Internet Piggybacking: Immoral or Not?

[kell0618]

For you to even ask the question indicates that your conscience is speaking to you. You are stealing from the ISP as mentioned in another reply. And if you know that it is stealing and continue to do so, it is indeed a grave sin. Anyone who tells you different may indeed have done something similar and wishes to soothe his/her conscience.

Stealing is stealing.

Kelly

 

[Ramalama]

This is difficult for me to understand. I’m not trying to be a pain here, I’m really just trying to understand.

Certainly stealing is a mortal sin, isn’t it? If that’s true, the only important point here is 1) it is theft of services and 2) it is of little value. Neither of those seem to exist.

1. The fact that it is a service vs. goods means nothing. I have to pay for my phone service and my electric utilities.
2. It does appear to have little (no) added cost to the supplier, but the value of the service is significant. Many people (including me) pay $40 per month for the service.

All this put together says it is significant stealing, hence a mortal sin. I’m interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[Matt_Collins]

For you to even ask the question indicates that your conscience is speaking to you. You are stealing from the ISP as mentioned in another reply. And if you know that it is stealing and continue to do so, it is indeed a grave sin. Anyone who tells you different may indeed have done something similar and wishes to soothe his/her conscience.

Stealing is stealing.

Kelly

Kelly, for it to be a mortal sin, the amount that is stolen must be a serious amount.

I reread the conditions the original poster specified, so here’s my modified position:

Under the conditions specified for Scenario 1, it could be considered a significant amount of money that the ISP would not receive, but (as specified by the OP) the law does not make piggybacking illegal. Still, a good case can be made for it being grave matter, and therefore, a mortal sin.

Under the conditions specified for Scenario 2, it is a trivial amount of money that cannot be considered serious matter, and therefore it can’t be a mortal sin, even though it may be stealing.

Stealing a very small amount from a large company like Comcast is wrong. It is a sin. But it is not grave matter, and therefore cannot be a mortal sin, even if it’s done with full knowledge and full consent of the will.

 

[Fuerza]

For you to even ask the question indicates that your conscience is speaking to you. You are stealing from the ISP as mentioned in another reply. And if you know that it is stealing and continue to do so, it is indeed a grave sin. Anyone who tells you different may indeed have done something similar and wishes to soothe his/her conscience.

Stealing is stealing.

Kelly

Hi,

Just to be clear, this was just intended to start a discussion. This is not something that I myself do.

 

[VociMike]

It seems clear that the person would need to ask permission of the two owners of the product in question. That would be the homeowner who’s paying for the internet service, and the internet service provider who is selling that service to the homeowner. Imagine the extreme case where an entire neighborhood got together, had one person sign up for service, and all connected wirelessly to that one person’s connection. Would that be OK?

 

[Rebecca_New]

Immoral-stealing no matter how you look at it.

 

[Jessamy]

It seems clear that the person would need to ask permission of the two owners of the product in question. That would be the homeowner who’s paying for the internet service, and the internet service provider who is selling that service to the homeowner. Imagine the extreme case where an entire neighborhood got together, had one person sign up for service, and all connected wirelessly to that one person’s connection. Would that be OK?

If the internet service provider approved the neighborhood and knew exactly who was using the connection, than I believe that would remove the problem. It would not be stealing with permission of the ISP. Whether they would actually agree to this is another matter.

It is like the example I gave with internet in a college dormitory. Two or more people can share a wireless connection because the ISP and the payment method for each student is the same. Only the method of access would differ.

 

[Magicsilence]

The principle surrounding this is whether or not the action is passive or active.

Example:

It is passive if you decide to sit in the garden and your neighbour (with a low fence) is watching the game on a pay per view channel that you can see.

It is active when you decide to go outside into the garden in order to watch the game without asking your neighbour first.

End example.

If we imagine that our neighbour’s internet cables happened to come into our house through a hole in the wall, I am sure that none of us would dispute that using wired internet that is not yours is stealing, maybe mortally so.

It is not necessarily sinful to use the wireless capabilities of the router, since those using them have the chance to encrypt the signal.

