Internet Piggybacking: Immoral or Not?

[Parrot]

I have found that the way to resolve such dilemmas is to look at the extremes and that illuminates the true issue.

Say Joe purchases the equipment and services to have his wireless internet. He gets it all running and each of many people surrounding him in the neighborhood, reason individually that it won’t hurt Joe’s bandwidth if they piggyback on his signal. If every person who was able to lock onto his signal did so, then collectively they would have stolen Joe’s service to the amount equal to the cost of the equipment and the service.

To divide the cost and figure each person has stolen only a little of value makes no valid argument for doing it. You can never tell whether your access is the one that just brings Joe’s bandwidth to a crawl so there is no way to determine if what you are doing is seriously impacting Joe’s enjoyment of the service or not.

Additionally, this subject was all previously debated at length when dish TV first came out. The final resolve was that to get the TV service by any means without paying for it is illegal and one can be prosecuted for the act. Surly this would indicate that wireless internet piggybacking is also immoral and sinful at the least.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

1. Whoever said the ISP is allowed to invade my home with their bandwidth? Isn’t that TRESPASSING?

The intrusion of radio waves into our bodies and our space was a legal issue addressed at the dawn of the wireless communications age when there was only a few AM radio stations. You are not the first to argue that you owned your space, and no one should be allowed to intrude upon it with radio waves without your permission.

The same thing happened with airplanes. Land ownership includes the ownership of the space above the land, and many argued that airplanes should not be allowed to enter into the space above your land, not matter how high they were going to fly. Today, legally and practically, we find it pretty easy to accept the fact that airplanes are going to fly through the airspace above our houses. And if you live near an airport, you may be legally required to allow airplanes to fly within a few hundred feet of your house. [If you have an objection to radio waves (from your neighbors wireless access point) that you cannot even sense are there, invading your space, you should have a much greater objection to the airplanes flying in your space above your house that you can see and hear!]

The same goes for radio waves. Radio waves (a part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum) have been around since the Big Bang. Radio waves exist naturally in nature, and mankind has been always subjected to them. They come from outer space, and we can’t stop them. Unless you are very near a very powerful man-made radio wave transmitter, you will have no idea that those radio waves are passing through you and the space around you. It is only with a radio (receiver) that you figure out they are there. Light is another form of electromagnetic radiation that intrudes upon us and our space. Its a little different because we have the sense of sight that senses the visible light and lets us know that it is there. We generally consider light a good thing, and don’t compain if someone else’s manmade light intrudes upon our space, unless it interferes with something we are trying to do, like sleep.

In order to bring the greatest benefit to society, the state (and this is all of them in the civilized world) established the right of persons to transmit radio signals, as long the transmission did not result in direct harm to another individual. This is a good thing! It should not be construed to be an evil. If this was not allowed, say goodbye to microwave ovens, garage door openers, most burgler alarm systems, wireless monitors, cell phones, walkie talkies, televisions, stereos and computers. All these things, most of which you undoubtably own, spews out radio waves that intrude upon your family and your neighbors. If this were to be illegal, … well that would be ridiculous.

At the core, is the right of an individual to transmit radio waves that do not directly harm another. That right has been closely aligned with the right of free speech. Speech is the transmission of sound waves through air.

The fact that 1000’s of man-made radio waves are right now passing through your body is totally inconsequential. You don’t even know it except for the fact that someone told you it was true.

Dan

 

[Parrot]

… 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.

Then what you are advocating is basically a communistic sort of society which we (here in America at least) do not have. Here, we believe in capitalism and the freedom to earn a penny from our individual endeavors.

To me, it is very simple when you think about the actual costs involved. Go check out the cost of a server and a wireless internet repeater station and see if you are willing to provide such a service for free to your neighborhood. If you won’t do it, then why should a government force me or any other person or company to do so?

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.

Well the truth is that in this culture almost the opposite is true. if you go to an art auction and purchase a famous work of art, for example, it does not belong to you wholly. You cannot buy the “Mona Lisa” and take it home and burn it. When you purchase such a thing that is recognized as belonging to the culture of humanity as a whole, then they come to your house and make sure your alarm system and protective casing of the work of art is adequate, etc before you are allowed to have the item in your possession. You are not, however, obligated to allow just anyone to walk into your home to view it.

So far, the internet and all the music written has not reached that level of importance to the culture. It is so varied I doubt access to it will ever be that freely given.

Addendum: BTW, none of it is free. Even public broadcasts of radio is paid for by the advertisers. If they or taxes didn’t pay, none of it would exist at all.

