A Thread About The Legality of Using Others Bandwidth- Renamed From the Original

[Eye In The Sky]

That MODEM is a physical component. When you thieve your way into my modem ... your signal data packets is are downloaded transmitted and/or received through MY cable and MY modem (both physical items btw - costing ME bandwidth) and then transmitted to you wirelessly ... but it had to come through MY physical property to get to you. You have used my physical property fraudulently and WITHOUT my consent for your own financial gain (by avoiding internet bills) and causing ME to pay financially. That's theft.

I just changed a few things (hopefully you will see why).

Taking away the "signal" aspect and speaking with the term data packets ( which travel over various medias in various forms ) should get us away from the argument over who 'owns' the wireless signals in the air...now that we are debating the path his/her data packets are taking (regardless of signal type), they do in fact go thru your physcial hardware once the radio/wireless path enters your router.  Hardly arguable IMO, whether the person is "stealing some of your bandwidth" if this is the path their data packets are taking.   8)

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I just got online bud. Been doing drill all day. I'm allowed to get my opinion out too no? 

Of course!  Who would be fool enough to get in the way! 

 

[armyvern]

Of course!  Who would be fool enough to get in the way!   

And, right back at 'ya.  :-*

 

[George Wallace]

We're getting abstract here, but I'd argue that there are two issues. Mens rea  – I genuinely believed your WiFi was intentionally left open by you, I didn't sneak over to your cable box in the middle of the night with a roll of coax and some cable strippers – and damages. Libel, copyright violations and such all have a quantifiable loss  – which the appellant must prove in Canada  in civil cases – my using a WiFi network, dunno. Now if I started selling your WiFi access to other people or charging them by the minute to use it, that would be entirely different and analogous to pirating DVDs or software, but it's not what we're talking about here. Like I say, there will be a court case to test this at some point.

I know what side of this argument you are on, but couldn't you have thought this out a little better?

How are you going to justify the crime of selling someone's WiFi access to other people if you are getting it for free form the owner?  Don't you think these clients of yours are smart enough to figure out for themselves that the access is free, just as you found out?

Now, once again, we aren't arguing about the signal/data/etc. that you recieve.  We are talking about the theft of using someone's property, their WiFi modem, to transmit your signal/data/etc.

You can listen to "The Goat" on FM all you want.  That is perfectly legal.  You, however, can not start transmitting on their Frequency, using their equipment.  That would be illegal.

 

[40below]

I know what side of this argument you are on, but couldn't you have thought this out a little better?

How are you going to justify the crime of selling someone's WiFi access to other people if you are getting it for free form the owner?  Don't you think these clients of yours are smart enough to figure out for themselves that the access is free, just as you found out?

Now, once again, we aren't arguing about the signal/data/etc. that you recieve.  We are talking about the theft of using someone's property, their WiFi modem, to transmit your signal/data/etc.

I should have been clearer, but I'm juggling stuff here. To be brief, I was making the point that it wasn't a commercial crime and that there was no criminal intent in the cases we're arguing – that you never intended to cause a monetary loss nor make a profit, that in essence, it amounts to fair personal use with the assumption that the network allowed and in some cases, encouraged, personal access. You can't make that argument if you're reselling for profit, and people do try to resell Internet access in areas with open networks.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Morally i can turn on my computer click a network to use and if it's not passworded use it to navigate the internet, that is not malicious nor hacking nor illegal in general context. The hardware and software on my machine allows me to make use of the free to air access through legal retail options thus providing me an opportunity for access via a hotspot. If i then use the internet in a legal and unmalicious manner am i really breaking any laws, or are you just looking to write a little line of grey text in an ever growing volume of grey?

But you are not simply watching the data stream (i.e., your television over the fence comparison), once you connect to the internet with your computer through your neighbour's wireless router, you are changing the provided service.  As soon as you request any web page, you are affecting the requested content and volume of service provided.  Simply because your hardware and software makes it possible, doesn't make it implicitly legal.  Throwing in the terms "hacking" and "malicious" are red herrings, both are open to definition and neither usage or intent change the choice made to use the bandwidth contracted by the owner of the network without their permission (which is openly provided when you talk about a cafe hotspot, so that comparison  doesn't work either).

 

[kratz]

from CTV Consumer Report

With car companies like Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge soon to start offering WiFi in the vehicles, how would owners secure those signals from being used by those who have no problem using unsecured WAP access?

 

[Pelorus]

from CTV Consumer Report

With car companies like Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge soon to start offering WiFi in the vehicles, how would owners secure those signals from being used by those who have no problem using unsecured WAP access?

The link didn't work for me, but I've read a couple of articles on this idea of WiFi in vehicles.  I don't believe that the WiFi routers being used in cars have the power to transmit the signal very far at all past the outside shell of the car, so signal theft is basically a non-issue in this case.

