Internet Piggybacking: Immoral or Not?

[vz71]

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.

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

The extra mile does become difficult when there are 15-20 different broadcasts, all coming from linksys of one type or another.
But that last part I will be in agreement with, ultimately the intent will dictate the morality.
Am I there to hijack the bandwidth? Am I there to avoid being tracked??
Am I simply there because I need to log in to the computers at work and fix a user issue?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

The only “real and urgent” need would be in a life and death situation. Needing directions to a party (or event) do not qualify.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

Apples and oranges. You having a knife is not immoral.

Now you having an illegal gun is still immoral even if you do not use it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Am I there to hijack the bandwidth? Am I there to avoid being tracked??
Am I simply there because I need to log in to the computers at work and fix a user issue?

All three, at their basic level, are immoral. It is immoral to take what you do not have a right to take.

All you are doing here is rationalizing.

 

[Penitant]

Apples and oranges. You having a knife is not immoral.

Now you having an illegal gun is still immoral even if you do not use it.

Yes, but this discussion is about the morality of the act. Your example of a gun is starting with the basis of ‘it is already immoral’, which is not the case here; apples and oranges indeed.

My example of the knife is apt, because we have not established the morality of the original act.

 

[Penitant]

The only “real and urgent” need would be in a life and death situation. Needing directions to a party (or event) do not qualify.

Actually, it was a sporting event that I was supposed to be officiating at and my friend was participating in. I had an obligation to be there.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, but this discussion is about the morality of the act. Your example of a gun is starting with the basis of ‘it is already immoral’, which is not the case here; apples and oranges indeed.

Ok I will give you this point, but…

My example of the knife is apt, because we have not established the morality of the original act.

I disagree here. It is immoral to take what is not yours. If someone is paying for something and you take it or use it without their permission then you are stealing.

Actually, it was a sporting event that I was supposed to be officiating at and my friend was participating in. I had an obligation to be there.

Please show me where in Church Teachings it says that we may act immorally when we have an obligation. So does that mean I can take my neighbors car with the keys in it to go to Mass on Sunday because I have an obligation? A bigger obligation than attending a sporting event that my friend is in.

I would also add, that there is no true obligation in your case.

Again, the only way I can see theft in this manner being at all mitigated would be in a life and death case and I can not really imagine one. Do you have a cell phone? It would have been better to call someone who could get the directions for you rather than to steal access in this manner.

 

[Penitant]

I disagree here. It is immoral to take what is not yours. If someone is paying for something and you take it or use it without their permission then you are stealing.

I know, I was not trying to make the point that it was moral. I was merely trying to point out that it is not immoral simply because it allows you to do immoral things.

Please show me where in Church Teachings it says that we may act immorally when we have an obligation. So does that mean I can take my neighbors car with the keys in it to go to Mass on Sunday because I have an obligation? A bigger obligation than attending a sporting event that my friend is in.

The obligation I had related to officiating, not attending, but that is beside the point. Truly, I do not mean to argue that it is not a sin, merely that it is not necessarily a mortal sin.

I would also add, that there is no true obligation in your case.

Again, the only way I can see theft in this manner being at all mitigated would be in a life and death case and I can not really imagine one. Do you have a cell phone? It would have been better to call someone who could get the directions for you rather than to steal access in this manner.

At the time, no, we did not have a phone. Of course, I would personally argue that I lacked knowledge that it was sinful at the time. This was several years ago…I wasn’t a very good Catholic at the time. Frankly, I was stupid, and will be the first to admit it.

Praise God for changes of heart.

Anyway…
Calling it theft from the person who owns the wireless router is somewhat off. Now, if they are using the entirety of their bandwidth at that moment, then you will be interfering with them and you could call it theft. But, if they are not using it, then you are taking nothing from them. Of course, in most circumstances there is no way to know this one way or the other.

Think of this analogy,
They have a power generator outside of their house. It produces a constant amount of energy. Any amount of energy they don’t use, is simply dissipated into the earth. If they are using 100% of the output, then if you try to take some, it will consume some of what they were using. If they are only using 50% though, 50% is simply disappearing. So, if they are only using 50%, I have a hard time calling it theft.

I am, of course, not saying this is moral or not. This is not meant to be an argument for or against, merely clarifying the circumstances.

 

[Diddi]

I believe that you have this all wrong. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with tapping into bandwidth passing through your home via radio waves. What is immoral is your disobeying the laws of your government. Let us hypothetically say the US government decided that the airspace inside and above your home belonged to you and that anybody who broadcast radio waves through your airspace would first have to get your permission. Then it would be immoral for the bandwidth to be broadcast in the first place unless everyone within range of the signal gave permission. This would be unworkable and our government hasn’t passed such a law, but this scenario shows that broadcasting radio, including bandwidth through a home without the homeowner’s permission isn’t inherently immoral but could become immoral if the laws of our land forbade it. Similarly, if our government passed a law that said that it was legal to tap into any bandwidth that passed through public airspace, then tapping into the bandwidth would cease to be immoral.

