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

[Edward Campbell]

You’re wandering off into the minefield again, George.

That WiFi bandwidth IS NOT YOURS. There is no problem, neither legal nor regulatory, with sharing any frequency – so long as one does not cause harmful interference. Period.

The real problem, and I agree it is one, starts when someone ‘uses’ another’s property: the router, which, despite being a radio station, is a piece of private property. The problem is exacerbated when one intrudes into another’s contractual arrangements for service with the ISP and telco and so on, and things spiral downwards from there: legally and morally.

But please, friends, stay away from discussing ‘theft’ of radio signals.

 

[garb811]

No matter how much people try to make it the issue, the issue is NOT the WiFi bandwidth, that is really only the MO of the theft in this instance.  The issue is the use of the piggybackees contracted and paid for service between that router and the ISP without his/her knowledge and consent.

 

[George Wallace]

I have to agree with you ER, that the 'radio waves' are not the concern, but the accessing of an individuals hardware in order to use those 'radio waves' for two-way 'communication/data transfer'.

 

[armyvern]

You’re wandering off into the minefield again, George.

That WiFi bandwidth IS NOT YOURS. There is no problem, neither legal nor regulatory, with sharing any frequency – so long as one does not cause harmful interference. Period.

The real problem, and I agree it is one, starts when someone ‘uses’ another’s property: the router, which, despite being a radio station, is a piece of private property. The problem is exacerbated when one intrudes into another’s contractual arrangements for service with the ISP and telco and so on, and things spiral downwards from there: legally and morally.

But please, friends, stay away from discussing ‘theft’ of radio signals.

I agree with you on "the real problem". It irritates the "hell" out of me that there are some who would assume that using the "wifi" streaming out of my modem causes me "no harm" by presumption.

If it's that "OK" and legal to do ... why the hell aren't their butts sending me a card in the mail saying "thank you for the invitation to intrude into your modem and allowing my to beam my signals on "free wifi" through your computer components."

It seems that those who feel this is acceptable to do, feel that their presumption of "non-harm" is the proper CoA. Funny that they don't think that they should "presume harm" and seek permission (they DO know that modem is costing ME money and is connected to MY computer). That'sjust not in their benefit though because they know damn well the owner of saidmodem is going to say "no" 99 timesout of 100.

Yep, they're quite willing to assume they've been "invited", but not quite so willing to assume they've "NOT been invited." So, why not check with the owner of the modem first then? Really, if it's not illegal and there's no harm ... why aren't they asking? And, we ALL know the answer to that.  :

 

[George Wallace]

Vern

These are the same people who think that it is fair to walk across the lawn of someone who lives on a corner lot.

That lawn is like a router.  It is someone's property.  It is watered, fertilized, and mowed (Maintained) by the owner.  It is not Public.  How much must the property owner spend on maintaining that lawn, especially if trespassers cross it so often as to have created a pathway?  Is not ownership of that lawn implied by the fact that there is a home on the property and the lawn is properly maintained? 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

the point is, your helmet doesn't call out "THIS HELMET IS FREE FOR USE" every 5 seconds when you leave it on the table, and there are no helmets intentonaly set that way that you can walk off with that it could be confused with.  - SSID Broadcast

The purpose of a SSID broadcast is NOT to advertise the wireless network as FREE.  It is to say "here I am".  YOU are adding the 'free for use' part on your own, a misjudgement on your part.

I go out to my driveway, start my car in the winter, and go back in the house.  Is that broadcasting "he wants to warm the car up some" or "I am running, so therefore I must be free for the taking"?  If you drive away with my running car, from my driveway, that you noticed from your yard/driveway, just because it was there and running, you are STILL stealing it.  You knew it wasn't your car.  You drove away in it anyways.  You didn't come to my house and say "hey, can I use your car? I'll pitch in on the gas money" and leave the choice to me to decide if I want you using something of mine, you just 'assumed' and used.  Different examples; same principle. 

 

[Shamrock]

The Internet seems to be a moral vacuum for some.  It's not that they're doing things that are contrary to social norms, instead they just seem to apply everyday morality to their keyboard.

A good example of this is here.  A false Craigslisting maliciously advertised everything at a person's home as free for the taking, and sure enough, people arrived and started helping themselves to the free stuff -- and argued with the owner about the legality of what they were doing. 

 

[Michael OLeary]

The Internet seems to be a moral vacuum for some.  It's not that they're doing things that are contrary to social norms, instead they just seem to apply everyday morality to their keyboard. 

I would agree but would phrase it somewhat differently:

They wish to adopt that form of moral vacuum learned within the social anonymity of the internet and apply it to real world situations when they feel it is to their advantage to do so.

