Internet Piggybacking: Immoral or Not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fuerza
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fuerza

Guest
Recently I was discussing with a friend the morality of internet piggybacking. For those who don’t know, this is when your computer is able to pick up wireless internet signals that cross through your home, therefore giving you free internet. We both agreed that it would be at least a venial sin if the person (hereafter referred to as the host) whose internet signal you were receiving had put a password on his account and you broke into it. Where we got into a gray area is the common scenario in which the host does not use a password, and the piggybacker is simply able to turn on his computer and log onto the host’s network free of charge. In order to get your opinions, I would like to pose some scenarios. Please judge the scenarios according to the following assumptions:

Assumptions
  1. The act of piggybacking on the host’s network(in the cases listed below) does not cost the host any money.
  2. The piggybacker is not loading viruses or causing any harm to the host’s network or computer.
  3. The piggybacker is not using the connection for any illegal activity (ie downloading child pornography)
  4. We are dealing only with open-access networks for which the owner has not set up a password or other security feature designed to keep others out.
  5. The piggybacker is only using signals which pass through his home. He is not driving around and sitting outside people’s houses/businesses in order to get a free signal.
  6. In most states, piggybacking is not illegal(as of now anyway). We’ll pretend that we’re in one of those states.
Applying these assumptions to the following scenarios, would you say that these piggybackers are committing mortal sin, venial sin, or no sin at all?

Scenario 1
Frank does not subscribe to an internet service, but his home computer is capable of picking up wireless internet signals from his neighbors. Since he is not planning to do anything illegal or dangerous, and he knows that it will not cost his neighbors anything, he sees no reason to get his own internet service and constantly uses his neighbor’s signal.

Scenario 2
Bill does not have internet service in his home, but his computer is capable of picking up wireless signals from his neighbors. Bill normally uses the computers at the local library for internet service. However, occasionally when the library is closed, or when he only has something quick to do online, he will stay home and use his neighbor’s signal. On these occasions he tries to be considerate, doing what he needs to as quickly as possible and trying to log on during off-peak times (early mornings, late nights) in order to minimize traffic on his neighbor’s network.

Given the above assumptions and scenarios, what do you think about the morality of Frank and Bill’s actions? My personal opinion is that Frank is stealing, although it may be venial rather than mortal. I am fairly sure that Bill is not sinning mortally, since this is more borrowing than stealing. What I am not sure about is whether he is sinning venially, or not at all.
 
What would Bill and Frank’s neighbor say about it if he knew?

The correct thing would be to tell the neighbor the signal reaches your house and ask permission to use the signal.

The neighbor would either say “yes” or he might say “no”, or he might ask you for some money, or maybe he’ll just password protect his network.

Using it, knowing the neighbor is unaware, is wrong.
 
Bill and Frank are obtaining a service and not paying for it, when those who own the service are paying the bills. This is stealing and it is wrong.

You can not “borrow” something if the owner does not know or give permission.

Both situations are stealing.

~Liza
 
If someone does not use encryption requiring a password, knowing that he has neighbors, you may be able to presume his permission.

Asking for permission or pointing out the situation, however, would remove all doubt.
 
Thank you for the replies. I actually agree with you all, but dylanscrader brought up a point which I was about to address. If someone doesn’t password protect their network, while knowing that the signal will be received by others, can his permission really be assumed?

This also raises another issue, already mentioned in passing by 1ke. Let’s say that you ask and get your neighbor’s permission to use the network (whether he lets you use it for free or asks you to pay half is irrelevant in this case). This would seem to erase any case of immorality. However, what if the neighbor’s ISP has a policy against sharing? Is the agreement then sinful?

And just so everyone knows, I’m not talking about myself here. This is a hypothetical situation that I was discussing with a friend. No, really 😃 .
 
dylanschrader said:
If someone does not use encryption requiring a password, knowing that he has neighbors, you may be able to presume his permission.

Asking for permission or pointing out the situation, however, would remove all doubt.
Click to expand...
This is really an attempt to rationlize. And, it does not negate the fact that it is wrong.

I would not *presume *the neighbor has given permission. The person may be somewhat of a novice and not know, or understand, that their network can be accessed by others.
They may not know how to secure it, or that it needs to be secured.
 