With this in mind, I advocate petitioning our government to end the immoral practice of requiring permission to tap into bandwidth broadcast into public airspace. I consider it intrinsically immoral because it inhibits the individuals right to access information, it inhibits their right to know and to learn and to participate online. Today, knowledge of what is on the Internet is of such fundamental importance for a person’s education and advancement that to curtail the participation of even the poorest citizen in order to protect (often obscene) profit for the advantaged is a travesty of basic morality. The precedent has already been set with radio and television broadcasts that it is in the best public interest that access not be criminalized, and broadcast corporations have found ways to remain profitable even with free access without permission. The law of our country should read that if it enters public airspace as a radio broadcast, it is in the public domain and all are free to tap into it. This is already happening on a piecemeal basis. The town I live in is supposedly in the process of making Internet access available to all its citizens through the airwaves. The town will provide the service. Individuals will not have to pay. Some of the current Internet providers stand to lose a lot of money/potential profit when the system is in place, but it’s all perfectly legal and moral. Our state university already provides such a service on campus. You don’t have to be a student or professor to tap in.

Actually, I believe that the same rule should apply to music, printed material, computer programs and anything else you could name, and it should apply to the Internet as well as the airwaves. If you want to keep something to yourself, either don’t make it public through the airwaves or the Internet, or encrypt it. (Hacking into someone’s computer should remain illegal.) Once you make something public through the Internet or by radio broadcast, it should be fair game. There is no reason to let the immoral system now in place remain that way. Petition your government for change. Let’s decriminalize information access through the Internet and airwaves. The band will play on. Creativity will not cease. That’s a myth.

In the meantime, make sure your Internet access is properly paid for. Mine is.

 

[Inman]

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.

If that is in fact the way the agreement with the ISP reads, if you have one at all other than what the price and bandwith are, I would agree with you. Like I said, if I have one, I haven’t read it.

If the ISP wants to place those kinds of restrictions on its service, they would need it would need to be in the contract. If they don’t inform you of these terms, then its not part of the contract. And if its not in the contract, then letting someone else use your connection its not stealing. It is different than intellectual property where such protections are created by statute.

But you have a good point, before a person could use another persons connection, they would need to get the person’s permission and make sure that person isn’t restricted from sharing the bandwidth. Not sure how you could know for sure and so perhaps that’s enough of a reason not to do it.

I guess my point is that sharing your bandwith its not inherently unfair to the ISP the way copying and giving away music is to the record label.

 

[Penitant]

Only two questions Diddi,

First, there are many things that are encrypted that pass through the airwaves. For example, one wireless security scheme (WEP) uses a form of encryption. However, I could crack this in under two minutes (I’m taking a cryptography class at the moment - I don’t do this regularly). So, if you crack this you can use their wireless network. It isn’t cracking into someone’s computer and it is in the airspace.

Second, you said

Actually, I believe that the same rule should apply to music, printed material, computer programs and anything else you could name, and it should apply to the Internet as well as the airwaves. If you want to keep something to yourself, either don’t make it public through the airwaves or the Internet, or encrypt it.

Obviously, someone else could take your music and stream it over the network. Would that make it ok for someone to pick it up and use it?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

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?

That would hardly be a grave matter, IMO. The value of the services stolen could not have been very great. An alternative may have been to use your cell phone to call directory service if necessary, and then call the event organizer for directions.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

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?

Assuming that your friend ‘owns’ the computer, he may grant you permission to use it. This is one of the priviledges of ownership.

However, your friend does not own the internet service, he simply licenses it, and the license is not trasferrable.

The morality is simply that you must comply with the agreement that you entered into when you purchased service.

Here is the relevant section of my license agreement:

RESTRICTIONS ON USE AND PROHIBITION OF RESALE

No Resale.
The Service is provided for **your use only **(unless otherwise specifically stated) and you agree not to reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, transfer, trade, resell or exploit for any commercial purposes your membership in the Service, any portion of the Service, use of the Service, or access to the Service,…

Restricted Use.
You agree **not to permit anyone else to use your Member Account and that each Sub Account may only be used by one member of your household or business. **You agree that the Service is not to be used to host peer-to-peer applications that you are not actively using. You agree that the Service is not to be used to trunk or facilitate public internet access (“Hotspots”) or any other Public Use of the Service, except for FreedomLink.

It seems clear that my agreement with my ISP prohibits me from permitting anyone else to use it if they are not a member of my household.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The extra mile does become difficult when there are 15-20 different broadcasts, all coming from linksys of one type or another.
But that last part I will be in agreement with, ultimately the intent will dictate the morality.
Am I there to hijack the bandwidth? Am I there to avoid being tracked??
Am I simply there because I need to log in to the computers at work and fix a user issue?