 

[c_canuk]

indeed, and that is immoral and a failure of personal responsibility.

I think the root cause of our personal differences in this thread stem from us having 2-3 different conversations going on at once that use similar terms and but different levels of human interaction and different directions of conversation..

can we seperate this thread into 2-3 different ones?

1. a Discussion of the moralities of various activities including exploiting unsecured routers that are definitly not intended for public use and those that are questionable

2. a discussion of the technical aspects, common practices by supplyers/manufactures, and legal technicalities in how they conflict and re enforce eachother

and if not combined with thread #2

3. a discussion of how to protect those that are currently at risk of being exploited by unsavory characters.

Perhaps in the interest of helping members we could start a thread for support of routers in the radio chatter forum, I will volunteer my services to anyone who PMs me that is in the CFB Gagetown area if they need help securing their router.

I hold no hard feelings towards anyone in this thread, I feel that we all hold the same moral viewpoint or at least range from mostly argee to strongly argee, and hope that we can all continue to be cordial to eachother in other topics and from this point on. I feel that other than a small amount of topics all of us tend to have very similar ideals and opinions on a broad range of topics, posting in forums however we tend to let our emotions get a little out of control at times.

I'm willing to shake hands and have a pop/beer with anyone who wants at griffins 1630 on tuesday.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Actually, there's been only one core discussion point, which has been repeatedly derailed by a blinding smoke screen developed by those who would bury a moral argument they cannot win in a maze of unnecessary technical red herrings.

 

[armyvern]

indeed, and that is immoral and a failure of personal responsibility.

I think the root cause of our personal differences in this thread stem from us having 2-3 different conversations going on at once that use similar terms and but different levels of human interaction and different directions of conversation..

can we seperate this thread into 2-3 different ones?

1. a Discussion of the moralities of various activities including exploiting unsecured routers that are definitly not intended for public use and those that are questionable
2. a discussion of the technical aspects, common practices by supplyers/manufactures, and legal technicalities in how they conflict and re enforce eachother

and if not combined with thread #2

3. a discussion of how to protect those that are currently at risk of being exploited by unsavory characters.

Perhaps in the interest of helping members we could start a thread for support of routers in the radio chatter forum, I will volunteer my services to anyone who PMs me that is in the CFB Gagetown area if they need help securing their router.

I hold no hard feelings towards anyone in this thread, I feel that we all hold the same moral viewpoint or at least range from mostly argee to strongly argee, and hope that we can all continue to be cordial to eachother in other topics and from this point on. I feel that other than a small amount of topics all of us tend to have very similar ideals and opinions on a broad range of topics, posting in forums however we tend to let our emotions get a little out of control at times.

I'm willing to shake hands and have a pop/beer with anyone who wants at griffins 1630 on tuesday.

"Questionable" ... if it's "questionable" you'd be seeking my permission to use it, but you're not. That means that you're treating it as a "given invitation" and that there is "no question that I've invited you to do so." It's all a matter of morality and looking at it from the angle that best benefits you (not "you" as an individual per se, but rather from a broad perspective).

If something is indeed "questionable" ... don't you think the proper and moral thing to do is "seek permission/clarification from the owner" vice "assuming/presuming" an open invite, because that's what the advocates pro "using someone else's modem signal bandwidth" seem to be advocating?

Mine is secured btw, and Griffins is possible --- I'm in Borden now, but will be home next week. I'll need a map and directions on howto get to Griffins however. 

 

[c_canuk]

I never said it was moral to connect to an unsecured router who's owner you don't know the intentions of.

I said in a technical light it could be submitted that an unsecured router broadcasting the SSID could be argued in court to be an invitation.

That due to the nature of how automated everything is, there will be people who accidentally connect to other peoples routers, so legislation to catch those we would define as thieves is going to be very tricky and difficult do to as precedent of other devices operating in that spectum and technical arguments bent to their needs could be used, and enforcing a law aimed at them is going to be difficult to enforce as now you have to prove the intent of someone you have never seen.

I think legislation is going to be near impossible to enforce unless it's to prevent the situation of a consumer being put in that position in the first place.

I feel that legislation should be aimed at solving the problem, not just punishing the small amount of guilty that may or may not be caught.

I feel that a owner of a device that communicates automatically on the owners behalf using open spectum to devices that are not the owner's should take some personal responsibility in keeping their network at least a little bit secure, and those connecting to networks should also take personal responsibility to ensure they are connecting to one they are authorized by a human to do so. I feel that personal responsibility applies all around.