 

[40below]

But you are not simply watching the data stream (i.e., your television over the fence comparison), once you connect to the internet with your computer through your neighbour's wireless router, you are changing the provided service.  As soon as you request any web page, you are affecting the requested content and volume of service provided.  Simply because your hardware and software makes it possible, doesn't make it implicitly legal.  Throwing in the terms "hacking" and "malicious" are red herrings, both are open to definition and neither usage or intent change the choice made to use the bandwidth contracted by the owner of the network without their permission (which is openly provided when you talk about a cafe hotspot, so that comparison  doesn't work either).

We're not that far apart, although there is still a philosophical divide. Yes, it does cause some degradation to the signal, but so does splitting your cable to run to two TVs in your house. (Incidentally, having worked in cable in the 1990s, the companies consider that theft of telecommunications also. Unless its their splitter, installed by their tech and paid for by you, it's a crime. Don't shop at Radio Shack if you can't do the time, citizen.) Does it deny the legal owner of use? No. In most cases ithe drop in performance is not even noticeable.

And I go back to my earlier point about implicit consent. The folks on the other side of the fence are are assuming that every open connection is that way due to ignorance on behalf of the owner; from my side I argue that it was left open because the owner either wanted, or at least didn't care, if it was used by other people. Such folks do exist, just in the same way as back in the day, there were anonymous FTP servers. I argue implicit consent. As has been said, an open network is yelling at the world for people to connect to it, and that's why modems are sold with that option. And it's not a violation of your contract with your ISP to use them in that mode.  An explicit denial would be to make the network private. (There are much more malicious ways to express your displeasure with folks you don't want using your network if you find them on it, but I'd immediately violate the TOS by getting into them.)

 

[George Wallace]

:

Ya know Bruce.  This is like arguing with Operation Objection or other Leftie types.  You can put forward all the logic and facts in the world, but they ignore them and continue on going through life with their blinders on and fixed views on things.  Like Jihadists, they won't give up their views until you are assimilated.  I understand that the U of O and several other universities actually offer Masters Degrees in Alternate Law or something like that, for people who are so inclined.

 

[Shamrock]

It's the electronic equivalent to socialism.

 

[armyvern]

We're getting abstract here, but I'd argue that there are two issues. Mens rea  – I genuinely believed your WiFi was intentionally left open by you, I didn't sneak over to your cable box in the middle of the night with a roll of coax and some cable strippers – and damages.

And, I'd argue that when "genuinely believeing" such (because of course, you'd never approach me to ask me to confirm whether your assumpton is correct or not) that your "intent" is to avoid paying for your own godamn internet and let someone else pay for you to surf the internet instead. "Why should I pay for it when my next door neighbour already is?" That's what you're arguing.

Whether or not I pay for bandwidth "usage amounts" or not (I do), I am still the one paying for that wifi to be available, and - your "intent" in using my wifi is to avoid paying for your own. Ni-iiice. Seems quite ethical to me. Not.

YOU know that I'm not getting it for free - that I am paying for that modem etc, but you certainly are. When do you plan on stopping by my house to toss in your few dollars towards paying my bill?

 

[George Wallace]

It's the electronic equivalent to socialism.

Perpetuated by our Institutes of Higher Learning.    >

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I argue implicit consent. As has been said, an open network is yelling at the world for people to connect to it

No, it is broadcasting a SSID packet to say "here I am" not....what you are saying.  That is like saying my address being in the phonebook is "yelling at the world BREAK INTO ME BREAK INTO ME". 

and that's why modems are sold with that option.

That is not the technical reason they are able to function with/without broadcasting SSID packets.  Do you have a legitimate source from the technical world that would back up this opinion?  An article from a industry magazine or authority?

My room door has the option to be locked/not locked.  Regardless of which way I leave it, if you come in and take something of mine, its theft, isn't it?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Holy crap!  9 pages on this!  Sadly, the deaths of our 3 fallen yesterday got less attention than this thread.  That thread is currently 5 pages long.  Just a point...maybe this REALLY isn't that big of a deal and I am surprised at the way this is being debated.  

Because on the other thread whats to argue? :'(

I always like to think that those whom make that ultimate sacrifice do so we can disagree like this without having to worry about a knock on the door at 0300.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Because on the other thread whats to argue? :'(

Good point.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Sorry, didn't mean to edit after you quoted me but it took me that long to type how I wanted to convey my feelings.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Sorry, didn't mean to edit after you quoted me but it took me that long to type how I wanted to convey my feelings.

I agree with your point(s)...I just wanted to 'point out my little point' too.  8)

 

[garb811]

OK, if you guys arguing that it ISN'T Theft of Telecommunications are so sure, log onto one of the not advertised for public use, open networks in your neighbourhood, call up the local police and inform them of what you are doing.  Let us know how it goes for ya.  op:

 

[Greymatters]

Unfortunately it is a form of thievery, but enforcement is another matter altogether...