Fuerza said:
Thank you for the replies. I actually agree with you all, but dylanscrader brought up a point which I was about to address. If someone doesn’t password protect their network, while knowing that the signal will be received by others, can his permission really be assumed?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. That is the same as saying that just because someone has unknowingly left a $100 bill in the bank drive through tube, does not mean that they have given you permission to take it. He does not know he left it there, and you can not assume permission simply because it is there.

It’s wrong. It’s stealing. And there is no way to justify taking something that does not belong to you, just because it happens to be within your reach.

~Liza
 
Suppose your neighbor paid to subscribe to a satellite radio station and was listening to a game on his patio. You happened to be sitting on your deck where you could hear the game and chose to listen - are you stealing something? (He could use earphones or go in the house). Or say your neighbor put in some bright lights around his deck and left them on at night and you didn’t have to turn yours on because his illuminated your yard - are you stealing some of his light? (He could turn them off or direct them only into his yard).

None of the situations is stealing and it is a lot easier to prevent others from piggybacking on wireless than to prevent the situations I describe.
 
When I see things like this I try to remember that some day, very soon, I will be looking into the eyes of God, trying to feed him a line of bull gilded with technicalities. No general counsel, no jury, nobody but God and me. I get really scared just thinking about it.
 
Well, given the conditions and scenarios you describe, it’s hard to make a case that it’s serious matter. So it can’t be a mortal sin. Whether or not it’s a venial sin is another story.

I’d be interested in the opinion of a moral theologian/network administrator/consumer lawyer. Anyone out there with that particular combination of credentials?
 
Same as climbing up the pole and connecting to cable… you’re stealing a service paid for by another.

Immoral…Yes.
 
Still theft. Only in this case it could include invasion of personal privacy.

I would let my neighbor know just as I let another neighbor that the calls being made by their cell phone were bleeding into my sound system. They had a right to privacy and entitled to the services they paid for.
 
Suppose you’re in a college dormitory. Everyone has free internet access. If a neighbor has wireless, is it wrong to use it in that case? The “free” internet is paid for by both persons by housing expenses and can be accessed directly by ethernet or by using a wireless network.

I suppose you could argue that the person with the wireless router paid for that while the piggy backer did not, but other than that what is wrong about it?
Absolutely not. That is the same as saying that just because someone has unknowingly left a $100 bill in the bank drive through tube, does not mean that they have given you permission to take it. He does not know he left it there, and you can not assume permission simply because it is there.
Click to expand...
It’s wrong. It’s stealing. And there is no way to justify taking something that does not belong to you, just because it happens to be within your reach.
Click to expand...
Your analogy does not completely work here. As the inital poster mentioned, there is no extra cost to the person with the wireless. If you specifially applied this to the internet company it would work better. It seems that the user may not care who uses their wireless by not password protecting and this may be true. The service provider is the one losing the money.
 
Finally someone has gotten to the real issue. In each scenario, the person subscribing to the Internet, by their acceptance of the ISP’s license agreement, has agreed that only his household may use the connection.

This license is not only legal, it represents a moral agreement between the owners of the ISP and the subscriber. The subscriber is not free to sell, or give away internet service that does not belong to him. Licenses for service specifically state that the only service that belongs to him is that which his household uses.

Using Internet service without the permission of the owner (the ISP, not the subscriber) is theft, and therefore immoral.

Mortal or venial? I doubt the value of the theft places it anywhere near a mortal sin, unless it were to continue for a very long time. Restitution? (required for forgiveness). Probably the equivalent of one month’s subscription cost for each month service was stolen.
 
patg said:
Suppose your neighbor paid to subscribe to a satellite radio station and was listening to a game on his patio. You happened to be sitting on your deck where you could hear the game and chose to listen - are you stealing something? (He could use earphones or go in the house). Or say your neighbor put in some bright lights around his deck and left them on at night and you didn’t have to turn yours on because his illuminated your yard - are you stealing some of his light? (He could turn them off or direct them only into his yard).