**But the internet is not part of that. **It is a service that you have not paid for that happens to be transmitted in a wireless manner by the router.

God Bless!

 

[Suudy]

I thought I’d throw this out there. Bruce Schneier is a reknowned expert on computer security, and on his blog he mentions the liabilities involved.

For example, the RIAA is suing a woman that failed to properly secure her network (see this website). The burden, at least legally, may fall upon the shoulders of the owner of the wireless network.

 

[vz71]

In a dorm room setting, there are frequently so many wireless networks running that it is difficult to know if you have connected to your own or not.

Is it sinful not to go the extra mile to make certain that you have not ‘trespassed’ anothers router?

Of course, I’m still having difficulties believing in an inherent wrong in piggy-backing to begin with…

 

[vz71]

**But the internet is not part of that. **It is a service that you have not paid for that happens to be transmitted in a wireless manner by the router.

God Bless!

Not necessarily.
There may well be no cost incurred at all.

I find it interesting that to make the behavior a sin, assumptions need to be made.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Is it sinful not to go the extra mile to make certain that you have not ‘trespassed’ anothers router?

Of course, I’m still having difficulties believing in an inherent wrong in piggy-backing to begin with…

I quantified what the ‘extra mile’ is. It took me less than 4 seconds to check what wireless network I was attached to. I suggest that it is worth the extremely small effort. Not to do so strikes me as not caring at all. Not caring is simply… not good.

The answer to why internet piggy backing is inherently wrong is because of ownership. You may not take or use something that does not belong to you without the owners permission. ISP’s do not sell subscribers a transferable license (this is their right), so the subscriber does not own the service. Ownership remains with the ISP. The ISP does not wish to give away service for free, (and again, that is their right). Therefore getting service in this fashion is stealing.

I find it interesting that to make the behavior a sin, assumptions need to be made.

Not only interesting, but almost always true. Sins almost always are determined in part by intent. It is practically impossible to know intent (unless you are the intender, or God) therefore assumptions of intent need to be stated to properly determine if a behavior is sinful.

Dan

 

[Inman]

A couple of points. I haven’t read the agreement with my ISP, but an internet connection is fundamentally different than say a song. A person that should be able to do with their bandwidth whatever they want.

When someone copies a CD and then distrubtes the CD to others that haven’t paid for it, both the original person the person that gets the copy the have a complete CD, the copying does not detract from the original CD. Its not fair to the record company for me to get keep the whole CD and someone else to get the whole CD as well.

I pay the ISP for 8mbps of bandwith. Each portion of the bandwidth someone else uses, is not available to me. So why shouldn’t I be able to divide the that bandwidth however i choose? Is it wrong for me to allow my wife to use the bandwidth while I am also using the internet? Is it wrong for a coffee shop to allow their patrons to connect? The patrons didn’t pay the ISP?

I agree you shouldn’t assume your neighbor would consent. That assumes the neighboor is technically savy enough to understand their connection could be used if they don’t protect it. It does harm your neighboor by reducing the amount of bandwidth they have available. Most people have plenty to spare, but you don’t know that to be the case.

So if they neighboor agrees I don’'t see a problem with it.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

A person that should be able to do with their bandwidth whatever they want.

You may want that to be the way things are, but that does not make them so. You are not the one in control. The owner of the service is. That is why they are the ‘owner’. They created and own the service, and they get to say what terms you must agree to. Not complying with their terms is stealing.

I pay the ISP for 8mbps of bandwith.

What you say is true, but not complete. You pay your ISP for ‘up to’ 8 mpbs, and only for the 8mpbs that your household uses. Its kind of like going to an “all you can eat” buffet. You are not really buying all the food that you CAN eat. You are buying the food that you do eat. If you say, 'well, I could eat more, but I don’t want to, so my kids are going to eat the rest of what I could eat", that would be stealing. For your internet service, the provider sells you only the bandwidth that your household uses. Not the bandwidth that others outside your household can use.

So why shouldn’t I be able to divide the that bandwidth however i choose?