Hmmm. The one you want is only ‘linksys’ because you left it as such. You can change it to something unique. That takes a few minutes, but only needs to happen once. And of course, you have to care to want to do the right thing.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Think of this analogy,

They have a power generator outside of their house. It produces a constant amount of energy. Any amount of energy they don’t use, is simply dissipated into the earth. If they are using 100% of the output, then if you try to take some, it will consume some of what they were using. If they are only using 50% though, 50% is simply disappearing. So, if they are only using 50%, I have a hard time calling it theft.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I believe that you have this all wrong. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with tapping into bandwidth passing through your home via radio waves.

Diddy, I’m afraid that you are the one who has this all wrong. It is NOT illegal to ‘tap into’ wireless signals passing through your property. You can do that without being illegal.

However, to gain any advantage other than snooping (receiving), such as gaining access to the internet, they you have to have your wireless network card begin transmitting to your neighbors property and their wireless access point. You can’t gain access to the interest by just receiving their signal.

When you broadcast your signal to their wireless access point, then you are forcing your data onto their property. That is not legal, and it is not moral.

Actually, I believe that the same rule should apply to music, printed material, computer programs and anything else you could name, and it should apply to the Internet as well as the airwaves. If you want to keep something to yourself, either don’t make it public through the airwaves or the Internet, or encrypt it. (Hacking into someone’s computer should remain illegal.) Once you make something public through the Internet or by radio broadcast, it should be fair game. There is no reason to let the immoral system now in place remain that way. Petition your government for change. Let’s decriminalize information access through the Internet and airwaves. The band will play on. Creativity will not cease. That’s a myth.

 

[Penitant]

That is not a very good analogy. Generators consume fuel directly related to their load. If you were to use some of the power, even if the generator was not at capacity, the increased load would require the engine to run harder, consuming more fuel. It also would marginally increase the wear on the engine and generator. Stealing.

I never said that it was a perfect analogy. It demonstrated the point of a what kind of resource bandwidth is. This is why I defined it as constant-output with dissipation.
Besides, a generator COULD be made to my specification. Just because they aren’t normally (because it is inefficient) means nothing.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

If that is in fact the way the agreement with the ISP reads, if you have one at all other than what the price and bandwith are, I would agree with you. Like I said, if I have one, I haven’t read it.

I’ve posted the relevant section of my agreement. Does that mean that you agree with me?

If the ISP wants to place those kinds of restrictions on its service, they would need it would need to be in the contract.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I never said that it was a perfect analogy. It demonstrated the point of a what kind of resource bandwidth is. This is why I defined it as constant-output with dissipation.
Besides, a generator COULD be made to my specification. Just because they aren’t normally (because it is inefficient) means nothing.

Yes, it could, I understand.

However, what you have done in this analogy is taken for your own use something that does not belong to you. It does not matter if the theft ‘hurts’ the other party. It is still theft. You have secularlized your morality.

Perhaps a better analogy; think about tresspassing. Does the tresspasser have to take something from the property owner to be tresspassing. What if he passes through, and nothing is changed as a result. Is it OK then to tresspass? Even if the owner of the property has specifically forbid it?

Dan

 

[Diddi]

Only two questions Diddi,

First, there are many things that are encrypted that pass through the airwaves. For example, one wireless security scheme (WEP) uses a form of encryption. However, I could crack this in under two minutes (I’m taking a cryptography class at the moment - I don’t do this regularly). So, if you crack this you can use their wireless network. It isn’t cracking into someone’s computer and it is in the airspace?

We have two choices for handling this problem. 1. Our government could establish protocols for secure transmissions which, if breached could remain illegal. 2. Those who use the airwaves and Internet could develop better codes or alternate procedures. Probably some combination of the above could be hashed out, but I consider all this just details. The main issue is that a person using the internet for ordinary uses should be able to access the internet and even download a tune without having to worry that they are going to be fined or go to jail or Hell. There is something intrinsically wrong with a system that unnecessarily criminalizes access to information and culture for the profit of the few at the detriment of the many when such access could secure for the many more fulfilling and productive lives.
;:

Second, you said

Obviously, someone else could take your music and stream it over the network. Would that make it ok for someone to pick it up and use it?

Yes it should. Once music is part of our culture, whether legitimately or illegitimately, it is immoral to limit access to it. To do so disenfranchises someone from his or her own culture. (This is so obviously wrong it’s hard to believe that it isn’t already an integral part of our legal system.) If you don’t want this to happen to your music, don’t sell it or play it in public. Play it at home. Keep it to yourself. If then someone steals it from your home, there are already laws to deal with that.

Maybe this will make it clearer to you. What if you heard a song on the radio that you really liked but it was illegal to sing it or hum the tune without permission because it belonged to someone else? This is no different. You have an inherent right to learn about and participate in the culture you belong to and it is immoral for laws to be passed that prevents you freely do so. Laws could still be in place to prevent you from passing the song off as your own or to perform it or sell it for profit, but a person should have free access to what is part of their own culture.