Am I stealing internet connectivity from my neighbors?

[jmcrae]

I did notice that someone was using my wireless connection, when I had one, and I didn’t mind them using it.

But when they started messing with the settings and I couldn’t get them back the way I wanted them, I just unplugged it. I need to take it back to the manufacturer and have it rebooted, I think - and this time, I’ll password-protect it.

In the meantime, I’m back to the old cable connection that I had before.

 

[Em_in_FL]

If the owner of the wireless connection is not taking precautions to password-protect it (which is easy and doesn’t cost a cent), then it should be considered “public property”…

Same goes for radio… there’s free radio, and “password protected” (ie, satellite subscription services)… same for TV…

Sometimes it’s hard to distinguish whether or not the open connection is MEANT to be used as “free access” (and yes, these DO exist!)…

The responsible party is the owner of the connection… every connection has the simple ability to protect the signal, so it’s not as if it’s a difficult thing to achieve.

 

[tonyl]

If you don’t block your signal, then it’s fair game. Period. It’s not against the law.

It is illegal in some localities. (which I personally disagree with) However, there is a difference between what is legal and what is moral.

To wield the power of wireless, you have to take on the responsibility to secure it.

You’re claiming that failing to lock something down is an invitation to borrow it. I just don’t think that’s an ethical position.

No one puts a pool in the front yard with no fence. You take the reponsibility to put it in the back yard under a locked gate.

Only because failing to do so will make you responsible for injuries if someone uses it (attractive nuisance). Failing to lock my grill up in my unfenced back yard does not give someone permission to use it.

Ignorance is no excuse! All the instructions that come with these things are very explicit on setting up wireless security.

so basically, you’re argument is that if it’s not forbidden by law, nor effectively prevented, it’s moral?

(BTW, I’m an IT director, so you can call me a ‘techie’. Oh, and the wireless at my house? Wide open. Join up, I don’t care. If it ever slows to where it’s a problem, I’ll lock it down. Otherwise, my PC is protected, there’s nothing else on my network. Have at it! I think most people don’t care if theirs is open or not.)

Yes, so if someone asks, you would give permission. But I don’t think its safe to assume that because you don’t mind, it’s unreasonable for other’s to mind.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Is it moral to take something that is freely being given away?

Yes.

(Provided, of course, that the person is knowingly leaving it open).

Well I highly doubt that the ISP has any knowledge that it is being left open for others on the block to use and I do not doubt at all that they would object to that use. At least around here, the contract limits the usage to the household and has a per user or per computer fee–for example, we buy service for 5 computers which costs slightly more than for one.

If it only related to each subscriber’s decision to allow sharing or not, then only one person on the block (or even larger unit) could subscribe and give everyone else free access.

Again, I will say that I think the moral issue is whether you are taking something for free from the ISP that the ISP normally sells and is less about taking anything from your neighbor–who probably only loses a bit of speed.

 

[BlaineTog]

As long as you’re not doing anything illicit, and it’s nothing more than basic internet usage, I don’t think it’s immoral.

 

[CountryMom27]

Yes, you are. Your use will slow their connection, and it’s much like splicing cable to get it free. You should mention to them that their range is visible in your house and you noticed it isn’t secured.

Ours isn’t secured because I haven’t figured out a good way to secure it but allow family members who visit ways to connect. But I live on 5 acres in the country, so if you want to park in my yard and connect, I suppose it would be ok with me since I’d see you parked in my yard (and what are you doing in my yard, BTW - JK!)

I am techie but the security options for wireless are not easy to use and I don’t want to have a 20 character random key to connect. You should just not connect to their service, get your own (it’s cheap) and then your conscience is clear.

 

[bugz2007]

Would stealing such connectivity be grave enough to be mortal?

 

[vz71]

Yes, you are. Your use will slow their connection, and it’s much like splicing cable to get it free.

Except you are NOT splicing cable.

In fact, the neighbors are broadcasting to you.
This is significantly different then an overt act to take something that is not yours. It is freely accepting something that has been advertised and sent to you.

I have noticed that the more someone knows about how this wireless works, the less certain they are that it is theft to use it.

With every wireless access point on the market, there are plenty of warnings given in the instructions concerning broadcasting your network elsewhere. I have even seen a few that default to encrypting the signals.

It is ultimately the neighbors responsibility to secure the wireless if they do not want you to use it.

 

[BlaineTog]

Yes, you are. Your use will slow their connection, and it’s much like splicing cable to get it free.

First, if you’re only doing things like basic web surfing and email, you’re definitely not going to slow them down noticeably, if at all. Second, cable and internet use are fundamentally different: the first is a product, the second a service. “Stealing Internet” is more like walking on a sidewalk in a foreign city than shoplifting: you’re not paying for it, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you should be paying for it, even if someone else is.

Ours isn’t secured because I haven’t figured out a good way to secure it but allow family members who visit ways to connect.

Why not just use a simple password? Something alphanumeric but easy enough to communicate verbally. It isn’t going to be brute-force-hack proof, but it’ll certainly be better than nothing, and hacking in is clearly illicit.

I am techie but the security options for wireless are not easy to use and I don’t want to have a 20 character random key to connect.

