats.

[iLikebeer]

The bike analogy doesn't really work. When someone sets up a network, it is a matter of selecting an extra option for WEP and you're secure unless someone IS maliciously trying to break into your network. It's not something you have to do everytime you start up your computer. With a bike lock, you have to lock it everytime you stop somewhere. And there is a real loss with the bike, where the network is just a few bits and bytes that you assume were left open for you as it's so trivial to protect if the network owner had wanted to.

This argument would be easier if companies automatically enabled WEP for the ignorant masses and left the option to turn it off for those that wanted to leave their networks open. These lawsuits are fine with me if that means the companies might add an extra layer of security by default for people that just want to hook up their computer and go. This probably won't even be an issue in a year or two.

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

The bike analogy doesn't really work. When someone sets up a network, it is a matter of selecting an extra option for WEP and you're secure unless someone IS maliciously trying to break into your network. It's not something you have to do everytime you start up your computer. With a bike lock, you have to lock it everytime you stop somewhere. And there is a real loss with the bike, where the network is just a few bits and bytes that you assume were left open for you as it's so trivial to protect if the network owner had wanted to.

This argument would be easier if companies automatically enabled WEP for the ignorant masses and left the option to turn it off for those that wanted to leave their networks open. These lawsuits are fine with me if that means the companies might add an extra layer of security by default for people that just want to hook up their computer and go. This probably won't even be an issue in a year or two.

I agree with you, that was very thoughtful. Now, put on the flame suit.

[]

So are people who use my unsecured wifi network stealing from me?

But I leave it open on purpose to allow anyone within range access, so does that change anything?

[Spliffdaddy]

So do I.

But according to some of the folks in here we're being robbed.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by euchomai

Yeah, it's just that simple , that's why we've had a three page discussion so far. Well, some people have discussed and others have just blindly jumped down people's throats.

Yes it is that simple. You see, it's based on a concept called ethics, which apparently a lot of people don't practice anymore, at least when it's convenient not to. If something doesn't belong to me, I don't have the right to use it. All this "discussion" has done is illustrate that some people can self-justify anything they want, if it's convenient for them. It doesn't make it right, but that's of no concern to them.

Ethics, BTW, is one of those weird concepts that apparently isn't taught to children today.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by euchomai

Yeah, it's just that simple , that's why we've had a three page discussion so far.

No, it's because certain people refuse to accept realty and continue to justify their actions.

Well, some people have discussed and others have just blindly jumped down people's throats.

Oh quit the hyperbole.

Originally Posted by 

So are people who use my unsecured wifi network stealing from me?

But I leave it open on purpose to allow anyone within range access, so does that change anything?

Nope, if you let it out there for a reason, on purpose, no crime is committed.

[]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Nope, if you let it out there for a reason, on purpose, no crime is committed.

But people don't know that if they just stumble upon my network - it's just another open network to them. Under the logic you've put forth in this thread people shouldn't use my network since I have not given them explicit permission. However I feel that leaving a network open and unsecured is the same thing as giving permission.

So why does that work in some cases and not for others?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I think you read that backwards. My point was that bicycles are pretty much never accidentally stolen, but it's a near certainty that your bandwidth will be accidentally leeched if you leave your network open. If people don't care enough to stop that accidental leeching, I don't think they have any right to complain about intentional leeching.

Sorry about that, it appears I read your post wrong. My point still stands, though - talking about accidental usage is beside the point since that is not what most people in here are talking about (and certainly not what the guy in the news article was doing).

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

The bike analogy doesn't really work. When someone sets up a network, it is a matter of selecting an extra option for WEP and you're secure unless someone IS maliciously trying to break into your network. It's not something you have to do everytime you start up your computer. With a bike lock, you have to lock it everytime you stop somewhere. And there is a real loss with the bike, where the network is just a few bits and bytes that you assume were left open for you as it's so trivial to protect if the network owner had wanted to.

It is a real loss if:

1. You pay for the bandwidth you use.

2. Someone downloads MP3 files from Kazaa on your network and the RIAA sues you for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

3. Someone does something else that's illegal such as spamming, uploading child porn, soliciting minors, etc. and you get accused of it since it was your IP address that got logged.

I'd say any of those things would be a real loss. Numbers 2 and 3 would be easily worse than getting a bike stolen.