If you insist on claiming I'm advocating people to connect to access points willy nilly that is your prerogative, however you could at least argue why you think that rather than just insult me from a position that you are the absolute authority on the subject and claim omnipotence.

I'm repeatedly swallowing my irritation and attempting to extend the olive branch. If you are too arrogant to accept it, then the breakdown in tone of this conversation cannot be my fault.

 

[c_canuk]

"Questionable" ... if it's "questionable" you'd be seeking my permission to use it, but you're not. That means that you're treating it as a "given invitation" and that there is "no question that I've invited you to do so." It's all a matter of morality and looking at it from the angle that best benefits you (not "you" as an individual per se, but rather from a broad perspective).

If something is indeed "questionable" ... don't you think the proper and moral thing to do is "seek permission/clarification from the owner" vice "assuming/presuming" an open invite, because that's what the advocates pro "using someone else's modem signal bandwidth" seem to be advocating?

Mine is secured btw, and Griffins is possible --- I'm in Borden now, but will be home next week. I'll need a map and directions on howto get to Griffins however. 

completely argee that you should not connect to questionable routers, I mentioned earlier that I don't. The only default ssid I've ever connected to was the one in the JRs in Kingston after I checked with the bar keep.

Have a nice trip home.

I'll see if I can dig up a map for you.  ;D

 

[armyvern]

I never said it was moral to connect to an unsecured router who's owner you don't know the intentions of.

I said in a technical light it could be submitted that an unsecured router broadcasting the SSID could be argued in court to be an invitation.

That due to the nature of how automated everything is, there will be people who accidentally connect to other peoples routers, so legislation to catch those we would define as thieves is going to be very tricky and difficult do to as precedent of other devices operating in that spectum and technical arguments bent to their needs could be used, and enforcing a law aimed at them is going to be difficult to enforce as now you have to prove the intent of someone you have never seen.

I think legislation is going to be near impossible to enforce unless it's to prevent the situation of a consumer being put in that position in the first place.

I feel that legislation should be aimed at solving the problem, not just punishing the small amount of guilty that may or may not be caught.

I feel that a owner of a device that communicates automatically on the owners behalf using open spectum to devices that are not the owner's should take some personal responsibility in keeping their network at least a little bit secure, and those connecting to networks should also take personal responsibility to ensure they are connecting to one they are authorized by a human to do so. I feel that personal responsibility applies all around.

If you insist on claiming I'm advocating people to connect to access points willy nilly that is your prerogative, however you could at least argue why you think that rather than just insult me from a position that you are the absolute authority on the subject and claim omnipotence.

I'm repeatedly swallowing my irritation and attempting to extend the olive branch. If you are too arrogant to accept it, then the breakdown in tone of this conversation cannot be my fault.

Apparently, it knows no bounds.

I haven't claimed that "you" personally have advocated SFA.

But, I've yet to see a valid arguement as to why their "presumption" that it's "an Open Invite" is acceptable (and is also their standard belief).

I already know why they presume it's an "open invite" rather than presume "it's NOT an open invite."

See, they have two choices. To presume it is, or to presume that it isn't.

Now, if you're someone getting something for free through someone else's modem ... of course you're going to presume the former. It's in your best interests to do so - although "your best interest presumptions" do not equal "moral or acceptable practice."

NOW again: don't take the "YOU" personally. If I wanted to single YOU out -- I'd use your name. As per my last --- I am using "you" in the broader sense. Thanks for noticing that part in the original post.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

You’re wandering off into the minefield again, George.

That WiFi bandwidth IS NOT YOURS. There is no problem, neither legal nor regulatory, with sharing any frequency – so long as one does not cause harmful interference. Period.

The real problem, and I agree it is one, starts when someone ‘uses’ another’s property: the router, which, despite being a radio station, is a piece of private property. The problem is exacerbated when one intrudes into another’s contractual arrangements for service with the ISP and telco and so on, and things spiral downwards from there: legally and morally.

But please, friends, stay away from discussing ‘theft’ of radio signals.

Edward,.....you are lost here. WE DON"T CARE ABOUT THE RADIO BANDWIDTH, when we say "bandwidth", we mean the measured amount of internet downloading that I have bought from a PRIVATE company via thier PRIVATE lines into my PRIVATE house.

 

[Edward Campbell]

He said WiFi bandwidth! That's radio bloody bandwidth.  :boring:  Jeesh!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm glad I stayed out of this one :

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Radio waves in the air are debatable.  The fact that the waves have to hit a physical component owned by someone is not questionable.  THAT is the 'connection to the cloud' as it were, and that physical connection and hardware is not yours.  You are using my entry point (gateway) to the Internet.  How can anyone with half a brain argue differently?  Do the magic Keebler elves make your radiowave transmission into paper messages that pidgeons then 'make go to the Internet'? 