Modern wireless routers are pretty simple, and most come with clear instructions (mine’s were a single sheet of 8.5x11 with step-by-step pictures that show you what to do). They usually even come with setup wizards, part of which is to ask you what you want for your password, if you want one.

 

[AHapka]

Except that in this case, I never intrude into the neighbor’s yard. Their messy pool “spills” some of its water into my backyard without my permission, whether I like it or not.

You could make the same argument then if they have a cordless phone in their house. Perhaps when they are gone, you could use their cordless phone since that signal is also spilling into your backyard?

Seeing as how there is a debate, how about asking your Priest and following his direction?

 

[Kevin42]

We used to have an open wireless network at our house, and the only reason we did not secure it was because I figured that other people would not steal the service. However, when I noticed that our own service was slowing down, I found that one of our neighbours was using our service. Whether it is moral or not (I do not think it is moral) it is very annoying. The least the OP could do is to ask their neighbours if they mind.

 

[vz71]

You could make the same argument then if they have a cordless phone in their house. Perhaps when they are gone, you could use their cordless phone since that signal is also spilling into your backyard?

Cordless phones are scrambled, and the effort required to jump the neighbor’s signal would be substantial.
That is an apples and oranges argument.

A open and unencrypted wifi signal is quite litrerally an open invitation. The signal advertises itself to other PC’s in the area.

If you do not want to advertise, the option is readily available (and made very simple to use to the non-technical users) to turn it off.

 

[vz71]

Going into someone’s house uninvited is breaking and entering.

But what if there is a 8 foot by 12 foot neon sign in the front yard inviting people to come in?

Turn off your SSID’s people.
WEP your signals.

Else, you have left a big neon invitation in your front yard.

 

[Lepanto]

Going into someone’s house uninvited is breaking and entering.

But what if there is a 8 foot by 12 foot neon sign in the front yard inviting people to come in?

Turn off your SSID’s people.
WEP your signals.

Else, you have left a big neon invitation in your front yard.

Every now and then something of value is mailed to me despite my never having asked for it. If it lands in my mailbox, I consider it mine. Is this not really the same thing?

 

[vz71]

Every now and then something of value is mailed to me despite my never having asked for it. If it lands in my mailbox, I consider it mine. Is this not really the same thing?

No it is not.
Something that is not for you is quite obviously that.

When you purchase a wireless access point, whether it be a router, or simply a point on your network, you take on responsibility for that signal. The signal advertises to any other PC’s in the area (they do not ask for it).
That is why instruction is provided to lock it down.
Else you have left a very advertisement welcoming people to come and use the signal.

The advertisement is very easy to turn off, and with the slightest effort to do so, the intent turns off that big bright neon welcome sign. And it is a sin at that point to utilize the signals.

 

[tonyl]

When you purchase a wireless access point, whether it be a router, or simply a point on your network, you take on responsibility for that signal. The signal advertises to any other PC’s in the area (they do not ask for it).
That is why instruction is provided to lock it down.
Else you have left a very advertisement welcoming people to come and use the signal.

The advertisement is very easy to turn off, and with the slightest effort to do so, the intent turns off that big bright neon welcome sign. And it is a sin at that point to utilize the signals.

I think advertisement is too strong of a word here, since it implies that you want people to use it. A good analogy is a bedroom window. Most houses come with a technology to prevent people from looking into your windows (Curtains, blinds, shutters, etc.). If you fail to close the blinds before you undress, are you leaving an advertisement for people to look in? I mean, you are sending electromagnetic waves (light reflecting off of you) into their property for them to receive. And, while it may be perfectly legal for your neighbor to watch you from their decks, does that mean it would be moral for them to do so?
(The place this analogy fails is that, even with your permission to look through your window, the act may be immoral for other reasons.)

 

[vz71]

I think advertisement is too strong of a word here, since it implies that you want people to use it. A good analogy is a bedroom window. Most houses come with a technology to prevent people from looking into your windows (Curtains, blinds, shutters, etc.). If you fail to close the blinds before you undress, are you leaving an advertisement for people to look in?

Few bedroom windows open into someone else’s living room.
Advertisement is the proper word. There is an implication there that other people should feel welcome to utilize it.

Several years ago, I felt the other way. But at the time, encrypting the signal and preventing other people from using it then the desired parties was difficult. It was reasonable to conclude that the party with the wireless dd not know or understand what they had. It would not have been reasonable to conclude that the open signal was intended.
However, the technology has changed. It is now so easy to prevent unauthorized usage that leaving it open and unencrypted is truly a welcome sign. The party that purchases a wireless point now has to ignore picture book style instructions and the software that comes with the point to truthfully call themselves ignorent of the facts. It is now reasonable to conclude that the open signal is intended…and therefore usable with no moral problem.

 

[Lepanto]

No it is not.

According to a friend of mine who works with the USPS, anything sent to your mailbox, even without your permission, becomes yours by law.

 

[vz71]

According to a friend of mine who works with the USPS, anything sent to your mailbox, even without your permission, becomes yours by law.

True enough. But it is obvious that a mistake has been made and the intent was not to send it to you.

This alone makes it a different circumstance then WiFi being broadcast across your neighborhood.