Anyway, if you see a plot of land that says "No Trespassing" on it, and you go in, is that a real loss to the owner? No, it's not. But it's still illegal for you to do it.

This argument would be easier if companies automatically enabled WEP for the ignorant masses and left the option to turn it off for those that wanted to leave their networks open. These lawsuits are fine with me if that means the companies might add an extra layer of security by default for people that just want to hook up their computer and go. This probably won't even be an issue in a year or two.

Leaving WEP on by default would mean you'd have to set a default WEP key. Any people who knew the default key would be able to get in easily, so this wouldn't work. Now, making the router refuse to work until the owner set up the WEP feature, that is an idea that could work.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So do I.

But according to some of the folks in here we're being robbed.

Actually, you're robbing the ISP because under the service agreement, you're probably not supposed to be giving access to your whole neighborhood for free.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 

But people don't know that if they just stumble upon my network - it's just another open network to them. Under the logic you've put forth in this thread people shouldn't use my network since I have not given them explicit permission. However I feel that leaving a network open and unsecured is the same thing as giving permission.

I would say no one should be using anyone's bandwidth without permission. You give it out for free. There would be no crime.

So why does that work in some cases and not for others?

In order for there to be a crime, one must be hurting someone in some way.

If you have a bicycle and leave it out for people to take and leave at a whim, there is no crime if someone takes it.

If someone leaves their bike on their porch , and someone steals it, it's theft.

This isn't really hard folks, some of you are making it out to be more difficult on purpose.

Atleast I hope it's on purpose.

[iLikebeer]

If you guys say so. You can make the emotional plea "but it's wrong" all you want, but as previously stated, an open network is an open network. And as I said earlier, this won't matter in a short period of time. It's a questionable gray area of law that often happens around new technology. Most people assume an open network was meant to be that way. Obviously, there is disagreement there. Because of these prosecutions, hopefully WEP will come turned on as default. It wouldn't be hard for them to write a little program that gave people their own random script. Programmers just need to work on the useability of wireless. Even for people that halfway know what they're doing, installing a network is much more difficult than it needs to be. Once it's default that WEP is turned on, it will definitely be assumed an open network is meant to be that way and we won't have to worry about trying to figure out if someone meant to have it that way or not.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

If you guys say so. You can make the emotional plea "but it's wrong" all you want,

It's not an emotional plea. It's legal reasoning. Other states are following suite

but as previously stated, an open network is an open network.

Yes, and it can be stated all you want. It makes LITTLE SENSE. You don't have a right to use something just because YOU CAN.

And as I said earlier, this won't matter in a short period of time. It's a questionable gray area of law that often happens around new technology. Most people assume an open network was meant to be that way.

Oh bullcrap. Most people know when they are using a network they shouldn't be on. And soon it will be illegal countrywide as it has already started.

They grey area is the intent.

It's as simple as this, unless you know you are allowed on a network, don't get on it.

Assume you aren't supposed to be there.

And if you do get on a network make sure it's one you are paying for, or one known to be free to use by anyone.

[]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I would say no one should be using anyone's bandwidth without permission. You give it out for free. There would be no crime.

And you completely missed my point. How does one differentiate between freely given open networks and mistakenly given open networks? If a user cannot tell the difference, who does the responsibility fall on to make sure people don't steal bandwidth?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by 

So are people who use my unsecured wifi network stealing from me?

But I leave it open on purpose to allow anyone within range access, so does that change anything?

Originally Posted by 

But people don't know that if they just stumble upon my network - it's just another open network to them. Under the logic you've put forth in this thread people shouldn't use my network since I have not given them explicit permission. However I feel that leaving a network open and unsecured is the same thing as giving permission.

So why does that work in some cases and not for others?

Originally Posted by 

And you completely missed my point. How does one differentiate between freely given open networks and mistakenly given open networks? If a user cannot tell the difference, who does the responsibility fall on to make sure people don't steal bandwidth?

As a free provider of WiFi service--a service generally assumed to NOT be free--you need to alert those in your area that your particular WiFi network is publicly available. I would suggest putting the words "Free" or "Open To All" in the network name.

[]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

As a free provider of WiFi service--a service generally assumed to NOT be free--you need to alert those in your area that your particular WiFi network is publicly available. I would suggest putting the words "Free" or "Open To All" in the network name.