Simply because the owner has not given you the right to do so. If you check your ‘license’ agreement, you will see that ownership of the bandwidth is not transferred to you, to do as you wish. You only have a license to use it, per their terms. This is why it is called a ‘license’ agreement, not a purchase agreement. When you purchase bandwidth, or service, only then do you own it, and are able to do what you want with it.

Is it wrong for me to allow my wife to use the bandwidth while I am also using the internet?

INo, because this complies with your legal agreement with the ISP. Wives are universilly considered to be part of your household.

Is it wrong for a coffee shop to allow their patrons to connect?

No, assuming a valid license exists. But why do you think coffee shops pay a lot more for their service thatn you or I? Because that is how the owners choose to sell it.

The patrons didn’t pay the ISP?

No, but the coffee shop entered into a license agreement with the ISP that allows them to offer the connection to their patrons.

I agree you shouldn’t assume your neighbor would consent. It does harm your neighboor by reducing the amount of bandwidth they have available. Most people have plenty to spare, but you don’t know that to be the case.

So if they neighboor agrees I don’'t see a problem with it.

No, there is a problem with it, it is stealing. Your neighbor does not own the service. The ISP retains owernship and therefore has the rights to specify how it is used. That is the definition of a license versus a purchase.

Dan

 

[Penitant]

I’ve been in a situation where I have needed to do something like this.

My friend and I were on our way to an event about 2 hours away from where we live. When we showed up, we discovered we had the wrong address and didn’t know where the event was. So, we drove around for a couple of minutes until we found an open access point (I had my laptop with me). I got on, check the event’s website, got directions from mapquest, and got off. If we hadn’t we couldn’t have made it in time as registration closed about 5 minutes after we showed up.

Would some of you call this grave matter that could constitute mortal sin?

 

[Penitant]

No, there is a problem with it, it is stealing. Your neighbor does not own the service. The ISP retains owernship and therefore has the rights to specify how it is used. That is the definition of a license versus a purchase.

So then, if I went over to a friends house, and while I was there I used the internet from my laptop (using my friend’s network), this would be theft?

If I used his computer, would it be theft?

Or would I have to stand there and tell him what I wanted to do as he typed it in?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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

Saying this is the same as saying that if your neighbor leaves his house unlocked you may be able to presume his permission for you to walk in and take what you want.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

So then, if I went over to a friends house, and while I was there I used the internet from my laptop (using my friend’s network), this would be theft?

If I used his computer, would it be theft?

Or would I have to stand there and tell him what I wanted to do as he typed it in?

Seems like you are looking for a way out of this. A way to rationalize.

Using your laptop while at your friends house with your friend knowing you are doing this is not theft.

Accessing someones network without their knowledge or consent is theft and can be something more as you are able, with a little work, to access their private information if they have their computers on.

A lot of those who do what you are talking about here do illegal things. Like illegally download movies and music or deal in child porn. They do this so if they get traced it is the persons whose network they are using illegally that will get raided and not themselves.

I question the moral life of anyone who thinks that accessing and/or using something that is not theirs, that they have not paid for, is not an immoral act because it is left open.

I am sure you would never take a car that is parked with the keys in it. This is the same thing. You are taking something you didn’t pay for and have no right to use just because it is there.

 

[Penitant]

Seems like you are looking for a way out of this. A way to rationalize.

Actually, I don’t condone this and I do know it is illegal. However, I was responding to Dan who said it was stealing from the ISP and I am curious where he draws the line.

Doing this on a normal basis is wrong, obviously. The only time I can see it justified is when there is real and urgent need, which means a lack of alternatives.

 

[Penitant]

Accessing someones network without their knowledge or consent is theft and can be something more as you are able, with a little work, to access their private information if they have their computers on.

A lot of those who do what you are talking about here do illegal things. Like illegally download movies and music or deal in child porn. They do this so if they get traced it is the persons whose network they are using illegally that will get raided and not themselves.

Also, the argument about stealing someone’s private information or using it to get them into legal trouble is a moot point. Just because I can stab you with a knife does not make holding a knife immoral.