If you transmit to my wireless router that is connected (in my case) to my cable modem, that then transmits your data over my Eastlink HSI connection that I am paying for, your data is on my network, period.  Who cares that the part of the RF spectrum is public or private;  my network is not public, secured or not.  Your goddamn data is going to end up going thru my router.  PERIOD.

What is so ****** hard to understand about that????????????????????????????????????????????????????

As for the this SSIDs are broadcasting "I AM FREE TO CONNECT TO" idea, if you believe so, someone show me ONE technical reference, authority that desribes the purpose of a jesus SSID broadcast is to advertise a free jesus service.

:brickwall:

 

[MamaBear]

Interesting discussion, but I'm with the moral majority here.

I liken the whole situation to air - it's free.  But when my husband goes scuba diving and has to have his tanks filled, he pays for that air.  Rather.... he pays for the materials and time provided by a business person to get the "free" compressed air into his tanks.  I would think if someone were to walk into a dive shop (during open, welcoming business hours) filled up their scuba tanks with air, and then walked out without paying - they could be charged with theft, no?

And on that same note, even though air used to be free at all gas stations, they are now starting to charge people for "free" air. 

 

[medaid]

Wow... this has been the most interesting read.

To address a few points from a while back.

1) The Crown uses something known as "public interest" as a gauge, whether or not to press charges all boils down to "public interest". This is simply explained as, is it within the public's interest to press charges on a subject matter as this? If the answer is NO? Then the Crown says "Thank you" to the member who had proffered the charges and ask them politely to try again.

2) Criminal Code. The Criminal Code defines all Federal legislation pertaining to offences which contradicts the good nature of public order. If it's listed within the Criminal Code it is a Criminal Offence, be it Indictable, Summary or Dual Procedure. It doesn't matter at all what YOU think is a Criminal Code offence, it's what the GOVERNMENT thinks and enacts on behalf of the people.

3) There are elements to a crime. The Actus Reus (the act of commission) and the Mens Rea (the guilty mind). In majority of cases both need to be proven in order for a conviction to be obtained through ruling, but in some only one or the other may be enough, but are few.

4) Theft as defined in s.322 of the Criminal Code: Anyone who fraudulently, without colour of right, takes, converts, anything animate or inanimate with intent to deprive the owner of it. Is completed when with intent to steal anything, the accused, moves it, or causes it to move, or begins to cause it to become moveable.

    Let's take this example that you guys have so happily argued for. The guy's WAP is unsecured and you decide to connect to it because you can. Because you think it's an open invitation to do so. You are not currently operating a WAP of your own, and since your neighbour was an idiot you got yourself free internet. You never bothered to inform him/her because if you did, you wouldn't have free internet anymore.

    So... Actus Reus, you did it. You connected to that WAP and you were happy with yourself, and so impressed that you can argue about all the legalities of it all that you decided you'll continue to use it. Mens Rea. In fact, the instant you decided to connect to that WAP knowing or not knowing you're wrong, by virtue or wanting to take advantage of that you have established Mens Rea, and by doing so after you thought of it Actus Reus. Done deal. Crime committed. Now, if a LEO caught you and decided to throw your miserable immoral behind before the Crown, it starts at numero uno again.

  You have indeed committed theft, since you had fraudulently obtained access, you had no colour of right to do so, you took and converted the WAP's signal to your own use and thus depriving the owner of the WAP who had paid for their service the full pleasure of using it. You had in fact completed the theft by redirecting the signal to you, or splitting it thus causing it to move, moves it and made it moveable.

   Regardless. Crime is a Crime is a Crime. Don't like the law? Vote, change the government and have it thrown out, quashed or changed. But claiming that you're right does not make it so. You've broken the law that's it. Whether or not LEOs are going to enforce every single piece of legislation that is out there is up to them. But in most cases it's unreasonable. They've gotta take care of the more important crimes so that those that condone crimes can sit on free WAP and whine.

  This will be my one and ONLY post in this thread. I can't stand those who had blatantly broke the law and had not backed it up with any single decent argument. To those who have argued this thread with good material and other legislation and examples to back up your argument, I say bravo to you. You have actually thought up ways to set precedence, and if this crime ever goes before a Court then a lawyer should analyze your ideas because I think they're certainly related and valid in some ways. Again... until the day comes when legislation has changed, take solace in the fact that quite a few of you have broken the law, and you may smirk all you want about it but you are why LEOs will always have job security through the idiocies of man.