It's generally assumed NOT to be free??? Everywhere I go there is free wifi. Coffee shops, hotels, restaurants, book stores, apple stores...the list goes on. I assume that if there is unencrypted wifi in a public area, it's free.

Which brings up a question - if you use the wifi in an apple store, is that stealing? They don't give you explicit permission in the form of the network name or any sign in the store.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by 

And you completely missed my point. How does one differentiate between freely given open networks and mistakenly given open networks? If a user cannot tell the difference, who does the responsibility fall on to make sure people don't steal bandwidth?

How does one differentiate between freely given unlocked bicycles and mistakenly given unlocked bicycles? If a user cannot tell the difference, who does the responsibility fall on to make sure people don't steal bicycles?

[]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

How does one differentiate between freely given unlocked bicycles and mistakenly given unlocked bicycles? If a user cannot tell the difference, who does the responsibility fall on to make sure people don't steal bicycles?

Why the hell are you talking about bicycles? Do you honestly think that the analogy applies here?

If someone wants to seriously answer my question, I'd like to read it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by 

It's generally assumed NOT to be free??? Everywhere I go there is free wifi. Coffee shops, hotels, restaurants, book stores, apple stores...the list goes on. I assume that if there is unencrypted wifi in a public area, it's free.

Which brings up a question - if you use the wifi in an apple store, is that stealing? They don't give you explicit permission in the form of the network name or any sign in the store.

The Apple Store in Clarendon, Virginia did have signs indicating their network was limited only to Apple Store demo machines and consumer-provided hardware that was in the store for troubleshooting purposes. It's been almost a year since I was last in that store so I don't know if the signs still exist.

[]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The Apple Store in Clarendon, Virginia did have signs indicating their network was limited only to Apple Store demo machines and consumer-provided hardware that was in the store for troubleshooting purposes. It's been almost a year since I was last in that store so I don't know if the signs still exist.

The one in Short Pump (near Richmond, VA) has no such sign and I've used the wifi there on numerous occasions. But it would apply to any public place where wifi was given but not expressly noted in signage, so forget about Apple stores if that helps.

[krillbee]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The Apple Store in Clarendon, Virginia did have signs indicating their network was limited only to Apple Store demo machines and consumer-provided hardware that was in the store for troubleshooting purposes. It's been almost a year since I was last in that store so I don't know if the signs still exist.

Out of curiousity, was it protected too?, or did they just have the sign?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by krillbee

Out of curiousity, was it protected too?, or did they just have the sign?

I don't know. I was trying out a demo PowerBook.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The Apple Store in Clarendon, Virginia did have signs indicating their network was limited only to Apple Store demo machines and consumer-provided hardware that was in the store for troubleshooting purposes. It's been almost a year since I was last in that store so I don't know if the signs still exist.

The people at that apple store were morons then. If they didn't want anyone else to use the network, they of all people should know how to enable WEP. That's friggin brilliant, put signs in the store saying don't use this for a resource you can reach from outside the store. That's like EULAs where it says by opening this you agree to what's written inside.

Only one person can use a bike at a time. That's why your analogy is stupid. A network can be transparent to many without causing any harm to the network owner. Physical objects and an open network over PUBLICLY OWNED FREQUENCIES are not comparable. It's simple. If you leave it open, it is assumed to be there for public use. Use WEP or whatever if you want it to be for you only. That's the sign that says use me, it's not password or WEP protected. But then you're stealing, no, you're not taking anything.

I understand what you guys are saying. But you're arguing a moot point. You can't make a law where you have to figure out what the intent is. You can determine the seriousness of a law by intent, but not whether it's illegal or not. Ignorance is not a valid defense for breaking the law. Just as ignorance is not a valid reason to not lock your network. These same people make the internet slower because their windows computers are loaded in spyware. Blame the companies that make the software, not the ones that logically assume an open network is indeed open.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by 

Why the hell are you talking about bicycles? Do you honestly think that the analogy applies here?

If someone wants to seriously answer my question, I'd like to read it.

Nice personal attack. Boy, that really destroys my argument right there. The point is that just because someone left something open, does not mean that you have the right to take it. Whether they left their network open, or left their bicycle unlocked, it's not for your use unless it's marked as such.