 

[vz71]

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

I could, but you are assuming knowledge that may or may not exist. What of the pervasive sinfullness of the great unlearned throughout the building. Each trespasing into anothers networks with reckless abandon.

Every single one of them had a set of instruction that came with the router that provided them with the necessary knowledge you speak of. Yet they all decided to ignore it.
Is their culpability in the act to be ignored?

Sorry, but I do not see an immorality in using unencrypted open networks that happen by my air space.

If there is encryption, it is immoral to slice it for access, but open unencrypted is open invitation.

 

[THurifer2]

In my town. (very small town midwest) the local ISP has made it know that they could CARE less if people are sending out wirless “piggyback” signals for all to share. The perfect example is the coffee shop that has wireless for customers. The reasoning for them not caring is because of BANDWIDTH. In a coffee shop with 10-15 customers connected to the wireless its not hurting the ISP becuase the speed comes from whatever the connection is and the number of computers hooked up to it. One or a hundred computers has no effect on the ISP… An extemely good example is the local ISP OWNER brings his laptop to the coffee shop and surfs the net before he goes to work.

 

[vz71]

Really, guys, just give it up. Piggybacking is stealing a service. Just don’t do it.

Prove it.
Typically a well informed conscience will tell you right or wrong.

But in this case, the more informed I get on the topic, the more I am convinced it is not wrong.

 

[THurifer2]

Really, guys, just give it up. Piggybacking is stealing a service. Just don’t do it.

Not really havent you EVER been to a coffee shop or Hotel with wireless. Some cities have wireless networks for the ENITIRE city…I beleive Central Park in New York is ENTIRELY wireless. Its FREE. and the city chooses to pay for the signal. Similar to supplying FREE playground Equptment for kids some cities supply Free wirelss connections.

In Fact My state has wireless connections at EVERY rest stop on our interstate highways.

The reason why it is not stealing is becuase of bandwidth.

If you buy a pie at the store and you share it with your neighbors you will not get as much of the pie if you didn’t share it. A 756K conntection split between 4 neighbors is not 756K to each neighbor!!! its 756 K devided by 4.

 

[andy120]

Third sentence. Not correct. When you call them and agree to service, you agree to the terms. It is up to you to read them. And yes, that is legally enforceable.

In the college scenario, the user himself did not agree to the ToS. If the college is willing to allow customers across the street to use the service, then the college is in breach of the agreement, not the user who has no knowledge of the specific terms of service.

However, while legally it may be cloudy waters (I don’t believe this has been tested in court much as of yet), I agree such an action is immoral. It is stealing bandwidth, which is as much a good as it is a service. Not a grave matter usually, but immoral nonetheless.

 

[Ramalama]

Prove it.
Typically a well informed conscience will tell you right or wrong.

But in this case, the more informed I get on the topic, the more I am convinced it is not wrong.

Call the provider of the service, introduce yourself, tell him you’re doing it, and how long you’ve been doing it. If he says it’s ok, don’t worry about it. If says you should be paying, pay him. If he sends you a bill for the months you’ve been doing it, pay him.

Simple - the problem will be resolved.

 

[vz71]

Call the provider of the service, introduce yourself, tell him you’re doing it, and how long you’ve been doing it. If he says it’s ok, don’t worry about it. If says you should be paying, pay him. If he sends you a bill for the months you’ve been doing it, pay him.

Simple - the problem will be resolved.

As though I had any idea the provider…

But that is not the real point. If you give anyone at all the option of being paid for a service they are presently giving away, of course they will want payment.
But the desire for payment does not make it wrong to take advantage of a free service.

If a couple stands in the subway and hold a conversation over a couple of bullhorns, no one would consider it wrong to listen.
Yet somehow these same people have been told and believe it wrong to take advantage of a service that is being broadcast to you.
If anyone wants to keep people from piggy-backing the option is there to encrypt. The instruction is provided with the wireless equipment.
Given that, an open unencrypted signal is an open invitation.

 

[Parrot]

Sorry, but I do not see an immorality in using unencrypted open networks that happen by my air space.

If there is encryption, it is immoral to slice it for access, but open unencrypted is open invitation.

There again it comes back to the idea of whether your neighbor locks the door of his house or not. Are you saying that it is wrong to pick a lock on your neighbor’s door, but if the neighbor fails to lock his door for any reason you would feel fine about walking in and taking something???

You seem to admit it is wrong if it requires effort on your part but not immoral if it is easily done.

I am reminded of the saying that locks are to keep the honest people out by informing them something is not to be disturbed… Sort of like locking a bathroom door so that the next person knows someone is in there and to please wait.