None of the situations is stealing and it is a lot easier to prevent others from piggybacking on wireless than to prevent the situations I describe.
Click to expand...
The problem with the first analogy is that you can’t change the channel so it would follow that you can only follow the host to the sites he visits - and you can’t stay any longer than he does, or use it when he doesn’t. I don’t think this is what “piggy backing” is about. If it were I doubt it’d be too popular - except maybe for stalkers.

Catholig
 
How about this one …

I pay for internet and have encrypted wireless set up inside my house.

When I take my laptop onto my deck to work, I get a ‘low’ wireless signal. However, I get a ‘strong’ wireless signal from my neighbor’s unencrypted wireless. Is it wrong to connect? I am paying for internet service (same company as my neighbor). I am paying for wireless. I just get a better signal from my neighbor’s house when I am on the back of my house.
 
The only problem with that scenario is that if he is using his line at the same time, you are impacting his service, due to the technical limitations of bandwidth.
 
Fuerza said:
Recently I was discussing with a friend the morality of internet piggybacking. For those who don’t know, this is when your computer is able to pick up wireless internet signals that cross through your home, therefore giving you free internet. We both agreed that it would be at least a venial sin if the person (hereafter referred to as the host) whose internet signal you were receiving had put a password on his account and you broke into it. Where we got into a gray area is the common scenario in which the host does not use a password, and the piggybacker is simply able to turn on his computer and log onto the host’s network free of charge. In order to get your opinions, I would like to pose some scenarios. Please judge the scenarios according to the following assumptions:

Assumptions
  1. The act of piggybacking on the host’s network(in the cases listed below) does not cost the host any money.
  2. The piggybacker is not loading viruses or causing any harm to the host’s network or computer.
  3. The piggybacker is not using the connection for any illegal activity (ie downloading child pornography)
  4. We are dealing only with open-access networks for which the owner has not set up a password or other security feature designed to keep others out.
  5. The piggybacker is only using signals which pass through his home. He is not driving around and sitting outside people’s houses/businesses in order to get a free signal.
  6. In most states, piggybacking is not illegal(as of now anyway). We’ll pretend that we’re in one of those states.
Applying these assumptions to the following scenarios, would you say that these piggybackers are committing mortal sin, venial sin, or no sin at all?

Scenario 1
Frank does not subscribe to an internet service, but his home computer is capable of picking up wireless internet signals from his neighbors. Since he is not planning to do anything illegal or dangerous, and he knows that it will not cost his neighbors anything, he sees no reason to get his own internet service and constantly uses his neighbor’s signal.

Scenario 2
Bill does not have internet service in his home, but his computer is capable of picking up wireless signals from his neighbors. Bill normally uses the computers at the local library for internet service. However, occasionally when the library is closed, or when he only has something quick to do online, he will stay home and use his neighbor’s signal. On these occasions he tries to be considerate, doing what he needs to as quickly as possible and trying to log on during off-peak times (early mornings, late nights) in order to minimize traffic on his neighbor’s network.

Given the above assumptions and scenarios, what do you think about the morality of Frank and Bill’s actions? My personal opinion is that Frank is stealing, although it may be venial rather than mortal. I am fairly sure that Bill is not sinning mortally, since this is more borrowing than stealing. What I am not sure about is whether he is sinning venially, or not at all.
Click to expand...
I think this situation falls more under ethics than morals. I’m hesistant to use the word “stealing” although this activity is highly offensive. The courteous thing to do is to call him and tell him that his bandwidth is on free-for-all mode, something that he may not want. Piggybacking does add to congestion and the neighbor’s Internet performance.

THEN, he can ask his neighbor if they can share the wireless key, and even split the bill.
 
Please read the previous post. The neighbor is not allowed, through his agreement with his Internet Service Provider, to share or re-sell is service. This issue here is that it is only his to use, he does not ‘own’ it. That’s the difference between when you buy a car (you own it), versus most services (you have a license to use, but not to own). If a person ‘piggyback’s’ Internet service, it IS stealing, but not from your neighbor, from the ISP.
 
All this talk about stealing, and legality is interesting, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that, given the conditions and scenarios proposed by the original poster, it is NOT serious matter, and therefore it can’t be a mortal sin.

Whether or not it’s a venial sin is open for discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top