Don't like the bicycle analogy? Okay, how about a house. A house can be used by more than one person at once, and it won't harm the owner of the house for you to be in it, so that takes care of your irrelevant objections. But if someone leaves his front door unlocked, does that mean that you can assume they intended for you to be able to walk right in and traipse around their house? No, it doesn't. There's no indication either way, so you assume that you are not permitted to enter. "But he didn't lock it" is not going to get you off in any other case where you use someone else's property, so why do you think it would be any different in this one specific instance?

I don't understand what makes this so difficult for some of you to understand...

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

The point is that just because someone left something open, does not mean that you have the right to take it. Whether they left their network open, or left their bicycle unlocked, it's not for your use unless it's marked as such.

Don't like the bicycle analogy? Okay, how about a house. A house can be used by more than one person at once, and it won't harm the owner of the house for you to be in it, so that takes care of your irrelevant objections. But if someone leaves his front door unlocked, does that mean that you can assume they intended for you to be able to walk right in and traipse around their house? No, it doesn't. There's no indication either way, so you assume that you are not permitted to enter. "But he didn't lock it" is not going to get you off in any other case where you use someone else's property, so why do you think it would be any different in this one specific instance?

I don't understand what makes this so difficult for some of you to understand...

Nope, sorry. Same stupid analogy. You can't use a physical object for the analogies. I can use someone's network and it won't affect them whatsoever if they aren't at full utilization. Bandwidth is not a physical object. If i go in their house, I'm there physically and using their resources. 20 people can't share a house the same as 20 people can't share a bike. 20 people CAN share a network transparently. You don't like to share, which btw isn't very ethical of you, then use WEP or password protection. It only takes 30 seconds to enable.

Now switch back to the kiddy porn and money of bandwidth argument. Rinse. Repeat. New bad analogy. Change argument....

[]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Nice personal attack. Boy, that really destroys my argument right there. The point is that just because someone left something open, does not mean that you have the right to take it. Whether they left their network open, or left their bicycle unlocked, it's not for your use unless it's marked as such.

It wasn't a personal attack at all - you brought up a very flawed analogy and didn't answer the question I posed. I still fail to see how you can equate physical goods with bandwidth.

The point is that there is absolutely no way of knowing if someone has left a network open on purpose for all to use or if they are ignorant on how to secure their network. How can a user be expected to know the difference if there is *no* way to really know the difference? The responsibility has to fall onto the network operator to secure their own network.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

Nope, sorry. Same stupid analogy. You can't use a physical object for the analogies.

Why not?

I can use someone's network and it won't affect them whatsoever if they aren't at full utilization. Bandwidth is not a physical object. If i go in their house, I'm there physically and using their resources. 20 people can't share a house the same as 20 people can't share a bike.

Not so. If you walk into a house and stand there in a corner, you aren't using any resources other than oxygen in the air. Note that I'm not saying you would live there permanently - I'm talking about walking into a house. You're not using any resources, and if you're quiet and the house isn't completely devoid of any free space (i.e. "not at full utilization"), then the owner would barely notice you were there. But it would still be illegal.

You don't like to share, which btw isn't very ethical of you, then use WEP or password protection. It only takes 30 seconds to enable.

So now it's unethical to secure a network?! You're a barrel of laughs!

Now switch back to the kiddy porn and money of bandwidth argument. Rinse. Repeat. New bad analogy. Change argument....

What's a bad analogy about that? It's not even an analogy! Illegal activities is very likely what that guy in the news article was doing...

Originally Posted by 

It wasn't a personal attack at all - you brought up a very flawed analogy and didn't answer the question I posed. I still fail to see how you can equate physical goods with bandwidth.

Whereas I fail to see how you can put in an artificial distinction to claim that "don't take it if it's not yours" doesn't apply to one type of property simply because it isn't physical. This whole "physical" argument is nothing more than a rationalization, and you know it.

The point is that there is absolutely no way of knowing if someone has left a network open on purpose for all to use or if they are ignorant on how to secure their network. How can a user be expected to know the difference if there is *no* way to really know the difference?

The user doesn't, which is why he should assume that he is not allowed to enter. If he were allowed, there should be some sort of indication that visitors are welcome. If there were a sign on a house that said "Open House - Feel Free to Enter" then you would be able to enter. Otherwise, you'd assume you were not permitted to enter. Simple as that.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Why not?

read on, and I explained it.