A person can put all sorts of locking devices on his house or car and it will not keep out the professional thief who is determined to steal. The locks are there to keep out people who think like you do and who would steal if tempted by the ease of access.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I could, but you are assuming knowledge that may or may not exist. What of the pervasive sinfullness of the great unlearned throughout the building. Each trespasing into anothers networks with reckless abandon.

Every single one of them had a set of instruction that came with the router that provided them with the necessary knowledge you speak of. Yet they all decided to ignore it.
Is their culpability in the act to be ignored?

Sorry, but I do not see an immorality in using unencrypted open networks that happen by my air space.

If there is encryption, it is immoral to slice it for access, but open unencrypted is open invitation.

Another “well everybody is worse than me” argument. Might want to rethink that one for the final judgement.

You seem to reject that the owners of the internet connection have the rights to specify its proper use. “If they don’t lock their house, I can come inside and sit down if I want to.” Simply doesn’t fly, legally or morally.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

In my town. (very small town midwest) the local ISP has made it know that they could CARE less if people are sending out wirless “piggyback” signals for all to share. The perfect example is the coffee shop that has wireless for customers. The reasoning for them not caring is because of BANDWIDTH. In a coffee shop with 10-15 customers connected to the wireless its not hurting the ISP becuase the speed comes from whatever the connection is and the number of computers hooked up to it. One or a hundred computers has no effect on the ISP… An extemely good example is the local ISP OWNER brings his laptop to the coffee shop and surfs the net before he goes to work.

Verbal hearsay is worth the paper its written on. What does the actual agreement say? I bet its different. BTW, the coffeshop has a business agreement, which allows them to ‘sub-lease’ the connection to their customers. A residence agreement in every case I have examined does not permit that.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Prove it.
Typically a well informed conscience will tell you right or wrong.

But in this case, the more informed I get on the topic, the more I am convinced it is not wrong.

The owner of of the facility providing your connection to the internet gets to (as owner) to specify how they will sell you the service. Read your agreement. Your proof will be there. A conscience that tells you that you can use something belonging to another without respect to their rights of ownership would not be well formed.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Not really havent you EVER been to a coffee shop or Hotel with wireless. Some cities have wireless networks for the ENITIRE city…I beleive Central Park in New York is ENTIRELY wireless. Its FREE. and the city chooses to pay for the signal. Similar to supplying FREE playground Equptment for kids some cities supply Free wirelss connections.

In Fact My state has wireless connections at EVERY rest stop on our interstate highways.

The reason why it is not stealing is becuase of bandwidth.

If you buy a pie at the store and you share it with your neighbors you will not get as much of the pie if you didn’t share it. A 756K conntection split between 4 neighbors is not 756K to each neighbor!!! its 756 K devided by 4.

All examples you cite are irrelevant to a question about a residence connection. Contractual agreements matter. In each of these cases, the owner of the service (ISP) has granted licenses that permit the use that you specify. Residential agreements do not allow this. You can ignore this, but it does not make it right to break those agreements. As I have stated before, when you pay for your internet service, you are not ‘owning’ anything, including the bandwidth. It is not yours to give away or sell. You are in essence renting the facilities of the ISP. Their terms matter. What you want them to be does not. Much is the same way you can be prevented by a landlord from subleasing your apartment, the ISP can prevent you from sharing your service.

Why is no one checking their agreement, but simply saying how they want the world to be?

Dan

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

As though I had any idea the provider…

But that is not the real point. If you give anyone at all the option of being paid for a service they are presently giving away, of course they will want payment.
But the desire for payment does not make it wrong to take advantage of a free service.

If a couple stands in the subway and hold a conversation over a couple of bullhorns, no one would consider it wrong to listen.
Yet somehow these same people have been told and believe it wrong to take advantage of a service that is being broadcast to you.
If anyone wants to keep people from piggy-backing the option is there to encrypt. The instruction is provided with the wireless equipment.
Given that, an open unencrypted signal is an open invitation.

Is it OK to steal cable service too? The premium channels come into your home. Why don’t you just take them too without regard for ownership of the service by the cable company. You do know that will get you in trouble with the law too?

Dan

 

[tvdxer]

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.

(I’m assuming the user is driving around and happens to have a laptop or PDA with Wifi with him)

The thing is that the amount “stolen” is virtually infinitesimal. Would it really bother you or your ISP (who loses nothing marginally here, since the actor doesn’t have a commercial wireles service to buy at that instant) if somebody used a tiny portion of your bandwidth for a few seconds simply to look up directions, something that could greatly improve their day vs. not acting?