Not so. If you walk into a house and stand there in a corner, you aren't using any resources other than oxygen in the air. Note that I'm not saying you would live there permanently - I'm talking about walking into a house. You're not using any resources, and if you're quiet and the house isn't completely devoid of any free space (i.e. "not at full utilization"), then the owner would barely notice you were there. But it would still be illegal.

no, i'm not trespassing if i'm in my own house and receive your signal. Airwaves belong to the public, that's why I can watch PBS and some networks on antenna. You want to protect those airwaves, then I can't use them. But if they come to me, I can do whatever I want with them as long as I accept whatever interference and don't cause your network any harm.

So now it's unethical to secure a network?! You're a barrel of laughs!

no, i was just mocking the inapropriateethics argument. but I WAS taught it's nice to share.

hat's a bad analogy about that? It's not even an analogy! Illegal activities is very likely what that guy in the news article was doing...

because you don't seem to answer full replies to you. You're just picking and choosing. When you get discounted on one front, you go to the other argument. I agree the risk is there. Even more reason to secure your network. Funny how the people arguing against use of open networks here were arguing that the guy on the lease of the house in that party house thread should be responsible since it was his house.

Whereas I fail to see how you can put an artificial distinction to claim that property laws don't apply to one type of property simply because it isn't physical.

That's no argument. I fail to see how you can apply physical property laws to something that someone doesn't "own." Your network doesn't disappear if used by someone else.

The user doesn't, which is why he should assume that he is not allowed to enter. If he were allowed, there should be some sort of indication that visitors are welcome. If there were a sign on a house that said "Open House - Feel Free to Enter" then you would be able to enter. Otherwise, you'd assume you were not permitted to enter. Simple as that.

No, open means open. If you don't want to share, close it. Simple as that. Maybe this argument is more of a regional difference, but most places I've been, an open network is assumed to be open for sharing.

Of course, I'll agree with you that in apartment complexes (sometimes, we've shared here before and i left mine open for a long time on purpose) or neighborhoods, people probably know they are taking advantage of someone that just doesn't realize their network is open. But in urban areas, downtown areas, business districts, and university settings; people should know the rule of secure:closed...open:open.

I'm not going to argue this any more, because as I've said, give it time and this will go away. No need for laws governing this if all wireless nodes come with WEP active. Just copy your random code generated for you and type it into your laptop or whereever. If it's open, it IS open on purpose. No need for laws here, just tech needs to catch up to the realities of real world use.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

read on, and I explained it.

No, you didn't. You point out that it's not a physical object. So what? You claim that it might not be being used to capacity. So what? "Don't take what isn't yours" doesn't suddenly change because an object is not physical, or because the owner isn't using it fully, something you can't ascertain anyway.

no, i'm not trespassing if i'm in my own house and receive your signal. Airwaves belong to the public, that's why I can watch PBS and some networks on antenna. You want to protect those airwaves, then I can't use them. But if they come to me, I can do whatever I want with them as long as I accept whatever interference and don't cause your network any harm.

The airwaves are not what you are accessing - the desired end is that you are accessing someone's network, which is inside their house and is their property. Cell phones use airwaves, but that doesn't give you the right to use a device to spy on people's cell phone conversations just because the airwaves from their cell phones are going through your house.

You can watch PBS on antenna because the people who broadcast it allow you to.

no, i was just mocking the inapropriateethics argument. but I WAS taught it's nice to share.

It's not nice to share things which the service agreement tells you you can't share. Or, at least, it's not legal.

because you don't seem to answer full replies to you. You're just picking and choosing. When you get discounted on one front, you go to the other argument. I agree the risk is there. Even more reason to secure your network. Funny how the people arguing against use of open networks here were arguing that the guy on the lease of the house in that party house thread should be responsible since it was his house.

What argument did you make that I didn't answer? I didn't post in the "party house thread", and frankly I'm not sure what thread you're referring to.

That's no argument. I fail to see how you can apply physical property laws to something that someone doesn't "own." Your network doesn't disappear if used by someone else.

Someone does own his/her network. Your house doesn't disappear if I walk into it, but I'm still not allowed to do that.

Look in any lawbook, and I doubt you'll see the words "as long as something doesn't disappear" or "as long as something isn't physical" in the laws.

No, open means open. If you don't want to share, close it. Simple as that. Maybe this argument is more of a regional difference, but most places I've been, an open network is assumed to be open for sharing.

Saying "Open means open" won't get you very far in explaining why you entered someone's unlocked house without permission, or why you took someone's unlocked bike without permission.

Of course, I'll agree with you that in apartment complexes (sometimes, we've shared here before and i left mine open for a long time on purpose) or neighborhoods, people probably know they are taking advantage of someone that just doesn't realize their network is open. But in urban areas, downtown areas, business districts, and university settings; people should know the rule of secure:closed...open:open.

Except that this isn't the rule. Even many public Wi-Fi hotspots have signs saying that the access is for customers only. And in many university areas, you're only supposed to access it if you are a student (and often they enforce this by making you enter a student ID).

The rule is, you access it if you have permission to.

I'm not going to argue this any more, because as I've said, give it time and this will go away. No need for laws governing this if all wireless nodes come with WEP active. Just copy your random code generated for you and type it into your laptop or whereever. If it's open, it IS open on purpose. No need for laws here, just tech needs to catch up to the realities of real world use.

I agree that the default settings for routers need to be more secure than they are currently.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

No, you didn't. You point out that it's not a physical object. So what? You claim that it might not be being used to capacity. So what? "Don't take what isn't yours" doesn't suddenly change because an object is not physical, or because the owner isn't using it fully, something you can't ascertain anyway.


The airwaves are not what you are accessing - the desired end is that you are accessing someone's network, which is inside their house and is their property. Cell phones use airwaves, but that doesn't give you the right to use a device to spy on people's cell phone conversations just because the airwaves from their cell phones are going through your house.

You can watch PBS on antenna because the people who broadcast it allow you to.


It's not nice to share things which the service agreement tells you you can't share. Or, at least, it's not legal.


What argument did you make that I didn't answer? I didn't post in the "party house thread", and frankly I'm not sure what thread you're referring to.


Someone does own his/her network. Your house doesn't disappear if I walk into it, but I'm still not allowed to do that.

Look in any lawbook, and I doubt you'll see the words "as long as something doesn't disappear" or "as long as something isn't physical" in the laws.


Saying "Open means open" won't get you very far in explaining why you entered someone's unlocked house without permission, or why you took someone's unlocked bike without permission.


Except that this isn't the rule. Even many public Wi-Fi hotspots have signs saying that the access is for customers only. And in many university areas, you're only supposed to access it if you are a student (and often they enforce this by making you enter a student ID).

The rule is, you access it if you have permission to.


I agree that the default settings for routers need to be more secure than they are currently.

That's too many quotes that have already been debated with neither side giving in. I'll just agree on the last point. If I or a friend needs net access, I'll steer them towards an open wifi. I said before that it doesn't matter because it won't be an issue once tech catches up. It's even less of an issue, because to be honest, you have to be a weirdo retard or actually up to no good to get caught doing this. Most people just get a quick internet fix and go, no harm no foul. You guys want to make it a 10 commandments issue, your prerogative. 99.9999999% of the time, it's transparent and harmless to all. You want to waste money legislating and judging something that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant, go ahead.

Seriously, the important part of this thread should be, "Who drives through neighborhoods and then parks in front of someone's house using the internet long enough to get caught by the cops?!" I don't feel bad for the guy, he had to have some kind of issues. Wardriving is one thing, but actually parking long enough for the cops to be called AND show up? Please.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

That's too many quotes that have already been debated with neither side giving in. I'll just agree on the last point. If I or a friend needs net access, I'll steer them towards an open wifi. I said before that it doesn't matter because it won't be an issue once tech catches up. It's even less of an issue, because to be honest, you have to be a weirdo retard or actually up to no good to get caught doing this.

Doesn't matter. You're using something that's not yours. Just because you don't get caught doesn't make it not wrong...

Most people just get a quick internet fix and go, no harm no foul. You guys want to make it a 10 commandments issue, your prerogative. 99.9999999% of the time, it's transparent and harmless to all. You want to waste money legislating and judging something that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant, go ahead.

Legislating doesn't seem really necessary since it's already illegal, as evidenced by the fact that the guy in the article showed that you can get arrested for it. I'm just responding to people who think that leeching off other people isn't unethical. It's a very similar reasoning process to those who think pirating software isn't unethical - it didn't make anything of the author's disappear, it's not physical, you didn't actually take anything from anyone, yadda yadda yadda. The law doesn't see it that way...