I personally could care less, and I’m sure my ISP wouldn’t really either. I think they’d suggest mental counseling if I sent them $0.000001 of restitution for breaking the 7th commandment in allowing a traveller almost uncountable usage of my connection.

Perhaps in this case charity trumps legalism. I’m not going to say this for sure though.

 

[Parrot]

The thing is that the amount “stolen” is virtually infinitesimal.

But we are not really talking about the “amount” stolen here. We are basically discussing the “morality” of it.

To consider it not immoral by virtue of the amount stolen is about the same as saying theft of money depends on the amount taken to determine whether it is immoral or not. In your way of thinking, there has to be some threshold.

What do you say to stealing cold hard cash in that regard? What is your threshold for determining it immoral? OK to steal the only dollar from a kid on his way to the store to buy an ice cream? Okay to steal $100 from a millionaire? OK to cheat the IRS out of thousands of dollars of tax money?

 

[tvdxer]

But we are not really talking about the “amount” stolen here. We are basically discussing the “morality” of it.

To consider it not immoral by virtue of the amount stolen is about the same as saying theft of money depends on the amount taken to determine whether it is immoral or not. In your way of thinking, there has to be some threshold.

What do you say to stealing cold hard cash in that regard? What is your threshold for determining it immoral? OK to steal the only dollar from a kid on his way to the store to buy an ice cream? Okay to steal $100 from a millionaire? OK to cheat the IRS out of thousands of dollars of tax money?

(I worded that poorly)

The thing is that the amount “stolen” has virtually no value. It’s like taking a piece of lint falling off of somebody’s shirt. I don’t think most people would care if somebody used their internet for 10 seconds to get directions.

 

[Diddi]

But we are not really talking about the “amount” stolen here. We are basically discussing the “morality” of it.

To consider it not immoral by virtue of the amount stolen is about the same as saying theft of money depends on the amount taken to determine whether it is immoral or not. In your way of thinking, there has to be some threshold.

What do you say to stealing cold hard cash in that regard? What is your threshold for determining it immoral? OK to steal the only dollar from a kid on his way to the store to buy an ice cream? Okay to steal $100 from a millionaire? OK to cheat the IRS out of thousands of dollars of tax money?

Let us say I am on my way to work and I’m cutting it close, but I have the time. You are speeding 1 mph above the limit and eventually gain an advantage so you cut in front of me. You then slow down as you approach the intersection, then you go through a stale yellow light but I must stop. The time you stole from me is just as immoral as using someone else’s Internet service. It’s not the amount or what is stolen, it’s the act. I suppose there are few people that drive that have not stolen time (and risked lives) by speeding (even 1 mph above the posted limit) and that is why most people tend to not be too judgmental when someone (horror) steals some bandwidth for a few seconds to get directions.

If you litter, you steal beauty from others and you steal the time it takes for someone to pick up your trash, even if it’s just a little bit of litter. How many of us have photocopied a journal article at the library in college without permission so we could finish a paper on time or study for a test? How many have not perfectly sorted their trash as specified by their local town government before placing it out at the curb? How many have jaywalked and thus disobeyed the law of most municipalities? How many have crossed at the corner without waiting for the light to say, “walk”? How many have let their dog loose without a leash in a municipality where it is illegal? Even if the dog is trained and will not leave the yard and even if it just for a few seconds in your own yard and the dog really needs to go and you are not dressed yet, it is still technically illegal in many towns. How many cut across the just the tip of the corner of someone’s yard without first getting permission instead of crossing the street to get to the sidewalk.? All these are equally sinful as using someone’s Internet bandwidth when they are breaking the law of one government or another.

None of the above are intrinsically immoral but they all share two characteristics. 1. They are technically immoral when some governing body says they are illegal because we are to obey the laws of our governments. 2. None of them are likely to send anybody to hell even when taken collectively. The priest will likely cut you off during confession when you start to list them. Just go to a priest and confess you went 1 mph over the speed limit 22 times and see what he says.

You’re right, it’s not the amount that counts. It’s the amount of damage that you do that counts. Jesus let his disciples pick grain on the Sabbath even though it was against the Sabbath laws. Laws are made to help the governed and not to be a burden by being too scrupulously adhered to.

You should obey the laws but are not bound to them to the point where doing so becomes anal. Getting directions by temporarily using someone’s unprotected service is smart. Not doing so and thus being late for an important occasion is anal.

p.s. I personally tend to err on the anal side of these things but I tend to be liberal in my tolerance of others. I wait for the light at cross walks but don’t hyperventilate when someone else doesn’t.